Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
== Revert war over interwikilinks to the siberian-russian wiki ==
== Disruptive actions of Alec U.K.==
]'s disruptive edits on a number of topics, and probable use of a sockpuppet previously reported to WP:AN/I (see ]) but was time-guillotined with no admin commenting or taking any action. Alec is back on respiratory/] related topics, acting outside of consenses with attempts by several editors to engage him in discussion to reach consensus (particularly ]).
Recently a Siberian-russian wiki was started and there is currently a motion to get is closed down again .
Today with unencyclopeadic personal speculation as to what asthma might be misconstrude with, to again claim on 'Category:Respiratory agents' that asthma is not a disease (consensus clearly set out on ]. Also again trying to fragment topic with attempts to distinguish asthma, asthmatic, asthma attacks with switching of "asthma" for the term that redirects to this of "asthma attack" in Respiratory failure (see here).
Nevertheless it has some articles and bots are starting to add interwikilinks to articles here but they get reverted by the people, that want that wiki gone. I personally have no preference as to the existance of the wiki, but I think while it is alive it would be a violation of ] and a disription to enwiki to remove the interwikilinks. See ] for some of the arguments involved. The User I came accross on the ] article doing this is {{user|Mikkalai}} but apparently there are more. ] 22:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Could an admin have a look at ] and the above items. Please either act, or if not appropriate for WP:AN/I then advise us of how we should be trying to proceed :-) ] <sup> ] </sup> 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
=== iwiki link removal ===
:Also of interest is ] which is a suspected sock puppet. The editing style is identical pushing the same POV. ] 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:''Archived thread removed, see ].'' ] 13:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The issue hasn't really been resolved either way. None of the above answers the question whever there is some policy that would allow the removal of interwiki links. The debate on meta seems very heated, and despite the fact that the "discussion" is of extremely low quality and heavily politicized there do seem to be some genuine problems with the Siberian Misplaced Pages (though the POV argument can be also be called of many others, and from what I could read of that page, there doesn't seem to be anything really terrible on sib like for example ]).
I think this might be a cultural issue, with our Russian partners not understanding that in European culture there is an ]. Therefor it has to be first determined if the Siberian Misplaced Pages violates the rules of the Wikimedia Foundation and only then, if it does, should the iwiki links be removed. --] 12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
:Please stop him permanently, I've no idea what his agenda is, but this is worse that blatant vandalism. A vandal you just keep reverting, since it's clear what's going on, in this case, by mixing valid edits with nonsense, it becomes much harder to deal with and becomes so time-consuming that his edits are left as is. I'm sure as a result, a lot of misinfromation has been added, this has gone way beyond ] - it's now a case of ] (and it's not the least bit funny) --] 00:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
{{user|Fact Finder}} is doing some weird things, like attempting to continue discussion on an archived page (]) which isn't intended for use for ongoing discussion, and also is making what borders on personal attacks on me (accusing me falsely of deleting his comments and lying about being a member of Mensa). ] 00:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::] has made a further edit last night again stating the ''Asthma is not a disease'' which has been reverted by multiple editors on many pages before. The editing style remains identical. I am convinced this is a sock puppet. Also see for an example of a circular redirect that I had to issue speedys on. ] 10:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:Why is he still allowed to edit? I've not seen him do anything productive, he appears to be here purely to spam his company. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::He's continuing to add commentary to various archive pages, trying to get the last word in various long-dead discussions. His comments include accusations that Wikipedians are sending e-mail viruses to his company, among other things. ] 14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
== Mall spam ==
== The "Quebec Vandal" ==
{{user|Dvac}} created a large number of very similar articles on shopping malls, all of which were (quite by chance I'm sure) operated by the same company. I have nearly finished nuking all those which are of the style ''Foo Mall is a mall in Foo, Bar, built in 19xx'' plus a list of anchor stores, the official website, and a link to the property company. About thirty of them were created in alphabetical order, so help me. Many notes were left on the user's Talk page, I don't see any evidence of responses. In fact, I don't see any evidence of any activity other than adding directory data to malls. I blocked the account. I am a heartless bastard with no appreciation of shopping as a leisure activity. Or something. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:I was wondering what was up this afternoon when there were so many malls in the speedy queue. I didn't touch any of them because the mall debate is one I'd like to stay out of (much like the school debate). Thanks JzG for wiping out them all and a huge thanks, as well, to {{user|Pascal.Tesson}} who tagged them all. ] 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:: A few (a very few) good subjects may have been swept up among the cruft. Apologies if so, any admin should feel free ot resurrect any such. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:What reason is there to block this user and delete all his edits? They (the ones I can see) contain verifiable content and are written from a neutral point of view. Yes, it's unfortunate that they all belong to the same company, and yes, the writer is probably part of that company too, but damn. Do we encourage people to write about what they no about, and then block them because the material is outside one's area of interest? — ] 00:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I went ahead and tagged a few of the malls with speedy deletion tags which were removed by CharlotteWebb so I will make a group nomination for AfD. They seem to me to all be clear-cut cases of both A7 and G11. ] 02:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, this is just getting to be enough here. The guy has used 51 sockpuppets now on a regular basis. Multiple checkusers have been done and the latest one has found that it's a dynamic IP. The latest vandal was ], which according to belongs to Claremont Colleges in California. It follows the regular pattern displayed by ]. So, can I propose some kind of community ban of IP's or something? I know we're the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but this is just getting ridicules. It's not just this guy either. ] is regularly vandalized, some IP's showing up in the midwest, some on either coast. One was an open proxy (reported to ]). Is there really ''anything'' that we can do here, short of protecting the article for all time? -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 04:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Please do not do it as a blanket case as what has happened ]. In this case, many notable articles that meet general Misplaced Pages requirements are nominated for deletion based on little to no evidence. As with the ones in ''this case'', I cannot see a reason to delete all of them since some are written in a neutral point of view and contain verifiable content. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 04:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
: 134.173.56.219 doesn't appear to have made any "unconstructive edits" to ] lately - his/her most recent edit to that article was to ''revert'' vandalism. BTW, 134.173.56.219 is not a dynamically assigned address; it's a statically assigned address in the 134.173.56.0/21 HMC student range. It's probably a student editing from their desktop computer; an open proxy is highly unlikely. - A Concerned Mudder
:: The reason for deleting the articles and blocking the account is that he created several tens of articles on malls operated by a single company, in alphabetical order, all of which were directory entries and linking back to the property company's website. Numerous messages were left on Talk in an attempt to engage the user, but all were completely ignored. This is what we call ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::It is also what we call ] and ]. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 09:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*An article of the form Guy described really isn't that helpful. In my local mall I've seen at least 4 shops leave and new ones coming in their place. A long list of shops in a particular mall is simply not encyclopedic, and when you get that out, it's merely a substub with more links than actual content. Perhaps we need an example of what a featured mall article would look like, just like the few School FAs we have. - ]|] 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:* Yup. And ] a directory - the articles I deleted were directory entries. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
: Concur with above, you're misreading that latest edit it's undoing the vandalism. I'd say at the moment this is a classic ], don't feed the trolls etc. incident. The vandalism is obvious and reverted quickly, if someone is sad enough to want attention by damaging things don't reward them with what they want. By all means continue the checkusers but if our checkusers can't find a consistent enough pattern to do something more permenant no amount of talking about it here or in any other forum will make any difference, nor will it make the vandalism any more obvious than it already is. --] 09:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
== User:Realniggaztalk ==
::Yes, I just re-checked that. I must have been looking at the wrong edit or something. Nothing to be done I guess. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 16:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
== Striking other user votes in an AFD ==
Is this username offensive enough to merit action? -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we when we are not even an admin and on the other side of dispute. If not then please warn the user because I reverted it back but he continues to do that again. And I do not know what I suppose to do now? --- ] 12:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, blocked. I can't see any instance where the word Nigger in any form isn't going to offend someone. ] | ] 04:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*In general nobody's comments should be struck out on an AFD because they are not really "votes", and anonymous users are welcome to contribute to the discussion. On the other hand, in this case the item struck out was a useless <nowiki>'''keep''' ~~~~</nowiki>, so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. ] ] 12:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::And I sent an article he created to AfD earlier today. Ah, well. I've got his talk page on my watch list, and my e-mail is activated. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 04:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Useless delete?''' humm? Should I go ahead and strike this keep too. ''"Keep, --Shamir1 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)"''? Being a fair person we all should be consistent in our opinion --- ] 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
::Sorry, it was a <nowiki>"'''delete''' ~~~~"</nowiki>. Whether we like it or not, unreasoned "vote" type contributions on AFDs do count for something (how much is up to the closing admin) when they are made by well established contributors (I have even seen arbitrators make such posts). When an anonymous person makes such a contribution they usually don't count for squat. I would not recommend that you strike out anything, but if you will remove the the strikethrough and make a comment of the lines of "Please don't strike out anything unless it was made in bad faith" below it, then I don't think anyone will complain. ] ] 13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: I had done that already and was here for your help. Looks like ] below will do that. Thank you. --- ] 13:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
**The same with "'''DO NOT DELETE'''" ] people, no-one cares if those aren't counted. Still, ] and some people think it is. ''']''' <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
**I don't think that striking out anonymous votes are a good idea. However, as long as the editor striking out the vote makes it clear that he and not the original anonymous editor struck out the vote, and indicating the reason for striking out the vote, then I'm not going to get up in arms over it. —] 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I love the idea of ''AFD is not a vote'' and hate when they do become votes. But that what not the action of closing admin sometimes reflect. Can someone ensure me please that this AFD will not be closed after reading both sides comment and will not be a simple counting? --- ] 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone with a little better detective work take a look at ]? It looks like {{user|DiamondDragon}} tried to create archives and it didn't go so well. From what I see, the user simply copied and pasted into archive 2...but I see no evidence of archive 1 being made with content, just the pages created for them. That's what drew me to them, the blank archive page for ] was tagged for speedy deletion as empty content. Can someone figure out what happened? ] 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:Look better? Key was that the first archive was put into ] instead of ], i.e. no Talk:... —] (]) 04:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:In general striking out the comments of any user in AfD is not permitted. Anon IP users are ''welcome'' to express their opinions in AfDs. I will remove the strike and ask the user who struck it not to do this again. We should allow the closing admin to exercise their good judgment in closing AfDs. In this case I doubt much weight will be given to the delete opinion expressed, but it is not okay to strike it out. ] 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
==need immediate lockdown, please!==
A whole bunch of shit is hitting the fan right now at ], and it's ''really dunb shit''. Please lock this page for an hour or so to let folks cool off. If not, things are going to spiral quickly and badly, possibly resulting in blocks for otherwise good editors. Consider this a 9-1-1 call. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:You want to have a ''talk'' page locked? It looks like people are being a little hostile back and forth, but locking a talk page is pretty extreme... ] 07:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::I know a bit about this group; things are getting ugly and it would be a serious shame for any of them to get blocked. The talkpage hasn't hosted any serious discussion in the past hour, just an increasingly tense situation. Just an hour's protection, to let things cool down? --] <sup>]</sup> 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::(I am not an admin, but...) It's not just procedural that first, you should contact people on their talk pages and ask them to calm down and take a bit of time off (which I just did to one of the parties). Protecting a page should only happen after other approaches including warnings to users and short blocks if necessary have failed. I can't blame you for wanting to try to calm it down a bit, but start at the right starting point: ask people nicely, on their talk pages, to calm down... In overall seriousness, this is nowhere near as bad as many other flame wars which we've let run without locking a page. ] 07:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Hopefully your comments will take care of it then. Thanks for your help. There was a crazy blaze of comments on the talkpage, coming so fast I kept getting edit conflicts when trying to appeal for peace. I guess I just panicked :( Thanks again. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Thank you :). Problem solved. --- ] 13:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
So, that's what a flame-war looks like, eh? I'd never been close enough to one to feel the heat! So I yelled for help, and it was a false alarm. In my city there's actually a hefty fine for calling in false alarms, so...who do I make the check out to? --] <sup>]</sup> 08:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::* You don't have to strike out anything by others actually. Usually on close inspection the closing admin of any XfD can tell which to discard and which to consider. - ] 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:The fine for this incident is that at some point in the future, when you see an argument break out and get too heated on a topic you aren't personally involved in on Misplaced Pages, you have to go to the heated debaters' talk pages and leave them friendly messages asking them to calm down and be patient 8-)
:Have a good night. Glad the situation calmed down. ] 08:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
== IP 68.208.176.52 ==
This IP vandalizes wikipedia since 19 January 2005. The user have been warned, but he keeps trolling.
Examples:
* In ]
<blockquote>
==Vigilantes==
As of 2006, vigilante involvement in road rage highway battles has risen sharply.{{fact}} Vigilantes often when identifying a road battle involving rage will join in the chase in an attempt to disable the aggressor's vehicle. Vigilantes have been known to employ the use of spears, handfulls of rocks, and cinder blocks to aid in the disabling of an offending vehicle. They maintain that the easiest and safest way to stop a speeding vehicle is a direct hit with a cinder block or spear to the driver or radiator.{{fact}} In Maine in July, a vigilante confused another vigilante who was engaged with a raging driver. The original vigilante noted that the "other guy went racing past in front, slowed, and all of a sudden a spear came flying out the drivers side and hit me in the chest."{{fact}}
</blockquote>
* In ]:
<blockquote>
The agressive driver will continue to punish weaker, more ignorant drivers until he feels sufficient retribution has been had, or a lesson has been taught.
</blockquote>
* In ]:
<blockquote>
Waffles, indeed, are good.
</blockquote>
The user's activity: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=50&target=68.208.176.52
::Inconsistent editing here, probably a small school (or a family). ] 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe putting the word "admin" in your username is a no-no. Also appears to be a sock puppet created to influence ]. -] (]) 11:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
== Wrong speedy tagging by sockpuppets with strange usernames ==
== User:Threeafterthree ==
I have noticed that a user tags many pages that are at ] wrongly with {{tl|db-notenglish}}, and some of these are wrongly deleted. Please do not delete pages that are not in English unless they exist on other Wikimedia projects: they should be tagged with {{tl|notenglish}} and listed at ].
] has, for many months, been attempting to remove any designation on biographical articles of individuals as "Jewish", particularly famous and respected people like ], though he apparently has no issue with it if the person happens to be ], the U.K.'s worst mass-murderer. In addition, he has been insisting on removing "Antisemitic" categories from various individuals considered antisemites, but insisting on adding the "Racism" category to various Jews and Jewish groups, and insisting that people like ] were not "innocent", but merely "convicted on circumcstantial evidence". All in all, it adds up to something quite ugly. If that weren't bad enough, he's been , for which he has been and evading his blocks and . I've blocked all the accounts for a month, but I'm wondering if a permanent block is more in order. Thoughts? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The sockpuppets I am talking about are many new users with random usernames like {{user|Miui-kaoa}} and {{user|Iwtb}}. These users also update cleanup tags, just like the the user {{user|Ppgj-nzng}} who recently made the same wrong redirect as {{user|Qhkj-mdhm}}. Has anybody else seen this kind of behavior and does anybody have an idea why this guy makes lots of new accounts like these and with edits like these? ] ] 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::Jayjg, reading your comments here, I would support an indefinite block on this user. Suggesting hatred towards a religious group is just not on. I think you have done very much the right thing here. --] 00:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== Frivolous requests for deletion of ] ==
:::Can you provide examples of suggesting hatred towards a religious group?--] 15:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::Veryodd.Bywhatdefinitionisaconvictedmurderer,whoseconvictionwasneveroverturned, "innocent"?AndIdon'tseeanyeditsbythis user to ] atleast . -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The editors {{user|OrbitalWise}} and {{user|LoxingFerrer}} have made repeated requests for aforementioned article to be deleted, on ] and ]. LoxingFerrer, at least, is violating ], as shown by . Can something be done? -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Very odd response. Frank is infamous for having been falsely convicted and, in fact, being an innocent man: ''The Leo Frank case is considered one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in the legal annals of Georgia... The degree of anti-Semitism involved in Frank's conviction and subsequent lynching is difficult to assess, but it was enough of a factor to have inspired Jews, and others, throughout the country to protest the conviction of an innocent man...Slaton reviewed more than 10,000 pages of documents, visited the pencil factory where the murder had taken place, and finally decided that Frank was innocent. He commuted the sentence, however, to life imprisonment, assuming that Frank's innocence would eventually be fully established and he would be set free... etc.'' As for Shipman, did you bother clicking on the links provided? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Jayjg, do you think that prior to your block {{user5|Threeafterthree}} was avoiding accruing a history of blocks through puppetry? It seems rather odd that he'd under his user name. ''(]])'' 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::My point is, ] isn't innocent in the eyes of the ''law''. You don't seem to have picked the best edits to criticize here. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::The case is a famous miscarriage of justice according to everyone who's written about it extensively, to the best of my knowledge, and so there's no reason to keep removing the category. Threeafterthree has e-mailed me to say that the two other editors are people he lives with. I assume he means ] and ].
::::::There are similarities in editing style, articles edited, and general interests. Lots of Jewish-related interests, and specifically removing that people are Jews, even from well-known Jews such as ] (Threeafterthree removed that) and ] (Backroomlaptop's first edit was to remove from the first sentence that Wiesel is Jewish, then add to the end of the lead that he's of "Jewish decent ". ) Threeafterthree even removed "of Jews" from a quote which said that ]'s work had tragic effects "on later generations of Jews." He twice removed "of Jews," saying he was correcting the quote, but the quote does say "of Jews."
::::::Also, Threeafterthree enabled 68.9.116.87 to evade 3RR at ]. The anon added ] at , and reverted three times; then Threeafterthree arrived to revert at , despite having not edited since September 1. There's also one distinctive thing that Threeafterthree and one of the others do, which I won't mention here. I'd say they're all the same person. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and also note made on me by OrbitalWise. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Actually, there are two versions of this document on the web. The one you link to from Canada has "of Jews", the American one does not . His edit is correct for the reference at elca.org which was actually being cited in the article. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 10:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Thelinkinthearticleisdead,sohowdoyouknow?]<sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I blocked both indefinitely as obvious sockpuppets with the sole purpose of disruption. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:Who are they sockpuppets of? ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::They are clearly sockpuppets of eachother, but if it goes further than that, only checkuser could determine. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::OrbitalWise said that he was supported by <s>{{user12|Homeontherange|Homey}}</s> (Odd, could have sworn I've seen him, but no contribs) and {{user|SPUI}}. There might be something there. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::, he also mentioned {{user|Essexmutant}}. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Those are just other unrelated users, that much I'm sure of. There doesn't seem to be much more to do other than block any others who show up with the same frivolous deletion request, and if they persist, a checkuser request to block whatever range they're using could be in order. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::* Indeed, it sounds too random for my liking to tie any of them up to this one. - ] 21:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Just bringing it up, not necessarily saying there's anything to it. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Also see ] - who thought was a good idea. ] 22:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::The link in the article is to the elca.org domain, even though they may have moved the page. So now you are saying ] has psychic powers? Or are you saying he hacked that website and removed the words from the ] just to make you look foolish? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This troll has other accounts which have been indef blocked for the same thing. Seems like a good case for quiet blocking when necessary per ]. --] <sup>] · <font color="green">]</font></sup> 22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Also, mentioning someone's religion first thing in the lead is really a matter of taste. I'd view articles starting "] is a Catholic actor" or "] is a Methodist politician" as fairly silly. Are you ''seriously'' complaining about this edit on ]? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 11:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== Vandalism at ] ==
::::::::It's not a question of "complaining" about any particular edit. The question is whether the accounts are run by one person. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Whyblockforonemonth?Whyblockbackroomindefinately?Thisseemsreallyexcessive.--] 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please revert a vandalous page move at ]. Thanks. --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 23:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:Done <strong>]]]</strong> 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::I've also given the vandal a one week block. <strong>]]]</strong> 23:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
::::::::: But the paragraph he removed was an unsourced tirade calling Steven Spielburg a worse anti-Semite than ], no? You have completely mischaracterized this as ] "removing that people are Jews". When you are wrong about things that can be checked, it makes it harder to trust you on things which can not be checked. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
{{user5|Peterwats}} has been repeatedly violating several Misplaced Pages policies (personal attacks, civility, improper use of speedy deletion, and vandalism; there's also some rather obvious sockpuppet voting on ] which I suspect he's behind). His user talk page is full of warning templates (many of them "this is your last warning" templates). IMHO it's about time he's blocked. —] 12:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Then instead of relying on one link, why not spend a few minutes looking through his contribs? Then you'll see the similarities for yourself. And please review CIV. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:I say indef-block. Anyone else agree? —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, I agree. He has apparently abused sock puppets in AfDs about articles he created, ] and ]. He's been all over amking personal attacks and demanding that other users be banned (or more precisely, "band". His spelling is terrible.) Even ] has banned him as a troll. -] · ] · 00:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::How is Kendrick being uncivil? Because he caught your mistakes and mischaracterations of this user? This case is beyong flimsy. What did this editor do to you to warrant this? --] 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Someone please hurry up and take action against this user. Since my notice was posted, he has created yet another article about himself (]), inserted information on his own non-notable publications to ], and made personal attacks by calling editors neo-Nazis . His user page is overflowing with warnings about such behaviour (and not just from me). —] 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::You seem to have a strange understanding of American law, Frank was murdered before all the flaws in his case were properly analyzed. "The eyes of the law" see these flaws even more so.- ] | ] 05:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I've indefinately blocked him. <strong>]]]</strong> 10:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
==Possible sockpuppetry by 64.107.3.104==
Doesn't the cabal, and its usuall members who have shown up here together, again, have anything better to do than to witch hunt and block editors? Seriously guys, and gal, you are so transparent!--] 12:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
{{ipvandal|64.107.3.104}} This one is kind of complicated. This user has a static IP address and is blocked under this IP but is editing under 66.99.3.172, 64.107.2.2, 66.99.1.109, 66.99.0.8, and 64.107.1.221. I don't really know how you handle this. But he's engaging in edit wars on the ] article and the ] article. He seems to be the only one using these IP's. He's vandalized my user page several times. The IP's are clearly the same person when you look at the edits they've made to the Arafat article attempting to insert the same information over and over when he's been told that the source isn't reputable. --] 22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: I am reposting this report, which was from ], because it appears to indicate that 64.107.3.104 is using sockpuppets to evade his block. ] 22:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
And you are an insulting troll. Thank you for your for insults, please go back to ED or Wikitruth or whatever hell you come from. <small>An infuriated</small> <font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:This is one of our better-known troublemakers from about a year ago: the "George Reeves" vandal, aka "Squidward", who I don't think been around for a while. Those are his IP ranges, and the edits all show his characteristic interests, editing style, comma splices, and "I'm right, I'll revert until I get my way" manner. Here's an example from earlier this year . ; here's an even better contribs list . Not sure if there's a long term abuse page on him or not, or if we killed it under WP:DENY. ] ] 05:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
A one month block is a very long block. I do not support this block and think it should be withdrawn. If an editor poses an immediate threat of disruption, then you should block for a few hours or a day at most, during which time you should come to ANI to gauge consensus. Otherwise, you should do a discussion or warning on the user's talk page. In this case, I see no immediate threat, nor any attempts on Jayjg's part to warn or discuss and consequently feel that the block should be recalled. I make no judgment on whether the blocked user exhibited any anti-Semitic edits, only on Jayjg's implementation of policy, which I find flawed and unfair to the accused. -] <sup>] </sup> 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:Here you go: ]. Jimbo deleted the LTA page himself as part of a negotiation with this person: the deal, if I recall correctly, was that he would leave us alone. Looks like he's back. Look at the page carefully in undelete preview; it's clearly the same person. ] ] 06:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== {{user5|Ring modulator}} ==
:: Someone may want to bring this up with Jimbo and ask he if minds if we undelete the page. ] 06:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The previous ANI discussion regarding activity by this editor under his previous username is ]. He has also been under this user name for incivility. Yesterday he issued warning to a new user for making and reversing their own . He then contacted ], whom he thought was an admin, and for the new user to be blocked. HighInBC correctly responded that a block would be inappropriate given the nature of the test edit, and instructed Ring modulator that use of the blatant vandal warning was inappropriate in this circumstance. Hoping to not scare off the new user, HighInBC removed Ring modulator's warning, replaced it with a welcome message on the new user's talk page, and told the new user the message was placed in error. Today, Ring modulator placed message on the new user's page, even though the new user had made no further edits. This seems to be harrassment in my view. The message was properly removed by ]. Dina Ring modulator, told him she removed the message and why. Ring modulator responded to Dina with this . Ring modulator has continued to use the blatant vandal warning inappropriately . I feel Ring modulator should be blocked again for incivility and biting new users. ] 12:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Can someone please check ==
:On a related note, I've indefinitely blocked {{vandal|Blindnimratt}} for (their first and only one) to Ring modulator's talk page. This is obviously someone's sock, but can anyone identify whose? —] <small>(])</small> 16:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
User:216.164.200.39 . I think its a sock trolling on RD!--] 00:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== What appears to be trolling of some sort ==
]
please look into this right away ▪◦▪]</span></span> 08:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*I've left a note on the Chinese noticeboard and asked someone to comment on the content of the Chinese sources of the article in question. - ]|] 08:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
== Potential racism - input required ==
*It is more then that, there are multiple users, in the voting, lodged fake votes, 3 user all of whom registered today and have only contribution relating to this hoax article.
*]
*]
*]
▪◦▪]</span></span> 09:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:I thought that non-English language sources are frowned upon in the English Misplaced Pages? ] 09:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::English-language sources are preferred, but in their absence, non-English language sources are perfectly fine. Assuming, of course, that they exist and are translated correctly. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Make that 4
*]
has nothing to do with "non-English language sources" its a hoax.
▪◦▪]</span></span> 09:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:Were you responding to me? Because I was responding to the note about inviting evaluation of the non-english language sources. ] 09:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I was asked by ] to intervene on ], where I found a clear 3RR vio , so I've blocked both him and ] for 24 hours. I'm looking for input into the other allegations waged against the IP on the talk page of the article - ie, what action to take. Thanks -- <strong>]]]</strong> 02:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'm sorry Anchoress, that not what I meant, there is something more then just a afd going on here, i'm not exactly sure what but it's very fishy, I was hoping someone would like into what is going on here look at the history of this afd and what some of the users are doing▪◦▪]</span></span> 09:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
==Suspected sockpuppets==
Sirex98 is right about there being something fishy; MingNei is running quite the sockfarm trying to influence the AFD. I've blocked the underlying IP for a week (until the AFD is over) and will strike the votes from the socks, but I somehow expect this won't be the end of the socking. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I've never had to report sockpuppets before and don't know if this is the right venue or format, but here goes. Five accounts were created within the past 24 hours which all appear to be ] accounts, all have made near-identical edits to a group of closely related ] articles, blanked sections and images for POV reasons, and supported each other in revert wars on the articles and in the talkpages. The contrib histories are relatively short, and almost any diff in their histories supports my assertions. I'm not involved in the article itself, I became aware of this through RC Patrol and followed up. The page has been protected, but the dispute revolved around the assertions of these suspect editors:
*{{User2|Basketballplayer90000}}
*{{User2|Kurtnimmo90}}
*{{User2|Dhulbahante55}}
*{{User2|AfricanThunder99}}
*{{User2|76.169.136.160}}
If I haven't come to the right place, please re-direct me. Otherwise, please investigate: it looks like some blocks are in order. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked as obvious socks, if they are not really obvious, ] might be in order to checkuser em -- ] 04:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for the speedy response and good advice. I ''thought'' they were obvious, but have limited experience with socks. I (and others) really appreciate your help :) ] <sup>]</sup> 04:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== Possible vote stacking and sockpuppetry at a TfD ==
:In case anyone would like to block them, the socks are as follows:
Hi all. I'd like to bring everyone's attention to the recent ] of {{tl|Turkish History Brief}}, which seems to have caused a lot of controversy. I had to warn {{user|Zaparojdik}} for the talk page spamming he did, in addition to another user. However, the strangest thing is that these users are voting were clearly notified either by email or somewhere else off-wiki. For example, before ] voted, he his last edit was in '''2002''', and many other of the users aren't that active either, such as ]. There might also be some sockpuppetry involved as well, I'm not sure. However, I could appreciate if some other admins could look into this. Thanks. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:*{{vandal|LionelNailer}}
:Would it have influenced the outcome? If so, ] will take you :) '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 06:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:*{{vandal|MingNei}}
::The main issue isn't sockpuppetry, but the massive vote stacking that occured due to talk page spamming, and possibly something outside wiki. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:*{{vandal|WeiWei11}}
:*{{vandal|MangonelMan}}
:*{{vandal|GVixen}}
:*{{vandal|Fredsavage}}
== Japanese nationalists at Korea articles ==
:I've already blocked the IP and struck the votes, if someone feels like tagging and blocking the socks, please do. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
There's been a series of Japanese vandalism on many Korea articles that have led to page protection. This has happened to ], ], ] have been protected recently, and similar thing has happened to ], ], and I'm sure others.
All socks are permablocked ] 12:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we have the same combination of original research, Japanese nationalism, anonymous IP's, mangled English, and revert battling, now shaping up at ]. Maybe protecting this page too is the only answer. Thanks. ] 06:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:I made a mistake at interpreting what was going on as far as peoples reactions here, please see my talk page where I gave a timeline leading up my mistake understanding MacGyverMagic first reply here, my apologies to MacGyverMagic and the rest of you. ▪◦▪]</span></span> 12:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:Regardless of whether Room218 is right in his claim (I haven't checked it out), you'll notice {{user|211.131.246.10}}, who is in the same ISP range as these changes, tried to blank this section on the ANI. ]<sup>]]</sup> 08:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:{{user|211.131.246.10}} has directly edited ], and also vandalized ]'s talk page. Although it's hard to be sure, it seems likely that there's one person who has been using frequently changing IP addresses to make controversial and repeated changes to Korea-related articles, specifically where Japan-Korea relations are involved. The use of language and the specific edits are usually very consistent across changing IP addresses. --] 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
==IPs on Ollanta Humala article==
::It's a blatant hoax, admitted as such, it's a sock farm, and, frankly, a complete waste of everyone's time having to supervise it. It's clearly going to be deleted, and so I've closed the AFD, speedied the 'article', and protected it from recreation. If anyone objects, I've no problem with you reverting this (though I can't see why you would). ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
There is an IP in the ] article who keeps adding false information that Humala's father is named "Alonso Vargas". As the de facto head of the Wikiproject Peru I can tell you that Ollanta Humala's father is ] (whom himself is very well known in Peru). The IP seems persistant and it doesn't seem like he will stop. I am not sure if the IP is driven by malice, in order to vandalize the article, or if he simply doesn't understand that the information he is adding is false. Either way, I do not want to have to be watching this article and getting into a revert war over this and thus I ask for some administrator intervention.
== sockpuppet reposting ==
First two edits from IP
First see AFD here: three articles were deleted at AfD: ] is now up as a repost. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion and have warned the perpetrator ] on their talk page. However, it IS a sockpuppet creation of a deleted article. Does this warrant a block for teacherteacher? Note: Teachteacher also spammed his link on ] and ], which was how I found it, as I monitor ] (note: awe and the AfD was one of my first too...look how noobish I was!) ] ] ] ] ] 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*I wouldn't block someone for a single repost. More than one and it becomes a problem. - ]|] 10:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*
I should have been more clear: I wasn't suggesting it for the repost: it was for the new account creation, afd avoidal and reposting, and the linkspam combined. ] ] ] ] ] 11:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*
*How are you so sure it's a sockpuppet? Was the other account blocked? I'd try a block for linkspamming if they persist. - ]|] 12:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Third edit from a different IP location:
The sockpuppetry claim is based on an almost identical article with inclusion in the exact same wikipedia entries that it was included in last time. As for the other account, I have no clue. It was back in february of this year, I don't remember the result of it. ] ] ] ] ] 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:''The following discussion is an archived debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' <!-- from Template:Debate top-->
== Angry user from Bahrain ==
] keeps vandalising and harassing me by posting my ISP info on my user page and reverting my deletes. He is trying to intimidate me for no good reason and makes unfounded accusations please help and block. Thanks. Here are the diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:71.111.115.155&action=history
]
We have one user from Bahrain who seems to be a Shi'a Muslim and an opponent of the current Bahraini regime. He edits from various anonIPs. After he reverted the ] article five times in two hours, I asked to have that article semi-protected -- which was done. This seems to have enraged him. As ] he left an epithet on my user page and a nasty comment on my talk page accusing me of being anti-Shi'a. Now he's using ] to follow me around WP, reverting anything I edit. Could someone please roll back the 178 edits and block that IP, or range of IPs? ] 06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
{{IPuser|71.111.115.155}}
: contravenes ] and is unrelated to editing on the ] article. Specifically the lines, "Wiki Adminitrators have refusd TWO different requests to put the "michael Richards" story in it's headlines. Talk about a whitewash and racial insensitivy by a bunch of '''overprivileged white guys'''! Check it out! " are very problematic. ''(]])'' 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::There's no evidence I WROTE that I only reverted his deletion of it. People are entitled to their views! Stop this user's unwarranted harrassment of me and my privacy. Thanks.
] 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::This IP editor is from the same area in Oregon as {{IPuser|71.111.119.60}} who was blocked yesterday and is very likely the same individual. ''(]])'' 16:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:I've blocked both IPs and reverted him/her. Please let me know if this person returns. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::Just more falsehoods to justify his abuses, harassment, and invasion of privacy. Please help this Newbie! There are many people/ Wikipedians in Oregon and this is from 2 different cities way apart! Very ridiculous. Thanks.
]
:::No invasion of privacy here, all the information posted by Netscott was already publicly available. If you are concerned about your privacy, ] instead of telling everybody your IP address. If you don't want to create an account, stop complaining that we know your IP address and all data that can be deduced from it. Thank you, ] ] 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::To cut down on admins pursuing this report (save for curiosity or verification purposes) please know that ] has IPs. Thanks Glen S. ''(]])'' 17:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, on the bottom of every IP user's talk page is a link to WHOIS etc. Scott did not add anything that was not very easily publicly accessible. -- ] 18:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
* Yup. Nothing to see here, I'd say. Move along, please... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:Debate bottom --></div>
==Please Help!==
Admin Glen S has made a totally inapprobriate block here. Please Unblock. There are Two very good reasons. 1- The users are not the same and
2-Just as Important the reason given was evading of block! But the the previous block of 31 hours had already EXPIRED!!
3- As far as I know users do not always choose their ISP address so it wouldn't be intentional (this is moot since these two people are not sock puppets)
Please see time diff: (over 31 hours had pasted even for the sake of argument it was the same IP address user which it clearly was not) ] ] Please unblock User 119.60 and notify/Warn User:Glen_S of his terrible mistake. Thanks
I have done nothing wrong except contribute and voiced my fair opinion on My talk page.
I have reason to believe that Glen_S's block of this user therefore was a pretext and possible racially motivated for attempted contributions to the Michael Richards article, which would be a is a serious violation of WP. Thank you. 71.111.117.65
I keep getting harassed/blanked, WIKIStalked and reverted by User:NetScott also from my userpage and ANI page. Please warn or block him him. see
]
Thanks for your help with this intimidation. Its like a cyber lynching of people who are different or something. It is very unfair.
Thanks for your help we should support diversity not discourage it!
] 13:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Thanks muchly! That was FAST. ] 06:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:This repetitively abusive editor is evading previous blocks. See ] also see ] and ] (you may need to review the histories of those talk page for they may be targetted for by this editor). Now this editor is admin shopping (spamming): , , , . ''(]])'' 13:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::The word comes to mind. ''(]])'' 13:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, and he's come back from different IPs just as quickly. He keeps reverting, various admins keep rolling back and blocking, he gets another IP. This is one determined dude. Fascinating, in a serial-killer-movie kind of way. ] 09:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== I, Freestylefrappe am back ==
==]==
I am back. I was formerly ], but this is my new account. No longer will I be using the Ya ya ya ya ya account, or any of my other sockpuppets. --] 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
* Indef-blocked by Pilotguy. Move along, please, nothing to see here... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
JFD has been removing any Indian influence on Chinese culture incessently. He has removed sourced text from ] and posted unsourced POV statements on Zen and Chan. Kindly see that this incessent violation of mentioning unsourced text and removing sourced text does not continue.
== ] ==
] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:''The following discussion is an archived debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' <!-- from Template:Debate top-->
==]==
Can an admin head over here, there appears to be a semi-large backlog. ''semper fi'' — ] 08:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
==]==
I have permanently blocked the account {{vandal|LAUGH90}} because of . He seems to be the devoted vandal with a habit of vandalizing pages and helpfully adding an editing summary of "Replacing page with ''" (or "Blanking page").
*I see. I have unblocked the acccount; I seem to have misunderstood ]. - ] 10:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
==]==
Administrators Guinnog, pschemp and myself have been involved in a discussion about creating a disambiguation page for ], as strong arguments can be made for the city not being the most popular lemma with that name. One editor, ], has proven extremely difficult to work with, and his unwillingness to engage with factual arguments, take up complaints about guidelines in the appropriate places, and file bug reports about technical aspects that he feels need to be changed, has stalled progress on the talk page. I would appreciate review and recommendation by an independent admin. As a quick intro to my view of the situation, you may wish to read . Thank you. - ] (] <small>•</small> ]) 15:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel that this article has been deleted wrongfully.
*What administrative action is needed? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*No vote was made on its content or name at the time of its deletion. The vote having been made on ] which was completely different to ] both in name and in content.
*Well people are certainly allowed to ask for advice here from other admins and fresh eyes on a situation, and this is done all the time. What we've got here is a situation where after much and prolonged discussion the majority of editors agree with what is standard practice on Misplaced Pages for disambig pages yet the minority is claiming that because not everyone is in 100% agreement, there isn't consensus. So what do you do in a situation like that? If you go with the majority and the standard practice, then the minority will claim "process wasn't followed" and "its a dictatorship" and "there wasn't consensus." (As they already have done) Can we do the right thing even if the minority doesn't agree or is Misplaced Pages so bogged down in process that it isn't allowed if it will hurt someone's feelings? Certainly asking the community this before taking action is a noble thing. ] | ] 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*The article is NPOV, well sourced, provides only information which is absent on all other Gibraltar related articles and simply refers to a community of people (Gibraltarian Spaniards) explaining who they are and a bit of their history. No POV related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute on Gibraltar is even touched and thus is non-controversial. The article was deleted in with a very small number of votes and in a very short time (5 days?).
*A copy of the article is on my talk page.--] 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:I know that this issue got be posted at <s>]</s> ]. But, Burgas and I thought it would be a good idea to inform admins that Burgas is planning to recreate the article under a diff title and NPOV. What didn't look fine at the AfD process is the duration of the discussion. It was closed after 5 votes and after only 5 days!
:Anyway, i believe that after the article is freed from POV (in case there are), it can be recreated under the new title. Apart from the duration of the vote, the nature of the votes are also unfounded (most voters talked about POV -which not a valid reason to delete an article), the nomination was based on that "there exists articles on ] and ]" is also questioble and not convincing at all as there exist people caled SPANISH GIBRALTARIANS. Any comments or feedbacks? -- '']'' → <small>]</small> 17:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean ]? - ] ] 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
A ] was taken on the issue, five people requested that the ] of ] as the city be maintained whilst six requested that an alternative name be used (indeed in said vote the status quo was removed part way thru the vote as it was seen that a consenus had to be fixed). Its very close cut and by no means just one "extremely difficult" editor who is holding up the process. ] 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, correct Francis. Thanks for the note. -- '']'' → <small>]</small> 18:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:The consensus on the page was that voting was evil and a discussion was a better way. Only Djegan and Felke continue to cling to the "we must vote" even though the vote was closed as malformed and the resulting discussion can out in favor of following Misplaced Pages disambig guidelines and having cork as a disambig page. His interpretation of the vote is off too, only two people indicated that ] shouldn't be a disambig. This is an example of why more eyes are needed. ] | ] 16:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask user Gibnews to stop deleting or requesting speedy deletion of the copy of the article on my talk page. He already got it deleted from the talk page of ] and has now requested speedy deletion from my talk page (??) This seems like an attempt to disrupt the current process of undeletion. Thanks.
::Thats a bit of ]. ] 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
--] 15:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Two, count 'em two people only said ] was the only acceptable option. That's not a spin. Plus, the poll was closed becuase it wasn't formed correctly, there was no consesnsus to have yet another poll, and a perfectly good disscussion took place that came to a decision. Additionaly, the disambig guidlines clearly state ] should be a disambig page. ] | ] 17:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:This article was deleted through the AFD. The original title was ], which was moved to ]. Please use ] if you found the AFD process to be incorrect. ] 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Three now.
:::::Sorry thats four, not discounting those that voted and have been disenfranchised and others ignored because they dont give a daily check on their option as seemingly required. ] 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Unless you just went and changed a closed poll, nothing has changed. ] | ] 17:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Bleh, once again this has disinigrated into a content dispute. Never mind, sorry for wasting ANI time. ] | ] 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
== TheBigDirtyBastard ==
And once again this article has been moved without clear consenus, and by an admin who wanted a move. ] 17:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw a piece of vandalism from {{Userlinks|TheBigDirtyBastard}}, and rolled it back. I then checked his contribs to see if it was a vandalism-only account, which I would have blocked indefinitely. It doesn't seem to be, but it is a fairly new account. In that case, I'd just give him a warning. However, I'm wondering should he be blocked for his username. My feeling is yes, definitely, but I think I would tend to be less tolerant of such names than other people might, and I'm not actually experienced in username blocks. I may have done one or two, but if so, they were ''really'' offensive names. As it is, I haven't even warned this user for his vandalism, because it seems a bit silly to warn someone for vandalism if I'm going to block him two minutes later regardless of any possible change in behaviour. Can someone please advise? Thanks. ] ] 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:Could an admin investigate this move? ] 17:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:The name doesn't offend me, but I do suggest he should be pointed to ]; He seems to have made good contribs so there's always room for change rather then a block. <small>] (] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span> <small>•</small> ])</small> 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Djegan, the consensus of the discussion was clear. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean anything improper was done. ] | ] 17:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::Just as an opinion, there have been a lot of requests for uName blocks recently for names which are really fairly inoffensive, and it seems to me a trend is starting which may be ill-advised. We're not Disney, after all. This one could offend some; however it is not "profane" - bastard being a legal term, and dirty having several meanings - and may be a semi-witticism on the part of the editor. I applaud Ann's reluctance to block precipitously for uName. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:Perhaps he is a fat guy who works on a farm and gets dirty, and was born out of wedlock. This may be really funny to him, and not profane at all. Or perhaps it has less meaning. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== Violation of good faith by user Shamir1 ==
::Not so sure, thats why hopefully a neutral admin will investigate. ] 17:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I have no doubt you will continue to see it as improper. However, this is just like closing an AFD, where the evidence presented is more important than the number of "votes". Unless you can come up with some hard facts to support your viewpoint, your complaints mean little. ] | ] 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
] is the scene of a long-running content dispute (but that's not what this complaint is about). Admin ] protected the article on Nov 12 for this reason. However, ], one of the main warring parties, was unhappy about which version was protected so on Nov 18 he claimed on ] that the dispute was over. Since the argument was continuing ferociously on the ], with Shamir1 involved, this claim was a '''deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article'''. And in fact Steel359 unprotected the article in good faith, only to be forced to protect it again soon afterwards. I respectfully request action against Shamir1 for this dishonest behavior. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::You made the first move and persistantly wanted a move thats why I have placed my comments ''here'' and not on ''your'' talk page. I was not expecting you to change your mind. ] 18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Guinnogmadethismove.Unlessyouareclaiminghe'smymeatpuppet,mypointingoutthefactsrelatedtoitis irrelevent. ] |] 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:Looking at the history, ] has not edited the article since November 11. Do you have the wrong user there? -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:The article had been protected since Nov 12 except for the brief unprotection on Nov 18 that I mentioned, that's why he didn't edit it. Look on the talk page to see his continued involvement in the dispute (8 edits since Nov 12). --]<sup><small>]</small></sup>
::::::If you fancy yourself as a meatpuppet thats your claim, not mine, thanks. ] 21:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::I think what Zero is saying is that he had the ''intent'' of doing so, and ought to have action taken against him. An attempted crime is almost as bad as a crime itself. -]<sup>]]</sup> 07:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You've got your logic wrong way 'round but that's not surprising. ] | ] 21:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::"deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article" is a crime. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Note:] did similar thing to ]. he , , and then . ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 08:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
About Shamir1, if you look at his contribs he requested unprotection several times this week. He kept coming back each time after unprotection was declined , and yesterday (his third or fourth request) I decided to AGF and unprotect. It was promptly reprotected when the edit warring started again. I can't say I was surprised. -- ] 12:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:I say they should both at least get a severe tongue-lashing, and, if it checks out on Isarig, the version should be reverted. If it happens again, they should be temp-blocked for disruption. I would do so myself, but I'm not an admin. ]<sup>]]</sup> 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
If anybody acted in bad faith it was ] himself. Note that this is not a content dispute per se - it's simply Zero0000 deleting mass sourced material. ] 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that the move seemed a bit premature. i thought the plan was to take the argument to ] to get the outside opinions. It seems strange to move the page without going to ] and then come to ANI for outside opinion. Especially given the sensitive nature of this subject. This early move, which appears to side step normal proceedure, is just asking for those who object to dig in their heels. It was definitely counter productive to resolving the issue. ] ] 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:We're not debating here the legitimacy of the changes, we're debating the fact that this user seems to have made a bad-faith request to get the page unprotected, so that he could get his own version back before it was reprotected. Regardless of the legitmacy of the claims, that's breaking faith if it was true. ]<sup>]]</sup> 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:If you review the talk page, you'll see that there wasn't a chance in hell of any constructive discussion coming out of it. Taking the issue anywhere else would have only prolonged the conflict and got more people hot and bothered, rather than achieving anything positive. Taking it to requested moves had been the option favoured by the opposers from the beginning, possibly with exactly the intention outlined above. As for digging the heels in, they had pretty much announced they would do that regardless fairly early on. Please note that the opposing side provided no data supporting their case, other than a somewhat biased analysis of Google results. - ] (] <small>•</small> ]) 18:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::That is not entirely correct. Several contributors (myself included) attempted to offer supporting data. All of which was refuted out of hand. (Despite being acknowledged as an accepted WP means of identifying DAB priority). Regardless, the "request for admin review" here is not to "review the validity of this move", rather "review the manner in the move was instrumented". It was unheralded (a simple "I'm going to do this" would have done), and so gave no time for the contributing editors to help "prepare the ground" by preemptively working through the '''several thousand''' links which now incorrectly point to a DAB page! ] 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I've asked this question before, and ended up being pointed to what turned out to be a rant against guidelines, unsupported by evidence or any attempt to resolve the concern on guideline talk. Where, please, is this evidence that you speak of? I have provided diffs when asked this question, therefore so should you. - ] (] <small>•</small> ]) 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::::First off, if you were pointed to a "rant" it was not mine. (I have never "ranted" in any of these discussions). Secondly, I find myself questioning your use of the term "rant", given the used on your own userpage. Thirdly, I remain saddened by this expectation that this discussion be conducted over an undefined set of conditions. (EG: "enter into this discussion under *my* terms or you will be ignored")
::::All that said, while I'm not about to go through every one of my posts on this discussion over the last month to provide the diffs you request, I will bow to your terms and offer the following: , , , , . My points against the move therefore remain:
::::#There was no precedence for this move (save for the enthusiasm of a handful of editors) (See: ], ], ], and - beyond geographical terms - any page that has two potential meanings).
::::#A quick Google test (even balancing for links with a higher ranking owing to commerical considerations) demonstrated Cork (city) as a primary use candidate.
::::#The arguments citing "dictionary evidence" were inconclusive, and offered no argument to address the imbalance of "proper nouns" in a dictionary context. (Beyond which, using "dictionary rules" seemed inappropriate given that wikipedia is clearly not a dictionary and not bound by the same considerations).
::::Regardless, the validity of my points above are no longer of concern. As stated, I am no longer concerned ''''that this page was moved''', but that (even though those involved in the discussion were attempting to work "within the rules of engagement defined by the proposers") it was moved without due consideration to the ongoing discussion, without notice (given the contention), and by an Admin (or Admins) who should have considered closing the debate, heralding the change and addressing any "impartiality" issues before making the change!
::::I am further dismayed by the language, attitude and undiplomatic perspective which permeated the discussion, which resulted in measured contributors - who were attempting to remain balanced and considered - being effectively blocked from participating. An aggressive (flaming) atmosphere was perpetuated in the discussion, and was not addressed by the admins (and in some cases the "flames were fanned"), and - because a vote was rejected and so no other avenue offered - measured discussion was impossible, and relevant arguments were ignored or (I expect) never proffered in the first place.
::::It's hardly the most inappropriate use of power I've ever witnessed, but it was so badly managed that I find myself disillusioned with the role of admins in resolving contentious issues. ] 20:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::All those things were addressed and discussed over and over on the talk page, so I'm not going into why a google seach is not representative of the entire world's usage of English again. An inconclusive result says that to be NPOV we can't give the city precedence over the material anyway. ] | ] 21:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
== Block enforcement requested ==
:::::I agree on your points. A neutral admin should of come in and reviewed the process and made the final call. Instead the admins who where involved in the discussion for moving made it a rather private affair between themselves, and even when editors requested that a neutral admin interveen they went ahead (indeed the attempt was a rather botched one as the talk pages where not moved and less than five minutes notice was given before intention to move and moving - bearing in mind the vote was 5/6 and requests to allow an neutral admin ignored).
Indef-blocked {{user|Rms125a@hotmail.com}} is back and edit-warring on ] as {{vandal|216.194.0.128}}. Can someone block please? Thanks! ] 11:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::It makes you think is adminship just a private accolade to ensure that your requests are carried out, for your individual benifit, or for the benifit of the community as a whole. A ] system? Certainly the tone and manner of some admins leaves a lot to be desired. ] 21:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
* And also disrupting this noticeboard . ] 11:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Oh please. You are simply whining because you didn't get your way. However, you never once came up with facts supporting your position. We make decisions around here based on facts and the dismabig guidelines, both of which say that ] should be a disambig page. Like afd's, decisions are not made by votes (which you are skewing the interpretation of anyway, plus the vote was closed because it was malformed) around here, they are made by looking at the facts of the case. There were lots of non-admins who thought cork should be a disambig page so get off the conspiracy theory. Whine away but like it or not, if you don't have facts to back up your opinions, they matter little. ] | ] 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::I've put an autoblock on {{user|Rms125a@hotmail.com}} which should stop the IP - if not, then another block needs serving specifically for the IP. <strong>]]]</strong> 11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Not sure what you mean "put an autoblock" on, the original user was blocked quite a while ago before the option to disable autoblocks was available. Autoblocks themselves are not necessarily that simple, in this case it is unlikely the original user id has edited from that IP so an autoblock will not occur (indeed that user has come back under various usernames and IPs over time). I've blocked the IP. --] 12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Ah OK - thanks. <strong>]]]</strong> 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== IP 213.216.199.6 requests unblock ==
A prime example for us to see here is the word ]. Because no term is more common, life goes straight to a disambig page. This is the same circumstance. ] | ] 22:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I got a mail saying this( I have added the wikisyntax):
I have been autoblocked by you because I happen to be assigned some IP
:''(reproduced from the talk page) Hi... I've looked through this entire discussion... wow. I'm not sure I see why people are so passionate about this. My conclusion: (I am a neutral admin, previously uninvolved) and I think ] should be a disambiguation page. No term is most prominent, not the material, not the city, none of them. So the main reference should indeed be to a disambig. Support the action of Guinnog, and suggest that it be left as is. See, for example, ] and ]. I'm not sure that characterising the inputs of some admins as arrogant is necessarily the way to make a case for things, though. Support the close of this poll. ++]: ]/] 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)''
address that was used by a blocked user. I ({{user|A_Jalil}}) have nothing
*There is nothing more useful to say here. ++]: ]/] 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
to do with the sockpuppet nor the edits that led to the block. Can you
please unblock my username so I can do some edits. Thanks.
the block note is:
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:Debate bottom --></div>
Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Fred Chess for the following reason (see our
blocking policy):
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "{{user|Featured article}}". The reason given for Featured article's block is: "Blocked user,
sockpuppet".
Your IP address is 213.216.199.6.
== Peripatetic / Beaumontproject ==
----
I have a complaint by email from ] that he is autoblocked as a result of a block I made on ]. I can't see this; and I'm offnet for the weekend; so if someone else could take a look? Thanks ] 18:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the time to investigate this right now, but I think it is important not to block innocent people, if that's the case here. Could someone take a look and take appropriate actions?
*It appears this user was hit by an autoblock on an IP he shares with Beaumontproject because the third checkbox was checked to avoid Beaumontproject avoiding the block with another IP. I've killed the autoblock. - ]|] 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
]-] 12:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
==Illegal blocking of ]==
A user by the name of Bowser Koopa has been blocked from wikipedia without proper warning. ] was the one who reported Bowser Koopa to ], who immediately blocked Bowser Koopa and labeled him a "vandalism only" account. I am addressing this because Bowser Koopa only vandalised ONE page and was warned for it. He only received one warning of his actions. He goofed around with his talk page but received no warning or anything(he only received a hint). AuburnPilot then told Bowser Koopa that the talk page was not "his" and that anybody could say whatever they want and that Bowser Koopa could not delete it without their permission. He then went to AuburnPilot's talk page and posted a fake vandalism warning as a joke, yet it was deleted without Bowser Koopa's permission and AuburnPilot reported him to Metros232, who ignored the fact Bowser Koopa never received a final warning and blocked him indefinately. Not only was one rule ignored, but another(deleting a message on a talk page without permission) was also committed. There is major hypocrisy here that I want to stop. I am requesting Bowser Koopa be unblocked and given another chance, and for Metros232 to be accountable for his mistakes. That is all.-]
:These users are clearly the same. They have similar edit summary styles, refer to each other in similar manners, sign their posts the same ways, etc. I guess it depends what people want to make of this fact. Regardless, edits like are totally unacceptable. You can't say "Well I shouldn't have been blocked because I wasn't warned", because '''you shouldn't have made those edits''' and it doesn't take reading policies to understand that. And you were warned, . As such I've blocked this account too. Enjoy. --] <small>]</small> 20:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::And just so you know, {{]}} is a final warning. And you vandalised after it. Go figure. --] <small>]</small> 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Yeah, considering Koopa's 3rd edit was , something was always suspected to be a little out of whack. Thanks Deskana for blocking Insano too. ] 20:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Before being blocked this editor made 7 edits to articles. 4 were vandalism, and 3 were non-encyclopedic POV rants. All were reverted. Let the blocks stand. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:The IP in question ( was blocked on 01:43, November 11, 2006 for a period of 1 week. This means that it should not be blocked by now!
== hit and run vandal blanking User Pages ==
:Anyway, i received an email as well from ] who has nopthing to do with the edits of the IP as Jalil maily edits Morocco related articles. I'll unblock the IP which i believe should have been technically ublocked by today! -- '']'' → <small>]</small> 12:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== 68.52.232.43's vendetta ==
Here's today's action by {{ipvandal|70.110.173.25}}
#20:25, 24 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tariqabjotu (←Replaced page with 'those are stupid pictures')
#20:24, 24 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jacek Kendysz (←Replaced page with 'are you a polak?')
#20:23, 24 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:FrancoGG (←Replaced page with 'j]')
#20:22, 24 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Squirepants101 (←Blanked the page)
#20:21, 24 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rjensen/Archive 4 (←Blanked the page)
this appears to be the same vandal who uses several different IP to harrass editors who criticized Stevewk for his blanking of much of the ] article.
Thus we have: for For 70.110.223.254
#16:42, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Midnightcomm (←Replaced page with 'koi')
#16:41, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Busterd (←Replaced page with 'kjiu')
#16:40, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War
#16:39, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rjensen/Archive 4 (←Replaced page with 'gffg') ] 20:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
{{IPVandal|68.52.232.43}} seems to be waging a slow vendetta against wikipedia, threatening to buy it and turn it into a Chirstian website. Violations of ] are to be found everywhere, but the IP has made no edits since npa4 was posted. Could be someone we need to watch. <strong>]]]</strong> 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::He's been blocked by now. In the future you can use ] when reporting vandals for a faster response. --] <sup>] · <font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:Also, {{IPvandal|75.109.101.139}} was trolling ]'s talk page previously, on the same topic. --<font color="002bb8">]</font> (<font color="002bb8">]</font>) 16:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::Not just me either, take a look at ]. '''<font color="Indigo">]</font>''' <sup>(])</sup> 17:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== poss. block evasion ==
==Kennethtennyson==
this anon: {{user|70.114.236.109}} might be {{user|RunedChozo}} evading a block. similarity of pages edited, preoccupations & accus. against admins seem enough to be worth look into <span style="background-color: #000000"> <font color="white">'''⇒'''</font> <font color="white">]</font> </span> 16:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I direct the attention to ] and ], who closely follow me committing harrasment under ]. Kindly observe , , , and I can provide a lot more.
== Backlog at CSD ==
If you take a look into the record you'll see that when I make an edit into any article first. The group follows me there and stalks me. One member of the cabal in particular, ] has contributed next to nothing in any actual article in which he stalks me. All he does is, walk in here, violently revert and then log out.
]. Please feel free to pop over and delete a couple dozen. Or even a couple. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
Kindly note , , and .
This is a <nowiki>{{db-bio}}</nowiki> candidate that should be expunged immediately due to the inclusion of ] in multiple versions in edit history. --<font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
This has become very painful. Kindly stop it as early as possible. The amount of WP policy violations they get away with is amazing.
*Appears to have been taken care of as I was typing this. Thanks! --<font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ashibaka had unblocked ] against consensus developed on this page and without so much as trying to discuss this with me, the blocking admin. I clearly stated the block was to '''prevent''' further disruptive edits yet he is claiming it was "punative". This is not the first time he has done this and seems to be protecting the user. The user was clearly editing disruptively and has been warned in the past. I really have a problem with Ashibaka's actions here and total lack of even trying to discuss it. ] | ] 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
{{IPvandal|4.225.119.125}} - was blocked for 24 hours for vandlism, but after a against ], I've lengthened the block to one week. Another one to look out for when the block expires (also, user talk page is sprotected). <strong>]]]</strong> 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure if this is applicable here but the top of the page says, quote:
::''This is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. '''If you came here to complain about the actions of a user or administrator''', or if your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.''
:Cheers, ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
==]==
::It isn't, the block was a result of a discussion on this page and this is a continuation of a discussion already on the page if you read carefully. This is where we discuss behaviour *between* admins. It does need the attention of other admins, since only they can stop admin actions. Mediation is not needed for people who wheel war. ] | ] 04:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The user above creates new user-pages and adds spam-links (see ] and ]). Greetings <span style="color:darkgreen">~~ ] <sub>]</sub> 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ </span>
:I reviewed ]'s contrib history thinking I'd find blatant linkspamming (mmm, my favorite!). Instead, this seems to be a good-faith editor who has made a couple of questionable contributions, probably because they are unclear on some ] basics (like '''not''' creating extra userpages). I fixed a couple of article edits that were problematic, but haven't touched any of the userpages or contacted ]. Hopefully this quick little "background check" will help the responding admin :) ] <sup>]</sup> 21:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh, I see now. Sorry for bothering you ;) ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] socks ==
*Agree, Ashibaka should know better. Not appropriate. – ]] 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I posted a report here a while about about a user, ], who had plagiarised various texts in various articles and in addition was trolling on various pages. ] blocked him. ].
**Notice Myrtone86's , where Ashibaka continually saves him from preventative blocks that were the result of his actions. My good faith has run out for Myrtone and we don't need more enablers around here. ]]] 05:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*Agree, while it's possible Ashkiba was unaware of the discussion here, there was a clear consensus to block. I therefore support pschemp's reblock as well. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Since then, we've noted at least three users engaged in this pattern of behaviour. Articles targetted include
Oh, hey look, I'm famous.
*] - reinstating the copyvio text
:''Ashibaka had unblocked ] against consensus developed on this page and without so much as trying to discuss this with me, the blocking admin.
*] - removing perfectly good quotations, apparently in retaliation at being caught and blocked
And you first complained about this user on ANI, then complained about me on ANI, without so much as telling the user (in the first place) or me (in the second place) about it. If you're going to report an incident here, how about you tell the people involved that they've caused an incident?! Maybe you wouldn't have even had to block Myrtone if you had simply told her about this page!
The socks are ], ] and ]. They've denied being socks even though this is quite blatantly obvious from the identical editing pattern. The vendetta has recently increased in scope, to attempt to remove all coat of arms from Misplaced Pages. I expect more socks to be created. This user has also (check contrib history of IP to match to other similar edits made). Please block on sight. ] - ] 21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:''I clearly stated the block was to '''prevent''' further disruptive edits yet he is claiming it was "punative". The user was clearly editing disruptively and has been warned in the past.
I rearranged your justification, hope you don't mind. The user did this once before, like six months ago or something. I got the idea the user doesn't quite understand what the templates are for, but she's not abusing them and she was not at all likely to cause further damage.
:Generic Mouse, Uhrwerkmaus, Tauex, Rodentiaest, Copiedimage, all blocked indefinitely. Generic Character still indef blocked from last time. I've also blocked the IP (which has been used as yet another persona) for a month for the relentless sockpuppetry - ] 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:''This is not the first time he has done this and seems to be protecting the user.
The user e-mails me every time she gets blocked. I guess she found me because I'm close to the top of the list of admins. I check over her block, decide she is being a nice person making a lot of good contributions and just a few mistakes, and let her edit again. She has not once gone back to causing trouble, and frankly you are the first person to complain, not because the user was a danger to the encyclopedia, nor because I negatively impacted the project in any way by reversing your block, but apparently because I didn't respect your admin authority.
== ] disruption and edit warring ==
I think this user poses no danger to the project, you disagree. That's ''okay''. You posted on my talk page telling me that I was totally and obviously wrong and you were going to reblock, and I didn't argue with you. You obviously know better than me. I yield. But you seem to have your panties all in a knot over a relatively minor disagreement. What's up with this "Don't be so flipping disrespectful to your fellow admins"? I didn't say you were doing a bad job adminning. My chain of thought was, "good user, well-intended block over a legitimate mistake, user wants to get out of jail and edit again, I'll just fix things up for everyone". I even checked and noticed I had unblocked the user a few times before, so I left a warning.
Reverts that apparently skirt the three RR policy, but that are disruptive and indicative of edit warring, on Evidence of evolution .
:''I really have a problem with Ashibaka's actions here and total lack of even trying to discuss it.
* 1st revert:
If you are so up on discussing things today how about you try discussing this with the user responsible rather than huddling around in the admins' Masonic lodge to decide what to do, then simply telling the user "bam, you're blocked, problem solved". Also, maybe you could tell ''me'' when you start a discussion about me. Maybe this would solve some problems as well. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
* 2nd revert:
*I think conflicts such as this can be avoided if an admin, whenever undoing a block made by another, notifies the blocking admin of having done this. The blocking policy also recommends that. (]) 11:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
* 3rd revert:
*Oh God, ''not again again''. Now we apparently have ''two'' incorrigible editors. Endorse reblock - I would have if Pschemp hadn't - and I strongly suggest Ashibaka refrain from unblocking this particular user anymore. ''"The user e-mails me every time she gets blocked. I guess she found me because I'm close to the top of the list of admins"'' - no, it's probably because you've twice and now three times shown yourself to be a soft touch who won't bother doing the courtesy of checking with your fellow admins before you overturn their efforts to protect the encyclopaedia just because Myrtone can be polite when he/she wants. You're 43rd in the list of administrators, I doubt Myrtone has chosen you at random each time. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
* 4th revert:
**I'd say this isn't really about Ashibaka per se - Myrtone is hardly the only user who effectively cannot be blocked because a sympathetic admin will overturn any such blocks by default. This perennial issue seems to stem from wikiculture. (]) 14:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
''' Comments:''' This user has a long list of rule violations (see ]). He habitually deletes any comments left on his talk page without replying to them, making it impossible to interact with him. NOTE: Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. ] 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
RE: Sam Blanning-- you're right, and I've asked Myrtone to use the {{tl|unblock}} template in the future instead of e-mailing me. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Thank you. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::Myrtone used to mail me a fair bit as well but since I've never unblocked, has cut way back. I've never unblocked because I found the blocks to be justified, this user, good intentions or not, is disruptive and blocks seem to be the only way to get a change. Support reblock, suggest that Ashibaka should post here, email or otherwise contact the blocking admin in future before unblocking. Overturning another admin is something not to be done lightly and merits discussion. ++]: ]/] 11:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::Endorse reblock as well. Agree that unblocks such as this should be discussed -- ] 11:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
== Request for block ==
:Please consider blocking ] for abusing the use of discussion page and making un-factual comments on other users,tagging advertisements on certain page such as ] which is not an advertisement.This particular user is criticizing other editor's language ability and predicts i'm the person who comment in the discussion page without signing which i did not comment anything. User keep putting in comments which is not even related to the article.Therefore,i hope the admins can consider blcoking this user.] 05:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::* Seriously, you have to make a stronger case for the block, after all, what I have mentioned in the discussion forums is nothing more than the truth, in view of the main article itself. Take a good look at your posts, the sock puppets you have created, the numerous pages you have started that has been since deleted... if anything goes, it is you who should be blocked and not me. -] 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please consider blocking {{user|SSS108}} for repeated disruption related to ]. User began editwar by , which led to a from ] (admin). ] has continued to remove disputed references without gaining consensus among editors, leading to an on the subject. Even after comment was obtained by ArbCom member (]), ] refused to accept ArbCom decision on superficial grounds to the annoyance of several editors and admins involved in this dispute, for violating ] and ].<br>
] has been causing great disruption at ] by repeating invalid arguments and continually misrepresenting arguments of other editors, leading to great frustration and annoyance in a gross violation of ]. User has also been accused of partiality and bias in relation to ], as article was subject of where User declared himself as an of article's subject. User has also been observed to be involved in long and tedious disputes of Misplaced Pages policies in support of article's subject, removing controversial material on superficial grounds. User continues to repeat invalid arguments and disrupt. Request is made for 48-hour block or longer to allow for a cool-off period. -- ] 05:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
: I came into the dispute only a few days ago as an uninvolved admin trying to sort things out. Since becoming involved my impression closely matches the above. This seems to meet the new guidelines on tendentious editing. A block might be in order. ] 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
User is a new account with obvious familiarity with Misplaced Pages offering article-for-hire services. I have no real problem with article-for-hire businesses in theory; HOWEVER, one of this users first major actions was the creation of an ] which was the subject of a contentious scandal involving ANOTHER Article-for-Hire business, called MyWikiBiz. See the The similarities seem TOO MUCH for coincidence; an article-for-hire account that is trying to involve themselves in an article that was the main point of contention for a prior article-for-hire scandal? Not sure what to make of this, but it should be watched CLOSELY. --]] 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::User is continuing to disrupt, violating ] and ] thus forcing ''another'' editwar that has brought about a . User is a repeat offender and has been for disruptive activity on the same article. User is a ] as User's displays clear partisan bias, bringing a potential conflict of interest in editing said article. Perhaps temporary block to allow cool-off for user should be enforced now? - ] 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:She just left what I interpret is a taunt on my talkpage. We may need to get Jimbo Wales in this unless the MyWikiBiz incident is considered a precedent and the community responds. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 06:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Seeing as no one is going to see this section way up on the page, I would suggest reporting to ], pointing to this section. I'm not sure if it's standard procedure, but if user needs to get blocked, it needs to be done. That not working, try ] and ]. ]<sup>]]</sup> 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:: This is complicated by ]. I will have a look at it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::Never mind, the user is now . --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:: OK, what we have here is a heated but legitimate difference of opinion between two editors in good standing. It's been to ArbCom but the disputed text is not really covered by that ruling (it's too content-specific). What it needs, more than anything else, is more eyes. I can't really pitch in because I have a pretty strong bias against the subject, plus I always tend to make things worse these days, so if any experienced pourers of oil on troubled waters want to take a look I think it will be appreciated by all concerned. It's certainly not straightforward. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm pretty sure it's one of our usual trolls (Rainbowwarrior1977, Courtney Akens, etc. etc. ) ] ] 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I'd assume so -- who the heck would hire someone who misspelled their own handle? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
=== Two users to banned ===
:::::LOL, What a shame, I was just working up a really good, frothy head of ''wrathful indignation''. The response to this whole situation, including the initial comments, deletions, and block...makes me kinda proud to be a wikipedian :) --] <sup>]</sup> 06:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've checked at the history of edits of ] and spotted in October two inappropriate users called ] & ] which are possible suckpuppets of ] due to the same style of vandalism they are not banned or notified for inappropriate usernames. Can we banned them? Thanks!--] 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that the taunt referred to by Physicq210 above contained the phrase "Why the long face, pussycat?", which was also used in a post yesterday by now-blocked User:Isitcozimblack of "Short Shorts and High Heels" fame above. ] 06:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Both blocked on October 11. -- ] 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
==Evasion of bans: ]==
"She" left word on my talk page as well. This in-duh-vidual has obviously been here before (he said, stating the obvious). - ] 06:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a complex issue because there have been a number of editors banned on this page, and this editor could just be taken a hard nose skeptic to the article. My suspicion, however, stems from this editors "blanket revert" then edit. Also, there has been a number of sesible edits mixed with the blind importing of edits written by banned users. This were both characteristics of the banned editors, and a behaviour that led to months of circular discussion, failed mediation, failed mentorship, and bans. The banned editor had create a complex network of sockpuppets that work together to evade arbcom rulings. This editor, {{vandal|AlanBarnet}} appears to be a carefully planned attempt. Either way, we'll need to continue to monitor this page and discussion. I will make edits that are entirely within policy to see if this user reverts blindly again. --] 01:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:Note: look at ]. It appears that they are trying to be unblocked because they actually took cash to fix an article, and are now unable to do so. Too bad, so sad.... --]] 17:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''User in question:'' {{vandal|AlanBarnet}}
::LMAO! I still think this whole thing is TTBS (Typical Troll Bull-Shit), but either way, ya gotta laugh :) --] <sup>]</sup> 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't end. Looks like Lady Nemisis has been unblocked, and has added the following tripe to her/his own talk page. Read the dif here: Really now, can we block this user indef once and for all??? --]] 04:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:They've been indef blocked and the talk page protected from editing. Nothing else to see here, please move on. ] 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Behavioral evidence for evasion of ban/blocks (latest at top):''' I will then concentrate on blanket reverts as that was a tactic used by the banned editors
== ]: Some sort of Personal Project Page? ==
*This was a blatant violation of wikipedia policy with misleading edit comment. The reasons given in following discussion was inadequate to justify the reversion. The changes removed by this revert were all properly discussed on the discussion page, entirely neutral, and based on paraphrases and summaries of peer reviewed psychological literature. Also removed pejorative words.
*This adds bias back onto the page. Removes some style guidelines for headlines. Adds a spam link back onto the page.
*Another blanket that removes NPOV-section tags, add some misleading statements, undoes update to cleanup tags, undoes cleanup of whitespace in headings as made by other wikipedian.
* my attempt to make sense and clean up the "ritual/techniques" section without discussion. This was followed by a series of edits that imported biased information written by banned editors which is what initial raised the flags that this user may be evading blocks. --] 09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Behavioral evidence (POV edits)
I came across ] and don't really know what to do about it. It appears to be an article in progress? But it's obviously tucked away without a proper entry title and page. The state it's in now is more of a polemic than encyclopedic. I'm keeping an eye on it for the moment but I remain perplexed about its purpose and legitimacy on Misplaced Pages. Thoughts/advice? --] (] • ]) 23:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*This editor reverts then adds POV edits mixed with useful edits. The follow import POV text written by banned editors (HeadleyDown, etc.)--] 11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:The To do subpages are crosslinked to the Main Article's talk page to provide a minor "Bulletin Board" type system of "Plz do this lol kthz" things. (Basically a todo list) I am completely unaware of why there is an article todo page rather than solely a Talk To Do page. ] 23:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)/]
::The problem Paul had (I think) was the page wasn't a subpage, it was its own article. I've moved it onto ]. ] (]) 02:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::It messes up the ] page pretty badly in its current form. Is it OK just to delete the whole thing except the actual todo list? --] 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Do you mean that what I did has somehow messed up ]? Also, what exactly are you asking to be deleted? ] (]) 03:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::NM, I see what you mean. I've moved that person's essay to their own talk page. Hopefully that's fixed it. ] (]) 03:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sarah, Yeah, that was what was confusing me. Because it didn't seem connected to ] in a direct way, such as having a link back to the main page or talk page of Lebanon, which I'm used to seeing on sub-pages. It certainly wasn't a complete article. And the general lack of wikifying, which I wouldn't expect from an article on Lebanon. It just struck me strange and worth noting. Sorry if it was a bother. Cheers. --] (] • ]) 03:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
== Sockpuppetry by ] ==
==Vanity page creators bypassing new page patrol==
I ran a CheckUser on {{user|Karcha}} on request, since this ostensibly new user has gotten right in the middle of edit wars and existing conflicts from the beginning, and is obviously not new. It is very likely that Karcha, who has been used for reverting to E104421's revision frequently, is the same user as him based on both the IP evidence, and the editing pattern. ]·] 01:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I debated whether or not to leave this comment here, for ] reasons, but decided it was better to have people knowing about it and being on the watch than just letting it go on.
:I reported the sock/main 3RR's to ], and strongly urge the admins to block the sock indef - only intention was to avoid 3RR. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::The sock has been blocked indef, and I've extended the block on the main (which was already blocked for a 3RR violation) to 6 days. Any admin is welcome to change that duration (longer or shorter) at their discretion. -- ] 02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I've reverted all of the sock's edits and crossed-out his votes at AfDs & TfDs as well. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 02:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've received an email from E104421 insisting that he's not a sockpuppeteer. He says he mainly edits from his office but sometimes from a guesthouse (which I assume is public). I'm not sure what people want to make of this. -- ] 02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::E104421 and Karcha both edit exclusively from the same university IP range. ]·] 02:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:Steel: Sure we haven't heard that one before... '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 06:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::Gimme an hour or so to investigate their edits further. From what I saw during the last days, I had the impression the contents and profile of their edits was sufficiently dissimilar that I wouldn't have supposed sockpuppetry. In particular, Karcha had some particular issues that didn't seem to be shared by E. ] ] 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Having looked into their contributions a bit more, let me express some doubts:
A lot of vanity pages are being put into the mainspace by people creating them first as user pages, where we almost always ignore them, and then moving them into the mainspace after a few days have gone by (or until their accounts have aged sufficiently for them to do this). Here's a couple examples: , . In the last couple days I've gone through the move log for about the last week, and killed a bunch of these. (Some like Cupton I left because he's not obviously CSD A7.)
*IP addresses/checkuser: In his e-mail, E declares that his main IP is a stable non-shared address at his workplace, while others he's used are from a public pool. Dmcdevit, could you perhaps check if that stable IP has also been shared by Karcha? (I'll forward you the IP from E's e-mail).
It would be great if the new page patrollers and recent change patrollers also patrolled the move log regularly. I'm trying to remember to do it.
*Temporal patterns: E and K have sometimes been editing simultaneously, in ways that only a very skilled sockpuppeteer could fake. For instance, 17 Nov, 10:16-10:17: 3 edits by K (, , ), one simultaneous edit on an entirely unrelated topic by E (), all of them substantial. 16 Nov, 21:34-21:42 two edits each by K (, ) and E (, ), alternating with only a minute in between.
A couple things from the developers might be nice:
*Language: While both accounts are clearly not native speakers of English, K's English seems substantially poorer than E's.
#Include pages on ] (mainspace) which are moved there from other spaces;
#A filter on the move log so we could see things moved between spaces, especially into the mainspace.
*Editing interests: K has a bee in his bonnet about removing historical Ottoman spellings of Turkish names. E does not seem to share this obsession. Examples:
Thanks all, ] ] 01:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
**On {{article|Khwarezmian Empire}}: Karcha insisting on removing the Ottoman spelling: , ; no such interest by E: , ,
**Similar on {{article|Mughal Empire}}: K ; E ,
**On {{article|Ak Koyunlu}}: Karcha removing Ottoman name , E shortly later reverting to Khoikhoi's version (with the name), not Karcha's
**On {{article|Hephthalite}}: Karcha rewriting , , , E shortly later reverting to a different, pre-Karcha version:
What do you guys say? ] ] 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for the heads-up on this. Some of these vanity pages, especially Cororate Spams, are like bloody cockroaches...no matter how many you stomp on, there's always more in the shadows. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Hate to butt in, but I just would like to point out that even new users have a right to jump into the middle of edit wars.. Hasn't the possibility that K is a friend of E, and E told K about Wiki and his contributions, and when K joined wiki, he automatically went to articles that his friend E told him about, but later found his own interests, crossed anyone's mind? I am not vouching for the guy by no means, but let's just not be so impulsive and not slap six-day bans on users before a detailed check had been done, as was the case for E104421. So let's not assume.. If u assume, u make.. :)) ] 10:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
: Good call, thanks for the note. This has come up before: see ]. ] ] 01:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::] is too suspicious - even ifthey aren't the same person, the nature of behaviour (3 reverts, then the other account/person kicks in) is at least ]. And a "detailed check" has been done - the most detailed possible - ]. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 10:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::Excellent: thanks to Jeff G. It's been noticed before. :) ] ] 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, to be fair, tag-teaming revert wars are quite common on these articles, everybody seems to be doing it, and it's not really evidence of planned coordination. And about the reliability of the checkuser, I've only heard Dmcdevit saying they were using the same university's IP range. However, we are dealing with particular, stable workplace IPs, so I've asked Dmcdevit for clarification if he's also checked that. ] ] 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::: As a side note, do go and vote for the bug, as that (can, maybe, sorta) show how important the community feels a certain change is. It's no guarantee that it'll be fixed, but every little bit helps. ] ] 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Daniel, what u say doesn't make sense: there are tag-team reverts happening by the masses by people who live in the farthest corners of this planet. I don't even know if E knows K, and the link that you gave doesn't mean anything, the fifth edit in question is 12 hours after the fourth one, how is that tag-team revert meatpuppetry?????? Such things happen in the space of tens of minutes. There is nothing wrong with a number of people who feel strongly about a subject to edit insistenly, without being part of a planned conspiracy. The six-day ban was given for sockpuppetry, and unless you have more evidence about meatpuppetry than a fourth and fifth edit spaced by a period of 12 hours, this ban should be annulled and these editors re-instated, and their revoked edits undone. The fact that their IPs are similar doesn't mean much, pls read my post below about that issue. ] 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::People doing these edits believe in what they do, that's why they are doing those edits. We are not talking about vandalism here, the edits in question are legitimate edits. I also exchanged emails with E on this, he says that he goes to university in METU, a university in Ankara that has 50,000 students, and that teaches in English. So it is extremely probable that there are other wiki users in the same campus. And generally, big organizations like universities have computer centers that assure their Net liasion, and as such they dish out range of IPs. Your temporal check was particularly enlightening, nobody can simply switch back from a computer to another with 60 sec intervals. A six day ban is extremely unfair, since, even though not an administrator, I am not at all convinced by this evidence that they are the same person. I just think that it is not too fair to slap such a ban, without more concrete checks like the one you had done.. That's all.. ] 10:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: In addition to what I pointed out above, I have forwarded some further evidence to Dmcdevit which, I believe, establishes with sufficient certainty that E104421 and Karcha are in fact two different individuals. They just happened to be both at the same university (which is one of Turkey's largest) and shared certain opinions (which are likely to be shared by 90% of all Turks). Contrary to all appearances (which, I admit, were strong), Karcha seems ''not'' to be a sockpuppet of E. E has plausibly explained to me that he doesn't even know K.
Yeah, I discovered this weakness nearly a year ago but didn't want to champion a fix for fear of spilling the WP:BEANS. I managed to file the bug above, but it went unnoticed, much to my dismay. Now that we all know what the deal is, lets vote for the bug, please. Vanity pages are one thing, but the potential for serious abuse is astounding. --] - '']'' - ] 11:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless there's some strong objections here, and pending ultimate confirmation from further checkuser details, I'd propose lifting the indef block on Karcha and reduce both blocks to something appropriate to "normal" 3RR offenses. ] ] 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
== out of wikipedia contact??? ==
:I oppose lifting the indef block on Karcha. In his short time here, he has been nothing but disruptive, with 90% of his edits being reverts, and the rest being personal attacks like "Kill Persianism". I don't see what good to the project we'd be doing if we unblocked him. He is essentially just another version of ]. I have no problem with lifting the block on E104421, however. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 18:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Question: Is there any guideline or policy regarding the appropriateness of a wikipedia editor getting another editor's email address through contact from the email function (we had collaborated back and forth regarding some edits several months ago), and then using that editor's email to invite them to various dating services etc? I've gotten a couple of requests from another editor, to join dating networks, social networks, and other such things. It's getting a little irritating, and I'm wondering if there is any official guidelines or policy regarding it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking that any action be taken against the other editor (hence why I'm not naming him), I am just curious as to the policy behind it. ] ] ] ] ] 02:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Point taken - in fact, I have no doubt Karcha is pretty disruptive (just like many of the people he keeps warring against). Just a question of whether he's disruptive enough for an indef; I haven't watched him closely enough for that. But I'd like to cut back E's block to normal. ] ] 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I echo Khoikhoi. If you're confident they're different users then I have no problem with lifting the block on E<''numbers''>. Karcha has been edit warring quite a bit but I'm also unsure whether s/he's done enough for an indef. -- ] 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Watch what you say about "other people" Lukas. Keep it cool. Indirect remarks like that by a new admin is terrible behavior and can be seen as personal attack. See ]. ] 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::I sent an email once the last time I got an invitation a couple months back asking it to stop. I never got a response. So I guess you could say I've attempted to talk, but I haven't successfully achieved that yet. ] ] ] ] ] 02:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Well, I would say that that activity warrants a block. There's not much to be done, though, unless you'll post who they are so that they can contribute their side to this story here. Not that I don't trust you, but check and balances and all that. Plus, it's hard to do anything without some cursory information about who to involve or do it to. ] ] 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Strong oppose to lifting both blocks. Karcha has made personal attacks against me and Iranian editors and has called me "Khorshit". No way thats just wrong ] 18:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Editor is Mohammed Salim Khan. I'll forward the respective emails to you if you like. ] ] ] ] ] 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I'd like to reiterate I've got no beef with the editor. I just have enough spam to deal with already and I think this may be an exploitable hole in wikipedia policy that needs to be filled somehow. ] ] ] ] ] 02:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Duly noted that you have no beef with the editor; still, however, it's not O.K. Is that their actual username? They're not showing up in ]. ] ] 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::: That's the user's email "name". Give me 2 minutes, I'll dig up where the username is. ] ] ] ] ] 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: , user ]. Be careful because there are like a dozen users with similar names that are a combination/permutation of the words Salim and Swat.] ] ] ] ] 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Actually, see the below links: I don't actually know which one it was that I talked to. ] ] ] ] ] 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Is it really an abuse of Misplaced Pages function? From how I read it, the OP volunteered her/his email address in a previous exchange, and that information is now being mis-used. ] 02:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::: I see what you're saying, but they used the ] feature to get Swatjester's e-mail address, and then used that address to spam him. In my mind, that's indirect abuse of a Misplaced Pages feature. ] ] 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Hmmm, I see what ''you're'' saying, but it seems like a dangerous precedent. I am totally on board with sanctions against certain editors who engage in off-wiki stalking, but I think (speaking as a non-admin) that we (as editors) have to take responsibility for giving out our email addresses. The OP said s/he had 'collaborated' with the other editor in a 'back and forth' exchange, which IMO says that they had productive contact, which means this is in effect a friendly off-wiki contact that went a bit sour when the OP started getting emails s/he didn't like. I am on the bulk email lists of several editors thru wiki contact who now send me christmas greetings, e-cards, and jokes. Can I get them blocked? Cuz it seems like the same thing to me. Not dissing the OP btw. ] 03:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Our "collaboration" was his original email saying "Why did you nominate my article for deletion" and I explained it "It was a duplicate article, highly POV, and almost unrecognizable as being written in the english language it was that poorly written." That was the extent of it. He persisted, and I sent him one more email explaining myself again. That was the last contact I had until his (I count 4 that are still archived on gmail, and I think more are on my other laptop) spams. ] ] ] ] ] 03:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Even this other guy E112312 whatever his name is, look at his edit summaries. You trying to tell me that This is a productive user????? ] 18:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Some strangeness: I remember vaguely noting this the first time, but there is some real weirdness with this user. I chalk it up to being a pakistani national on the en wiki, but he's made like a half dozen usernames, and multiple copies of similar articles. See top of the page for a brief summary, but there is , , , , , , , , , , , . That's an indirect search of "swat pakistan hospital". Something is really weird here. ] ] ] ] ] 03:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I Agree with Khoikhoi; Karcha should remain blocked, as he is an extremely disruptive editor. As for E104421, while I can't help feeling something fishy in what seems his coodination with Karcha, I think we should always in doubtful cases assume good faith, so the unblocking is OK for me to.--] 18:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
* If it's ] invites, I would say it's unintentional spamming, which it is best to just kindly tell the person to stop. If this is done out of malice, then I think it qualifies as ]. - ] 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
: User:Dmcdevit is the only admin here with the checkuser tool, his findings indicate that {{user|Karcha}} is indeed a sockpuppet of {{user|E104421}}. Since then, User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise has been campaigning/Wikilawyering for User:E104421, and now he's unilaterally overruled User:Dmcdevit's checkuser of User:E104421 , caiming that "sock-puppetry accusations have been disproven" when User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise is a new admin who has no access to checkuser, and hence is in no position to "prove" or "disprove" anything beyond doubt, and User:Dmcdevit's position has not changed. I find this whole thing very disturbing, especially considering User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise's history, under his previous username, and the fact that he unblocked Zaparojdik, a freind of E104421, and another problematic Turkish user only last week , or how he tried to justify Karcha addressing an Iranian user as "KhorSHIT". There is a trend here, and it isn't good. --] 23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe it would be malicious, but it IS continuing after I've asked it stop. I've received three in the past month. I'm assuming good faith here, I'm not asking for blocks for the user, I'm not claiming malicious intent or anything. I'm simply noting that this does seem like a fairly large loophole with harassment potential (in my case it's merely annoying, its not at the level of harassment yet.) that should be fixed somehow, and seperately that the dearth of usernames and article clones that the Mohammad Salim Khan's have made are rather strange and worthy of attention. Like I said, the user identifies himself as a pakistani national, and his english is very poor, so I'm chalking most of this up to bad grasp of the language and customs. ] ] ] ] ] 03:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:"Problematic Turkish user".. Well great.. "Problematic user" would have sufficed since there are many "problematic" users of all nationalities. Please let's all take a chill pill.. ] 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::There is also this issue: ]. Again for a new admin he is quick to criticise and single out others and speak on "admin authority". I can respect motivation but for a new admin he is too familiar with the "admin style" and technical parts and also as Mani says above its kind of weird for him to be so quick to step over Dmcdevits finding and make an unblock on a clearly troubling user. To me this all seems like playing games and WP should not be about playing games or backdoor politicalisms. ] 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:::No backdoor what? Please stop attacking other admins because they don't agree with you. FPAS' check was thorough and in good faith. Please be more respectful. In any case, how is this any '''relevant'''? FPAS's comments in an RfC in a totally different issue has nothing to do with the case at hand. And I don't understand your beef with FPAS either, just because he made his own investigation, that doesn't justify such ad hominim attacks. Gees, what the hell is going on? ] 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I was surprised, to say the least, to see that E104221 had already been unblocked. (Especially since we exchanged emails afterwards still discussing this without Future Perfect at Sunrise telling me he'd already unblocked.) The "further evidence" he sent me was ''not'' very strong, and he shouldn't have unblocked over it, without consensus. Keep in mind tha "CheckUSer is not a magic pixie dust" works both ways: seemingly vague CheckUser results are not proof that two users aren't the same person, especially when the behavior is proof in itself, and the CheckUSer only serves to confirm it. As I replied in email, Many of FPAS' objections seem oversimplification: remember that both were on many common ''shared'' IPs. The behavior is just too coincidental to be believable: hardly ever do two users on the same IP range, much less the same university, edit the same articles at the same time. But editing the same articles at the same time, both involved in the same dispute, reverting to each other, and doing it in such a way that each avoids 3RR by the other's reverts? I think we may be grasping at straws here trying to find a way to demonstrate their distinct, when the opposite is much more obvious. Please remove blocks without consensus in the future. I've reblocked E104221 since the sockpuppetry was in no way "disproven". ]·] 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well, they can be two friends in the same university. Did that cross your mind DMC? And how do you know how this university dishes out its IP addresses? avoiding 3RR blocks by tag-team reverting is done by people who lives tens of thousands of kilometres away, are we going to block all of them too? And besides there are many software tools and web-sites out there to escape such IP identification. This guy goes to Middle Eastern Technicla University in Ankara, the best technical university in Turkey, so I guess he would have been much smarter if he wanted to engage in sockpuppetry instead of just jumping into the computer next to him and typing away. There is no question of coincidence. So you are basically saying that I have no right to tell a friend at office or university "hey, why don't you check out wiki, these are some of the articles that i have been involved in"? I don't know that guy, and I don't know how anything happenned, but he told me that he doesn't even know Karcha. And escape 3RR in a period of 14 hours? You gotta be joking. In the case that got E suspended in the first place, there is a period of 14 hours between the fourth and fifth revert, how is that such a blatant case of tag-team reverting? ] 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Btw, I don't think that calling another user "Khorshit" are the grounds for an indef. Bans should increase with every other offence. First give him smaller bans, and see what he will make of it. Maybe he continued being "disruptive" since nobody warned him that he could get banned for doing so. And he continued since he never got banned. ] 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== Persistanttrolling ==
== Holocaust Research Team ==
Normally I know what to do when a new user posts promotion across a number of articles and pages. But not this time. is potentially a very sensitive cleanup, even though it doesn't need administrator privilege. And so I thought maybe I should bring it here. (Let me know if this was wrong). ] 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
{{User|Analyzethis}}, clearly not happy with discussion on his link at ], is launching an IP attack on me and {{User|A. B.}}. So far I've blocked about 6 or 7 IPs, 5 in the last 10 minutes. ] hasn't been too helpful. So does anyone have any suggestions on handling this? Short of semi-ing my user page, I'm at a loss. Thanks, ] 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:I've reverted all of it and given a warning. Spam is spam. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:: See also the from 71.243.87.210. Like Notinasnaid, I'm hesitant to wade in here. ] 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::: OK, not so hesitant - I've warned and am reverting. Anyway, keep an eye out for more of this in Holocaust-related articles. ] 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
See for what is claimed to be the interesting backstory to this one month old donations requesting one-man operated site. ] 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:The IPs are mostly Korean so far, and not from Analyzethis' home area. They may be proxies, but if so, there will never be technical evidence to confirm the alleged sockpuppetry. Do you have other strong evidence that the user is behind the attacks? If so, post an explanation and see if an uninvolved admin will agree to block the named account. Otherwise you'll just have to keep blocking the IPs. ] 03:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:This continues, and appears to be a confirmation (in case one were needed) that the website owner/operator is adding the links. Which is a simple and clear violation of ], perhaps? ] 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Mhm. Thanks for the background info, WAS 4.250. It certainly explains why so many of the edits were replacing links to deathcamps.org. ] 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I blocked them for 24 hours last night for these offences, and have tried to explain the problem in email, though I'm not certain if they'll change, as they seem to think they were correct (that's the impression I get). <strong>]]]</strong> 07:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Aside from the fact that the user has been targeting me and A. B., the two people heavily involved in keeping the link out of the article, and a promise that IPs would come to add the link back , not really any evidence to support it. In addition, the of IP edits came 40 minutes after Analyzethis was blocked. That's about all I've got. ] 03:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Ones that look like open proxies should be indefblocked though, right? (I've personally been a bit puzzled by the ] project and when it is and isn't okay to indefblock an IP - how much proof is needed). —] (]) 04:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::The IP is scanned by a web-based tool to see if common ports used by proxy servers are open. If one or more is detected, the IP is blocked. ] 04:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Back again with {{IPvandal|221.145.192.40}} which I blocked for 48 hours. ] 06:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:And {{IPvandal|75.51.230.54}} also blocked for 48. ] 06:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::And {{IPvandal|61.82.12.97}} which {{User|Antandrus}} blocked as an open proxy and {{IPvandal|58.149.155.10}} which I blocked for 48 hours. I have now semi-protected my user and talk pages as well as A. B.'s. ] 06:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
==Did I cross the line?==
== How long to block? ==
There is a user who some time ago (top of the last archive of my talk I think) posted a message tha went something along the lines of "''I see you're a smoker, I think you should stop''" I added a lenghty and quite tongue in cheek reply that basicaly said ''thanks for the concern, but please stay out of my personal life.''
I've just reverted ]. Has a history of vandalism and warnings. If blocked, how long is appropriate period? ] 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday, that same user came back and osted again. I'm actually onn a bit of a wikibreak right now because my illness has the better of me at the moment, and so I'm prone to snapping (perhaps I should leave a messagebox? lol). However, reading his message, I saw red and couldn't resist replying. I tried to keep civil, but also wanted to be perfectly blunt about it as it seems that the message didn't quite get across the first time. I'm a little worried that I may have crossed the personal attack line unintentionally at the moment (possibly because I'm worrying needlessly, or possibly because it comes close - I'm not the best person to judge that at the moment, which is the ''exact'' reason I'm taking a break right now. Could somebody please review my comment ] and let me know? I'd ask at editor review, but it's only a review of one message I'm hoping for rather than my whole contib history. Thanks ] 02:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
: No, that's fine.Ifitwasme,Iwould'vejustremoved the commentfrommytalkpage. ] ] 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
: I'd say at least 48 hours, as it's the second time he's been blocked this month for the same thing. However, Tawker already blocked him for 24 hours... ]]<sup>(])</sup> 02:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'd say your reply was quite reasonable. ] ] 04:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
== Question about Replacing page with: type vandalism - Just a question ?==
== Possible sockpuppetry ==
I haven't found that type of vandalism in my first nine months since i've started to edit at Misplaced Pages. But over the past two days, i've been concern about a new trend of vandalism. There have been tons of IP's along with registered users doing vandalism by using the edit summary : '''Replacing page with XXXX ''' (which is generally non sense). I've first spotted in the ] article when it was a featured page. Then multiple pages such as ], ], ] and many many more were attacked by the same method. Even my own User Page got attacked today.
Rather than take this to ], I'd like someone to check out the situation and determine an appropriate course of action.
I'm wondering if those types of vandalism are coming the same group or a same user using multiple suckpuppets and IP's or it. Or it's just a new option I haven't notice? Thanks!--] 03:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
] was created by {{user|Otis Fodder}} who, when the article was ], deleted both the and the page itself. {{user|Tennyson Miles}}, whose account was created just five minutes later, left on my talk page just a few minutes after I a comment at the AfD page (not knowing it had been blanked). When I realised that the page had been blanked and it, ] immediately re-blanked the page -- his ''second ever edit'' (the only other being the message he left at my talk page).
:It's a new feature of MediaWiki. If someone doesn't use an edit summary and they blank or almost blank a page, it's smart enough to put that as the summary. There is no massive attack of vandals. - ]</small> (]) 03:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Yup, it’s an ]. — ] ] 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks a lot for that! I was wondering about the suddent apparence of that especially when ] did that to my page. But it certainly make vandalism removal a bit easier for us. Thanks!--] 03:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This smells very much like sockpuppetry to me, so I'd appreciate it if someone took a look for me. Thanks! ]<font color="green">]</font>] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 07:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
== Crzrussian ==
:Tennyson made their third ever edit, , which was to blank the article in question. ]<font color="green">]</font>] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 07:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I recently was checking new pages, and I then received a message from Crzrussian. It was all about not biting newbies, and I was trying to be nice while still doing the right thing. So I wrote him back and said talk about biting the newbies, as I haven't had alot of time here myself. Then I got a message from an anonymous user telling me that crz has been causing alot of problems and "throwing his weight around like he owns the place". I'm asking now, to review what Crzrussian has been doing and deal with him or look into the matter deeper as you feel necessary. Not taking any sides here, just making a suggestion. Please read the respective comments on my talk page, and thanks so much. ] 04:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Based on the message you received , looks like CrzRussian's got a stalker. Probably the same banned user who complained about him here . Looks to be from the same ISP. ] 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Ardo, welcome to Misplaced Pages in case no one's said that before. I wouldn't worry too much about the last person who posted on your homepage. He seems to be involved in a dispute with Crzrussian that you don't have anything to do with. As for the note you got from Crzrussian, I think he is right that you are probably being a little bit too quick to put deletion tags on bios of potentially notable people. You might want to wait a couple of days after an article is created before tagging it, for example, in case the original author is planning on expanding it, and speedy tags should only be used on bios of people who are ''definitely'' not notable. I might not have said what Crzrussian said in exactly the same words he used, but he does have a point, and I'm sure you'll bear it in mind.
::In hopping over to your userpage and talkpage as you requested, I noticed that you have a lot of information about your "real world" self on your userpage. There has been a lot of discussion about whether it's a good idea for younger editors to be revealing too much identifying information. Especially if you're going to be active in vandal-fighting and proposing articles for deletion, you might not want some jerk who gets annoyed with you to be able to see that information. I say that not because I want to breed paranoia here, but it's a concern that's been expressed from time to time and you might want to delete the information like your real name and school from the page. ] 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== Angry Bahraini again ==
== Page "Metrocenter Mall" was deleted without notice, needs to be reinstated ==
I have been editing pages on shopping centers in the Phoenix, AZ area, where I live, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where I grew up.
Um, the angry Bahraini has come back as ] and is reverting everything I edit. Please block THIS IP as well. Does this guy work at the ISP, so that he can evade blocks at will? ] 04:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Today I found that the page "Metrocenter Mall" was deleted by admin JzG citing (WP:CSD G11, spam,) as a reason. I would beg to disagree with the conclusion as 1) Metrocenter is a major shopping center in Phoenix, one of America's major cities and 2) using such criteria would disqualify several dozen articles on shopping malls. Shopping centers are a topic of great social, cultural and economic significance in the USA and worldwide and deserve coverage on Misplaced Pages. Articles on them should not be deleted. Please strongly consider reposting the article, and/or I will begin a replacement article within 48 hours.--] 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
: He's now using ] to revert all my edits. Please please roll back his edits and block THIS IP too. ] 10:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
*I left a note on the above user's talk page advising (1) to discuss with the deleting admin and (2) take it to DRV. I also mentioned that recreating deleted content is generally wasted effort. ] (]) 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Do not need to work on ISP. Usually many ISP have big pool of IP address (many class C or few Class B address). Hence each time when you reconnect to them you might end up having differnt IP address thanks to ] (espacially when using dialup connections). Furthermore, in places like Lahore, Pakistan you can buy a one Euro card of any ISP use it for few hours and next time can get different card of differnt ISP. Remember we had there dozens of ISPs. So changing IP address is very easy. Just for your information and also I have never done that myself :) (that guy is not from Pakistan too but it was an example country) .... --- ] 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
** You may be interested in the discussion of ]. I don't see why we give malls the thumbs down when they are valid structures akin to other notable buildings. Yeah, some do not need to be on here for notability reasons, but many have ] histories. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 03:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
* I disagree with its deletion, and I've submitted it to ]. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
== problem at Abraham Lincoln ==
== User:Jcurtis ==
One editor named Stevewk has a problem with the major article on ]. He says the article is too long and proposes to remove all the information on the American Civil War in order to shorten it. The other editors unanimously and strongly disagree with his insistence first that the information (over half the article) be blanked, and then that it be moved somewhere else. Warnings seem not to help, as he goes back again and again. Probably 3R is involved, and more serious anti-Wiki behavior as well. ] 06:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
] has been warned several times to stop blanking external links in articles and adding POV comments. He did this again multiple times today. I reported him to WP:AIV but they said to take it here. <tt>]</tt>|] 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:Except for the 3RR violation (for which I have blocked Stevewk for 24 hours—five reverts in 10 hours is quite excessive), this is a problem for ]. Consider opening an ] on the article or asking for mediation to smooth communication. Future 3RR problems should be reported at ]. — ] ] 08:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:This user continues to add POV material and blank external links. Can nothing be done? <tt>]</tt>|] 20:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::I have pointed the user at ], which discourages this kind of wholesale moving of content without leaving a summary in place. The cut-down version of the article was very non-optimal and didn't even mention the ] outside the lead : its excessive length is a minor fault compared to that. ] - ] 11:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
==DRV on Cleveland Steamer==
==Reliable verifiable sources on Peter Pickles==
] recently went through it's 6th AfD (]) instigated only two weeks after the last one. The response was 'keep', and in all previous AfDs it has either been Keep or No Consensus. It was brought to Deletion Review ] (where the nominator essentially tried ''another'' AfD, pretty much in the wrong place) and consensus was building to endorse closure when ] deleted it out-of-hand. He's entitled to his opinion on the matter, but he can't ignore process (which involved support from other admins to keep) and delete it like that. I would welcome opinions on the conduct of the decision (not so much on the content of the page). ] 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Martin Waller is a serious economic reporter for the serious Times Newspapers Ltd., so when he published a reliable verifiable article on a notable person dying, naturally "verifiable not true" wikipedia publishes an article on him at ]. I have no such reliable verifiable source that he is a fictitious person altho I can do original research to such an end. Good thing we have ]. ] 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Keep in mind that the most current DRV was initiated by the sockpuppet of ] to boot, and that Improv is the same admin who found it prudent to delete articles such as ] and ] as spam. I have a feeling, but no evidence, that ], the 6th AfD'er may be a sock of Crawford too. --] <small>]</small> 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:Good thing we have CSD A7. Why can't we just delete it via that. There is no assertion of notability in that article. --] <small>]</small> 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::When I started writing that, it still existed. It doesn't anymore. Never mind. --] <small>]</small> 00:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, if the author's column was considered a reliable source, then wouldn't his subsequent column retracting the original one be equally reliable? ] 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:i deleted it after reading . ] (]) 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Ouch! That was embarrassing; thanks for deleting. At least we can self-correct fairly quickly when these things come up. --] <font color ="green">]</font > 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't let process get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. I hope nobody restores this. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
:Too late. <i><b>]</b>]</i> 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::Isn't process meant to ''help'' improve the encyclopaedia? I've got nothing against debate on the merits of the page, just against admins making decisions unilaterally. The article has been restored (the talk page hasn't) now. ] 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
: Process (i.e. the rule of law) is the only thing that keeps wikipedia from descending into a Hobbesian state of eternal wheel warring. An admin that shits all over process - whatever the Cleveland Steamer of the moment - thereby demonstrating pure disdain for fellow users who are participating in good faith in the process, should not be an administrator. An administrator who becomes convinced that his judgement is more worthy than the collective contribution and thinking of hundreds of other users no longer has the self control to act as an administrator. This event was a good example of why all admins should be open to recall. --] 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::Now now, I don't think we should be recalling Improv because of this. He's a good admin and deserves to keep those responsibilities. Does he make bad decisions now and then? Sure, but so does everyone. A bad decision once-in-a-while doesn't mean we should take away a person's admin duties. Here, just like with the cookie fiasco, I believe he was acting in good faith. He might have made bad decisions, but he was certainly editing in good faith. - ] 20:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The thing is, in the real world you don't get too many shots at fiascos before you are ousted. Just ask ], ] or ]. In the real world, the issue is competence, good judgement and the impact of decisions, not good or bad faith. This is not this administrator's first fiasco. Since in his remarks below, he indicates strong opinions on who should and should not be an administrator, let him show good faith by adding his name to ] --] 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Um, I'd prefer that we not use ] as a bludgeon. Improv is welcome to be in, or not in, as he chooses, that's the point of it being a voluntary category. ++]: ]/] 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::You might note that a website encyclopedia is quite far from the state of nature, and that Hobbes was a bit mad. —]→] • 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Are you talking about the philosopher or the stuffed tiger? The Misplaced Pages article lacks any details about Thomas Hobbes' mental health. --- ] 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Consensus can't override foundation issues. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a slang dictionary. This should have been left deleted. ] ] 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::And we've been through all those issues ad nauseum, and they have not gained a lick of traction. At best, they don't violate any "foundation issues," at worst it's a judgement call - which is why consensus should rule the day. --] <small>]</small> 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::You cannot assert that it overrides foundation issues, it is ''not'' clear-cut. If it was, there would not have been nearly so much debate. It was an issue with experienced editors arguing coherently for both sides, and in these cases consensus is the ''only'' way you should decide it. It is not up to the discretion of a single admin. ] 23:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I must say, though Improv might have broken process, that seeing it go would have been very good riddance. To give my nasty opinion, it's a shame that humanity would even think of such an awful deed, let alone practice it and glorify it with an article. One thing Misplaced Pages does not need for publicity is Jon Stewart standing on comedy central and quoting directly from this article. Granted, I can't support this with rule (hence the reason I didn't vote in the last afd), but wow, this is pretty low. -]<sup>]]</sup> 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: It isn't at all clear to me that this should have been deleted. The matter is sourced at this point and I see no obvious foundation issue. As for Jon Stewart, I think Misplaced Pages can survive ribbing from Comedians. I could very well see someone see this as a reason to get rid of ] or some other sexual article that offends people's sensibility. Personally, I find this topic disgusting and revolting to the point where I almost have to work to suppress my gag reflex. However, none of that is a reason for deletion and is certainly not a reason for an out of process deletion.] 03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
] is a sockpupet for someone. Don't know who. All the user has done to this point is nominate articles for deletion. See: Each of his/her nominations appears to be notable, and not really worthy of deletion. Someone to keep an eye on. --]] 02:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Agree completely with JoshuaZ and JJay above. I don't see "Does Jon Stewart find this article amusing? (YES/NO)" on our list of inclusion criteria. A) I don't understand why this is a Foundation issue; B) It is inherently '''outrageous''' and anti-wiki for an admin to blatantly overide consensus; C) It is deeply offensive (far more offensive than the article itself) that anyone should seek to censor the encyclopaedia because they don't like the information it contains- see e.g. , and many similar, for some examples of how and why this is done. 6 AfDs is enough. ] 04:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] sockpuppet abuse ==
:::::: The problem is not that people don't like it, but that the article consists of a dictionary definition, some original research, and "pop culture references" (aka cruft). There is nothing encyclopaedic about this article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I didn't say to censor it, I said it would be good riddance if someone did. But, in any case, my personal opinion (not Misplaced Pages policy, so I can't ask for it to be enforced), is that sometimes we take free speech, which is supposed to be a means, and make it into an end. Free speech is supposed to help people become more informed for a useful purpose (a means), help improve something (a means), etc.; becoming offended at the lack of free speech (an end) does not fit into this category. It's proper to become offended at the lack of free speech where it's used repressively, or in order to hurt content. Do you see my point about free speech being a means, not an end (I'm not sure if I'm communicating it well). Even Misplaced Pages says Misplaced Pages is ] anarchy, meant to test the limits of free speech. Again, I don't think it's policy, so I have no right to enforce it or call for its enforcement; just my opinion, as we all have opinions. -]<sup>]]</sup> 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::::The "useful purpose" is ''knowledge''. Full stop. ] 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Refer to ] for evidence. Me and a couple other editors that are keeping an eye on ] are always noticing new sockpuppets from this user. I think it's time that the 3 or 4 IP ranges that Pflanzgarten are using (Listed ) are blocked, as I personally feel that's the only way he/she would stop. That, or a complaint to his/her ISP. I just wanted to list this problem here, so an Administrator can intervene in a way, possibly like how I recomended. // ] <sup>(<i><span style='color:grey'>]</span>)</i></sup> 05:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like a lot of those IPs come up red at completewhois, like , and should go to ]. As for the article, there are still only one or two vandal edits per day which doesn't seem even semi-protection worthy to me. But I've seen a lot of different opinions on that subject so I'm sure many will disagree. —] (]) 14:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like it, too bad. Don't read it. We are not the morality police. ] 05:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
== Project page vandalism ==
*For reference, my deletion had nothing to do with finding the subject disgusting or anything of that sort. I am libertine when it comes to such things. I deleted it solely because it was very clearly a dictionary definition. Consensus is not about voting, it's about discussion, and good arguments. This is an exceptionally clear case of when loud users who don't understand our project goals lead a bunch of fans away from them, ignoring everything our project is about and confusing consensus with democracy. I don't intend to redo my deletion (although I would encourage other admins to do so) because I don't wheel war, but I stand by it entirely. Wiktionary and Misplaced Pages are not the same project, and process is not sacred. People who would never go against a "vote", no matter how ill-informed and ill-conducted, even when it stands in the way of project goals, are people who should probably never be either closing discussions, nor should they be administrators. --] 07:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
** So although you have no intention of engaging in a wheel war personally, you encourage other admins to do so? Take a bow my friend. ] 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
***I encourage other admins to delete it, not to wheel war. This is how we reconcile project goals, IAR, and a desire not to wheel. As you say, I shall take a bow. *bow* :) --] 07:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
**But the way you deleted it implied it was something you would have happily deleted on sight, seeing as you deleted it in the midst of a DRV (which is about process, not content), which was endorsing the previous decision anyway. If it is so "exceptionally clear", how come admins support both sides? Should the admins who closed the 6 AfDs on the article all step down? I would say that people who will happily delete something, out-of-process, against consensus from experienced editors and admins, because of their ''personal'' opinion of the arguments shouldn't be an admin either. ] 07:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
***Look at the AfD. Half of them don't even address the article, merely saying "abuse of AfD" or something, and are invalid on their face because they ignore the question of if the article should be deleted. None of the other arguments adequately deal with the fact that a definition and a few references that the term is indeed used does not make it anything more than a dictionary definition. Neither consensus nor AfD consist of taking votes. I am not proposing that anyone step down, merely that people had mistaken ideas about what AfD is about. We all make mistakes, and we all come to understand the project and its goals better as time goes on - demanding "justice" for an inadequately thought-out position would be a bad idea. I should note that what actually happens always comes down to judgement, whether from one person or from some combination of people - there is no shame in "personal opinion/judgement". --] 07:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
****The reason they don't address the article is because there were ''five'' previous AfDs. The issue had been discussed at length and every time no consensus formed to delete. And no, you didn't ask anyone to step down, but you did say they shouldn't be administrators (and the only way for that to happen is via voluntary desysopping or arbitration). Of course the issue comes down to judgement, but when many users have the same opinion on something it is called consensus. Your opinion is not worth more than anyone else's, and where there's disagreement you shouldn't take action on it alone. ] 16:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*****Or, alternatively, they could come to understand what's needed to keep the project working. I'm not a big fan of removing admin bits from people - if it becomes too common, then the project will fall to rabid populism and we'll see even more use of the resources of the project by people doing unrelated things. I'm not saying I don't believe in consensus, but I have a very different understanding/definition of it than yours, and to whatever extent yours means "let people vote and give them whatever they vote on", I think that's a recipe for killing Misplaced Pages. Long-term users should be educating less long-term users, and having discussions on where the project is going and how to interpret/apply policy. This is very different than voting, and it's what's needed to keep the project healthy. Previous AfDs don't give one a blank checque to not contribute to the current one. AfD is about judgement, not voting, and people pretending that they're voting while not contributing to the discussion should be ignored. The case is clear, most of the people aiming to keep are people who have never shown a significant understanding of policy (newbies), and previous people who closed the AfDs were not doing their job (as is anyone who goes by numbers rather than argument). --] 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
****My opinion isn't so much "let people vote and give them whatever they vote on", but I don't think that this applies in this case. You say previous AfD closers weren't doing their job because they went by numbers, not arguments, but in this case I don't believe that applies. Do you honestly think that the decision on this debate was clear-cut, that it should be deleted beyond a doubt? Because that means there are a lot of experienced editors and administrators who are seriously misunderstanding policy, which is not encouraging for the project as a whole. I think this is a judgement call. ] 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*****You have it exactly. I believe that the decision was clear-cut, and that the project as a whole is not in a good state. What we need, I think, is a very hard push against voting and towards discussion with a strong reliance on project goals. As a thought experiment -- what would need to change about the article to make it a dictionary definition? --] 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I needed to find out what the term "Cleveland Steamer" meant. I looked at WP first. Now I know.... Knowledge isn't always pretty. ] 22:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*****Not a great deal, I admit, but I think it has the potential for expansion beyond that (plus I generally think it is a useful article on a topic which won't be covered in a dictionary). Can I ask you what you think of ], ] and ]? Do you think they should be deleted? And if so, should you/would you delete them on sight as in Cleveland Steamer? To be honest, my concern is not so much about the merits of this specific article but the deleting of it in such an out-of-process way. You essentially speedily deleted it based on a dicdef argument, which is specifically listed as a non-criteria on ]. Under what grounds did you think that was justified? ] 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
******I haven't looked at them, but if they're nothing more than a dicdef, then I'd delete them on sight if it became clear that Wiktionary did not want them. Very few "processes" on Misplaced Pages are hard rules - they're guidelines that, as per ], are ignored when they lead to problem results. That naturally causes trouble/conflict when people notice (and in situations like this, people are bound to), but when people arn't so caught up in rules that they lose sight of the project, sometimes the right thing happens despite the rules and the people who are sticklers for them. Process is not sacred here, and out-of-process is not always a mark of something bad happening. I felt it was justified based on the content, the fact that we have a project specifically for that stuff, and that having talked with some representative folk for that project, they don't want it there either. Misplaced Pages is not a "rule of law" type community. It's a bit more cowboy, and involves judgement, give and take, a certain amount of oligarchy, and a lot of messiness. People who attempt to simplify it *into* rule of law generally find their stay here disappointing. --] 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
******At this point, those first two articles are even more dicdef-y than this one. <i><b>]</b>]</i> 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
*****I agree very much with your last 2 sentences, and I think I now understand your reasoning behind your action. The problem with ], however, is that it can be invoked in either direction (and if I recall correctly, someone used it as an argument in one of the AfDs). You could say delete it on sight per IAR, because it violates policy. I could say keep per IAR (because it's useful and not actually gonna be found in a dictionary), and don't delete on sight because ''that'' violates policy. The result? A mess. I don't think you're going to change your mind and say it's useful and should be kept anymore than I'm going to say it should be deleted - we both have our views. I would merely ask you take more care over using IAR on an obviously contentious issue (and, I suppose, state explicitly that you're using it). ] 01:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Exactly. The big problem with ] is that it might encourage people to ignore all rules! The end result? Either a) complete chaos (likely) or b) domination of the project by an elite "superclass" of users (i.e. admins) who, despite making up, what- 0.01% - or less- of the project, can take action in spite of clear consensus. Depressingly, I often see comments by certain admins that come very close to actively agitating for the latter scenario. This article has been nominated for deletion 6 times, survived every time, and yet I do not hear trumpets sounding or the walls of Wiki-Jericho crumbling. Is there any scenario that would justify ignoring consensus in such a blatant fashion. By the same token, I'm not necessarily arguing that the admin concerned was acting in bad faith- but it was, IMHO, a bad, bad call. ] 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
**Ignore all rules does not mean ignore all people. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, The project titled 'Neutral Coverage of Sri Lankan Crisis' or ] has been vandalized again. Please check this diff's page which points out to by . This is the first IP , which appears to be a completely dud IP created only for vandalizing such pages. The second IP seems to be a professional tailormade-vandaluser IP which has involved in personal attacks, racial slurs and also foul language in Misplaced Pages all of which can be found in his .
***No, it means don't follow a rule that will result in the wrong outcome. Ignoring people who want the wrong outcome may be a side effect. In fact, that's a desired side effect. — ] ] 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
****But then you have to decide which is the "wrong" outcome. Which in a contentious issue is not agreed on. So how do you decide which is wrong? By looking at the arguments made by the people. Which you can then choose to ignore...it's a circular argument. ] 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
I kindly request the admins top please check both the IPs for all the malice that they have created. Thanks ] (] <small>•</small> ]) 11:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone scrub the page history for ], please? He identifies himself as an 11-year-old child, and he's posted a signficant amount of personal information on his user page. -- ] ] ] 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:: I would also have to support blocking this I.P, he has malicously damaged my User Talk Page over an article ]. I can't help but find the relation between this user and ] who is also under close scrutiny, as the I.P in question has a noticable change on the article by reverting it to Lahiru's original post.--] 12:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Sharz to correct one minor thing you meant this article ]. ] 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:I deleted it, in accordance with the ] policy, as being too much potentially identifying information. (] ] 04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
== Evading indef bans {{vandal|AlanBarnet}} ==
Thanks! I also speedy-deleted an article the kid created with basically the same information, and told him on his talk page to refrain from posting personal information about himself. -- ] ] ] 05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The intial sockpuppet check found tentatively unrelated, and suggest that we rely on bahavioral evidence. Will post another checkuser with HypnoSynthesis.
:You know, of course, that there isn't a "] policy" -- it's a proposal under discussion, without consensus. Not saying it's a bad idea to remove this stuff from Misplaced Pages, but you're doing it on your own, not as a matter of policy. --] 05:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Arbcom case: ]
Checkuser: suggested that we submit here if there is enough behavioral evidence
;Behavioral evidence connecting {{vandal|AlanBarnet}} also edited from {{vandal|88.106.4.118}} and {{vandal|88.106.13.232}} other possibly {{vandal|HypnoSynthesis}}
Point taken. But whether it's an official policy, a proposal, or just simple ], an 11-year-old child shouldn't be posting his full name, city of residence, school name, names of several friends, and other personal information, including a description of his house. -- ] ] ] 06:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*Inserted statements without bothering to use ref citation style used in document. This was also done by banned editors. Used the same referencing style as was copy and pasted by banned editors in the past. Eg. {{vandal|HeadleyDown}}{{vandal|Camridge}} and other banned editors.
*Created account and immediately started editing the NLP with a skeptical POV, also started with revert then edit, pasted text written by banned editors.
*Has repeatedly inserted the same text written by banned editors, . The way it is written sets up a straw man argument by defining NLP in the most flakey or negative terms.
*Editor also personally attacked {{vandal|Comaze}} in text and incivility in edit comments,
*Reverted blindly on a number of occasions: See thread.
*Immediately accussed other editors of NPOV violations while pushing a skeptical POV
*Other wikipedian have identified similar editing patterns the banned editors
*Personal attack on Comaze in edit comments and text. Essentially accusing other editors as "cult" members
*Has pasted and copied content written by a banned editors. Has even reverted. The reverts even retained formatting, spelling and referencing errors that had been fixed by other editors.
*Simlar skeptical tabloid style and POV as banned editors
*Has reverted without even bothering to keep spelling, style, referencing corrections by other editors
*Uses same referencing style as statements posted by banned editors. Has little interest in using proper wiki ref systems as agreed upon by other editors
*Inserted misleading quotes and statements. Eg. inserted unverified rumour as fact see "Jedi Project" .
*Often confuses science fact with opinion, or personal belief of authors
--] 13:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Just a reminder: Several of these "I'm very young, here's my photo and personal information" accounts cropped up recently that turned out to all be from the same IP. One theory is that someone was either doing basic trolling ''or'' looking for a perverted-justice style incident. Now back to our regularly scheduakled programming. - ] 05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
== Speedy deletion of image ==
*However, we should also not be ]ing newbies, and comments such as ''"We cannot allow you to post personal information about yourself"'' could have been worded a bit more tactfully. Perhaps we should create a template for this matter. (]) 10:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:You're right, Radiant. Looking back on it, I could have found a slightly gentler way to phrase that. A template would be a great idea. -- ] ] ] 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:*Ok, I went back and rephrased my comments on ] to be a bit more tactful. -- ] ] ] 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Working on the template idea, I've hacked ] up. Edits/moves to a different location/name are welcome. Thanx. ] 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I speedy deleted an image, ], because it was created by an self-described sockpuppet of Blu Aardvark, and because it was extremely offensive. The sockpuppet, {{vandal|Mi Querida}} had placed the image on ]'s talk page. ] had already blocked the account. Does anyone have a problem with my decision to speedy the image? -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 14:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:No way. That has no place on Misplaced Pages. Delete with avengance. --] <small>]</small> 14:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Not a problem at all; that made me sick. -- ''']''' 14:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Ah, I was wondering if 'general' speedy tags were applicable to images. My tagging was correct then. I wonder why people put things as distasteful as this on here? Eugh.-]<sup>]</sup> 18:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, that's right. Make a template so pedophiles can just search for all the pages the template is used on to find young kids easily. That's not a good idea folks. Neither is posting the information here, where now in the archives for all time, people will know how old that user is. Be smart about this. Find an admin and contact them priavtely to get info removed. ] | ] 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== ]==
This user is being incivil, making legal threats, and wikistalking Lucky 6.9, Newyorkbrad and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. Please block her. --] 14:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Looked through most of this editor's last 50 and see no interplay involving the three editors this complaint suggests are being stalked. I *do* see a lot of good spam link removal, and would suggest that, combined with the first edit of a newly registered editor being to make this complaint, looks kind of suspect. ] <small>]</small> 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Very suspect. There is zero evidence to support this accusation, its pretty clearly a disgruntled spammer trying (and failing) to accuse a user in good standing. ] 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I recall no interaction of any kind between me and this editor. ] 22:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Maybe so, but I still think the user posting said information should be told directly what happened (The deletion) and why to prevent them recreating the content because it disappeared without a trace and (for them) for no obvious reason. ] 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
==Closing a controversial AfD category==
WhowouldIasktoclose a controversialAfDcategory?Ithasbeenone week today since this category was opened ]. ] (])17:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yes they should be told. but a template isn't the way to do it. ] | ] 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll admit that I have trouble thinking like a pedophile. If it comes up again, I'll contact an admin directly. -- ] ] ] 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== ]==
Not really sure what to do here. User has a rather strong point of view about planets vs. asteroids and made some questionable edits to push this POV . We had a rather civil exchange about it . However this user has now started creating a series of articles such as ] and one since deleted. I spoke to him about it , but he has since cleared his talk page and created ]. Not sure what speedy tag to use, or what warning to give. ] 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, I put db-empty on the earth one, and prodded mercury. Several more planets left and he has a to-do list of sorts on his userpage...] 19:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I have posted a quick hello (similar to the one you posted before Dina) just asking for him to conform with our policies.-]<sup>]</sup> 19:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Cool, hopefully he'll give up before we get to ]. ;) ] 19:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
== User:NazireneMystic removal of npa warnings and sockpuppet ==
== ] ==
] has removed two npa3 warnings I placed on his user page . Please restore them. User subsequently received an admin warning and a temporary block, see ].
This user recently blocked(also suspected as sockpuppet), after just unblocked it begins vandalist attacks in many articles with personal attacks in edit summary comments.
:Blocked again. Thanks. ] ] 19:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::The anon's recent behavior and new remarks makes it clear that it's a sockpuppet of ]. This means its edits can be reverted, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This user also set up an alias ] and copied over his user page in anticipation of a block. Please remove the sockpuppet. Thanks in advance. ] 23:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
== Offensive username: ] ==
I see your Wikipedianlawyering never stops. It was clearly pointed out on the
I was browsing through Special:Log/newusers and saw this username:
Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard in this following DIFF that your prior warnings were unfounded . As far as Im conserned unfounded warnings are vandalism to my talk page.
::As no warning (other than some unnecessary ones from Oyidah at an earlier date) were issued, I've warned NazireneMystic for , which was unacceptable. I would hope that unless he/she continues making edits of this kind, the matter is now closed. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:* 20:19, 25 November 2006 Nick Sex (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Dinm
:I beg to differ. Most reasonable people would consider being called deceitful, ignorant, diabolical, and a meatpuppet to be personal attacks on their character. In this diff this user admits to calling me these things and argues they are not personal attacks because they are all true. A continuation of this behavior is why this user was warned and blocked. ] 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
think this username could be counted as offensive under the ] policy. Could it be blocked, please?
Admins, See what I mean? After two admins have already read that post and after looking things over desided it was not a personal attack this editor keeps proving my points through his actions.
Best wishes,
Just defending myself becomes a personal attack in his eyes. Read the warning and block section of my talk page and you will see the reason given for both. Its worth noting the warning and block resulted from the same edit,at least according to the admins that posted them, maybe not in the mind of my accuser] 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as your unfounded report of socketpuppetry please read up on the socketpuppetry artical and maybe your unfounded personal attacks of me would stop. It is clear the account was created after I forgot my password to the Nazirene account and in my first edits using it I ID'ed myself as NazireneMystic. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=SpiritualEbionite Hardly a socketpuppet.
] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted this editor has already tried to claim on the Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard I evaded a block by the use of this account when it is clear from its contributions page it was not even used during that timeframe. So now the claim that I moved my tlak page because I anticipated a block? what evidence do you have ? I moved my tlak page because of past vandalism to it by you as can be seen in your frivolous warnings and wiki lawyering tactics and ongoing reports of things that do not exist. Please stop throwing invented crap up on the wall hoping something will stick.
:Already blocked. ] 20:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Again, I beg to differ. The user page was copied over to evade an expected block.
==]==
::09:17, 14 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:SpiritualEbionite (saving endangered info) (top)
This user is also known as {{user|Subversive element}} - please block. --] 22:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:This is the second blatantly false accusation against ] in the last 30 minutes. ] is indef blocked as a troll. ] is to be praised for their successful work against the spammers to have riled them so. ] 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:The PA Noticeboard suggested I post a suspected sockpuppet report (see below). ] 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::The other account hasn't been used since 11 November and the move occurred before I administered the block. Suggest you follow-up with a suspected sockpuppet report. Post again here if problems resume. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
== Accusations in racism and personal threats ==
Yes he/she did sugest a suspected socket puppet report after this editor made false claims I evaded a block. This editor still seems to be fixated on this even with evidence given from Durval in the above post that I did not evade a block and both contribution pages that during the block I did not edit. This is the hostile stance I have faced from him since I attemped to NPOV an artical he has strong religous and or political interest over and has lead to all the tactics shown in my talk page. Some of his deception I exposed that is on the talk page was mearly a defense from acusations against Allan Crownshaw in the edit were you called him my leader and tried to make it seem that Phillps person is a mear secetary as can be seen in the archived section or my talkpage. Just constantly facing his allegations becomes a personal attack to him. This editor has even ran off one of the scholars mentioned in the artical as a source and he is only after me because I stand up to this garbage he post] 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Admins, please do not say this is not the place to resolve this dispute, so far all Ihave seen from the RFC TO peerreview to deletion hearings is this editor act as a meat puppet and his POVshoping among other tactics. I only waht to present evidence that this is just another unfounded complaint] 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
A user ] accused me in racism after I mentioned that Armenians belong to Armenoid racial type in the talk page '''You are clearly a racist and lack any concept of history. Please leave this discussion before you become banned'''.--] 19:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that user NazireneMystic has received an additional ] by the PA Noticeboard for personal attacks against another editor. ] 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:IMO once you start speaking of Armenioid racial types, you're asking for it. We've moved on from those times, it's 2006.--] 20:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Apparently Nixer didn't.--] 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Let's assume it was just a ]. Nixer, race is such a sensitive subject that even old "scientific" terms can be considered offensive to some. You never know who's behind the usernames, so just accept that other people have a higher offense-threshold than you, speak delicately in the future, and don't worry about it too much. His accusation was reactionary, but not really out of line, and did not contain what WP regards as a ]. --] 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I haven't looked at the diffs, but I think "You are clearly a racist..." is a personal attack. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Nixer knows what he's doing. He's a long time user with a questionable history, he clearly baited Serouj with those provocative statements.--] 20:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::It's definitely infraction of our ]. However, accusations of racism in general can't really be outlawed as always being attacks, because it is sometimes a useful and important observation. --] 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Wikipedians should keep their opinions of one another to themselves. Pointing out what one believes are another's flaws are not "useful and important", they're personal attacks, whether true or not. -- ] | ] 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I think you misunderstand me. What I mean is that if someone is going around calling other people ], we have to have a way of qualifying that. It's racist, and that is against the rules, and pointing out a breakage of the rules requires pointing out racist language. I'm not saying we should be calling eachother names all the time--it is definitely a large breach of civility to call someone racist without an extremely good excuse. No argument there. Pointing out someone's "flaws" isn't okay; pointing out someone's outward behavior is. --] 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::I have to explain that I have nothing against Armenians. ] said that Lebanese (unlike Armenians) have "Semitic blood" (which is not a scientific term). I replied that in fact Armenians and Lebanese have much in common as both belong to Armenoid racial type.--] 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::There is no such racial type, and Armenians have as much in common with Lebanese as Russians do with Uzbeks.--] 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Nixer arguably has the longest block record on Misplaced Pages, his last block for stirring trouble on the Armenia talk page was for one week!!! It was even prolonged due to block evasion. Now he's back to the same talk page doing more of the same.--] 20:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Wow, that is long. And mostly for ], I notice. Probably the admins who have done that blocking will have the best idea of how to proceed regarding Nixer himself. --] 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::The block was because I reverted Eupator who tried to archive an ongoing discussion to hide my arguments. And the prolongation was because an admin mistakenly decided edits by another user were mine (and he unblocked me when determined it was not me).--] 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::No such thing. You were blocked for another one of your disruptions at the time when the discussion was archived. When you returned you maliciously reverted the archived discussion and edited it for which you were blocked for one whole week yet again.--] 21:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Hopefully the defendant is allowed to speak at his own trial :). I sincerely apologize if my calling you a racist hurt you, Nixer. However, your behavior on Talk:Armenia is very unappropriate and counterproductive. You continue to regurgitate the same statements, even though they have been disproved more than once, and remain ignorant on the facts and history that are presented regarding the Armenian language, Armenian alphabet, and history of the Armenian people. I (and others on Talk:Armenia) have repeatedly provided you with quotes, references to Misplaced Pages encyclopedia articles (the ], the ], and the Unicode standard, and yet you ''still'' continue to regurgitate your baseless and simply ''untrue'' comments:
:#That the Armenian language is not European, even though linguistics categorize it as Indo-European.
:#:Indo-European does not mean European.--] 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:#That the Armenian alphabet is not European, even though it's derived from Greek, and is considered one by the Unicode standard.
:#:It is only one theory based on letters order. Opearance of the letters conpletely different from Greek.--] 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:#etc., etc.
:What you are doing is nothing more than terrorizing the Talk:Armenia page, and I (and others) have had enough of it. My comment was reactionary, but not baseless; it's not pointing out a flaw. Racism is a crime in most Western nations, and Nixer's comments constitute ]. Thank you, and regards.] 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::There is no Anti-Armenianism in my comments.--] 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::You have been waging an anti-Armenian campaign for several months now. Several administrators kindly asked you to cease bringing up controversial allegations and refrain from posting in the Armenia talk page considering your block history. Yet you still continue to cause trouble.--] 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::This is another allegation of the same type. Please explain where do you see anti-Armenianism and allegations? Is saying Armenia is not located in Europe - anti-Armenianism?--] 21:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::That's the least of what you have been doing. As Serouj put it, you have been terrorizing the talk page without any interruption.--] 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Where do you see terrorism? And again, wherre do you see anti-Armenianism?--] 22:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Every single edit you ever made in regards to Armenia is anti-Armenian. You are obsessed with ridiculing and harassing Armenian users on Misplaced Pages. Like I said even after you were asked not to continue engaging in these controversial issues which always seems to lead to you being blocked you still continue to do so. That's how obsessed you are. I'm tired of having to worry what Nixer is up to now instead of concentrating on working on articles.--] 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Which phrase do you consider anti-Armenian? It is really only your distorted perception.--] 22:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::I concur.--] 21:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Nixer, you are only wasting everyone's time. I am saying the sky is blue, showing you that others are saying the sky is blue, showing you what meteorologists say about the sky - that it is blue - and yet you still come back to me and say the sky is green. I have nothing further to say to you.] 22:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Well said. No need to get trapped in the vicious cycle that he's trying to set up.--] 22:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I only say black is black. I show you encyclopedia which says black is black and you still say black is white.--] 06:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:This isn't the complaints department, as it says at the top of the page. Please use ]. — ] ] 03:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
::Sorry about that. This user constantly trolls my contribution logs, and this sort of thing happens wherever I post. My purpose was not to complain or dispute anything. Please refer to my initial request: 1) to restore npa3 warnings placed on the users page. These were scanned by a bot, and should be removed by an admin if deemed inappropriate, not the user himself. 2) PA Noticeboard suggested I report duplicated userpage as a possible sockpuppet. ] 13:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I just came across this user after viewing the DRV for ]. I noticed this user ] another, so I went to his talk page. There, I noticed several messages for problems with his uploads. Looking at his I found that nearly every image he uploaded has some problem, whether lack of a source, orphaned fair use, or just flat out copyvioing. After tagging these, this user now has over 30 sections on his talk page notifying him of image problems. This user has also been repeatedly warned for personal attacks, and has section headers of warnings to "And now, a word from Wikinazis." --] 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:None of the above actions on the part of the user are recent enough. Keep an eye and report back if further issues arise. ] 09:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
#Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages, so no can do there I'm afraid.
== {{user8|Johnsonsjohnson}} ==
#The sock allegations have already been given and discarded above (the other account hasn't been used to evade the block) ] 13:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for the quick response. I will consider the matter closed. :) ] 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This user account is less than a month old, and shows evidence in their edits of previous experience with Misplaced Pages's guidelines and procedures. However, the sum total of their few edits are all on talk or Misplaced Pages: pages, and the vast majority of those are to do with ongoing discussions in several places about the status of the ] article and its place above the main ] disambiguation page. Cases in point are ] to have the ] article deleted on notability grounds in contravention of guidelines, and ] to rally support at ] for his case at making ] an unambiguously titled article on those grounds. Given the total lack of actual article editing on this account and single-mindedness of their efforts on Misplaced Pages, I cannot assume good faith and suspect sock puppetry by an unknown user. --]] 23:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:How is it not a legit sockpuppet, though? ] 09:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
=={{user|Turrets Guy}}==
==]==
I need admin help with a persistent issue that keeps cropping up in different ways: I'm not sure where to take it this time.
{{Userlinks|Street Scholar}}
* ]
:This user was blocked for a week for making racial attacks. The complaint was lodged here
* ]
.He has been doing this sort of thing for months (diffs below are from user responses at ANI)
Tourette's Guy has been AfD'd twice, but entries about the website are often made to ]. The latest issue is a post to ] by {{user|Turrets Guy}}. I don't know if the user name or user page content is OK given the AfD, and if the talk page entries should be removed as spam/advertising. The people who follow and support that website are aggressive and coordinated, so I'm not inclined towards taking any action myself, and not sure if any action is even appropriate to the case. There are also constant posts of on various pages. Thanks for any advice and help, ] (]) 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:The page has been deleted as a G11 speedy. -]<sup>]</sup> 13:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, thanks, I appreciate JzG's help. If they continue to troll the TS article or talk page, I don't want to delete the entries myself, as I've seen other people become targets of the followers of that site. ] (]) 13:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There were a lot of other problems with him using hate sites for citing information and making derogatory statements against Hindus . He got blocked for a week for doing this. Now he's back. He just made several tendentious edits, which I shall list below:
#Persistent racist edits (against ]) , instantly reverted by other users
#Vandalistic removal of sourced edits to push an agenda
#Makes incivil comments against me
This sort of behavior is counterproductive and interferes with the work of many users, who have to try to fix his tendentious contributions. ] 01:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
==Clane==
:I'm tempted to block over alone. Accusing ] of vandalism is ridiculous. ] 09:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has been vandalized at least 15 times in the last 12 minutes. Possible to lock it? -- ] / <sup>(])</sup> 14:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== Edits by 69.118.184.115 ==
The Mick Hucknall page has been vandalised. He has not died, there is no reference to his death on any media. ] 14:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
{{User|69.118.184.115}} has made numerous edits related to the TV series ]. Some of it was obvious vandalism, which I have reverted. The rest I'm not sure since I really don't know much about the series. Appreciate if someone can look into his edits. --]<sup>( <font color="#339966" face="Constantia">]</font> / <font color="#CC0099" face="Constantia">]</font> )</sup> 01:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Articles semi-protected and vandals warned. Please refer to ] when facing such problems next time. -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== Blocked Zen sock ==
== Need Action Taken Against SockPuppets ==
I have indefinitely blocked ] as a puppet of the banned ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm mediating a debate which has become somewhat overpopulated by sock puppets. (]). The following users are confirmed to be the same individual:
:Yes, good call. -] · ] · 09:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
* {{checkuser|Shortcut.road}}
* {{checkuser|BlazinBuggles}}
* {{checkuser|Schlotzsman}}
* {{checkuser|AuntEthel}}
* {{checkip|67.101.67.107}}
* {{checkip|70.113.208.174}}
* {{checkip|64.148.31.150}}
* {{checkip|67.190.61.6}}
I'm not sure what course of action should be taken, but I figured an admin over here might be able to give me some idea! The ongoing mediation can be found ]. From my perspective, I'd be happy so long as the above user doesn't saturate my case with comments under multiple accounts. Thanks for the help. ]]] 15:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:I propose striking out all the socks from "interested parties"/"breakdown" except for Shortcut.road, and then retagging all his comments made under different socks with his name. I've got some free time right now, so I'm willing to do it if you want. ] 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:*That works for me. Feel free to leave a note on the mediation to let the other users (of whom there are now a mere 3) what's happening. ]]] 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
==]==
== Something smells wolfie...part 2 ==
If you have a minute, could you take a look and see whether this version of the article is substantially identical to versions that had been speedied in the past? Thanks! -]<sup>]</sup> 17:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:''Unarchiving this thread for further comment. ]''
:You hit it, and you win one. Moo. ] ] 17:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice while lurking from time to time that ] () seems to be an obvious sock puppet of ]. She is, however, acting a bit more clever. Moreover, what seems obvious to me might not be to the next person, and everybody deserves an initial benefit of the doubt. I'd just like to suggest that an admin familiar with this issue should keep an eye out. --] 05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*Obviously a sock of somebody, but if it's the wolfster, she's gotten a ''lot'' cleverer. I'll keep an eye out. ] | ] 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
== Need someone will rollback button to deal with linkspammer ==
*I have now gone through the edits in detail, and Snow Shoes has after first lying somewhat low circled into a highly characteristic ] type of editing. I won't specify here, as I don't want to teach her, but I have indefblocked as obvious wolfie sock. Thanks, AaronS. ] | ] 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC).
] has been linkspamming various Bollywood-related pages. I don't have the rollback button ... could someone please roll back his edits? (I can't take this to AIV, since he's only just been warned.). ] 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
==]==
:Reverted. -- ] 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This user just threatened User:Chondrite . An admin might take these other edits into account as well and , ] 07:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:I have blocked indef. Threats are absolutely not OK, regardless of previous history. ] 07:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
==Blocked IP still editing?!==
== ] ==
<s>It happened to me twice in 2 days (i don't have time to check the first case). Do you have an explanation for a still enjoying editing; ?</s> -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 19:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Shees! I confused October w/ November. Sorry! -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 19:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
==request block repeat vandaliser 137.85.253.2 ==
In addition to regular vandalism, {{user|Jckerr}} inserted , which is a libelous statement referring to a person related to the NHL. No talk messages at this point. –] ] 08:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:See ] for these type of cases. ] 09:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
this user writes 'Dan eas here' all over wikipedia, when I checked their history it was all much the same - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=137.85.253.2 ] 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== I want to unblock ] and ] ==
:Blocked for 24h. -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:: with respect for your swift action - that user comes on every few weeks to a month, vandalises a series of pages, then vanishes again for another few weeks. A 24 hour time-out will have zero effect. ] 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::True but my block was the second one after which was a 3h block. It would be harsh if i'd have given the vandal more than that. If he returns, it would be longer for sure. -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::This is a school IP. —]→] • 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::it is a school, but as I pointed out, the vandalism has recurrent themes (Dan was here, Dan is best) that indicates it is the same person who is using it to vandalise. ] 23:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::True, it's a school IP, but 100% of the contributions, over several months, are vandalous. It's also likely that it's not the entire network, or there would be more contributions; just a single computer (or set of computers). -]<sup>]]</sup> 23:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== requesting block for sockpuppets ==
Hi, guys.
It has been confirmed that ] and ] are the same person. They have been causing disruption at the ] article for quite a while, including several 3RR violations and tagteaming. ] 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
] and ] were recently blocked as sockpuppets of each other since the checkuser investigation have shown they both use IPs from the same University. Later ] found some evidence suggesting that they might be different people and unblocked them, then DMC found the evidences to be unconvincing and reblock them again. Now I had an E-mail exchange with both users. I know their real names and University IDs as well as the official University E-mail addresses. They appear to be separate people and the victims of a terrible coincidence and claim they even did not know each other before the incident. They work on different departments and have different status within their University. There is a small probability that one is a meatpuppet of the other, but it seems to be unlikely.
:It appears that ] has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. ] (]:]) 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
As I understand from ] on my talk page the checkuser only confirms that they both are using the same University IPs, there is no other hidden indication they are the same people not available to all Wikipedians, so it is essentially a judgement call.
::And I've also blocked GuardianZ for 3 days. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think in this case we could assume ] and believe the editors, rather than lose two notable editors. I there will be no objections I will unblock E and K in a couple of hours. ] 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Lackinganytools to verifyitmyself,yourexplanationsoundsquitereasonable,asdoesyourunblock. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I just had to block {{user|66.213.21.32}} (who claims to be Oroboros 1) for evading his block. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== Deleteing a userpage ==
I have unblocked the guys ] 04:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst responding to an ] compaint, my attention was drawn to the userpage of {{user|Budo}}. This seemed to me to contain possible libels and certainly to violate ]. I have deleted the page . As this is an unusual action, I am reporting it here for review.--]<sup>g</sup> 22:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Ummmm, there was somewhat of a consensus to have Karcha remain blocked ]. This user is extremely disruptive, with 90% of his edits being reverts, and the rest being personal attacks like "Kill Persianism". I don't see what good to the project we'd be doing if we unblocked him. As I said previously, I have no problem with E104421 being unblocked, however. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 07:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::To Khoikhoi: Khoikhoi, i want you to prove my "kill persianism" claim. Where did i say this. You are manipulating persons. I didn't say "kill persianizm".--] 10:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== The anti-chuq/longhair/ScottDavis vandal ==
::If you prove this i will go out from wiki but if you can't prove this we have to think about your neutrality as an admin.--] 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi...been noticing many different IP's all with the similar "Biased Moderators" vandalism. Is there a special place to report these (I've been currently reporting them immediately to ])? Also, just curious, what's the background behind this? Or is it just purely random? ] 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Karcha, don't be pushing your luck. It was "Kill Paniranism", and it was in several edit summaries on 15 November. ] ] 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Unhappy that his edits to a couple of articles were reverted. See ]. He should be blocked on sight—if AIV wants to warn him 4 times first, point to the previous discussion. Also, most of the IP's he used turned out to be trojan-infected zombies or open proxies, so it might be useful to list them here anyway. I can run the easy checks and any that aren't obvious can be submitted to ]. ] 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Hello all, you still haven't found many of the pages which have been defaced. I will continue to do so until some sort of compromise is reached in relation to administration of ]. Lots of proxies to go and plenty more random pages to edit. Love, Chuq/Longhair Vandal aka Guy with a grudge. :P ] 06:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes, it was kill paniranism and if i say persianism this consists of racism. I'm not a racist. However paniranism is different, this is a political manner.--] 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::"Millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute." -]<sup>]</sup> 02:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::LOL, I hope you like cleaning up my mess. Love, Chuq/Longhair Vandal aka Guy with a grudge. ] 11:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== Software cracking how-to posted in article ==
:No strong opinion on Karcha on my side, but I'll second Alex' opinion that E should be rehabilitated. Like Alex, I've been in contact with both users and found what I consider pretty strong evidence that they are different individuals (in addition to what I posted earlier). If there's consensus for a community ban on Karcha, let's get this clarified here - although my impression is his disruptiveness so far has not been quite up to the level where community bans have been handed out in other cases. ] ] 09:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
On speedy patrol, I came across ], which seemed to contain detailed how-to advice on how to hack into other players' passwords/accounts on ]. As this might be potentially dangerous information that people could use to harm each other, I've speedied under IAR. Feel free to overturn if you think I overreacted. Wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell on AfD, of course. ] ] 02:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Hello everybody. As I said before, I have nothing against the unblocking of E104421, as in case of doubts, as Alex noted, we should assume good faith. As for Karcha, I can only reiterate my belief that he should be blocked; and please, spare us sophisms like "oh, I didn't say kill iranism; I said kill paniranism: it's different". Was also calling Khorshid "Khorshit" a "political" position?. What I see, is a constant pattern of disruption.--] 15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Concur. Well done. — ] 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Earned the creator an indef block as well. I can't believe people would still fall for that. ] 02:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:It's a pretty clear attempt to scam other people into sending the article creator their passwords. --] 03:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Wow, and no attempt to be subtle at all. I mean a Yahoo email? For frack's sake. ] 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I've speedied this several times under different names; it's bound to be back, so I protected it. ] 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Heheh, this will teach me doing speedy patrol late at night when I'm sleepless - I didn't even read it carefully enough to realise it was a scam. Maybe if I had, I would have left it there? After all, anybody who falls for it will only get what they deserve... ;-) ] ] 08:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::And, as a followup: I sent in some clearly false information. Got the following reply:
:::The Accont info u sent us was inviled.
:::plz resend us the info it must be right.
:::Not many people use this to recover thir account any
:::more.
:::Plz sent us your usser name not your real name.
:::And send us a different users name and pass so we can
:::look that up in our info and we will send u the other
:::pass for your other account.
:::If this other accont info is right we will send u the
:::pass we have to make shure your not a hacker.
::I think it's self-explanatory. --] 08:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Carnildo, you shouldn't be sending inviled Acconts to these helpful people. You should be sending links to spelling resources. Otherwise, how can u b shure you're interpreting their response accurately? ]<sup>]</sup> 10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
:::I have reblocked Karcha, as I was under the impression that there was somewhat of a consensus to not unblock him/her in the first place. If we want to unblock him, there should be some support here to do so. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::*Firstly, I am not sure that I can post my oppinion here or not. If not. Please cancel it totally.
:::*Why am I here; I was a kind of mediator.I contacted with these two users by mail and by phone later.I tranferred mails to some admins which they are take place in this discussion. I know the details, and something disturbed me in this matter.
:::#The major reason to block these users was ''allegation of puppetry''. E104421 blocked temporarly for puppetry, Karcha blocked indefinitely for puppetry plus some distruptive behaviours.
:::#Now, allegation of puppetry is failed.
:::##E104421; no crime-no penalty, Unblocked. Ok.
:::##Karcha; no pupetry crime, there is distruptive edits.
:::###Karcha, now indefinitely blocked;Reason: distruptive edits.
:::#Lets take a balance; lets put this crime one side and punishment to other side. If there is a balance, everything is ok.If not then no punishment/or another punishment is suitable.You can see also other users'(like as Korshid) distruptive edits/bad words.
:::*I posted a message to Karcha some hours ago, to keepaway from edit-rv war.
:::*also I posted a message to Khoikhoi to invite showing good faith.
:::*Thanks a lot for your tolerance to my intervene. Regards to all.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">]</font>] 19:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Who deleted my first article there? I'm feeling ill.... ] 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am second to Mustafa that it is kind of illogical to clear an account from the sockpuppeting allegations and permablock another one for been a sockpuppet. I am not a great fun of Karcha as an editor but since he is blocked for been a sock and the base of the allegations appear to be doubtful we should not probably reblock him. Maybe we could put him on Community Probation per ]? So any admin who would find him disruptive could permablock him? The situation starts to look like as a Wheel War so I would not repeat my administrative actions, but I would be great if an uninvolved admin could review the situation. ] 11:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:{{User|Courtney_Akins}} posted on the topic ] 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:'''Disclaimer:''' I am not an admin. However, <font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">]</font> left a note asking me to review this, so I have. There is no question that ] has been disuptive in the past and made inappropriate comments and edit summaries. Also, Karcha has a definite tendency to edit with a nationalistic POV. However, there is a certain inconsistency to how these cases are being handled, and an indef block seems excessive. I agree that Community Probation would be a useful tactic. This would allow Karcha an opportunity to demonstrate some good-faith editing, while ensuring that he is closely watched. Further, I think some kind of Mentoring would be useful, preferably from an editor or admin who is familiar with the topics in question, and has some familiarity with the culture; I have a strong impression that much of this comes down to "cultural differences" and an incomplete understanding of how to "play well with others". I would request that the admins involved consider and discuss the possibilty that a combination of Probation and Mentoring would help Karcha become a more productive editor, thereby benefitting both the individual, and the project. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::Some very good ideas, but I'dliketoaddthatstrictprobationconditionsshouldbeappliedtomakefullysurethat his former behavior is unacceptable. --] 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::I suspect the editor is asking about this speedy-deleted article: {{la-admin|Short Shorts and High Heels}} ] 03:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I made the comment because Courtney is indeffed with sockpuppets, and it's an odd topic to have been brought up again by a different editor. ] 03:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::What's so odd about Short shorts and Platform heels? It's quite hot if you ask me! Thanks for asking . . . ] 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sorry if I'm seeming suspicious, but it's just an odd coincidence. You've got a provocative username, you claim to be 14, and your first edit was to create an article on a fringey topic brought up recently by a banned editor. Not harshing your buzz, I'm not an admin and I am not trying to razz you or whatever. It just seemed a bit peculiar. Consider me 100% supportive of your constructive edits to WP, and if the speedy was illegitimate, I hope it's resolved. ] 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:It was deleted as "nonsense", which means that the editor who tagged it, and the admin who looked at it, couldn't figure out what it was about. I suggest, if you recreate the article, trying to be more coherent and using the "show preview" button - I apologize if that wasn't the case. -]<sup>]]</sup> 03:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:JDoorjam has blocked the account for a bad username. ] 04:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Hmm. I smell the hints of ] who may not be our Ms. Atkins, but is still someone similar.—] (]) 04:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I see an unacceptable username. blocked. ] | ] 02:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== Really abusive edit summaries... ==
Just to add my two cents in as an editor who has been following this from the get-go. All I want to say is that we should try to be more lenient with relatively new users. Look, we have all joined Wiki at one point and were newbies at some stage. There was a point when we didn't know how Wiki and its rules worked. And let's not forget that Internet is international, when a university student from one corner of the world joins wiki, it might take some for him to adjust and learn to work efficiently in a completely international and free environment. A indef block right off the bat seems too excessive is all I am trying to say, I think he has gone through enough to understand that certain disruptive editing patterns will not be tolerated in the long run. I have run across other newbie editors who were engaging in certain disruptive editing (some of them that also seemed nationalistic) and I have always tried to tell them that they should concentrate on learning how Wiki works with an emphasis on a watch-and-learn attitude. In the end they always come around :)) I will also try to keep in contact with K about this and try to answer any questions he might have. A lame attempt at humor/insult by trying to make a pun out of a user's name from Khorshid to Khorshit shouldn't be the basis of an indef. I mean, nobody is Jesus, everyone looses their tempers at one point, let's ask him to apologize to that user. Just give the guy another chance, if he goes back to disruptive editing patterns, it can be dealt with accordingly. Even California has a ''three'' strikes rule, not ''one''-strike rule. :))) Cheers! ] 11:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Would someone mind checking the contributions for ]? I have seen his edit summaries and he keeps placing swear words in edit summaries. He did it here, here, and here, using "shit" in each of them, but some of you might think these are considered personal attacks. Could someone mind talking tho this user about using profanity in edit summaries? I'm quite sure there's a policy about pervasive edit summaries around here somewhere... --] 14:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== Bad faith behavior by Shamir1 and Amoruso (continued) ==
:You've already done the job. I just added another notice. Hope that would work. -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 14:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Afaik there are no policies against such words in edit summaries. You might ask him to change his tone, but this doesn't seem to require admin intervention. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Using the word 'shit' in an edit summary is not offensive in itself. Misplaced Pages's not censored. However, some of the uses are not particularly civil. To see which ones are incivil (see ]), just replace the word 'shit' with the word 'garbage' - does it still seem unnecessarily blunt or terse? Then it's incivil. If it's just because he's used the word 'shit', then those warnings are not fair. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::] ;) ] 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I've brought this topic up before and I think it bears repeating- please people let's excercise some common sense. Misplaced Pages not being censored for minors means we have articles like ] and ] with pictures. This doesn't mean we should use profanity when it doesn't advance the encyclopedia. All that does is drive more people away from the project and make fewer parents and teachers willing to have their kids use Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, edit summaries are one of the places that people are most likely to read and because of the GFDL will under most circumstances be there indefinitely and are not even easily refactorable like talk pages. Our goal always should be what will help the project most and we should use language accordingly. ] 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Well said Joshua!!! It's about common sense Proto. Why not use something else instead of "shit"? The problem is that when the user in question used that word in the edit summary, he/she was refering to something he/she didn't like and wanted it removed. So it is about respecting other contributors and not censorship. I believe explains a bit what i am talking about. -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
'''New discussion:'''
:: I see that you decided to make a comment and then '''immediately''' post this on AIV. Nope, let's not look at his contributions, or the fact that the comments were on things that were ''completely asinine'', let's get some administrative intervention. Common sense tells me that 3 instances across several months do not a high-level problem make. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 20:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion of a few days ago was archived too early. Emboldened by the failure to get any action over his blatant dishonesty, Shamir1 has now repeated the same stunt with help of his side-kick Amoruso. To summarise: Amoruso and Shamir1 are completely aware that there is a major unresolved dispute over the article but each of them individually asked for unprotection on the false claim that it was resolved. Edits and . As soon as someone unprotected the article, Shamir1 did a massive revert to his preferred version , vastly more than the minor point he had conceded on the talk page. Of course he hopes that next time it will be protected the way he likes. '''Is this sort of abuse of the system allowed?'''
:::Frankly, it ''is'' about common sense. Using the phrase 'no shit' is perhaps a bit sarcastic, and maybe not the most suitable phrase. Come on, though - it's not 'really abusive'. Kinda reaching there, the guy (assuming it's a guy) has done nothing particularly wrong. Of course, it's not ideal, and avoiding the use of 'shit' would be preferred. Finding, as Elara says, just three, extremely mild uses of 'shit' in edit summaries across months of good edits is not a problem, at all. Flipping heck. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 09:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== Terry Schiavo possible vandalism? ==
I ask again that action be taken to stop this behavior. The Arbitration Committee shouldn't need to be called on in such an obvious case. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/Terri_Schiavo
'''Previous discussion:'''
I was using this article for a class presentation. Now when I click on the above link - all the previous information is gone. Can you bring it back? Can you protect the page? I was relying on the information for my class presentation. I really need this information back.--] 00:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
] is the scene of a long-running content dispute (but that's not what this complaint is about). Admin ] protected the article on Nov 12 for this reason. However, ], one of the main warring parties, was unhappy about which version was protected so on Nov 18 he claimed on ] that the dispute was over. Since the argument was continuing ferociously on the ], with Shamir1 involved, this claim was a '''deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article'''. And in fact Steel359 unprotected the article in good faith, only to be forced to protect it again soon afterwards. I respectfully request action against Shamir1 for this dishonest behavior. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:The information is present at the moment; however, because pages are likely to change over time, I would advise you to look at a link on the left of your screen under the toolbar that says "permanent link". The links is , btw. -]<sup>]]</sup> 00:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:Looking at the history, ] has not edited the article since November 11. Do you have the wrong user there? -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::Also, for troubles in the future, you can try the ]. Good luck. -]<sup>]]</sup> 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:The article had been protected since Nov 12 except for the brief unprotection on Nov 18 that I mentioned, that's why he didn't edit it. Look on the talk page to see his continued involvement in the dispute (8 edits since Nov 12). --]<sup><small>]</small></sup>
::I think what Zero is saying is that he had the ''intent'' of doing so, and ought to have action taken against him. An attempted crime is almost as bad as a crime itself. -]<sup>]]</sup> 07:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::"deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article" is a crime. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Note:] did similar thing to ]. he , , and then . ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 08:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
About Shamir1, if you look at his contribs he requested unprotection several times this week. He kept coming back each time after unprotection was declined , and yesterday (his third or fourth request) I decided to AGF and unprotect. It was promptly reprotected when the edit warring started again. I can't say I was surprised. -- ] 12:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:I say they should both at least get a severe tongue-lashing, and, if it checks out on Isarig, the version should be reverted. If it happens again, they should be temp-blocked for disruption. I would do so myself, but I'm not an admin. ]<sup>]]</sup> 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
== offensive account name ==
If anybody acted in bad faith it was ] himself. Note that this is not a content dispute per se - it's simply Zero0000 deleting mass sourced material. ] 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:We're not debating here the legitimacy of the changes, we're debating the fact that this user seems to have made a bad-faith request to get the page unprotected, so that he could get his own version back before it was reprotected. Regardless of the legitmacy of the claims, that's breaking faith if it was true. ]<sup>]]</sup> 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
An account has just been created with the name ]. I presume this can be handled immediately without going through the RFC process for offensive usernames. -- ] 00:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Zero is being delusional. I asked for page un-protection because the debate over Habib Issa (you can see it was the only debated issue) was settled with me and Shamir accepting not to argue over it anymore. We were actually willing to not add a sourced ] ] ] material in order to end the edit war - and we didn't add it ! And now ''he'' complains ? Zero is obviously abusing the system by filing bogus reports. We all have a right to ask for page unprotection whenever we feel it's right. ] 06:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:] beat me to it. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This has happened on other articles too, Amoruso ran out the number of reverts he could make on the ], and he got Humus sapiens to revert it to the version he edited a long time ago, which had an old AfD message even. IMHO Admins shouldnt indulge in this behavior. And further goes to show the nature of WP:OWN by Amoruso.First, there was this revert -> and then This message on Humus sapiens talk page by Amoruso after which followed this very disruptive revert ] 10:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
== Please block User: 167.206.78.2 ==
:Humus Sapiens tried to fix your vandalism Thestick. It's allowed of course and it's unrelated. ] 22:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This user is a persistant vandal: however, he/she attends the school that I do, and this is the school's IP address: as such, if it is banned, I will probably be autoblocked as well. Nonetheless, I believe that this user should be banned indefinately, as nearly EVERY SINGLE EDIT, despite COUNTLESS WARNINGS, has been vandalism of one sort or another. Please do not block me too, aside from one sandbox edit (at the beginning) I have been relatively good. Thank you.
:: '''MY''' ''Vandalism''? Also, most of content that he restored has been deleted with total consensus. If he wanted to restore the deleted content, he could have reverted it to a recent edit instead of going back all the way to YOUR last edit. Admins shouldn't act like puppets. ] 06:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-] · ] · 05:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There is also an open ] involving ] and ] regarding the same article. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*We cannot block an IP indefinitely (especially when it's a school IP). With the new software you could probably continue editing throughout a block, though. Please report their activities to the school's system administrator so they can take action. - ]|] 12:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== BelongsInAstub and others ==
==Moving of ] to ] right AFTER a failed move request==
See
* ] for the filed move request, which failed
* ] to show how the users who wished to move the article still defied the move request AFTER it had been decided
** EDIT: Changed link from Mr. Satan to Mr. Satan (Dragon Ball) ] 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This one is a bit odd. An editor appears to be using ], in violation of policy, to disrupt ]. Please note the use of all-caps in edit summaries, no signatures on the talk page, lack of constructive edits and no engagement with other editors. See {{user|SerendipityHasIt}}, {{user|SoLongBaby}}, {{user|Serenedipity2006}} and {{user|BelongsInAstub}}. The editor was reminded of WP:SOCK. --] ] 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Also see:
* My confrontation of ] when he moved the page AFTER the issue was decided: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Onikage725&diff=prev&oldid=90110975 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Onikage725&diff=prev&oldid=90111097
* His response: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=90110490&oldid=90023895 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=90112529&oldid=90110490
* My response: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Onikage725&diff=prev&oldid=90114167
==vandalism backlogs==
] 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
admins please go to ] there is a huge backlog of reported vandalisms ] 03:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== Homer picture now has ass hole in the title ==
EDIT: A user filed a page protection request for the page at ] ] 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Some moron messed with the title for the bust of Homer on this page. It has "ass hole" put in as if it were a middle name. I'm new here so I'm not sure how to fix it but I'll look around.
:I read the discussion on ] after the request for move protection and could not identify any clear decision about the name the article should have. I suggest that any move proposals be taken to ] in order to produce some consensus.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 01:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::My bad, I was directed to the wrong discussion by following the link on ].--<strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 01:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/Homer
:I reverted the move back to its original location, and move protected the article. Completely ignoring the outcome of a move request is not the wiki-way. Like Husond said, further move proposals should be taken to ] (although I'm skeptical of any reasonable product coming from that). -- ''']''' 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
** We already went through RM... The discussion ended with no consensus - therefore it shall stay at "Hercule (Dragon Ball)" ] 01:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
] 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, ] started a new move request for the same move at ].
:It's fixed now. Thanks for mentioning it! You can read about how to fix vandalism at ], and also you can get quick action by reporting vandalism at ]. Cheers, ] ] 04:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not a good idea to try to request a new Move Request for the same failed move not long after it failed. ] 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
== Today's FA ==
] personally attacked me at ] - I don't feel insulted, but, at the same time, we need things to remain civil. ] 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:I am watching this RM now and reminded Desire, and the others, to remain civil during the discussion. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I know it's usually against procedure, but something has to be done in the short term about the levels of vandalism to it and several related articles and talk pages.—] (]) 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::I the move request, due to the blatantly obvious vote stacking (see my closing statement). -- ''']''' 16:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
== Uncle Mart redux ==
=={{user5|Mactabbed}}==
Cause for concern? This editor has been repeatedly uploading fair use images and replacing free Commons images with the fair use images he's uploaded. From looking at the of this user's ] and following his interactions with other users it seems that he's been warned on a number of occasions about not doing that and yet he (<font color="red">'''warning: not work safe'''</font>) to be (<-- swapping an image on the article ] here) nevertheless. I became aware of this user due to his usage of a revert tool to over a wide swath of other editor's good faith contributions on the {{article|Michael Richards}} article. From looking at this user's ] it appears that he has a habit of using a revert tool in this manner. I about not doing that whereupon he used his tool to (and I reverted back with the ole' archive explanation). After my warning he then utilized his tool to version of the article. I reverted the vandalism out just before (and warned the vandal) and re-reverted the vandalism out whereupon he reverted in (never cited - note the edit summary as well) into the article.
I think this editor's contributions and behavior could use some additional scrutiny from an adminstrator or two. Thanks. ''(]])'' 04:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:You must have gone to some lengths digging up every minor violation I have made. It looks like you're accomplishing a lot by researching and discovering that I accidentally reverted one of your edits. Also, don't be a ], and don't ]. ] 04:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Given that this user's was to install popups I'm thinking that we've got a sockpuppet that is being used disruptively counter to sock policy (particularly given the above cites -which are normally known by someone with a bit more experience that this user-). Wasn't there a user named Courtney Atkins (or something like that) who was banned? I ask that because this user's edits evoke that image. ''(]])'' 05:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Look closely. , he replaced "men" with "niggers". I can say this is not acceptable behaviour. ] | ] 05:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Well given the uncivil (CIV) usage of the phrase "rule whore" above... I suppose that shouldn't be too surprising. ''(]])'' 05:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm pretty sure that female buttocks picture is copyvio and I've seen it before. Wasn't it deleted here in some incarnation? The heavy pixellation suggests he didn't really take it, only learned what lisence to use to get around copyvio photos being deleted. I blocked for 24 hours for incivility and racial slurs. ] | ] 05:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I was thinking the same thing about that image... occam's razor says that would be the case given this user's history of image "fair usage". I suspect we'll be hearing more about this editor. Hopefully someone will recognize him as a sock and we can run a check user to see who we're working with here. Well done on the block pschemp. ''(]])'' 05:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Hopefully someone will recognize that image. I swear we deleted it once already under a different name. ] | ] 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Here it is, total copyvio from flickr . It was already removed from that page once and deleted. Extending block. ] | ] 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Apropos of , I just wanted to bring to the community's attention the awful trolling I continue to receive from this banned user. See http://www.myspace.com/thecrzrussian and http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=129407961&MyToken=0240814a-d6fa-4e7b-8989-fa1ef60e46e0ML What if anything can we do about it? - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 04:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I bumped into Mactabbed early in his editing here with his edits to the ] and ] articles. You can see a summary of what occurred between the two of us in my post to the . So his allegations about stalking and wikilawyering were made against me first, and I have to be honest, Mactabbed is ''definately'' not on my friend list. I think Netscott is accurate in that Mactabbed is someone who has a good deal of experience with Misplaced Pages, given how quick he was to throw around the charge of Wikilawyering. ] 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:He'smorethanlikelyasockofabannededitor. Possibly the onethatputthatcopyvioimageintobeginwith. ] | ] 05:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:I emailed myspace for you here: . You should do the same. They will take the profile down and hopefully ban the user. ]+] 04:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::I have emailed myspace as well. I don't think they'll do anything, frankly... - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 04:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::So you found the source of that image and determined that he lied about taking it himself. I'm thinking that an indef. is in order here. ''(]])'' 05:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Igavehimaweek,butwhatdoothersthink?He'sprettyobviouslyuptonogood. Ifsomeonewantstoextend, go ahead.] | ] 06:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::No, they probably will wipe the page; they have to worry about getting sued as much as we do. They may not ban the user, though. ]<sup>]]</sup> 04:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I suggestanindef.becausethisuserisknowinglyputtingtheprojectinjeapordywith the copyvioimages(andwhoknowswhat else?). Thispersoniftheycomebackisjustgoingtocontinue to beaproblem. ''(]])'' 06:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::I took the liberty of sending off a lengthy e-mail as well. I think the content will be removed soon enough. I'm sure that Uncle Mart will learn soon enough that it's a decidedly bad idea to screw around with lawyers. -- ] 06:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== New attack by Roitr ==
:::::Yes, and if he does come back, he'll be easy to keep an eye on. We'll see. ] | ] 06:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please help to stop the new attack by a long-term vandal Roitr (see ]).
I see no reason not to indef. Behaviours alone warrant it. The CU would be interesting, but not necessary. ++]: ]/] 11:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
==={{user5|Exclusive bad apple}}===
* I think Mactabbed has returned. There's a new user - ] - who has made identical edits to Mactabbed on the ] and ] articles. Identical first action as well - install popups. ] 09:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:*Having compared this user's ] to ] there is no doubt that this is the same edit-warring/disruptive individual as the currently blocked for a week ]. This additional sock plus the original sock should be indef. blocked. ''(]])'' 09:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:*The of the ] article is particularly indicative. ''(]])'' 10:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:*The "Mac" in Mactabbed is likely a reference to Apple's ] ergo "bad ]". ''(]])'' 10:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Indef'd as sock puppet. ] | ] 16:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Active sockpuppets:
== ] ==
*{{vandal|Emkased}}
*{{vandal|Wolteir}}
*{{vandal|Quaga}}
*{{vandal|88.153.90.174}}
*{{vandal|88.154.87.159}}
*{{vandal|Oilter}}
*{{vandal|Woiteilr}}
Articles currently under attack:
This user is repeatedly removing information or reverting back to a much earlier version on article ].
*Uploading prevously deleted hoax images:
**{{li|Russia-army 1994 07.gif}}
He also might have done this anonymously. He appears to be acting in bad faith after a removal of a section of the article he added (see the discussion on the ]). I've asked him on 3 occasions to explain his edits but he just blanks his talk page and said at one point "Any messages either from Trebor or Mark83 or whatever his name is I will not read and I will automatically blank the page. So please do not waste your time." (referring to ], who agreed with the removal of the section and has reverted ] on occasions). I'm not sure what to do - his edits don't seem to qualify as pure vandalism, but the dispute resolution process can't really deal with editors who refuse to talk. If an admin could have a look and advise on/take appropriate action. Thanks. ] 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
**{{li|Russia-army 1994 08.gif}}
**{{li|Russia airforce 1994 16.gif}}
*Military ranks:
== Block request for ] ==
**]
**]
**]
--] 09:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please consider blocking {{vandal|Bosniak}} for repeated, disruptive behaviour in defiance of warnings. This behaviour includes:
*repeatedly claiming that there is a Serbian conspiracy to remove Bosniak-related information from Misplaced Pages, and repeatedly accusing various editors of being part of this conspiracy (e.g., )
*repeatedly removing correct information from or inserting incorrect information into articles, and justifying this behaviour using a spurious linguistic argument (e.g., ). (For those who want a fuller explanation, ] has coined the term "Bosniakophobia"; he insists it is a verifiable and notable term, even though he cannot provide any references to dictionaries or websites which use it. On the other hand, he claims that the well-established term "]" is not an English word, and falsely claims that it is an invention of Serbs which is used only on Misplaced Pages. However, ] and ] provide links to plenty of non-Misplaced Pages uses of the term.)
*] by nominating ] for deletion (]) in retaliation for someone having nominated one of his articles for deletion (])
*AfD vote tampering through changing four other users' votes from "Keep" to "Delete"
*AfD vote tampering through voting multiple times (see ])
*repeatedly inserted unsourced material to articles after editors have insisted that he provide a citation
*removing AfD tags
*removing speedy deletion tags
*reposting disputed merge tags
*various POV edits to various articles, including ], ], ]
*repeatedly uploading files (possibly the same image) without specifying source and copyright information (], ], ])
You can view the numerous warnings ] has been given on ]. ] has been previously blocked twice for ] and ]. —] 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:I blocked the ranges it appears, based on the long-term abuse page, he always comes from, for 24 hours. Someone should contact his ISP and get them to disconnect him, as it appears he has been using the same ISP for months. —]→] • 10:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:Also note the somewhat uncivil post in reference to the tagging of an article for speedy deletion (previously created 2006-01-05) leading to ] and the multiple vote stacking there
== ] ==
::] appears to be a nationalistic POV warrior. He has repeatedly made POV edits, attempted to disrupt ] with bad-faith AfD noms (see diffs provided by ] and altered (or deleted) other editor's comments. A block seems appropriate as an object lesson that this is not acceptable behavious since multiple warnings have been ignored. Also, this editor should be monitored for further violations. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 16:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked ] for 24 hours for disruption. He's been ] removing links to soapcentral.com from soap opera-related articles. He continued to do so after being asked to stop and explain his edits, and repeatedly blanked his Talk page. If anyone else thinks this was premature or unjustified or whatever, please feel welcome to undo my block. --] 10:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:If I'd seen it, I'd have just blocked him for at least a month for the vote tampering. That is so far from anything related to "good faith" that it's not even really worth discussing. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Endorse, loads of edits ? = yes, failure to discuss edits? = yes. disregarding and removing warnings? = yes. Blocked? = yes. Fair enough. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 10:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::Well, now that you've seen it here, why don't you go ahead and block him? —] 17:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::LOL, I was wondering, but didn't want to ask. Thanks P. FWIW, I think a one month block might be excessive, but I would strongly support an 8 day block; that would be 1 day for ] and 1 week for vandalizing/altering and AfD in progress. That's just my take on the situation. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 18:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Because it's up here for discussion, and other people are looking at it, so I don't feel a need to act precipitously. My "at least a month" is being gentle, I think; an indefinite block, giving him room to justify why he should be allowed back at all, is more appropriate I think, but some would find it quite harsh; after all, he's only cheated, lied, and forged. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have hesitated to apply an 8 day block immediately (if I had a mop and bucket), but you're right ], a longer block could easily be justified, it just warrants some discussion. This appears to be a pattern of behaviour that is unlikely to change without some rather heavy-handed intervention. Perhaps a one month block, followed by community probation, and possibly a limited ban on contentious articles? This would represent the third "official" sanction (see his ), and we could reasonably apply a three-strikes-you're-out rule. An immediate indef block would seem appropriate if there are further violations. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 21:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
== Rory Fitzpatrick ==
Blocked for one week for vote tampering.] 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I just semi-protected ]. I figured I would post about here, since it isn't may not appear justified at first glance. The basic story is that a message forum wants to nominate Fitzpatrick to the NHL all-star game as a joke. They have set up a website and are discussing various ways of promoting it, including adding the information to Misplaced Pages (see their thread about it here: ). I have removed the unverifiable information a couple of times and just semi-protected it. If another admin feels I was out of line, feel free to unprotect it. Otherwise, I'll unprotect it in a few days. -- ] 04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
=== Copyright violations ===
:You may also want to protect ], since someone suggested to . ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 06:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Since posting this report I've also discovered that this user has also been uploading images which he falsely claims to be the creator of, and/or falsely claims are in the public domain or are under a free license. ] In addition to the ones described in my original report, I've discovered three more images which are rather obviously not his (unless he's an AP photographer and somehow retains the right to relicense his photos), and a few more images are suspect but I haven't yet proved that they're copyright violations. Given his history of bad-faith copyright violations, would it be prudent to tag the rest of his images for speedy deletion? —] 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, as much as <pov>Fitzpatrick needs to pick it up on the ice</pov> he doesn't deserve that kind of crap -- ] 07:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I have unprotected the page now. It may help if a couple of people add it to their watchlist. -- ] 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I have it on my watchlist. My comment in his talk page has made it back to HFboards with general acceptance that a major media outlet has to report this first. Most users accepted this (oddly apparently not realizing that I was posting in that very thread all the way through), but, of course, a couple wish to add the website anyway. FWIW, I believe these are good faith edits rather than deliberate vandalism, and given how many people (and how many forums) are on board, I am surprised that the level of incidents has been this low. ] 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
:At the risk of adding to admin overload, I would suggest tagging them all at this point. It would simply be foolish to continue assuming good-faith when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Good work P. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone review my and ]'s decisions on ]? ] has objected on the User page (I moved it to the talk page) and Fys has objected in emails to me. As I'm new to this, I'd like a second (or maybe 3rd, I guess I'm the 2nd) opinion. Thanks. --] 15:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== VaughanWatch Username Vio, Block evading ==
:After a discussion on my talk page, I've decide to unprotect Fys's talk page and give him one last chance. It's easier than arguing with him. --] 16:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
{{user|PM Chef}} is a clear username violation, it's ]/Johnny Canuck trying to impersonate me using me old username. Indef block please? -- '''] <sup>] • ] ]</sup>''' 17:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::*The block and protecting his talk page are both completely pointless, and could be construed as stupidity. What are either supposed to achieve, all they have done is proved that newly qualified admins should not be allowed the block buttons. ] 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::**If you're not going to give any rationale for this claim, it's nothing but incivlity, and unwelcome here. ]·] 16:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::(edit conflict) If you have a problem with my actions, I suggest you start an ]. And in the mean time, please refrain from thinly veiled ]. --] 16:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::*The rationale is Fys's block log! ] 16:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::**No it isn't. I just mean that the block log was the reason for your statement, but you did give any ''reasoning'' for it. Say ''why'' it was stupidity, preferrably not using that language, if you would like to contribute to the discussion. ]·] 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Please take the time to read what is written "''could be construed as stupidity''" if you want to analyse that, it could be construed because it was obviously the wrong decision, personally I tend to concur with Mackensen below - it was a "disgrace" ] 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Ditto. The block was quite incivil and protecting the user pages was even more so. --] ] 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Done. ](])17:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
] has made his case on his ]. Could another admin please review the case and make a final decision. Thanks. --] 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I will leave it to others to discuss the etiquette of the WP:AN/3RR page and the merits of the initial three-hour block, or for that matter of an 8-fold increase in the length of a block based on the protest of the original block. I will note, however, that there appear to be differing views as to when it is appropriate to protect a blocked user's talk page, a step that cuts off all possibility of on-Wiki communication. My understanding had been that this step was considered drastic and was reserved for situations where the page is degenerating into true personal abuse, revelation of private information, or the like. More recently, however, I have seen page protection invoked based on allegedly "disrespectful" responses to a block or replacing one unblock request with another. It might be appropriate to develop a broader consensus on this issue. ] 16:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
==Michael Richards==
:A general discussion on the issue is probably a good idea. I went on the logic that you're entitled to one appeal (the unblock template clearly says not to try again), so once you've had that appeal, you have no need to edit your talk page, and it's just a waste of admin's time to let you keep going. Combining an extended block with protecting the page (as I did) is questionable, I think it's right, which is why I did it, but I can see good reasons not to, which is why I undid it again. --] 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppetry and vandalism on ]. ], ], and ]. Their edits, which remove mention of Richards' anti-Semitic comments against consensus, have been reverted by multiple users. They all post similar rants about "long-term" editors of Misplaced Pages refusing to listen to them. ] 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like Fys may of gotten a bit ahead of him self.. but since when did being interested in 'helping' become part of the blocking policy? Fys actions don't seem overly disruptive, I concur with Brad above about the protection of his talk page. ] (] 16:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] restarts personal attacks ==
:The disruptive nature was because he "helpfulness" looked like an admin making a decision (). I don't see a problem with non-admins offering opinions, but stating "no block" is disruptive. --] 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Be serious here.. this is an encyclopaedia.. not a court room.. its hardly disruptive to the '''encyclopaedia''', a warning would of surely sufficed. ] (] 16:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::He was warned, he refused to listen - check his talk page. --] 16:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a disgrace. Am I to understand that he was blocking for the offense of disagreeing with an administrator? And that the block was extended because he thought that was ridiculous. Has it come to this? ] ] 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A month ago, ] was blocked for stalking, personal attacks and generally disruptive behaviour. The initial block of 3 days was extended to 1 month by ]. Today, the block finally expired.
:No, he was blocked for disrupting 3RR and refusing to stop when warned. The block was extended for wasting admin's time with pointless repeated unblock requests (again, after being warned to stop). --] 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Disrupting? Looks like he disagreed with William. If that's blockable you'd better block me too. ] ] 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
First post since I got told to basically fuck off from ANI... I haven't read the rest of the conversation, and I don't have time to right now, but in case it's of any importance, Fys sent me an e-mail earlier asking if I wanted to review his block. ] ] 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The very first thing this user did was to go and insult Renata on her talk page by saying
I think that Fys has been acting in disruptive ways, (inventing Duty Solicitor as a role, changing the 3RR writeup, claiming ("no block") that 3RR blocks are not to be imposed and giving the impression of being an admin, etc) but I'm not sure I agree that everyone else has been sufficiently sensible in their communication of these issues to Fys. I'm also not sure I agree with Giano's characterisation of events or his comments bordering on personal attacks either, but that should not be much of a surprise, really, we rarely agree on approaches to matters these days. But if Mackensen says that there is reason to be concerned, then stepping back and reviewing matters with a view to making sure things go more smoothly in future might be a good idea. ++]: ]/] 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
He then proceeded to edit his user page by adding "This user has been censored 1 time" to it.
::Lar, you and I have never agreed on an approach to anything. It is a pity that 1000 plus admins took so long to spot an obvious error. ] 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Giano, that's not true, we have in the past agreed on many many things, but lately, since your unwarranted attack on me during the Carnildo re RfA, you and I have not seen eye to eye. In this case, you are right about there being some significant question about whether this sequence of events is appropriate, but you are delivering the message wholly inappropriately. There is no need to be so strident in your criticism, and I stand by my comment that your comments here border on incivility. That's not a crusade by me against you, by the way. ++]: ]/] 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Giano, I don't think you should bother responding. Anyone following Lar's crusade against yourself knows what to think about his latest comment. Some people are here to write encyclopaedia; others to block these people from editing and to follow them with incivil comments for months. We . Some of these admins find it prudent to block more active and dedicated wikipedians, who contributed to multiple featured articles, as their first action after obtaining the tools. Some defend this behaviour as perfectly reasonable. Since RfA has been broken, it's quite useless to point your opinions on ], ] or other public boards. --]</font> ] 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I got some of it too and was accused of "seconding insinuations and demands based on pure ideological or ethnic hate".
::::I think you're confusing a supposed crusade by me against Giano with an apparent crusade by you, against every admin, just about, or so it seems. The comment you make about "block more active and dedicated wikipedians, who contributed to multiple featured articles" suggests you think there are free passes. There are not. Internalise that. ++]: ]/] 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I just commented that we have ca. 500 active article writers and more than 1000 administrators. You can't get away from the facts. The latter often think themselves superior to the former, for some reason that escapes me. The present case is a nice illustration of what happens then. That's all I had to say, thanks. --] ] 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Is there not a single admin that writes articles?!? ]] 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::. Moreover, I know full well that we don't have 1000 active admins. ] ] 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::That rather depends on what you mean by article, there are a few who do write articles, and I suppose the rest must have done once I suppose. I rather think now though it depends on popularity and chatter on IRC. If the 1000 or so elected are not active then perhaps they were not as dedicated as those editors who have been editing away here for years without seeking to be admins. ] 18:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Which is their choice. And how about all the editors who aren't here any more. Shame on them too! I've come here to dispute the conduct of two sysops over a blocking, not to have another go-round about the evil IRC conspiracy. You've no cause to continue this crusade. ] ] 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::"You say you want a revolution... we're all doing what we can". Ghirla, et al, I'm not sure that going down the who contributes what road is all that useful. We all ARE doing what we can, or what we want to contribute. Myself, I write for a living (in part) so, while I could write big articles, I don't find writing large amounts of text all that relaxing. I tend to get involved in other things, like ], project templates and ] and gadgetry, and helping out with janitorial tasks. We all know that without writers there would be nothing to keep clean and without cleaners, the writing wouldn't last long. So let's stay focused on this case... ++]: ]/] 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh Lar, This is a general converstion, why do you always have to turn everything arownd to yourself? You folow me about having a pot here and pot there, I was not even thinking about you, in fact I don't think about you ] 21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Well Giano, I guess I ''long for the day'' when you don't think about me... so I don't have to read silly threads like this one, ] where you turn up on my talk page and disruptively interfere with my answering a question from another user with inane cloak and dagger stuff. But that's not what this is about, it's about Fys, a user already under sanction from ArbCom who was revert warring and was called o n it. You made disparaging and not very nice comments (which Dmcdevit in turn called you on, remember) in this thread about how it went down (your point was valid, the way you delivered the message, not at all valid) and now you're trying to spin it all around as if I'm following you about. As if! I'm not the one that turns up on your talk page harassing you, you're the one that turns up on my talk page harassing me, several times now. Whatever. Stay focused man. This is about Fys, not you, not me. ++]: ]/] 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There we have it: ''a gentle hint to be less interested in 3RR''. Shoo. Go away. Input not wanted. If that's the way the 3RR noticeboard is being run, then it's broken. I've had run-ins with that place before, and I've always come away with the impression that it was obsessed with the letter of the law rather than the spirit, and that appealing a block made there was like pulling teeth. ] ] 17:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:There's a reason I don't report people anymore, as a lowly user. --] ] 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I get confused when i look at Fys's block log. He's been editing since early 2004 and had never been blocked until this month. He got blocked 4 times in November 2006 (mainly because of 3RR, evading block, disruptive incivility, personal attacks). I am just wondering about this sudden change of behaviuor. -- '']'' Ω ] 17:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:He was formerly known as ]. ] ] 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Point of information: as Dbiv, he was sanctioned by Arbcom for edit warring and banned from the article. He protested, and eventually after no small amount of drama, the article ban was replaced with a general probation. ]. ] 17:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Totally agree with ]. "with an expiry time of 3 hours (a gentle hint to be less interested in 3RR)", "A gentle hint to be less interested in 3RR"? I realize that Misplaced Pages ] but can someone honestly tell me where such blocking reasoning corresponds to ]? Regardless of whether or not ] was correct in this block (which given the blocking reason I don't think he was) an uninvolved admin should be the blocking party... not an inolved one like himself. ''(]])'' 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Not to accuse or defend anyone but the ''truth'' is that William has been doing a great job on the 3RR. Misunderstandings happen all the time. It's getting a bit personal above between some wikipedians and what i suggest is to just take it easy and that all parties in this discussion calm down. -- '']'' Ω ] 17:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Except that you do mean to defend William and are doing so. Which is fine, but don't claim you're not. My concern is that William blocked someone with whom he was in a dispute, and with whom he has been in a dispute before. That's completely inappropriate. ] ] 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I haven't accused Fys but wondered about the change of his behaviour lately before getting an explanation. I haven't defended William actions but for the sake of calming the situation down i reminded people about William hard job. Maybe my comment was understood differently. -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This actually brings up a reasonable question; is there anyway the devs can make it so user logs transfer across with a users contribs when doing a name change? ] 17:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Oh perish the thought, did you not follow the "Giano Case" the developers have better things to do with their time was the comment I think there ] 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:We have a tradition here that a user can abandon an old account, make a clean break of it, and start over with a new identity and a clean slate, as a fresh start. (with no reputation, good or bad, to build on) If the new identity edits in good faith, and doesn't get into trouble, bygones are bygones. This even holds true (defacto) for people who are indef banned, as long as they don't repeat what got them banned, and never connect the accounts no one would ever know. We also allow changing user names with a retention of history (the name is changed, the old name redirected, etc.) but no "start over". Where it gets muddy is when it seems like some of each is desired. It does seem that way to me, Fys moved some things by copy/paste with a stated reason of wanting it to be harder to tie things together to his older ID. That's not a clean break... a clean break is in my view starting over completely. Many people who are indef banned don't seem to want to really break with their past, they want the best of both worlds. I don't favour that, it needs to be one or the other. If there is probation evasion, etc, the terms of the probation come over if any deliberate connection is made. Including copypasting things to evade easy linking. ++]: ]/] 18:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
IM(NS)HO and given this users record, he may need a stern warning or something heavier, because 1 months later, one can not see any signs of improvements. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:] blocked Truthseeker for 2 months.—] (]) 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:I saw Fys' edits to the 3rr board, and it looked to me like he was being disruptive. I figured he was setting himself up for yet another block. Given my past interactions with Dbiv/Fys, I saw nothing to be gained by involving myself. It looks to me like William M. Connolley blocked him for 3 hours for disruption. Even if the block summary was less than apt, I support the 3-hour block. ] ] 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== User ] closing unblock requests even though he is not an admin ==
:Begging everyone's pardon but with all the formatted sigs I couldn't follow the conversation anymore. ] ] 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Based on this users other contributions he was blocked as a trolling account, or at least one that may be linked to a banned user. Additionally, per ], "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions." I am not the only non-admin who will often check ] to see if there are any blatant refusals or malformed requests for unblocks that can either be fixed or help the user in question.—] (]) 08:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::I totally agree with you, but removing comments (even if they're wrong!) is inappropriate. Pynopoulous's post contains no personal attacks, so replying is more productive than removing it. ] 14:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::He removed mine and told me to ''create an account'' whilst I was using another AOL IP address after I was autoblocked. Um... I sorta can't create an account while while blocked. --] 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Do we still practice leaving AC off when blocking AOL? – ]] 01:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I just stumbled onto this, but it does seem like rather poor form, in that what's the use of reviewing the block if one has no power to reverse it in the first place. Plus there lies the potential for misleading others. ] 01:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:To throw in my two cents, Ryulong has been immensely helpful in procesing unblock requests. I usually first notice them when Ryulong alerts me to them on IRC. If something's an obvious decline, I see no reason why a non-admin shouldn't be permitted to decline it (much like non-admins are permitted to close deletion discussions if they are obvious keeps). --] 03:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::I was going to suggest that someone just go and nominate him for adminship and we can be done with it, but I see that he's already been through two unsuccessful RfAs, the second only last month, so I guess that's not a good idea. While it's okay for non-admins to close obvious keeps in AfDs, I don't think non-admins should do unblock declines. The whole purpose of the unblock request is to get a second administrator opinion on the appropriateness of the block (and perhaps an examination of the blocker's motives), so non-admins should not be sticking their noses in. It opens up the possibility of collusion between editors (not that there can't be collusion between administrators) to keep an unfairly blocked editor blocked. I have no doubt that Ryulong here is doing good work here, but the issue is that justice must not simply be done, it must be seen to be done. And for that, a second administrator opinion is really necessary. <sub>└</sub> <sup>''']'''</sup> / <sub>''<font color="black">]</font>''</sub> <sup>┐</sup> 04:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree with this assessment. Closing unanimous keeps is very different from denying unblock requests. What may be an obvious rejection to a non-admin may not be the same in the eyes of a second, neutral admin. Don't think we should be condoning non-admins handling unblock requests. – ]] 04:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Several of the unblock requests I have been dealing with are simple usernameblocks where the user does not know how to register a new account, malformed unblock-auto requests where the user is either directly blocked or there is an autoblock and the user needs to provide more information, unblocks that can't be done (such as ), or blatant denials that go along the lines of "no, you are not getting unblocked by calling a faggot" (you can ask Khoikhoi of how I assisted him in the past week or so). I am not the only non-admin who goes through ], and as Slowking Man himself said, I help more people out than I deny sockpuppets or other things. I will not go through ''all'' of the unblock requests. There are those I know I should not touch. However, any of the above I have done in the past few weeks, as you can see from my contribs in the user talk space.—] (]) 05:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no not really. If you view Ryulong's first "RfA" in early August 2006, you can see that his closing of "unblock request templates" was an issue back then. So when he says he's only been doing it for the last few weeks, he's being disingenuous at best. Furthermore, it is rather troubling from a review of the "history" of this AN that Ryulong himself attempted to blank this thread about 3 times before finally being forced to respond by the community. So the bottom line is, is he going to stop like many admins have recommended, or not? ] 17:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::In looking at ] it seems that there are only a few folk who regularly get involved in deciding blocks for 3RR violations. I think we all agree that if one is involved in a dispute it's not a good thing to also be involved in handing out blocks around it. Would it be helpful if there were some way to encourage more admins to participate in this part of keeping things running smoothly? (I have given out a few but it's only because people turn up at my talk page and ask me to get involved...) ++]: ]/] 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Upon inspection of this user's ] he is definitely the same user, or another one of our banned friends pulling more crap like . Either way, once I notified admins of this, Zscout370 blocked the user indefintely.
:::I've moved Bishonen's post out so it's clear it's not a response to this post, which I think is still an open question... do we have enough people helping out on 3RR to avoid potential conflicts of interest? That maybe should be discussed somewhere else, not sure... (Please feel free to change it back if that is not the desired effect) ++]: ]/] 22:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Anyway, I was not forced into replying. I did so on my own, and led to this. I see nothing wrong with denying unblock autos that are direct blocks or unblock requests from people who directly attack the blocking admin, or several blocking admins. I may not be able to actually unblock, just like I cannot delete an article. I avoid several unblock requests that are too complex or I do not know how to fix. Several of them are the AOL unblocks, that I help by telling them to register, as they are all anon-only, as is stated by someone up there. I did do it in the past, but I stopped and restarted only recently, and now I pay more attention. I saw that the OP for this did an unblock request, and I ignored it and let someone else deal with it. I can bet you that Coconuthead will also post an unblock request soon, and I too will let another user deal with it.—] (]) 01:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite upset. I agree 100% with all the comments of ] above, and with his unblocking of Fys. Tango, your notion that a blocked user, confined to his talkpage (how is he going to disrupt the 3RR board from there?) needs to have his block extended, and his page protected, for talking back to you ''on'' that page, is hair-raising, and so is your statement above that he has ""no need to edit his talkpage" once the unblock request has been reviewed. Do please consider the unequal power balance between an admin and a blocked user, and the shock effect of being blocked at all; it is to be expected that a newly blocked user will be terse rather than humble, and it is expected that you, from your position of power, be prepared to put up with some of that and stay cool. Yes, even that you extend a little patience to such "disobedience" as restoring the unblock template--what's the huge deal there? What are the tremendous swathes of "admin time" being wasted, what's the "quiet life" being torn to tatters? I'm very sorry you didn't see any need to post here for review ''before'' performing those actions, because they're a big deal. Perhaps you should be excused for being a new admin... or perhaps, being new, you should all the more make a point of posting on ANI before zapping a productive user for 24 hours and simultaneously closing off their single means of communication? Please request input from the community next time you feel that a user must be prevented from wasting your time by speaking to you. ] | ] 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC).
:::I also blocked the user since one of the first things he done as a Misplaced Pages was to create (now deleted) userboxes stating his love for anal sex and cocaine. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:I think you have a point, additional communication and help might be good, but did you mean it as a reply to my inquiry as to whether more eyes on the 3RR process and notice board might be beneficial? Also do you think that Tango is more likely to learn from friendly feedback and guidance or from the sort of feedback that uses "utterly stupid" and similar phrasing? ++]: ]/] 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Please stay focused on this case, as you say above, Lar. Even I, who can read your subtext, am bored by seeing you trot out that old Giano grudge/Bishonen grudge for the nth time—how bored must other people be? Sorry if the thread formatting seemed to imply I was speaking to you, I'm not entirely clear on these intricacies. Please note for future reference that unless I should directly address you, you can quite safely assume I'm not speaking to you. I was speaking to Mackensen and Tango. Your yearning to see me criticize Giano and let you watch didn't come into it. ] | ] 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC).
:::Who Lar has used the phrase "utterly stupid" please provide a diff for that, as you have phrased it within quote marks. I have yet to note an awful lot of friendly feedback from Tango, or am I missing something here. All I can see is you sniping away as usual. ] 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I redact any claim that you precisely said "utterly stupid". Instead you just said "could be construed as stupidity", "proved that newly qualified admins should not be allowed the block buttons", and "disgraceful" (not your initial remark, just your latch on when someone else said it first)... for which you were warned by Dmcdevit. Twice. Seems pretty clear cut to me, you need to work on how you deliver messages, even when you're right. That's not a grudge, not a snipe, no matter how you or Bishonen spin it, it's merely an observation... that your input to this process may not have been as helpful as it could have been if you had been more collegial. Do you actually dispute that? Further, that it is I that points it out to you doesn't mean it's not true. You can have the last word, my point's made. ++]: ]/] 22:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::*Yes Lar, I will have the last word, until I started to make a noise none of you fair minded dedicated admins could be bothered to do a thing about Fys's block, presumably all too busy chatting away on IRC playing with your cloaks and daggers. - Good night. ] 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::I think you're missing the fact that I extended the block after the *3rd* unblock request, I simply warned after the 2nd. And a blocked user can affect more than just their talk page - they can affect ], which causes other admins to waste time dealing with a matter which has already been dealt with. --] 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the point is, in relation to Tango, that he was an admin of not quite 24 hours standing. He chose to involve himself in a block review involving an admin of quite considerable standing. To decide to unblock is in effect saying to the other admin "You have broken policy and done something you shouldn't have done". I ask as a rhetorical question of human psychology whether a new admin, however fair they try to be, is really going to do that to someone much more senior? No, of course they aren't. They are going to bend over backwards to see the other admin's point of view. That's why Tango should not have chosen to be involved. I do not fault his inexperience as an admin, I fault his judgment in getting involved in something where there was only one conclusion he was ever going to reach. ]. “] ] ]”. 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If non-admins other than Ryulong are reviewing blocks, I think this practice needs to cease. The {{tl|unblock reviewed}} template says this: ''but''' one or more administrators has reviewed''' and declined this request''. If non-admin users review it, they are saying (according to the template message) claiming to be an admin, even if it isn't deliberate. If my interpretation of the unblock reviewed template is correct, then this practice should end. ] 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:You are right, I would never have unblocked you, even if I'd disagreed with the original admin, however that doesn't mean I would have endorsed the block. I would have sat back and let someone else deal with it. Agreeing with the original admin is pretty uncontroversial, so there is no problem with a new admin doing so. Disagreeing with the original admin is very controversial, so I wouldn't have gotten involved. You've assumed that I made the decision to get involved before assessing the case, which is completely incorrect - I decided if I felt the block was appropriate, and then decided if I should get involved. --] 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Then reword the template. In my opinion, unless Ryu's been making errors in his judgment we shouldn't feel obligated to censure him for his actions. ]ing an unblock request should go under the same rules as snowing an AfD would, and not need undoing unless it was actually an erroneous review. --] <small>]</small> 02:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:: This is a clear problem with the unblock template, then. Much like flipping a coin where heads count and tails dosen't count, unless adminstrators reviewing unblocks have the courage of their convictions, the answers will ALWAYS be heads, regardless of how many tails were flipped already. How many adminstrators are reviewing unblock requests pro-forma? Stop it, if you are. ] 20:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not opposed to that. I'm just noting that, right now, Ryulong and other non-admins shouldn't be reviewing them according to the template itself. ] 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I would imagine most administrators do have "courage in their convictions", as you put it. The only reason I wouldn't generally go against a decision another admin has made is because I'm new to the job - give me and month or two to get used to things, and if I disagree with another admin, I'll do something about it. Until then, I'll let someone else do something about it. --] 21:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
''Yes Lar, I will have the last word, until I started to make a noise none of you fair minded dedicated admins could be bothered to do a thing about Fys's block, presumably all too busy chatting away on IRC playing with your cloaks and daggers. - Good night. Giano 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)''
::I don't think ] is relevant here, there's generally a limited amount of involvement in unblock requests...not enough to snow on (so to speak). I agree with a couple editors above when they say unblock requests should be performed by admins. Many times these are judgement calls, I think someone doing this should have had at least some vetting. ] 03:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Wait, you're saying ] wouldn't apply to an {{tl|unblock}} that read "THE MODS ARE ALL FAGGOTS AND I HOPE THEY KILL THEMSELVES!!!"?
:::The point of SNOW is that if there's a snowball's chance in hell that something will succeed, then you can prematurely shoot it down. Just like nominating the day's featured article for deletion (which is now a formal speedy keep clause, but didn't used to be), there is zero chance of that unblock request succeeding. You shouldn't have to wait for 5 or 6 other people to all come comment that you can't nominate the main page for deletion, you should just close it as soon as you see that nomination. I would hold the same to be true for obscene unblock requests. --] <small>]</small> 09:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Umm... ] ] 23:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that there are three issues: 1) That the decline template says "an admininstrator" has reviewed, and Ryulong knows he's not an admin, 2) that the above poster was correct in saying that unblock requests are judgement calls, and the Misplaced Pages community has spoken clearly in two RFAs that they simply do NOT trust Ryulong's judgment in such matters, and 3) the issue arises as to what to do about Ryulong's usurpation of admin vestments . . . ] 20:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That is a slur on every administrator on this encyclopaedia. I, for one, am offended. Am I to understand that this is acceptable discourse? I believe I asked this question two months ago, but was told that because Giano had been so grievously violated by Tony Sidaway that some harsh language was understandable. Well, he wasn't even blocked this time and it's happening again. What especially troubles me is that everything obviously took place on-wiki. The initial block, the extension, the protection, my unblock--everything happened on-wiki. Yet this is all apparently the fault of those grievous off-wiki machinations, which Giano credits as the cause of all our problems. This is utterly unacceptable behaviour, ''especially'' from an experienced article editor who has been warned ''repeatedly'' that incivility is unacceptable. There have been many words of censure today for an inexperienced admin who made a mistake. Are there any for an experienced editor, who has yet again demonstrated his sovereign contempt for civility and politeness in public discourse? ] ] 23:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::: I'm not really concerned about Ryulong's actions here because he always works with the communities best interest in his work - however, I am more concerned how this process this could be jumped upon by people with a grudge etc to cause all sorts of nonsense. My own perference is that Admin only deal with unblock requests. --] 10:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Maybe this is a good point for everyone to just stop posting in-thread. The extraneous conflicts are out of order here. Fys is back up and running; his point has been made and agreed with by a number of admins and users, and disagreed with by a number of other ones. I think that this would be an appropriate topic for a RFC for Tango, if Frys wants to continue the point. Everyone else getting into a fight on ANI isn't going to help anyone. Please calm down. Thanks. ] 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Please point out to me where this user is only declining "obscene" unblock requests. My casual scan of his contributions shows that he's doing much more than that. Just my zwei pfennig.] 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::I could list ones like or or , however, I'm much more interested in how you found the administrators' noticeboard on your ].—] (]) 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh ya know, boredom, browsing around wikipedia over holiday vacation. What I want to know is why you are going around blanking comments and raising such a fuss about it. ] 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:No reason. Just because your first edit was to call a {{tl|prod}} from Jimbo a vandal edit, and then you find this page and this random thread.—] (]) 03:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know who "Jimbo" was at the time, sorry. But then again you knew that since you took the time to blank my comment on another party's talk page a few minutes ago about that very topic. Thanks, ] 03:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:Well I agree with Ryulong, while I see that there can be an issue here I do not feel Ryulong's actions were wrong. Admins handle a lot of bullshit, every thing from personal attacks, vandalsim control, and maintaining wikipedia. there are only 1,068 of us that have the admin privs and of those 69.69% are active. I think that adminship is '''NO BIG DEAL''' and thus if an nonadmin in good standing can render assistance to the admins I thank them. especially helping with unblocks. Ryulong is always on IRC if a user needs unblocked he can contact an admin on IRC I have never not been able to reach another admin there. just because someone fails an RfA that doesnt mean that they are untrustworthy. it just means that an overwhelming number if users dont support him. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::I have no desire to start an RFC on Tango and will not do so. On William M. Connolley, that's different. ]. “] ] ]”. 23:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
==Anonymous AOL user adding spam links==
An anonymous user from AOL is constantly adding spam links and bogus information to numerous articles related to ghosts and the supernatural. So far, I've seen the one and the same link added to ], but from these IPs:
*{{user|172.143.166.70}} -
*{{user|172.201.12.187}} -
*{{user|172.142.57.188}} -
When adding this link, this spammer immediately follows up with another edit elsewhere in this article. I don't know why, but it seems like an attempt cover up his tracks, so to speak, since a simple check on the difference between current and last edit won't show the link added. By now, I think it's about time that an administrator had a look at this matter, since this spammer really doesn't seem to get it when warned by other editors. /'''M.O''' (]) (]) 14:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Please let me know when you do. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 08:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:Another IP used by this spammer:
::::I don't think a block on Fys was really warranted this time. However, Fys should immediately cease from sending rude emails to users who do not agree with him. Thank you. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 10:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:*{{user|172.188.162.120}} -
:/'''M.O''' (]) (]) 14:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::If you don't want me to complain about your actions, then don't block me for having not broken a policy. ]. “] ] ]”. 13:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
*{{user|81.145.241.154}} - to once again spam ] with the same link he always adds. --] ]<font color="navy">♦</font>] 07:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
== Move attempts by Gene Nygaard ==
Other instances of same link added:
*{{user|172.143.166.70}} -
*{{user|172.201.12.187}}
*
]'s unilateral moves for the remotion of diacritics in articles' names have been reported here on AN/I last month (see )
:'''Comment''' - Perhaps a range block would be a suitable solution here? I have feeling that we haven't seen this spammer/vandal for the last time, although the site (ghosttracker.50webs.com) is now blacklisted and can't be linked to from Misplaced Pages articles. He seems intent on damaging the articles in question, when he can no longer link to his site. Abusive spammers like this one has no business on Misplaced Pages, thus a range block might be the most pertinent action in order to prevent further damage? /'''M.O''' (]) (]) 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
which resulted in a community probation banning him from non consensual article moves (see ).
However, I believe that he might be trying to dodge the probation by his recent attempt to propose a move while tagging along more than ten other moves. On November 17, Gene contested moves carried out by ] by proposing ] to be moved back to ] (see ] and ]). 13 other moves were associated to Árpád Élő's, resulting in a lack of proper discussion relevant to each individual case. I am frankly worried about this situation because if there is consensus about removing the diacritics to ], the others would follow suit without even being discussed. This is the nth time that I try to explain to Gene that his moves are disruptive and compromise Misplaced Pages's accuracy, but it's hopeless really. Could somebody please verify this situation? I propose the 13 moves to be detached from ]'s and I suggest Gene's conduct to be once again evaluated.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'm sorry I didn't have time to dig into this when you brought it to my talk page, thanks for bringing it here. I'm thinking that each of these moves should be discussed and consensed on separately. Bundling them all together by Gene may not be the best approach. The community ban from moving suggests that it's clear to the community that Gene shouldn't move things or cause them to be moved by confusingly obscure mechanisms. ++]: ]/] 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
*The proposed ] may be relevant here. (]) 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
==3RRR?==
These are AOL IPs and the problem I've always seen is that there is so much collateral damage... but I'm going to go ahead and block these specific IPs for anon access only, 48 hours, account creation allowed. (note WinHunter already blocked
Hi,
81.145.241.154) as always, comments welcomed. ++]: ]/] 00:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been watching the Indian Buddhist Revival page and it's talk page since I posted a response to an RFC there. I haven't made any edits to the article itself, because the article has a lot of...stuff going on and I want to be very careful to thoroughly source any edits I make.
In the past two days, I've watched as ] has removed every single edit from ] without any comment on the talk page first, and adding what I would describe as inflammatory edit summarys. I've done nothing, though, I really felt for this user - as far as I can tell,he has little command of the English language, and he's doing his best to make good faith edits.
== Abusive edit ==
When ] actually removed the post from this user on the article TALK PAGE, I put my foot down]. This person at least has the right to speak. My very first edit to this page was to revert the talk page. In the edit summary I put "I double dog dare you..."].
By {{user|WhiteEagleSerbianPride}} wich is a suspected sockpupped of {{user|PANONIAN}}. --] <sup>] :-)</sup> 15:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
He left the Talk article as it was, and added a comment. He then put a civility warning template on my user page. Another user (whom I barely know) very kindly took it off - not at my behest, though I thank him for it. Hkelkar put it back. The other user removed it. There is now an EDIT WAR going on at my USER TALK PAGE].
::Related-seeming troubling threat here from anon IP {{IPvandal|212.200.175.122}} to ] ] 16:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I want someone to look at this. Hkelkar has no business editing my user talk page. He also, in my opinion, has no business removing a post from an article talk page. The other user is simply helping me do something I would otherwise do myself. I didn't ask him to do it, but I did post a thank you on his talk page the first time he did it.
I've blocked WhiteEagleSerbianPride indefinitely - only one edit, and it's a death threat. I'll leave someone more experienced to deal with any sockpuppet issues. --] 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:I've blocked that IP address for 24 hours. I can't see any point warning people not to give death threats... --] 16:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::I tend to agree. Particularly threats as ominous as that one...] 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::That is upsetting, but someone should run ] on ], he speaks Serbian and that is the country from which the death threats supposedly were voted on. ] 16:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::There's a CheckUser request pending. ] 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The CheckUser has come back an "unrelated". The accounts that made the death threats are blocked, so I guess this matter is now closed. --] 11:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry this is so long.
== Hinduism ==
] 09:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::Notice the extremely inflammatory nature of NinaEliza's comments. I have "no business" editing her talk page? last time I checked any wikipedian can comment on a talk page.Plus, she seems not to understand the concept of neutrality at all.
::Srilankanbuddhist keeps persistently adding bogus edits to the Indian Buddhist article and making highly incivil comments
in his talk page. This goes above and beyond the normal background noise of incivility and is outright rubbish (in edit, he refers to "nomadic tribes in Mumbai", a nonsense statement he keeps entering everyday, you know of any "nomadic tribes in Mumbai?". First he says millions of people converted to Buddhism, not in citation given, now he bumps it down to thousands, using an extremist Sinhala propaganda source. If he uses that then I will use tamilnation.org in the article as well). He clearly has no concept of wikipedia policy and perhaps you should drop a word on his talk pae about civility.In fact, these Neo-Buddhist editors seem to be shuttling back and forth. First Dhammafriend, then he disappears and Ambedkaritebuddhist, now he's gone and Srilankanbuddhist appears. Some kind of sock/meatpuppetry is definitely afoot.
::And then, Ninaeliza rushes to defend his extremely inflammatory comments by using incivil edit summaries like "I double dog dare you" (for which I duly warned her).She seems to think that wikipedia norms do not apply to her.] 09:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::So, if you kept reverting the new users edits with popups (meaning no explanations in your edit summary), how did you expect his edits to get better exactly? ] <sup>]</sup> 09:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Don't vandalize my comments with your own . ] <sup>]</sup> 09:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Sorry, edit conflict.] 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::For details, see this case in point, where Blnguyen (an admin) arrives at the same conclusion of incivility. Also, see and regarding her "friend" BhaiSaab (an anti-semite , no less)] 09:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::Also, see this post by Blnguyen to Srilankanbuddhist .] 09:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Hkelkar and other users, you have no business removing other users comments from the talk page of the articles or the user talk pages. Please remember that ], they belong to the Wikimedia Foundation. Please ] with other editors. ], that edit summary is provacative if not a personal attack. ], edit summaries like can be construed as ] and ]. In case you think that this user is a sockpuppet of another user, you can report this to ] along with evidence. Please do not edit war over any page of wikipedia. In case you think that a warning has been ''unfairly'' given to you, you can comment below the warning and let the administrators decide. ], in this case your civility warning was not justified at all. ], please do not leave , they can be construed as ''personal remarks''. You have every right to comment below the comments left by other users. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Some anti-Hindu propaganda links by mischievous non-Hindus were included in the article Hinduism. The same were removed and strong support of all editors recd. These links found it's place on talk page which is nothing but subversive way of forcing viewers to view these idiotic links. Abecedare is trying to have it in subversive way by citing vague Misplaced Pages policy. Admins knowledgable of Hinduism must intervene to remove these links from talk page and cite proper policy. ] 01:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize to Misplaced Pages for my provacative edit summary. I will never do it again. Thank you for the correction. ] 10:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:"Mischievous non-Hindus" ? ] 09:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'll have a word with swadhyayee regarding his mis-worded complaint above. He's new and a bit confused, but he's a good guy and makes a valid claim. Some anons have been editing tendentiously there .] 23:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:For anyone who may not be aware, several of these editors are currently involved in ] that is relevant to these issues. ] 15:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks HKelkar, I was and am short of words to express the nefarious activities of some anonymous editor and Abecedare's striving to support the nefarious activities. I have not grieved against the link you provided. I have objections against inclusion of some external links suggesting that Hinduism has it's roots in christainity or like things. While, I said non-Hindu editors, I meant the mischievous elements of other religion who try to downplay Hinduism and promote one's religion. No sane policy can support such nefarious activities. I fail to understand when everyone involved with Hinduism find it appropriate to remove the un-realiable links, why someone should be interested to have the same on talk pages? My earnest appeal to all here is help in preventing nefarious activities in the name of Misplaced Pages policy. ] 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
== Serial ] violations on my talk page ==
All in a days work... Please do '''NOT''' delete the page prior to meta spamlist. --<small>] ]</small> 11:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm involved in a content dispute with {{user|vintagekits}} (see discussion at ) which has spilled over onto my talk page. I gave them a polite warning for canvassing due to . Now they have added an entirely spurious canvassing warning to my own talk page (actual is a <nowiki>{{prodwarning}}</nowiki> template) and are edit-warring to keep it there . This also happened yesterday when I put a civil0 and civil1 tag on their page after these uncivil edits — they placed the exact same tags on my own talk page and edit-warred to keep them there.
:If you don't want it deleted, why bother mentioning it here? ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 13:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::I think the point was merely that the URL should be added to the spam-blacklist so the bot doesn't just re-post it rater than that the page should never be deleted. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 14:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Yup. --<small>] ]</small> 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
==Request block==
This is starting to come close to harrassment, so can an administrator have a quick word and tell them to knock it off? Thanks! ] 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Could someone deal with the IP 193.63.62.188 they seem to be on a bit of a rampage. , etc. Cheers. --] | ] 13:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked for 2 months. He's just came back from a month block. -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for that. --] | ] 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== Image upload question ==
I actually would like you to knock it off, you are never off my talk page, you are just bitter because people dont agree with you on every issue ] 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
An editor has just re-uploaded an image ] that was deleted yesterday because it lacked origin and copyright ownership problems. It has again been tagged for those problems, but now it has seven days before it will be deleted again. As this was 'speedy' deleted before, speedy as recreated material doesn't seem to apply. The editor, {{user|Lilb1293}}, has a history of uploading unattributed images, and does not respond to talk page messages. Can anything be dome about either the re-uploaded image or the editor -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 14:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This is total bull, you come on my talk page accusing me of things that you have been doing also. A case of the pot calling the kettle black imo ] 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:It seems to me that several images, e.g. ] - have been copied directly from http://www.rap-wallpapers.com e.g. http://www.rap-wallpapers.com/categories.php?cat_id=24 - the label says "I, the creator of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy" but it appears to be copyright violations --] 14:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:Him doing bad things doesn't mean you're allowed to. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:: I understand what you are say but the guy follows me around on every page I edit and make all sorts of accusations when infact the verse is true. I would be more than happy to stay off his talk page as long as them same is done for me. That editor seems to be winding up editors daily, its just my turn today! ] 17:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Oh, wow, you're right. I encourage any admins, before taking actions, to carefully review both talk pages' edit histories. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 18:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:''Clarification''. I in no way meant to indicate that he did anything largely objectionable. Nobody did, and I don't see why this needs administrator attention. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Thank you Amarkov ] 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Feel free to review my edits to ]. The civility warnings I added (in good faith, I might add) were ; I them back once then decided not to revert again after they were . I then Vintagekits to stop breaking ] on my own talk page. ] 18:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
== ULC Vandalism ==
I looked into this, and then looked a little bit more. It appears to be a case of malicious nit-picking on all sides. Recommend sending both editors to bed wihout dinner, and no dessert for a week. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:: But I'm hungry - anyway I am off line for a bit now so hope it is sorted out soon ] 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*So exactly what nits have I picked? Are you disputing that the edits were uncivil and thus didn't warrant the civility warning I gave? Are you saying that are not canvassing? Are you saying that the prodwarning tag is inappropriate canvassing? I have to say, as a good faith user I'm pretty disappointed with the reponse I'm getting from the admins on this. ] 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Our article ] has been systematically vandalised for another church's own personal gain. Our church ULC Monastery has been in a continuous edit war trying to maintain the legitimacy of the article. The user ULCGUY was banned from editing because of his repeated defacement of the article. But now a new user un-registered user with the IP of 75.26.52.67 is starting to deface our article. I would like to request that this page be put under semi-protection too keep this from happening. I am new too Misplaced Pages so I do not know how too post this under the request for protection page. Regards, ULC Monastery. --] 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: I'm not actually an admin, I'm just trying to suggest (with a bit of gentle humor) that the best way to handle this situation would be to step back and take a breather. So far, no one has committed a violation worth issuing a block; the best way to avoid escalating the situation would be to edit elsewhere for a while before returning to contentious areas; consider it a kind or "working wikibreak". ] <font color ="green">]</font > 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*I don't even want anyone to be blocked! What I ''actually'' requested (see above) was for someone independent in a position of authority to have a quiet word with Vintagekits and tell him to quit it with the ] and ] violations. I've tried resolving this with him on my own by leaving messages on his talk page (first step recommended by ]); you can see above how well that turned out. ] 19:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
An average of 2-3 vandalisms a day isn't much. Maybe just blocking the IP in question would be better. ] 16:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::There is no such thing as 'someone in authority' on the site (other than ArbCom and the Foundation staff I suppose, but they are not used for this kinda thing). Everyone is equal - some just have extra mopping up abilities. As Doc Tropics says, the pair of you should just take a step back and calm down (try and think about this as if it were real-life. Would you continue to argue until it ended up as a punchout and then being arrested? Or would you break it up and walk away?). Looking at both talk pages I see both users being uncivil to one another - the only thing that will come from persuing this is blocks on both parties, as far as I can see.-]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree, the guy needs to chill out, he seems to think that all his edits are to be taken as law. I will take a week out before even looking at any of his articles. p.s. thank you for the advice ] 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:::* So what would you suggest as the appropriate response to someone who is blatantly uncivil to you, then edit wars to remove your civility warning tag from their talk page while simultaneously edit warring to put the exact same tag on your own talk page? I can't go to ], because they require a npa3 tag which if I put it on his talk page will trigger another edit war. I don't believe I have been uncivil myself (certainly nothing on the scale of or ), can you be more specific? (In response to your analogy, I'd call over the bouncer and tell him "hey, that guy over there is being rude to me, could you tell him to give it a rest please?" which is ''exactly'' what I'm doing here.) ] 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Well I would say that ''Incorrect, someone needs to pull your reins in - you need to check your attitude and how you deal with and handle other editors - it in no wonder you attract so more trouble and vandals!'' is uncivil to the same level as you state there. I would also point out that removal of warnings on a users talk page is not against policy but can be seen as indication of problems. Also, an edit war requires 2 parties or more to be a war - which indicates that you also edit warred.
::::As you say above, you should have put an npa3 warning on the page and seen where it went from there - if he removed it, so be it - that in itself is not a 'crime'. If he continued with incivility you could then have taken in to WP:PAIN.
::::So, as far as I can see - the situation spiralled out of control due to both parties taking things personally - take some time apart, don't interact and the problem will fade as far as I can see.
::::Also, my analogy above doesn't mention anywhere with bouncers... The arrests would be the equivelant of being blocked. We don't have bouncers here as I said.-]<sup>]</sup> 00:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::''"'Incorrect, someone needs to pull your reins in..."'' is '''not''' my comment, it's another example of incivility by Vintagekits. See . Also note that Vintagekits continued incivility above at . I'll stay away from his talk page and keep the npa3->] advice in mind if there are more problems, although I was more worried about him edit-warring to add it to my talk page than remiving it from his own talk. ] 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Jesus, D give it a rest for a bit - let back off each other. My last word on it for a bit ] 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::(edit conflict)Ah, indeed it wasn't, my apologies. Ok, I will adjust my advice then - Vintagekits, stop being uncivil and adding warnings, incorrectly, to Demiurge's talk page - it will get you blocked if it continues. Although, I will stick to the 'avoid each other' advice though, as I have seen it solve many a problem on the site as it gives editors time to calm down and do something else.-]<sup>]</sup> 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::: Thank you, that's all I was looking for. ] 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Comment''' - You can request protection for a page ]. However, as Yandman points out, a few "experiments" a day isn't really too bad, and if all these edits come from a single user it is often better to deal directly with the user and not lock a page from potentially helpful input. ]]] 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== Johnny Hazzard ==
::(edit conflict) Those are multiple IPs over a single range. This page has been added to the ''watchlist'' of IRC Antvandalbots and would be monitored over time. However, if that does not help, I would suggest a temporary semi-protection of the page over a period of few days, so that it might stall vandalism. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see edits to ]: , , , , and , as well as , ] and ]. ] insists on reinserting an unreferenced claim regarding this pornography actor's real name, even after the extensive quote on the topic I left on the article's talk page.<font color="660000">—</font>] ] 19:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The reason why this user has not added this to the ] page is that this page is not watched by many users and therefore is highly susceptible to sneaky vandalism. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
: I reverted the unsourced material, explained on the talkpage, and will continue to monitor. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
== Return of the Angry Bahraini ==
:: Thanks. I hope the message gets through.<font color="660000">—</font>] ] 06:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
He's now doing punitive reverts (of me ''and'' AnonMoos) from ] and previously ].
==]==
I have permanently blocked {{user|Tannim}}. He has been blocked several times, and on November 10 blocked for one month for repeated edit warring and insertions of POV edits. I had no dealings with him up to the point where he repeatedly wrote anti-admin screeds to the unblock-en list. When I finally replied to him that his block seemed appropriate, he replied to me, ''As the administrators seem to be given favored status and are allowed to abuse editors and their rights even though Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a free editing source, I will do as I see fit.''. For that reason, I have blocked him indefinitely, until such a time as he indicates his willingness to edit as per Misplaced Pages norms. ]|] 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The IP range 84.255.148.0 - 84.255.158.255 is the Batelco, or Bahrain Telcommunication Company, DSL range. Can we block the whole range? And communicate that to Hussain Ghasra, (hussain@batelco.com.bh)the listed contact for Batelco? I'm told that Batelco hasn't been cooperative in the past, but perhaps someday pigs will fly and the Mac lie down with the PC. ] 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:That makes sense to me. Also, his username is too close to that of ]'s. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 21:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
==]==
::I have a strong hunch that {{user3|{{{1|Preform}}}}} is user Tannim and is editing again, immediately defying his block.--] 22:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Could I get a block for disruption for this user? He just posted what he claims is his account password on his userpage in . If he were a more constructive editor, I'd say to remove it from the page history and give him a talking-to, but he's been a problem in the past. -]<sup>]</sup> 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
*Nevermind, was just indef-blocked for non-standard characters in username. -]<sup>]</sup> 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
==Harassment by ]==
Given the repeated abuse of the unblock list by this user I support a permanent block for this user and any identified socks. ++]: ]/] 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed. His posts to unblock-en-l gave me a strong feeling that we won't be able to work with him, even if we want to. ] 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to the evidence I presented at ], ] attempted to start an argument with me . Essentially, Prosfilaes took aggressive exception to my observation that while academic credentials are correlated with notable ideas, they are neither a cause nor a logical prerequisite thereof. Shortly thereafter, apparently in retribution for requesting arbitration , I was aggressively stalked by one "Haldane Fisher", who (among other nuisances) reverted all of my edits, and only my edits, to the article ]. ,,] Fisher was quickly spotted as a bogus account and by administrator ]. But this was not the end of the problem, for Prosfilaes, apparently smelling a golden opportunity to extend his quarrel with me, immediately by following in the footsteps of "Haldane Fisher" and removing ''all and only'' my own edits to the page, using the false pretext that only my edits were not referenced. In fact, none of the generic references listed at the bottom of the page were cited ''anywhere in the section I edited'' ("Arguments For/Against"), which shows that this pretext was invented by Prosfilaes to cover his violation of ]. Nevertheless, while trying to hold the line against Prosfilaes' damage to the article, I attempted to reason with him/her on the article's . Unfortunately, in return for my patience, Prosfilaes indignantly reported me for "violating 3RR" while again , thus prompting administrator ] to block me. When I explained the situation to Connolley, he irritably refused to lift the block. He did, however, me to report Prosfilaes to WP:ANI. I'm following Connolley's advice, and would appreciate it if something could be done to prevent a recurrence of this blatant harassment. Thank you, ] 17:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== Indefinitely blocked user editing ==
{{user|87.78.186.200}} (otherwise known as {{user|Subversive element}}, {{user|Tit for tat}}, and {{user|Jan Jakea}} - all blocked indefinitely) is editing again. Could someone deal with this? ] 21:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:You should probably briefly explain why you believe it's the same user. ] 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Ok, no problem. Please take a look . Near the end of that section, {{user|87.78.186.200}} states "From the contribs I made with the Subversive_element account..." ] 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Diff for above quote . ] 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
== Brendan Loy ==
::I have blocked the IP for 1 month ] 01:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A message board has posted a link to ] resulting in a spike of vandalism and unregistered edits. Requesting semi-protection. Zz414 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== WP POINT (Schools and notability) ==
:] is thataway. Four vandal edits in the past day doesn't seem like much, though. ] <small>]</small> 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Trying to assume good faith but editor seems to be engaged in WP:POINT. - Unless someone wants to suggest school does not have some level of notability? --] 23:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Given that the speedy tags that have been placed are often "no reason given" I think this is indeed ]. Endorse a short block if the user will not listen to reason. All those speedies in his contrib history need undoing too I think. ++]: ]/] 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*That's no pointmaking, that's blatant vandalism. Should still be blocked, though. - ] 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
== Borked page move ==
==Single purpose accounts on ]==
There are a number of single purpose user accounts that seem to have been created just for the purpose of promoting the religious group "Opus Dei". For example, ] who seem quite well-versed in Misplaced Pages for someone who's got less than 100 edits. In the case of that user, for example, reveal that every single edit has been related to Opus Dei. I wouldn't be shocked to learn he's a sockpuppet, but given how many single purpose accounts, tendentious accounts there are promoting Opus Dei, I wouldn't really want to single out any one user to point the finger at being a puppetmaster for the purposes of checkuser.
If you look at ] and click on edit you get taken to a blank page. Click on project page and you will see a note that this is a redirected page. This makes it hard to figure out how to edit the page. I think fixing this requires Admin intervention. --] 22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, as of right now, Pradeshkava has been reported for 3RR violation, but that seems like it doesn't get at the heart of the matter-- which is to say, this user seems to be using Misplaced Pages to promote an agenda.
Never mind, I fixed it. --] 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, there's a content dispute at ] and its related pages. There are a few experienced wikipedia editors on one side of the dispute, while a very dedicated group of OD members who edit only OD-related articles are on the other side. I'm doing an RFC now, if anyone wants to comment (or help) on dealing with this situation, it would be '''greatly''' appreciated. --] 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
== {{user|Wblakesx}} ==
== Blocked user ] evading block by using sockpuppet ==
*{{user|Wblakesx}} is spamming my talk page with text dumps after I got involved with a debate between him and {{user|KillerChihuahua}} regarding the ] page. I'm honestly not sure what's going on here. He's constantly left messages on people's user pages despite being warned against doing so. I really don't think he means any harm, but I need someone with more authority than I to set him straight on what is and is not acceptable behavior here. ] 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
**He left another message complaining about admins . I'm not sure if he's targeting these veiled insults at me. Because I left him warnings about editing other people's user pages, he might assume I'm an admin. *shrug* ] 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
] is a confirmed (see ]) sockpuppet of Lightbringer - a user banned by Arb-Com (see ]) - that has escaped blocking so far. I request that the sockpuppet is blocked. For more information on Lightbringer and his use of sockpuppets, see ]. ] 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 11:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello all, tis I the 'vandal' This is what happened:
== Seabhcan ==
I added a remark, a reference from gnosticism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Gnosticism ) to Huxely ( Ape and Essence ) that was perhaps too sophisticated for my own good. I got a note from Kchi ( I can't remember what he said, and my record, MY talk page was destroyed by someone ) so I clicked on the link he left on my web page... big mistake, I got the vandalism charge laid on, but I didn't understand what was happening so when other admin warnings ( attacks ) came I replied to the LINK Posted on my Page. I explained all this to no avail. I tried the help button and was roundly abused for it. Meanwhile the record has gone, God knows where and I'm not at all sure other conversations I had on my talk page have been restored by reversion. There's something smelly about the hole thing, some bugs at ( the very )least. Not much better here than the kids running Iraq. Disappointing. Gnothi Sueton.
I have blocked {{admin|Seabhcan}} for another of his increasingly disruptive personal attacks.. See ]. I would appreciate review and feedback. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Would have blocked for longer than 3 hours. An admin should know better. An admin who finds himself editing numerous contentious articles with numerous contentious editors ought to set an example, or back away until he can. ] 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::You guys really need to find a sense of humour somewhere. ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 21:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Incidently, this all started on the discussion page, I don't think I have ever touched an article directly. ] 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)wblakesx ( pity more people haven't read my namesake-sx )
:Tom Harrison, I take exception at your one-sided warnings and blocks. Your conduct today is fit to produce as many Seigenthaler incidents as possible. The accusations raised by Morton Devonshire were substantial, bordering on the legally relevant, and unsubstantiated in any way. Your protecting them is tantamount to promoting them. --] 17:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what you mean. The only thing I remember saying to you is to not make personal attacks. Is there something else? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
== User:Miracleimpulse, ], and ] ==
I found a back door to my talk page. Dl sounds al calm and reason on this admin page, compare what Was on my talk page till it was wiped:
{{user|Miracleimpulse}} has previously been cautioned and blocked (by three different admins) for disruptive activity with regard to the U.S. greeting card industry, including POV edits to the ] article (formerly the subject of a mediation) and more recently, allegations concerning the relationship, if any, between the two largest U.S. greeting card companies, ] and ]. This user is operating as a ] with regard to criticism of the greeting card industry and appears to have some sort of personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. He has continued to press this issue on ] to the point I am concerned he may be defaming these companies. Could someone please take a look at this. ] 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
== Your edits to Talk:God ==
:Single purpose account nothing, this looks like the makings of a community ban. He's obviously exhausted several editors patience (I remember going onto the commons to find a way to delete his idiotic Sweetest Day rant that he puts into the article, itself). He has done no constructive editting, and he is defaming the companies, claiming that they are one in the same and that they have a stake in Misplaced Pages's articles on them.—] (]) 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::I had a long chat with this user off-wiki about a month ago, but apparently, it did little to no good; his abusive, paranoid, and all-around disruptive behavior has not abated. --] 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add non-productive commentary to the talk page for God. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
* It is very interesting that these posts have been made here without any notification to me whatsoever. Once again, the ] and ] articles remain '''completely unsourced.''' The ] article uses extremely '''dubious advertising websites''' as sources. ] 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::] will reflect that I made several attempts to discuss these issues with the user before bring the matter to the noticeboard. Whether the articles (which I have not written a word of) are optimally sourced is irrelevant to the issue of whether unsupported allegations should repeatedly be made that one of these two companies is a subsidiary of the other or that they are engaged in a conspiracy of some kind, especially throwing around words such as "mafia" and "cartel." ] 00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:*I personally am not particularly concerned with defamation of these companies (I'm not sure anything Miracleimpulse has said could reasonably be construed as defamation, it's all in the talkspace, and besides, Misplaced Pages has no culpability for what he says) but my own experience with Miracleimpulse has been that his edits are a fairly textbook case of ] that several editors have spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with. A user RfC may be in order here.--] 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::I wasn't suggesting that fear the project would have legal liability is the reason this is a problem. It's inappropriate to make untrue or unsupported negative statements about a person or a company irrespective of that. In this instance, I'm not sure that a user RfC would be productive after the user has learned nothing from three progressively longer blocks, but Isotope23 has been dealing with this situation longer than I have. ] 02:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:::After reviewing the situation (] and I have encountered this user before on Wikimedia Commons), I think that a RfC would be useless, especially given the user's . It's clear from the contribs that he is a - he has almost no edits on articles unrelated to ], and has a history of and ] assertions. The extra does not help, either. A <s>community</s> topic ban or a long-term block would probably be appropriate here. --]] 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
== user page ==
* Something very '''highly deceptive''' is happening on these Misplaced Pages pages. Misplaced Pages is being used for '''promotional purposes''' on the ] page. Information about the origins and the promotion of Sweetest Day is being managed and blocked by various editors. My edits are being construed as "idiotic paranoid rants" on this page, and yet these statements are not being seen as a personal attack. Amazingly POV. Yes, something is seriously wrong at Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages management should take a very close look at what is happening here and on the pages in question. ] 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*: No. They are just articles on two companies. ] and ] both have pages, but you don't seem to have any complaint about them.—] (]) 03:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::: ] and ] both have pages which list their references. The ] are also pretty well documented. No such ] between ] and ]. Nope. More like ] in the Give me a day or so and I will report back on exactly what that article in ] says...unless of course someone out there already knows. ] 05:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: I didn't know (I know nothing about the greeting card industry), but I just checked. According to the article, the ] apparently complained that American Greetings and two other companies (not Hallmark) were engaged in price-fixing activities (nature not specified). Um, in 1952. Quick follow-up research indicates that this complaint resulted in on-again, off-again litigation between the FTC and American Greetings for several years (citations available). It's even conceivable that this dispute deserves a sentence or two in the ] article, if someone looked up exactly what was alleged and the result of the litigation, although this would be appropriate only if the entire history of the company section were expanded so that this anicnet issue is not given ]. However, what this episode in the 1950's has to do with alleged conspiracy between American Greetings and Hallmark in 2006 remains beyond me. ] 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop adding comments to Killer Chihuahua's user page. All messages should go on the talk page. ] ] ] ] ] 00:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
*Yep, something is definitely very wrong at Misplaced Pages. The level of '''sophisticated attack''' here is astounding. I have made no edits to any of the pages in question in weeks, and yet it is being suggested that I be banned from editing. I guess some subjects are just off limits on talk pages. Hmmm... ] 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::You do realize that ] is not allowed, and to continually bring them up when there is no verifiable proof for such allegations irks many editors, no? And I find it equally astounding (not!) that you are hiding yourself from the fact that there is consensus against your current actions and instead scapegoating a nonexistent conspiracy/"cabal" among editors hellbent on persecuting you, allegations that are frivolous, if not outright absurd. Perhaps you should view your own edits and read some of our policies (], ], and ] come to mind) and start following them instead of complaining about nonexistent phenomena. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*Please don't feed the trolls, especially with delicious Valentine's Day candy from Hallmark stores. ^_^ ] 03:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
*Don't we usually have someone go through the motions on a RfC on these things? ] 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::There was an article RfC (not a user conduct RfC) on the suggestion to merge the ] and ] articles on the now-abandoned suggestion that American Greetings was a "public subsidiary" of Hallmark. This was dropped when no one commented beyond the people already on the talk page. There hasn't been a user-conduct RfC though there have been three blocks. ] 06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Three blocks without a RFC isn't an issue; the discussion of a community ban, without a user conduct RFC, seems like missing a beat. I agree there's a problem, but can we dot the ''i'' and cross the ''t''? ] 06:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm not advocating a full-fledged community ban at this point. If the community sanctions proposal is in effect, this could be a perfect case for a narrowly tailored article or topic ban. As for RfC, I can imagine several purposes for holding these: (i) to gather facts as to a given user's conduct; (ii) to ascertain community sentiment as to the merits of the user's contributions; and/or (iii) to educate the user as to the fact that consensus is against him or her. Which of these, if any, would be served here? ] 06:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::That is exactly why I suggested that a RFC would be useless, because months of talk page discussions between him and other editors, as well as the contributions themselves, seem to shine a bright enough light on the problem. However, I didn't think about the possibility of a narrower topic ban when I commented earlier earlier, so perhaps that would be a better solution unless a RFC or ArbCom case were to be opened instead. --]] 07:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I agree, a community ban would be majorly excessive at this point.--] 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
* The '''merits of my contributions''' to Misplaced Pages speak for themselves: Virtually every image published in the ] article was supplied by me. Most have been blocked by editors who never edited the Sweetest Day page before I showed up to introduce the ]s. Also, virtually every in the article which is '''not an advertising website''' was introduced by me. Gosh, I should be banned immediately. ] 07:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:*We've been over the image galleries numerous times on the talk pages. Most of the images are of auxillary interest and should be collected in a Wikicommons gallery with a link in the article. The sources you've brought to light have been valuable and added an aspect to the article that was missing from it before. However, in my opinion this has been tempered by your editing style and your refusal to adhere to (or perhaps misunderstanding of) ] & ] (and to a lesser extent ] in relation to claims made on talk pages) as well as your unfounded insistence there is some sort of cabal here working against you. Your usage of article talk pages to sometime go into tertiary topic conversations that have no bearing on the article doesn't help the situation.--] 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits{{#if:{{{1|}}}|, such as those you made to ],}} are considered ]. If you continue in this manner you may be '''] from editing without further warning'''. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. <!-- Template:Blatantvandal (serious warning) --> ] 00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] personal and legal threats ==
**Please stop. If you continue to target users' pages for ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did with ],}} you will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Tpv3 (Third level warning) --> ] 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
***So talk. ] 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
****] This is your '''last warning'''. <br />The next time you ] a user's page, {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|as you did with ],}} you ''will'' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages.<!-- Template:Tpv4 (Fourth level warning) --> ] 01:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
****I am not sympathetic. This is an encyclopedia, not a theology discussion forum. If you want to air personal grievances with the Jewish faith, there are places on the Internet you can do that. On Misplaced Pages, it is not appropriate. ] 01:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I was looking for a legal threat I thought had been posted on the ] page when I came across this other threat "Cherry WE HAVE OTHER MEANS OF DEALING WITH YOUR TYPES":
Here's the legal action threat.
Could someone look into this, it appears the first one is a sockpuppet (new word I've learned just for Misplaced Pages) of ], or anon-IP used by Patch77, but my sock puppetry knowledge is nil--in other words, it's my guess.] 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:The anonymous account is blocked for 48 hours for making legal threats. `'] 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks. I was a bit more concernd about the personal threat, though, and that user has not been blocked. I can't imagine a Misplaced Pages with a place for users who issue personal threats to each other. ] 17:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
{help me}
== AfD closure problem ==
What do you need help with? ]]<font color="blue">r</font><font color="black">s</font>] 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
*You should stop airing out your dirty laundry regarding admins at non-admins. ] 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The editor who opened ] now wants to close it as Keep. S(he) has twice added '(VOID)' to the AfD header and removed the AfD notice from the article page. While the AfD has a couple of days to run, it does indeed look like a unanimous Keep. As I've reverted this user twice now, I think an uninvolved admin needs to look at this and decide if the AfD can be closed as a 'speedy' Keep. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 02:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The above is a load of thin skinned, small minded crapulence. My SERIOUS OFFENCE was to reply top the links LEFT ON MY PAGE ( there is no talk page on at least the first nasty admin, neither a page search, nor a wiki search turned one up ). There was nothing of vandal in my post. I posted "your God my Satan" on the God discussion page, which is well understood by those with serious interest, education, and intelligence. Not exactly a koan, it was none the less meant to Stimulate thinkers. Also, I didn't have time to discuss the Gnostics and others beliefs that the Old Testement God is the Demiurge, a persona =to Satan, and I said Jews intesd of followers of the old testement ( seems anything resemling criticism of ******* even saying the jews, is damnable while it is quite ok to criticise almost any other group! OH the lunacy in the world!). For the rest, I am not expert in this rather large rule set and rather than a polite redirect I have been threatened with banning'
:I have always thought/seen that nominators could withdraw their AFD nominations if they believed that the nom had been a mistake. This one seems sort of clumsy, but is there a problem with closing it? ] 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The first page of the user's guide says "be bold", methinks boldness to some of these faux adminitrators would be such things as taking a smell of a can of beer. I am Very disappoited but I suppose I can only blame myself for being very surprised.
::AfD closed as '''Keep'''. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Thank you. My mop is barely damp, and I was uneasy about closing the AfD early myself as I had commented on the article talk page about what to do with the article. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 02:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::::There is SNOW 8-) ] 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::In general, I disagree with the notion that a nominator can unilaterally close an xFD discussion, since there may be others who support the nomination. I have no opinion on this particular case. ]|] 18:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I "aired my 'dirty laundry'" by asking for help!!!! Methinks there's a student of Karl Rove running things here, now. Unreal the idiocy passing as lofty. It's a sadomaso thing.
== Felix Portier again ==
Well I am chastised, and will stay awy from Tobacco Road for awhile.] 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)wblakesx
] was mentioned here for uploading images with obviously false copyright tags, which he now appears to be . Could somebody please review and take appropriate action? Cheers --] 11:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked for one month and a final warning issued - he has been warned about this. Well spotted. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*:( At least I tried to tell them about copyright. - ]|] 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
== Panorama Tools ==
[ Saved from dispute res page for future ref:
I would appreciate somebody looking into the recent history of ]. An external disagreement seems to have spread to this Misplaced Pages article and there are issues about whether to link to the .org or .info site. I would look into it myself, but I'm currently getting ready for a long business trip so cannot give it much research. Thanks/] 12:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"Label the comment neutrally but do not sign and do not use names (type 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC), which gives only a timestamp)....". don't know if I understand this bit? My problems can be picked up at my user talk page, wblakesx talk. I have never modified an article itself, and have never had any problems before. I have found incivility and presumtions, from some admins, of bad faith where none existed. After removing the objected to material have "been left hanging in the air". I replied to links left on my talk page and have been threated for vandalism and serious vandalism. . I am here for procedural reasons only, feedback to avoid runaway system destruction ( info theory and electronics metaphor, also applied in a work called "The Nerves of Government" governance. I firmly believe I have met some admins who are not ethically ot tempermentally up to the job. I don't have a lot of time presently to deal with this but would like to see Wiki not taken by little tyrants. But who cares?Wblakesx 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)];
: Still? I thought that particular lame edit war fizzled out months ago! ] 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::I have warned the user concerned about his behaviour on his talk page and posted some comments on the article's talk page.-]<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
well who cares, busy busy busy
==Blocked Account==
I ] have been blocked by an Admn, that is heavily involved in a content dispute at ]. Can someone review this? I have been falsely accused of being another editor. Plus, if another Admn. reviews the Talk Page, at above article, they will not see "disruption" of any kind, on the contrary, thoughtful engagement. Thanks, and could someone kindly please review and restore my account?] 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*Admins please see ]. ] 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
**I've blocked Kiyosaki1 indefinitely. ] 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
== Second opinion needed ==
== ] ==
Would someone mind looking at ? I think that ] and ] are the same person, violating 3RR. Normally I wouldn't take this here, but I'm more concerned by the content he insists on adding than by the 3RR violation. IMHO, if anyone from the organisation in question sees it their lawyers will go into overdrive. Luckily, looking at the IP's contribs, it looks like it's static. I'll give him a final warning, and if he adds the material again, I'll ask for a block. Sound appropriate? ] 14:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an IP address registered to the US House of Representatives. I've blocked it for 24 hours (anon-only) following an ] report about it blanking the entire controversy section out of the ] article. Instructions on the talk page suggested I should mention it here. I'm also leaving a message for ], for the ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*What is really curious is other than whitewashing and adding spurious mythology to ], the IP has an odd preoccupation with ] as seen in the contrib history...--] 19:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
: I agree that he seems to be the same person as the IP, as they are putting in the same content with the same misspellings. So you can get him on 3RR if he keeps going.... or he can get you similarly. This seems to be a content dispute rather than vandalism, so you aren't immune from 3RR either, and shouldn't call it vandalism on his talk page. (]). I suggest a compromise, rather than just reverting. You may be right that the source only mentions flag burning, not violence, but in your reversion, you took out the whole thing out completely, that's a bit much. At least leave in the stuff backed by the source. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== 72.159.128.2 and block notices ==
::Sorry, I forgot to give precisions: of the three sources, 2 are youtube videos, and while the other source is (nearly) reliable, the author of the paragraph grossly misrepresents it, ignoring the content of the entire article (that supports the mexicans) and focusing on one image of someone holding a flag with their fist inside it (no flames). I deleted the entire section because there was already a criticism section that stated the facts: right wing groups have criticised the Mexica movement. 3RR doesn't apply to potentially libelous material, and IMHO this is. ] 15:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that ] made a nonsense edit to ] (although I think they may have had good intentions). Upon looking at their talk page, I noticed it says they are ''presently'' blocked, which seems not to be the case. Another pair of eyes would be appreciated. <b>... </b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">]:]</span> 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Besides the picture, labeled "flag_burned.jpg", the source clearly says: Look, the Mexica movement and the Watchmen isn't my area. You asked for a second opinion from an admin, got it. I didn't realize that what you actually wanted was an argument. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:They were blocked for 48 hours in September, but that's long expired now. {{tl|test5}} notices don't get removed when the block expires, so you can't tell if someone is currently blocked based on them. --] 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Time for "getting hit on the head lessons" for me, I didn't bother to look for a caption. ] 08:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Fanny Samaniego ==
==New User and tendentious edits==
At the article ] ] is inserting abusive comments into the article, which has now turned into an exchange of legal and personal threats with ] at ] which would need administrative intervention.--] 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
* ] probablydeservesablockforvandalism & personal attacks . ]probablydeserves a block for personal attacks and legal threats & .--] 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:A new user, {{Userlinks|Godblessindia}} has been making tendentious edits to ] and ] and deleting sourced text . He has been warned but doesn't seem to get it.Perhaps a sysop should try to discuss with him.] 23:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::Unbelievable. He just vandalized both my user AND talk pages (blanked everything) and replaced it with some blurb about being a group of lawyers or something ] 23:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Godblessindia should be blocked for ].<b>] </b><font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::His first edits requried an explanation: "don't replace the whole article with your own stuff". After that, it was either a mistake, or vandalism. If it obvious vandalism continues, report to ]. ]<sup>]]</sup> 03:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*] has blocked Godblessindia indefinitely. All their edits either removed sources and inserted their own POV and when they were warned, they went on to vandalize a userpage. Clearly an abusive user. If not for that, I would've blocked them for the username. Don't use religious figures in your username, period. - ]|] 09:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Inappropriateblocksby] ==
== Systematic blanking of user pages ==
Somebody has been using a series of IP addresses to systematically blank user pages--he hit mine ] a number of times as well as ] ] and ]
In the course of looking through ], I've seen two instances within two weeks of what I think were rather blatantly inappropriate blocks by admin {{user|PMA}}. Today, he blocked {{user|Elsmlie}} for 36 hours for "POV edits, article degradation", based on a total of five edits by Elsmie made since 20 November, all evidently made in good faith, with which PMA happened to disagree. Not only is this an abuse of blocking policy by penalising editing in a good-faith and entirely undisruptive minor content dispute, but in addition it's also a blatant case of using admin weapons against an opponent in a dispute the admin is involved in. For all I can see, no other editors were involved in the dispute at all; there was no prior warning or even discussion, nothing.
What the targets all have in common is we strongly protested Stevewk who tried repeatedly to remove all the information about the Civil War from the ] article. Stevewk was given a 3R suspension but may be using sockpuppets to hit editors.
Given these rather extraordinary circumstances, I've unblocked without further consultation with PMA (but notified him, of course). I invite further review of the case by other admins. I must say that, looking into PMA's prior admin log, I can see a couple more cases of what seem at first sight to be rather questionable blocks, so I'm considering whether an admin RfC would be in order. ] ] 12:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thus he may be using 70.110.174.121 151.197.233.65 70.110.155.238 70.110.174.121 etc. ] 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:All the IP addresses trace back to Verizon Internet anyway, so could possibly be the same person. I'd request a ] <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>] | ] | ] 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Assuming there's nothing more to it than those edits, I endorse unblocking. I can't see any justification for the block. ] (]) 12:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*I think the connection is clear enough. This doesn't require checkuser. - ]|] 09:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
----
*Hmm, having second thoughts, I'm placing the request anyway. - ]|] 09:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Like ] i feel i have been penalised by a small band for fighting POV warriors and cranks. I have been here for many years and experience has given me perhaps a "second sight" for potential problems. I admit my judgement is not always perfect - having an autistic disorder like Asperger's does that - Adam Carr acknowledged this some months ago when he and I were fighting POV warriors at Cuba-related articles - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:BruceHallman&diff=49461797&oldid=49459999 - but i should not be persecuted for trying to do the right thing - in addition it seems that i am being wiki-watched by ] which i do not like and feel is unjustified.
==Revert Abuse by Administrators==
] 13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I have used the subject article Talk page, the Individuals' Talk pages, the Admn. Noticeboard, but with no real attention paid to the issue.
:Just for the record, I wasn't watching you, I was routinely patrolling the requests-for-unblock category. ] ] 13:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
There are a group of editors, including Administrators that are reverting good-faith reliably sourced information, '''without discussion''', in violation of the spirit of Misplaced Pages. This is an allied attempt at gaming the system, and a disgraceful display of conduct.
:Generally, it's unwise for an admin to block a POV warrior that they've been actively fighting. It's better to report them and let someone else block them. --] 13:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::In this instance, it wasn't even a POV warrior to begin with. PMA had changed something in the article, and the other guy had reverted it - once. And I can't see how this person should be related to a "small band of fighting POV warriors" either - he seemed to have no previous history of clashes with him PMA. ] ] 14:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::What is up with these questionable blocks (of leftists?) on the part of PMA? ] 17:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:PMA, this isn't about penalising or persecuting you for trying to do the right thing. It's about your use of the block tool in a way that seems manifestly inappropriate. I've noticed before that when you're challenged about admin actions, you cite your service time, however, I feel that service time should give you a greater understanding of policy and community expectations for blocks. ] (]) 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*1st revert 20 Novmeber
*Acting on the belief that '''Police one another''' is a necessary collolary of '''Defend one another''', I have opened an RFC against PMA ]. ] 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*2nd revert: 20 November
::He has been voluntarily de-sysopped. Issue closed. ] 12:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*3rd Revert: 20 November
:::For those who may be interested, there is a related thread in the archives ]. ]]] 09:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*4th Revert: 20 November
*5th Revert: 21 November
*6th Revert: 22 November
*7th Revert: 22 November
The article is basically on lock-down due to an allied group that is violating the spirit of ]. Please look at all my work that was deleted, as all the reverts involved new information for the article. Disgraceful.
== Obscene edit summaries ==
Can someone who is not INVOLVED or allied to this group please review? This POV oriented group of allies '''is not interested in collaborating in good-faith''' and the mass reverts without any discussion illustrate this clearly. I believe they are trying to get me to quit Misplaced Pages out of frustration, that is my honest opinion of this. Can a group of allied editors take over an article, and block all information they dislike? Please review the full content of these reverts tha include whole new paragraphs and sourced info, it's disgraceful conduct. Thanks.] 06:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
]: only 2 edits, but one with an obscene edit summary addressed to another user. Given the context, I believe I know who this is, and that it is a registerd user who has been threatened with a ban for this sort of thing before. I don't know the drill on this, but can we get a checkuser or something, in order to establish this? We really need to stop this, it's been creating a poisonous atmosphere on topics related to Romania and Moldova. - ] | ] 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Problem dealt with by KhoiKhoi. ]<sup>]]</sup> 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Problem is '''not''' edalt by khoikhoi. It was swept inder the carpet. The '''real''' problem is that certain Romanian admins continue to communicate in wikipedia with banned users, thus reinforcing their desire to mess with other people. Until the feeding of ]s continues by Romanian wikipedians, especially by admins, these trolls will be getting an idea that they are valiantly struggling for their Romanian motherland against anti-Romanians. `'] 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::You'll have to pardon my ignorance. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? -]<sup>]]</sup> 04:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I believe mikka was referring to ] and (125.63.65.52 & 213.148.5.103 = ]). <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Actions by five different people are not usually suggestive of ]. Have you brought the substantive issues to the talk page? - ] | ] 06:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Shadowbot ==
*<nowiki>*sigh*</nowiki>... I miss the days when people argued over whether ] belonged on Misplaced Pages. ] 06:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Could we get an admin to look at the concerns over Shadowbot raised ] and ]? Given that it is seriously biting some users who are making good-faith edits, I kind of think we need it shut down temporarily. ] 07:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:::''Alas for those lost idyllic days of our youth...'' --] <sup>]</sup> 07:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*Kiyosaki, this is a content dispute which does not require administrative attention, nor does it concern the use of administrative tools. In this situation the appropriate course of action is to engage in ]. --] (]) 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*] is a good venue for "disgraceful conduct" issues. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:It's clearly not behaving as it should. I've it for now. ]]] 07:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
**Thanks. I was looking at: ].
: Edits like ! --] 07:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1) ''Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.''
::Yes, exactly, Pgk. Thanks for your help, Grandmasterka. ] 07:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
2) ''"Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint, in part because they leave no explanation for the revert in the edit summary. Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor." ''
'''Good''' that shadowbot is blocked. It used to revert (major) rv of contributory editors and used to give spam notice. ] 07:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3) ''All the reverts above violate all the "Don'ts" from that same page.''
I've temporarily shut down Shadowbot and removed any and all web sites that can cause problems from its spam blacklist, such as Livejournal and Geocities. Judging from Shadowbot's contributions, it appears that the problems encountered on Steve Irwin and other pages were caused by these rules. I plan to do an overhaul of the blacklist tonight to ensure that these problems '''will not''' happen again. I also think that Swadhyayee should note that Shadowbot has also been making good anti-spam efforts, along with the occasional bad revert.
Shouldn't Admns. abide by this? Who reviews this? Thanks again.] 07:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of the problems that resulted in the block were caused, in part, by the bot supplying Shadowbot's edits. This bot is the one that maintains the initial blacklist, however, it is hosted by several users, and we often are forced to change hosts due to ISP problems, among other things. Due to the host switching, most of the bot clones are not kept in sync with each other, which means that I might remove livejournal from one bot, but the next one isn't aware of the deletion. I'm definitely going to fix this syncing problem before I even consider bringing Shadowbot up again. ] ] 18:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Several of those samples weren't admin rollback. And, like Doc Tropics mentioned above, ] is where this sort of thing is reviewed. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Ok'''. No idea about the good edits of shadowbot but it created some problems by reverting rv yesterday. Was not wishing permanent block but just till things rectified. ] 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::(edit conflict)If a single editor were reverting your changes, it might violate 3RR which could be "actionable". These diffs don't seem to indicate violations of specific policies; just content disagreement and some behaviour issues. ] is really the proper venue for that. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Kiyosaki, your edits are usually disruptive, often poorly written, often poorly sourced, and often involve the deletion of good material simply because you don't like it. That is why you're being reverted. You've been doing little else for a month since you got here, mostly on one article, when you're not complaining on AN or AN/I, or being blocked for 3RR. It's also very obvious that you're not a new user, but you won't say what your other accounts are/were, which gives rise to the — possibly unfair but definitely justified — suspicion that you're a banned user. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Continued incivility by ]==
SlimVirgin, you were asked as an involved party to not comment. It's obvious I am a new user, I don't know how to "game the system" like you do. You work with allies to violate ] and limit properly cited, relevant material without explanation . Please stop attacking me and trying to discredit me, if anyone looks at the article's Talk page they can see through your lies. I edit in good-faith, I don't think you do at all. Perhaps you could review ] and the entire section on "Dont's" in particular. The "Do's" says: "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it." I have been doing the work, the research, you merely revert what you personally dislike.] 07:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Some quotes:</BR>
:It's not for you to dictate who may comment here. You're not a new user. One of your first edits as {{user|Kyosaki}} was to warn someone about 3RR. I think you're someone who's been editing for a long time. I also think you're the sockpuppet of a banned user, and I have a feeling I know who. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"You are really a waste of time."</BR>
:], you asked for help and got some good advice; let me offer one last tidbit for your consideration...this would be a perfect time to drop this discussion and move on. You're not in the right place and you're not helping your cause. Really. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"It is you who is a totally hopeless case." (Although in reply to same, still, as I've been told, someone else's bad behaviour doesn't excuse your own.) </BR>
:Kiyosaki, you might want to take a step back and review Misplaced Pages policies on ] and ]. Other people have commented on your questions; if you believe there is a complex problem please use ] - nothing you've mentioned requires administrator intervention. Food for thought - numerous editors reverting your changes is usually a sign that you need to discuss your edits and work out the problems with them, not that there's a hidden conspiracy to control the article. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"You mean we should let people like you flood Misplaced Pages with nationalistic ... nonsense, ...." </BR>
== Intangible ==
In edit summary, "rv of nonsense....", in midst of edit war between the two. It's rampant in this area of Misplaced Pages, but more so by some users than others, and continues, and ] has been warned and then blocked for incivility before. </BR>
I believe that what ] has been up to at ] (see especially ]) may violate the terms of ]. Since I'm moderately involved in the article, I'm not the one to make a judgment call here. Could I ask someone else to take a look? - ] | ] 06:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
] 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*WasblockedforincivilityandpersonalattackonNovember16whichdidn'twork. Blocklengthdoubled. - ]|] 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Also extensive discussion at ], if anyone wants to take a crack at this. ] 07:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== suspected sockpuppetry, POV pushing, etc ==
== Speedy delete please ==
*{{User|Raumud}}
Will somebody please nuke ] asap, thanks. ] <sup>] / ]</sup> 02:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*{{User|Kevin9}} (just committed borderline 3RR on ])
*{{User|Fumigate}} (blocked for 3RR on ])
*{{User|Bucket6}}
*{{User|Rancidity}} (note from me on talk page about BLP)
*{{User|207.67.145.222}}
*{{User|Runce}}
All edit similar articles; several use the "reverse vandalism" edit summary. Articles affected:
:Done. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*]
== ] ==
*]
*]
*]
As an aside, article on ] was edited by {{User|Nimmo}} and may have been started by a sock/meatpuppet, {{user|Wolflegal}}.
<span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span> has repeatedly vandalized the article on ].
* On 6 November 2006 the user wrote "he is mildly retarded, and thus doesn't know what he is saying" (), a potentially libelous comment that stayed in the article until now (28 November 2006).
* The user has also created ] and attempted to add ] and ].
* After the first category was nominated for deletion the user created ] and attempted to add ] and ]. ] 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately don't have time to investigate further, 3RR, AFD, or apply for protection on those. I'm doing what I'm hoping is the second best thing by bringing it up here. --] 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:*Per ] the potentially libelous/defamatory edits should perhaps also be deleted from the page history {{lx|1=|2={{ucfirst:Ian Snell}}|3=Talk|4=talk}}. --] 03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:I've blocked {{user|Raumud}} briefly for repeatedly violating ] in {{article|Justin Raimondo}} despite warnings. -] · ] · 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
==]==
] is showing disruptive and incivil behavior far above and beyond the norm, especially in relation to ]. Among the things that have been done:
I tried reporting this user on ] but (through an edit summary that I had to search through the history to find) that he had "no final warning". However, I already told him that if he continued I'd report him, and he did continue. His images at least need to be deleted. Was I correct to take it here, or is there a better place? I would have thought AIV was appropriate, but it seems bogged down in bureaucracy. --] 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:He's back at it. Someone please help. --] 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
*I've deleted the orphan images and told him to provide sources and copyright information for the remaining ones. If he doesn't provide those, those images will be removed pretty soon. - ]|] 09:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you. --] 21:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
*Refuses to sign comments
*Arguementative for arguements sake. Consider these quotes:
**"When you say "we" ("We don't want blogs, we don't want chat forums.."), do you mean that you're paid by Misplaced Pages and you speak for them and all involved with Misplaced Pages? If you're NOT being paid to debate and investigate articles (such as this BENBENEK article), why do you do it and why do you use the word "we"? Are you speaking for Misplaced Pages as a thing or as an internet corporate entity? Or is the "we" referring to only you? This will help me respond to your immediately-previous comment...because I worry when single individuals start throwing the "we" word around. Plus I'm a little new to Misplaced Pages as an open-source text phenomenon. Plus I'm too lazy to hunt down your "Misplaced Pages User Profile" and see if you're part of official Wikapedia management. I figure you're probably just eager to respond to just about anything any body throws on these ever-changing and well-formatted pages. My other guess is that you're a BOT, but Misplaced Pages BOTs are probably out on Thanksgiving weekend vacation. So, what is this "we" that you type of...?": ''Stated in response to what I offered as what "we" at wikipedia look for in a "notable" and "verifiable" article.''
**"My dear mom (who was somehow born in the 20s in Missouri without the use of Wikipedic means of childbirth) always taught me to watch out for ***GROUP THINK*** and when some anonymous guy on the internet tells me to "follow the blue links" I think I better start worrying. Guy...guys...if you all really have raging hard-ons for deleting my nice, little BENBENEK article, then by all means cite Misplaced Pages authority and direct people to your blue links until you're blue in the face and get on with it. I figure the BOTs have the final say anyway in these important article matters...so...whatever" ''In response to being directed to wikipedia's policies''.
**"So, suddenly Misplaced Pages is all about "notability"...or maybe it's just a kind of high-tech, open-source popularity contest? Not that many people in the obscure-est reaches of Arkansas or Mt Everest know who Einstein was (or what he did) yet Einstein is in Misplaced Pages. There are thousands of entries in Misplaced Pages that ARE NOT of a "notable" nature. How unfair is it to discredit a simple entry on the basis of "notability" - this type of "notability-based" stamp-of-approvalocity is unfair and narrow-minded and should not be tolerated. It's interesting to see that four or five guys (always guys...) with little sense of the "real" world can make or break a Misplaced Pages entry. All the negative criticism of this entry is based on spurious INTERNET data. Has anyone called The Swedenborg Society or East Village Arts District for verification of these Benbenek entry claims? Nah, I doubt it." ''In response to requests to provide sources for notability.
*He also blanked the AfD discussion, and when it was restored, pagemoved the AfD discussion from ] to ] (see ).
*He has a history of these kinds of disruptions to other AfD discussions. Consider this dif:
*He has made other disruptive edits to articles, such as , and , and .
Please review this users behavior, and take any actions as you see appropriate. --]] 03:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
{{User|Fact Finder}} is at it again. He's written comments on my user talk page falsely accusing me of deleting his comments when in fact the deletion was done by {{User|Bobet}}, and consisted of reverting Fact Finder's edits to archived project and talk pages that weren't supposed to be forums for further comments. He's also made even wilder accusations in other comments, such as accusing Misplaced Pages editors and admins of sending computer viruses to his company. ] 01:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm no admin, but were it me, I'd block him for the duration of the AfD for the multiple tamperings to the AfD, and leave a copy of the WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and associated policies on his talk page. ] ] ] ] ] 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*I've dropped a warning on his talk page. - ]|] 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
* I was about to start an RfC, but looking into the situation in more detail I find this:
:* The user admits being connected with Ecopave
:* The user's sole remaining edits in mainspace after deletion of spam are a series of ] violations at {{article |Eco-cement}}
:* The user has been excessively disruptive in his determination to obscure or delete the word Ecopave wherever it is written (e.g. , , ; there is no credible explanation for this other than keeping the Google results for Ecopave "clean"
* The user is incivil, e.g.
:* The user has responded to requests to cease disruption with aggression, denial and no change in behaviour
:* The user's Talk page currently contains a quite meritless personal attack on me: ''The real irony here is that Guy Chapman who is a Misplaced Pages administrator, appears to be running he's own spamming and PR campaign in Misplaced Pages by using 3 seperate IP addresses which are clearly designed to assist in bringing consensus into arguments against users who's article (ideology) is not in par with his'' - this is an absurd assertion. I did note that I use three separate static IPs, in response to Fact Finder's assertion that to use a static IP is "insane" - the fact that I edit from multiple locations, each with a static IP absolutely does not mean that I am in some way gaming the system, it simply means that most of the places where I edit have static IPs. Anyone who wants to register an ] is entirely welcome to do so. Frankly I don't have ''time'' to edit as other accounts as well!
: All in all, I don't see much evidence that this user is here to '''build an encyclopaedia'''. I suggest giving them the bum's rush. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
: His initial block, as one of a series of socks on the Ecopave AfD, was perfectly valid. Since he was unblocked (on the kind-hearted theory that he'd try to be a productive editor) he's just trolled, edited other users' comments, made legal threats, attacked other users (including kind-hearted Guy, whose idea it was to unblock him in the first place), made the bad-faith speedies of Ecopave's competition Guy mentioned, and filled his talk page and others with increasingly paranoid rants about the army of sock-admins out to get him. While his silliness was confined to his talk page I was content to let him stew, but his renewed propensity to wage his pointless war elsewhere leads me to believe we've indulged his trolling long enough. His initial ban was valid, none of his (hundreds) of subsequent edits have been contributions to the encyclopedia, he's not interested in anything more than whining about his spam campaign being thwarted. Restore his block. -- ] | ] 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::Additional incivil behavior continues: See this quote from the above cited AfD:
:Blocked. Overdue. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::*"Hey, guys (and I use that term in kind reference to each and every one of you) you all sure certainly seem to be dragging your collective Misplaced Pages-enraged feet. Why hasn't anyone sent the real BOTS in? You know...the BOTs that Misplaced Pages management keeps in reserve for situations such as these. Every cry of "DELETE" only makes me more determined to fight tooth and nail to preserve the integrity and textual (and paragraphical) essence of what this proud and defiant "Artist Formerly Known As Kurt Benbenek" article means. Thanks! Have a great day! PS - ask yourself if your mom would want you to vote for deletion and then please vote your conscience...and also watch out for the BOTS. They seem to be everywhere in this Wikipedic Hell! "
::Thanksforlookingintothis!--]] 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:* Thank you, Sam. We gave him a chance, he chose not to take it. Not our problem, I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Very strange blanking activity going on at ] ==
The diffs support ]'s accusations, and this is some fairly egregious behaviour: blanking an AfD, and disrupting multiple AFds and articles. Furthermore, I checked some of his other contribs, and the few that haven't been reverted yet probably should be; he seriously lacks the language skills we would hope for in a serious contributor. All-in-all, it smells like troll, and I tend to think a block would be in order. Minimum of one day, just to get his attention; possibly up to a week for messing with an AfD. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
For last eight hours or so, his user page and talk page has been blanked by many different ip addresses (between the two pages 18 times in the 8 hours). I applied for semi-protection and was told the user should ask for protection himself. User seems to think he knows who's doing it, but am concerned about the very strange ip blanking. ] 05:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Admin help request:''' This needs an admin page move back, both for the article and the AFD page. ] 07:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::it is a pain and I would like semi-protection. thanks ] 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:I have done this. Moves can be reverted by anyone who can move pages unless something has happened to the redirect created in the process.—] (]) 07:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Oh,good.IthoughtI'dseen edits to the redirect, but I'm glad to see that I was wrong in this case. ] 07:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:::This has been dealt with. - ] | ] 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Since the abuse has spread to a number of user and talk pages, I've given both of the involved ranges a brief block (anon-only, account creation allowed, what I think is a pretty friendly block message). 48 hours does the trick, I hope. ] 07:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Appreciate the help. ] 14:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== AngryBahrainiagain ==
== Something smells wolfie... ==
I couldn't help but notice while lurking from time to time that ] () seems to be an obvious sock puppet of ]. She is, however, acting a bit more clever. Moreover, what seems obvious to me might not be to the next person, and everybody deserves an initial benefit of the doubt. I'd just like to suggest that an admin familiar with this issue should keep an eye out. --] 05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
He's back as ] and reverting all my edits. I emailed Batelco, in Bahrain, but they don't seem to have done anything to stop him. ] 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Obviously a sock of somebody, but if it's the wolfster, she's gotten a ''lot'' cleverer. I'll keep an eye out. ] | ] 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
== Leyasu ==
: He's at it RIGHT NOW. Please block this IP and roll back his edits. ] 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This has been permanently banned from editing Misplaced Pages. However, this person has persisted in editing numerous pages across wikipedia simply by avoiding registering an account. Here are just some of the IP address that has been used in recent days by this same individual.
::Done. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
On my , this unregistered individual pretty much admitted to being this banned Leyasu character.
], ], ], ], ] and ] are just some of the pages that this individual has been editing despite being banned from doing so. Someone suggested that I should mention this here so that is what I just did. Cheers. --] 10:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Dynamic IP (British Telecom). No point in blocking more than 24 hours at a time since he can change them faster than we can block them. Any new account he uses can be listed at ]. Explain that it's Leyasu and hopefully the admins patrolling there will be familiar enough with the situation to block (otherwise his edits look like a content dispute). Or you can list here I guess. ] 12:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
Sorry to bother but I just wanted to inform the proper admins of the war going on in the CfD for the above category. ] and ] have been arguing back and forth for the past couple of hours or so about whether the cat. has been up for deletion 2, 3 or 4 times or whatever. Besides that, they have been attacking each other verbally and this kind of bickering does not help the voting. It is true that discussion is important for CfDs, but this type of behavior is uncalled for. I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible. I did, however, cast a vote for the cat. so I do have an opinion on which way the vote goes, yet, my concern is that their behavior will affect any type of voting. At this point,honestly, it does not matter to me which way the vote goes. I do not know much of ] but ] has a history of being very argumentative and has been banned in the past. I ask of you to please stop their bickering and to end the voting for the category as soon as possible. Thank you sincerely. ] 05:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Our discussion is over at this point. We've both made our points... and managed to remain rather civil if a bit heated. ''(]])'' 05:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
] has uploaded copyright images ], ] (and others, but it's over these I've had most dealings wih him). I have listed them at ] and informed him. I then removed the image links from the articles where he had inserted either of them: ] and ]. He later amended the image licensing information slightly (still clearly non-compliant however) re-inserted the images into ], and I then gave him 2 hours to remove them again, which he failed to do. So I reverted the addition. Overnight (UK-wise) he has attempted to claim that the images are logos (!) and again inserted them into the ] article, and also converted ] from a redirect into a stub primarily consisting of the copyvio images. I have again reverted the addition of the images - in both articles. I am not clear if his actions constitute vandalism, and hence if I'm covered by the exemptions to 3RR. It does appear that he may now be a bit more prepared to enter into dialogue (he has just left a message on my talk page about the women's field hockey article). I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look at his actions (this is not the first time he's run into trouble over images before). ] 10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to see it is over, but the admins do need to see what happened. As I mentioned, it was extremely disruptive for the two of you to be bickering over it. I don't know if you are a new editor or not but ] is a veteran and should have known better. ] 05:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*] is a red link and doesn't appear to have existed (neither as a redirect nor as an article). Are you sure that link is correct? 0- ]|] 11:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think he's a new editor (I'm certainly not). I think it's pretty safe to say that so long as a discussion remains civil there's not much harm done. I'd venture to also say that it is normal that back and forth exchanges like this are typical in controversial areas (of which this one certainly is). ''(]])'' 05:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Iagreewithyouexceptforthe fact that admins and peoplewhowant to vote have to readthroughtheentiresoapopera to getanideawhat'sgoingon.Whohastimelikethat?I'mnottryingtostartanything here...I'mjusttryingtomove the voting along. ] 05:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::D'oh, try ]. That'll teach me to remember to preview things more often (thanks also to ] for sorting out the image links for me, shows how much I've done with images in the past). ] 11:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*The user appears to flout copyright rules. Uploads are from websites, all mistagged as either logo, or GFDL when it's clearly not free. I need help deleting all this stuff. - ]|] 12:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*All I need to do now is clean up ] and then I'm done. Please let me know if Felix does this again. I gave him a warning. - ]|] 12:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::THanks MGM. Could you or someone lese jsut clarify the situation on 3RR, reverting repeated addition of unfree images doesn't seem to be specifically covered by an exemption - would I be OK to carry on reverting the images if they get re-uploaded? I notice from your edits that i didn't actually manage to remove them from field hockey this morning anyway, I got side-tracked by the changes to Women's Field Hockey, and some constructive intervening edits on Field hockey and didn't get roud to tidying them up. ] 13:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== User Mikinthy blanking Talk page to remove warnings ==
:Well the point of XfD is not voting... it's actually discussion... that attempts to reach a consensus... so while a discussion may get long that's generally seen as a good sign. ''(]])'' 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
] has been blanked twice by the owner to remove warnings. I'm not sure I used the correct template for a warning on that, and can't quickly find the specific ''Help'' page discussing that. Admin intervention -- or advice on ] -- appreciated. --] <sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 13:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to remind everyone involved in this debate that CFD is not a vote, but a discussion. A closing administrator should not mearly count "deletes" and "keeps". The arguments expressed are important, resonance with policy is important, precedent is important, the behavior of those that participate is important. The more that admins rely on "vote counting" the more people will game the system. I think one good argument is more important than a score of impassioned "votes". -- ] 05:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*Sam---I definitely agree with you especially when you state that "the behavior" is important and I just felt that it was starting to get borderline childish ] 05:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Nothing that can be done I'm afraid. The templates were taken off because they were judged to be contrary to our policy on harassment. The best thing to do is to make sure your edit summaries say what level warning they're up to, that way a quick look at the history says it all. ] 13:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Angry Bahraini again ==
:::Ah, ''excellent suggestion.'' It's a good WikiDay when I learn a neat new method. Appreciate the thoughtful explanation and quick response. Case closed. ] <sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 13:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This time he's coming from ] and reverting my edits. Please block this IP and roll back his edits. ] 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest an administrator investigate this username, {{vandal|Jimmo bobo}}. It appears to be very close to Jimbo, and, at any rate, appears to be a vandal/trolling only account. —] (] <small>•</small> ]) 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
:Not enough for a username block in my opinion, but if they vandalise again after the warning I gave them, block indef. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yep, ] its just a user with a similar name per Sam :) ] 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Not 100% sure if this is the right place to report this, it's not vandalism but I think it should be looked at. I'm very flattered by the comment made about me at ], but ]'s diatribe on the page is bothersome and, I would guess, contravenes some Misplaced Pages protocol or other (or perhaps several). --] 09:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:I have removed the list of names. There might be a slight ] problem with the article, but the article needs help. Perhaps somebody from ] can help provide better sources than a novel? ] ] 12:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, the user has been given an indefinite block. —] (] <small>•</small> ]) 22:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
== Block review ==
Someone please review the above user's request for unblock; I blocked him for making to demand adminship. I don't think I'm being oversensitive here, or am I? <tt>].]</tt> 10:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Take a look at this user's contributions. He is almost certainly a troll. New users do not come to Misplaced Pages knowing how to upload images and where to find the RfA page. Also, most of his article edits are probably vandalism; he simply changes words and then inserts his signature into the article. The image he uploaded, ], is probably a copyvio. —] 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*I'd keep him blocked. Threatening to destroy Misplaced Pages if he doesn't get admin rights is not okay and he should know that. (Giving in would only give him more tools to vandalize). - ]|] 11:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Already came across this editor. Just a weirdo trying to do a Borat impersonation; endorse block. ]<sup>]]</sup> 11:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I just blocked {{user|MisterB4390}} indefinitely. In the past 7 months, the user has created a vanity autobiography 6 times at ]. The user has previously been warned not to recreate this page and had a blatant vandal warning on his talk. In addition to the block, I protected the article as a deleted page. Can I just get a review of this since this is one of my first significant blocks as an admin? Thanks, ] 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Indef. block for ] ==
:No objection here. Edits like make this essentially a vandalism-only block. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Image change issues, unsourced and possible copyright violations ==
In early October, {{user|NorbertArthur}} was blocked by ] for personal attacks (after coming off a one-month block by ] for ). I unblocked him later that month because he assured me that he would not make any more. Since then, Arthur has made comments such as, ] had to warn him to stop, or else he would get "get banned and this time for good". About a week later, Arthur made the following comment in an edit summary: When I unblocked him last month, he promised me ] that I can re-block him if he makes other personal attacks...but how many more blocks should he be given? I say, '''one more''', and hereby propose that NorbertArthur be blocked indefinitely. Comments welcome. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
{{user|THEBLITZ1}} has changed a large number of articles, mostly by replacing or adding images. A number of them are incompletely labelled and will be deleted, leaving a "hole" in the changed article, I'm not sure whether it's correct for me to revert those or wait for the image to expire. Others have been labelled as created by him, but of those, several appear to be copied from websites. I've reported a couple of them, but when I do, he games the system by removing the image from the article. It's very time consuming tracing the images, and trying to find where they really came from. A number of his edits have been reverted by me or others. I'm tempted to revert all of his changes. He's also generally disruptive and not co-operative, probably violating ], including edit warring on ]. He's been blocked for 24 hours, but I think the penalty needs to be more severe. --] 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'm no admin, but repeated posts like that, after multiple warnings and blocks, certainly seems to warrant an indef block. This one either doesn't understand our framework, or is simply uninterested in working within it. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:I noticed a couple pictures, in particular ] and ] are taken from . Their piracy policy can be found at and does not allow for these pictures to be used in this way. I thought I would mention this here, since I have little time right now to post them at ]. -- ]<font color="darkblue" size="" face="Constantia">''']'''</font> <sup>] | ]</sup> 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'd support an indef block in this case. ++]: ]/] 21:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
After the last offense I reblocked him for 6 months. If this is an age problem; let us see in 6 months whether he grows up. Only this time without parole. `'] 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:I think he's unlikely to grow up at 23 years old. Two years older than me. ]]] 22:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please block {{userlinks|Dropscone}}, he seems to have been creating multiple sockpuppets as seen here:
::{{RPA}} Standard 24 hour blocks, one for each set of personal attacks from now onwards should be more than sufficient to get the message across (unless there is an ''actual'' problem, e.g. vandalism). Also, if you do permanently block him, don't forget to delete his userpage; it contains personal information.--] 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
.
Thanks,
:::Right. Well, I think a one-month block is more than enough of a message, and I consider personal attacks to be an "actual" problem. Besides the fact that Khoikhoi was the one who ''unblocked'' him. ]]] 23:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
--] 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked, log shows that this user was behind today's round of briefs trolling. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::I've blocked the rest of the socks on that list. Well spotted, SunStar, I'll have to start checking that log next time another of his sockpuppets comes calling. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Probably the same user as the indefinitely-banned ], see . ]|] 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: I agree. Play nice or play elsewhere. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Personal attacks like that aren't even subtle; he even promised he could be banned for such behavior. Khoi, you say one more attack gets ban, I say negative one more attacks gets a ban. This kind of personal attack is not OK, and clearly a 24 hour block does nothing. Give him 6 months or indef. -]<sup>]]</sup> 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I hardly see the point in any more chances, and aside from the personal attacks, his editing itself has always been problematic at best; a permanent block seems the only reasonable action at this point. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::It looks like the vandal latches on to current controversies - it may have been Exicornt then, but one of the sockpuppets today faked a message from Jimbo saying Homey was unbanned, and there have been others. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Indefinitely block now. And caution ] that inappropriate comments like that will lead to a block of his own. — ] ] 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
== Repeated personal attacks ==
Wow, Khoikhoi, he never bothered using English to curse me out. Believe it or not, he's said even nastier things in Romanian than the example cited here. Concur with indefinite block. - ] | ] 08:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There have been several identical, offensive personal attacks on an editor at ]. Although some users and IPs have been blocked, others are quickly established or used. These attacks have been made by ], ], ] and ]. They appear to be linked to offensive edits in the same article, and at ], ] and ], by ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. The most recent such attack has been made by ]. Dealing with this is like fighting a Hydra; there's always a new head growing.] 02:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not an admin, but I would like to add my comment: NorbertArthur has for sure been asking for it, and he has been repeatedly engaging in inexcusable behaviour - the worst part of it was in Romanian. I was the target of such an outburst after I had asked him (for a second time) to write family name first in category brackets for articles on people (where he kept intervening). Judging by other users' talk pages, I see that he has done most of his trolling in Romanian.
:Let me add that there is not a single piece of writing which could be cited as valuable from this user. In fact, all he has done was to create forks, use personal guesses to replace data, and create a problem in many articles by confusing and confounding Romanian people who live abroad with Romanian-born citizens of other countries and with Romanian ethnics who have lived their entire lives in foreign countries. Refusing to pay attention to guidelines, he has also uploaded copyrighted material - knowing full well that it was not public domain (this IMO, equates vandalism). As far as wikipedia is concerned, he is merely a habitual troll. ] 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Further identical attack by ] at 08:02 GMT), 20 November 2006. ] 14:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Just looking through the ''edit summaries'' of his 30 or so contribs this month I find
#
#
#
] | ] 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
And a further identical attack by ] at 17:25, 20 November 2006. This vandal is apparently chosing user names close to my own in order to pursue his vendetta against me. Please help put a stop to this. ] 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:And more, he's already evading his block: <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 00:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
A further vandalisation by ] at 15:29, 21 November 2006. Can someone please help put a stop to this.--] 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::'''UPDATE''':
::#
::#
::'']'' <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 04:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Can'tyoujustfeelthelove? I thinkhe'sgotacrushonyou:)] <sup>]</sup>04:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
And again by ] at 07:28, 22 November 2006. What do I have to do in order that someone will take notice of this?--] 13:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Once more by ] at 14:54, 22 November 2006. This user is just laughing at us; please put a stop to it. --] 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: I think than and indef block would be in order though... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:I've blocked all the name accounts above and semiprotected ] against further IP vandalism. Your userpage was already s-protected. I have a feeling you probably haven't mentioned all the pages with IP vandalism problems; please do so here, and I hope somebody will s-protect them. I'm going to bed myself. ] | ] 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
::Other attacked accounts have included ], ] and ], there probably are others I haven't noticed. I think they have all been semi-protected already. I'll note if there are others. --] 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I can definately feel the love, see his latest comment:
== {{user|Swedenborg}} ==
<blockquote>I came here and I say the following things: you are all a gang of hipocritic racists against the Romanian nation. I tried now for almost an year to do something, but with people like you there's no way back to recuperate. I'm not sorry at all for what i wrote and I'll be '''never'''! This wikipedia is for me just a shithole on Internet and I will tell you why, because its based on lyings and on point of view from other people (ex. Mikkalai, Khoikhoi). I not a accusing you '''user DC76''' at all and I respect you of what you did. I know me too to use a polite language '''for people that I respect''' and for people that I don't respect like 95% of the wikipedia i usa that language. The respect is '''deserved'''. And for my future I will continue to edit wikipedia for one purpose: to destroy it. Nobody here knows that beyond my username NorbertArthur I'm the "owner" of an another 15 usernames that I edit on and no one of you will can fin out that 'cause its very good hidden. I'm not sorry for what I'm doing and you don't have the right to judge me ok? I proposed not one, not ten but hundred ideas, I think even more then 70 sources that where prooving what I was sustaining, you ignored all. to arrive a common point but I realized that you people are too low-minded to understand and that there's no purpose anymore to help just to destroy. The stupid admins like Khoikhoi they juste see the things against me, they don't see what '''me''' I endured from all you others by insulting my country and my people. But, there's always a way of neutral point. If everybody here will try at least to be one time in their life to be sincere and to listen to the other and not being racists, I promise and personally engage to stop all this and colaborate in good aim. But that will not happen I'm sure. I think I said all I had to say and explain.<br>''']''' 24 November 2006</blockquote>
I recently blocked this user for 24 hours after noticing these two personal attacks , . Bishonen then upped the block to a week and more personal attacks ensued after the blocks such as calling Bishonen a "facist" and Calton "sociopatic". Swedenborg's accomplishments here inlcude little more than incivil remarks, personal attacks, spam, edit warring, and attempts to solicit meatpuppets off site. Upon my review of Swedenborg's contributions I am inclined to extend the block to indefinite, but would like some other opinions first. ]+] 19:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is more than enough evidence for an indef. block. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:Hm. These edit summaries ( ), not to mention comments such as , are pretty uncivil. Even assuming good faith, I see little evidence that this user really wants to have . I would support a longer block, but not sure about indef, as it seems there has been some provocation. Again doing my best to assume good faith, perhaps after the edit war dies down the disruption will improve. --] <sup>] · <font color="green">]</font></sup> 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
: A guy evading block with proxies and confessing to have socks? Indef and checkuser please. <_< -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::They'renotproxies,he just has a dynamic IP. BTW, I justblockedoneofhis socks a few minutes ago, although it wasn'tactive. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt>22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::''...perhaps...the disruption will improve'' I don't think that's what you want. --] | ] 05:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't think Swedenborg losing his temper when blocked is a big deal, I wouldn't extend his block for such a thing as that. But the lack of constructive edits and the lack of comprehension of what the encyclopedia is for is extremely concerning. As for the edit war "dying down," edit warring is what he does; what makes you think it'll ever die down? Swedenborg seems convinced, from many comments, that he has a moral right to spam articles, that anyone thwarting him (such as Calton) is evil, and that any admin warning him (such as me) is Calton's evil sock. But there's no hurry about extending the block, as he just stormed off in indignation at the amount of evil in the place. I suggest we consider the indef issue when/if he and his edit war return. ] | ] 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
:::''Calton's evil sock'' Or maybe ]'s evil sock, Argh!Yle! ("an argyle sock with a ]-like complex, complete with metal mask"). --] | ] 01:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
==] wheel-warring and ignoring AfD==
::::Hi everybody, I would like to point out that ]'s remarks coppied above were in response to my post . ] has pointed to me this response of his above, and here is our .
::::I do not know NorbertArthur, because I am relatively new on Misplaced Pages. But I noticed his first rude remark he made a couple days ago in the subject line of the article ], resulting in that article being blocked. Prior to the incident I also edited a little that article; there was a dispute, some people agreed to come to some middle solution, but several others continued their prefered warring, and everything we suggested was immediately reverted. For example, me and Khoikhoi supported diferent POV, but somehow we were able to talk and find common ground. If it were just we two, this article would have been long settled. I guess the simple fact that some users supporting differnt POV try to talk to each other is perceived by some as "treason", and even in majority by number, we are being dismissed. Despite the fact that there are 10+ editors in that article, the edit war was basically between three users: NorbertArthur against tow others. The propositions from both sides were going to the extreme from edit to edit until NorbertArthur perhaps did not resist, and started his famous now remarks. You know the rest of the story. Just as the extreme edits by the three users before, NorbertArthur's remarks after the block increased exponencially in rudeness from response to response. In an interval of less than 3 day to go to such lengths, wow! I agree with Doc Tropics's comment above, he had a very-very passionate crash. :-)
::::I don't know wikipedia policies well, I am new here, so I don't "recommend" anything to the person who'll be taking the decision. You know better.:] 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
] has twice recreated ], refusing to accept its ] or participate in the already ongoing ]. Admins must use deletion review to challenge AfD closures, same as everyone else. I have already redeleted it once per ] G4, whereupon he re-recreated it and threatened to continue wheel warring until he gets his way . Much as I would like to not waste other admins' time when ] is clear, someone other than me needs to be the one to respeedy this as I'm not going to be accused of wheel warring myself. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Since no one seemed to object to the idea of a ban, I've extended it to indefinite. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 02:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
: I thinkyoushouldthrowinacheckuseraswell... -- ] <sup>]</sup>14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Article deleted again. Furthermore, I will block the user if he engages in wheel-warring. He is an admin and should know the rules. ] (]) 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::He undeleted it twice, which is pretty bad form IMO, but I assume he's gotten the hint now. If for some crazy reason he were to undelete it ''again'' perhaps some action like that may be in order. ] ] 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Okay, I'll go through the proper channels this time. But is it acceptable to delete an article when there are 7 votes in favour and 7 against? Similar votes have always resulted in a "no consensus" verdict. ] 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::AfD is '''not a vote'''. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Where did you ever get the idea that AfD is a vote? ] is thataway -> ]|] 03:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::''Non Admin Comment'' - Given the fact that ] participated in the debate (supporting a '''keep''' decision) it seems to me like he should have asked an uninvolved admin to examine the case and perform (if deemed appropriate) the undelete. ]]] 15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
** <s>Looks like an isolated incident</s> (other than ] which is a deleted article he restored to user space). Hopefully no more will come of it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*** Scratch that: he did the same thing with ], wheel-warring with Nickptar and Mets501; which probably has a perfectly reasonable explanation; I'm not sure what this one is about . Probably nothing, but the category wheeling looks bad. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
****Okay, I'll be more cautious in future. The other incidents you named : the Ba category incident was over a template that somebody else moved, breaking numerous double redirects without making any effort to redirect them. I didn't feel like fixing all the broken redirects myself, so I just undid his page move. When it became clear that he wouldn't accept my reversion of his move, I ended up accepting that, and fixed all the broken redirects - without any help from him. As for the image restoration: My memory is foggy, but if it's the event I think it was, <s>that was tagged for deletion by somebody who had previously vandalized my user page (or at least, had the same IP address as somebody who had).</s> But I can't remember the event accurately now, and thought that water was well under the bridge. Anyway, I think I have been a bit arrogant lately, and apologise. I will be more cautious, and will take care to follow the proper channels, from now on. ] 00:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*****I've just scratched part of the above comment. I was confusing that image issue with a separate event. At any rate, I regret my high-handed manner and will not make unilateral decisions in future. ] 10:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
==New account==
:: I support the block. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am very concerned about the first edit to ] which I immediately deleted. It appears to be an attack containing personal info of the accused. I think this merits the attention of an admin, possibly the page needs to be deleted. Thanks. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Deleted and warned. ] 07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thatcher is far too quick some days :) And feel free to slap a <nowiki>{{db-attack}}</nowiki> on anything you see like that. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::(second edit conflict with Shell, I lost both) Good job. If I make an extra donation to ], will you get a raise out of it? --] <sup>]</sup> 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::PS - I didn't even think of a "db" at the time. The content really freaked me out a bit and I just ran screaming to the nearest admin :) --] <sup>]</sup> 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Yep, if you make a big enough donation, Thatcher will make 10x the salary ;) There's nothing wrong with posting issues like that here either - sometimes this page gets a bit clogged, so I just thought I'd mention the speedy idea as a backup. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I'm in a generous mood. I'll throw you a 20% commission (less taxes of course) ] 08:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Hmmm, let's see...ten times ''nothing''...carry the ''nothing''...that comes to...um. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Finally, sir, we can give up this life of crime. --] 05:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Paid? That's a sleeknapper! lol --]<sup>]</sup> 11:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
==] and templates==
:::Maybe this user does not understand that even anon comments are recorded. Maybe if this was explained, unsigned attacks wouldn't happen. I don't support and indef block for this reason, or at the very least, using the anon comments as evidence. --] 08:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday, Myrtone made a series of unhelpful edits to warning templates, such as directing joke-minded users to Uncyclopedia and describing circumstances in which Misplaced Pages is censored in a template stating that Misplaced Pages is not censored. I don't know that talking is likely to produce a positive result, since he's been involved in problem edits to templates on numerous occasions in the past. Ideas? -]<sup>]</sup> 14:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:He obviously knows what he's doing, so a warning would not do much good. Since technically blocks aren't meant to be punitive I suppose all that could really be done is to issue a harsh warning. He has been blocked before for disruption, I remember clearly. – ]] 14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'd say this user needs a bit of a preventative timeout so that he'll cease using active templates as sandboxes and understand not to do so in the future. ''(]])'' 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh God, . Yes, he has already been blocked for this. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::It doesn't appear that he's had any warnings left on his talk page, even after the flurry of these he did yesterday, for the record. ] <small>]</small> 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Why would we warn him ''again''? He's not an IP that might have changed hands, he's an account, and I'm sure he can remember why he was blocked three months ago. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Just pointing it out; it seemed odd to me that there was this discussion going on, but no indication that the user under discussion had been informed of it. ] <small>]</small> 19:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Mytone is *still* editing templates disruptively today. I'm blocking for 24 hours to prevent the continuance of this behaviour. And warned him not to continue when the block expires. ] | ] 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] Legal threats ==
I have been keeping an eye on ] for many weeks but never interacted. This is an editor that makes some useful contributions, but ''does not play well with others''. Not at all. Somehow she skates on the thin edge of acceptability all the time. I'm still not sure if a block is warranted, but her activites definitely tend to be disruptive. Perhaps an official warning and a good "talking to" would be sufficient. At least it would establish some official presence on her talkpage for future reference. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Having recently come back from a for "''violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA.''" and for recuting "''...meatpuppet editors off-site''", ] has now issued not-so-thinly-veiled ] against ] , , and . ] 12:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:"She?" As far as I can see it's a he, at least the word "he" is used on the user page. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not certain of gender, but this editor was once addressed as "Mr. Tone" and went to great lengths explaining the feminine history of the name. Color me confused. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Heh, well the editor once tried to tell me that Wikipedians couldn't die (after one did) because "Wikipedian" is an office. I still haven't got the logic of that one. ] | ] 23:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:This user was warned before. Just because those warnings aren't still visible doesn't mean they don't apply. The block is short and contains another warning. That is sufficient. Certainly if he continue after the block expires, a longer block will be warranted, but talking to this one does little good, he's been around long enough to know better. This isn't a new user by any means. (Though there was a name change a while back if you are confused). ] | ] 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::NOTE: I made my initial comments based on previous experience, without checking for more recent developments. This editor has indeed been warned and blocked repeatedly for a variety of disruptive activities. At the very least I think an admin should monitor this one closely, and further disruptions would certainly warrant longer blocks. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
(Isarig had been blocked on 13 Nov for ''"Personal attacks on Juan Cole"'' -all the threats have been after that, 14 November 2006, 21 November 2006, and 22 November, respectively) ] 13:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ashibaka unblocked claiming this user was being blocked punitively and without attempting to discuss the block with me, or posting here. I can't say I'm impressed with his actions considering he *always* seems to be the one unblocking, and the edits were clearly disruptive. ] | ] 05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Will didnt make legal threat. All what he did was warning isarig not to ]. I think Isarig should be blocked instead because he libelled Juan cole here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Juan_Cole&diff=87446122&oldid=87402322 ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Possibly inappropriate username? ==
::Isarig's ''opinion'' is unlikely to be enforceable as ] in the US -especially as he would be able to point to published charges of antisemitism/antisemitic comments made by others against Cole. This does not mean that Will, as a lawyer, could not make life difficult for him via a ]. Isarig ''has'' been blocked for violating NPA, however, that was apparently not enough for Will, and his legal threats amount to harassment of his "opponent". Will should be blocked, ideally permanently, as he's shown no acceptance of WP's mission, culture, or processes -or any progress towards it. Note the accusation below that I am Isarig's sock or "meatpuppet" because I find his behavior unacceptable. ] 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
New ] has recently edited the article ]. Your thoughts? Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 20:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages should avoid libel whether or not it is technically actionable - armon's claim that a libel claim may not be enforceable in one particular country is hardly a reason for Misplaced Pages to endorse libelous statements. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly held that opinions can be actionable as libel -- the case ] held that opinions can be libelous insofar as such opinions "may often imply an assertion of objective fact." (In this particular case, the "opinion" certainly does imply such an assertion and would be actionable if someone chose to pursue it). I find armon's insistence that Will be blocked permanently to be distasteful, as he appears to be trying to use Misplaced Pages policy to remove an ideological opponent. Will's statements that Isarig should avoid libel do not appear to me to be threats or personal attacks. ] 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*From the quick glance I saw there's nothing autobiographical or POVish going on. The edit did break naming conventions, so I left a message about that and redirect to help him out. - ]|] 08:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== Inappropriate username ==
::::csloat accuses me of using policy to silence my ideological opponent. I have no problem with "ideological opponents", I do however, object to the non-stop page disruptions ''since May 06'' which both ] and Will have engaged in. csloat is rightly worried that Will being banned will further isolate himself on ], because without him, csloat will be the only intransigent party, regardless of "ideology". Further to the charge, if I ''really'' wanted my "ideological opponents silenced", I would do better to "go after" those who present a real challenge, not those who troll and produce low-quality, POV edits which have no real chance of remaining. ] 06:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I don't know of any page disruptions that I have been engaged in since May 06 (or any other time). I've been a very constructive Misplaced Pages editor for a couple years now. Will's participation is not my concern, but I do object to demands for permanent blocks against users who may be misguided but who clearly want to improve wikipedia. ] 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::That he ''wants to improve WP'' is problematic in itself. His ''improvements'' entail scrapping NPOV. ] 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
] I happened to run across this username and found it very offensive. ] 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*My computer has been out for a while because of a worm. I have previously warned Isaig of a gross violation of civility and libel. I have had no respone from him or others on this matter other than this preemptive action from Isarig's sockpuppet. there are some other complaints I need to make against other persons for gross incivility. if this is the proper place to make it then here goes. It is the grosses violation, and entirely uncalled for. Because it is in the edit line, it's permanent and can't be erased. It's for keeps. He's constantly noticing people and wikilawyering. i think Armon is his meatsockpuppet.
] for calling Cole a "jewbaiter" in an edit log.
**('''cur) (last) 01:21, 13 November 2006 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (Cole is a jewbaiter, so his jewbaiting quotes are in. thsi was moved to v&C, but you've deleted V&C, so it's back here)''' Unless somebody else has already done it. ''Godspeed John Glenn!'' ] 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Um, yes, but so is yours, apparently. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*Some claims are so laughable they need no response, but i got suspended for another laughable claim for which i never had an opportunity to respond. So I better respond to this one. I deny I made a legal threat to Isarig. I advised him that he had subjected the Misplaced Pages foundation to libel with his namecalling and he needed to stop it. And I also said that if others didn't report him that I would. I put it on my talk page because he has a habit of deleting warnings on his talk page. I put it on the Cole talk page to get feedback to see if somebody had already noticed it because I had no feedback from Isarig about it and I didn't know how to notice it. And I will tell Professor Cole about this because he is a friend of mine and it's funnier than hell that Isarig would get so vulgar. Here is somebody that is wikilawering and turning people in all the time for the slighted imagined rule violations and going aroung libeling people in the grossest way. He can't be allowed to get away with this. Maybe he's already been punished for it, I don't know. Please advise. I have had no feedback. And as for Armon, to each his own. ''Godspeed John Glenn!'' ] 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:: The comment about how you would "inform" Cole about the matter together with the other comments seems like a legal threat. Please stop. ] 21:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::And, in both cases, you beat me to it by seconds ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::My name is not offensive, as it is based on my school days with a teacher we used to call "Mr File" because he was thin and scaly. He always let me do what I want while constantly undermining the confidence of the other kids. Just like that Pink Floyd song. Well anyways, since "Mr. File" always gave me my way I was considered the teacher's pet. As a result,this is the ego shattering nickname my classmates gave me.] 00:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Will asserts that he is a lawyer- , therefore the phrase: ''I will '''advise''' Professor Cole if the Misplaced Pages community fails to discipline you.'' suggests a more credible legal threat than simply telling on him. ] 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I suggest a block. ] 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, but its homonym violated ]. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 00:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Will may be a lawyer, but it is a stretch to claim that "advise" is being used in such a legal sense in that sentence. It is doubtful that Will is Cole's lawyer and it is unlikely that Cole would accept Will's counsel under the circumstances. But I believe the problem here is not Will -- if Misplaced Pages is sued because of a statement that Isarig published, it is Isarig and not Will who is at fault, whether or not Will is the lawyer who initiates such a lawsuit. ] 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps you didn't see it, but the pronunciation of your former username turns out to be the same as "pedophile." Or maybe because I have a dirty mind. ;-) --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 00:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::If was pretty obvious what was being implied. How else would a person (Juan Cole) who has no professional or personal contacts with another person (Isarig) do anything to negatively affect the second person other than through a legal matter. I really don't see how Will can deny what was clearly being insinuated.- ] | ] 05:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::The word "advised" is very common and is often used in non-legal settings. As a university professor, for example, I often "advise" students. In another example, I often "advise" friends (or seek "advice" from same) on personal matters. I believe may help clear it up. I have no way of knowing whether it was Will's intent to use the term in a particular way, but I assure you that it is even possible for lawyers to use the term "advise" in a non-technical sense. Will may have simply meant that he intended to send Dr. Cole an email. That doesn't necessarily excuse the action, but it does make it a lot less sinister than is being implied here. I would add, again, that the legal problem, if there is one, lies with the party posting illegal content, and not the party who takes action (or who informs someone) of said content. After all, we don't need a legal adviser to expose something that has already been posted to a public website.] 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Well, then Will's threats were utterly unnecessary other than for trolling and/or harassment. As for the "ultimate meaning" of "advise" or "inform", we might as well argue about what the meaning of ''"is"'' is, rather than putting it in the context of Will's posting of to solicit POV warriors, his "ends justify the means" approach to editing here, and his complete lack of regard for any policy other than ]. His "deniablity" is far too implausible. ] 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about a newcomer whose first two edits are to ANI. Is this considered "typical behaviour" for a new account? Only, I'd been editing over a month before I even ''heard'' of ANI...I'm feeling like a slowpoke now. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been contacted to step in, as the blocking admin, but I am home with my family for ], and will have no time to step into this dispute today. I am sorry. ]]]<small>]</small> 19:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Absent evidence to the contrary, we try to ]. Many editors wait and get experience under their belts before registering an account. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
These are clearly legal threats, regardless of the apologetics, and should not be tolerated. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, I understand (did the same myself actually). It just struck me as a bit odd that an editor with a ''questionable'' username makes their first edit an official complaint about a questionable username. I didn't mean to sound accusatory, but I do find it curious...] <sup>]</sup> 00:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::It did raise eyebrows ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Folks we can be pretty sure this is the "ANI troll" reappearing. ''(]])'' 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Hehe well, let me just say that a checkuser linking the reporter and reportee herein wouldn't surprise me a lot ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 01:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::So, even if I'm a suspicious bastard, at least I'm not a ''lonely'' suspicious bastard...there's a whole club. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
=={{user5|NRen2k5}}==
:I agree. As such, I have blocked the user for 45 days, considereing that legal threats are a fairly dramatic step up in poor user behavior and will not be tolerated. As always, I appreciate admin review of my block, and will abide by any changes the community suggests. ]]]<small>]</small> 22:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This user's page needs looking into. A warning and maybe a blanking of his user page is in order. This display resulted from a serious of events surrounding the {{article|Talk:Michael Richards}} article talk page yesterday. of this user's talk page covers some of the details. ''(]])'' 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm a newby and there's a lot I don't understand. But I don't think legal threats have been made. In my neck of the woods one might "advise" someone of something, and you'd only be telling them it happened. You'd not be suggesting they sue, nor would you be "advising" them of how to go about sueing someone.
:Well I suppose the blocking for personal attacking this user recieved from Blnguyen after calling me a racist yesterday didn't seem to get the message across. Now I'm being called a and . Go figure. ''(]])'' 05:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::What is much, much more worrying is that Isarig is apparently free to post ''"(Cole is a jewbaiter, so his jewbaiting quotes are in. thsi was moved to v&C, but you've deleted V&C, so it's back here)"'' . This would be a deeply unpleasant slur even if it was genuine - and to accuse supporters of Israel of potential ''"dual loyalty"'' is not (on the face of it) jew-baiting.
::Hmmm, I'm not up-to-date on policy but is ok these days? ''(]])'' 06:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::I trust Isarig doesn't mind others referencing the fact that particular people are Jewish - oh, look, he takes considerable objection ''"what relevance does the alleged Jewishness of the lead prosecutor have to do with the article? Other than to push the POV that it is religiously motivated, that is?] 06:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)"''.
*I extended the block for removing those warnings from his page. - ]|] 09:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::] 19:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:*Hopefully when that user returns he'll be a bit more reasonable. Thanks Mgm. ''(]])'' 09:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
==Russian Language Content dispute==
I do not know about any prior history with this user, but in this particular case it looks like an overly aggressive response to the patently inappropriate comment by ]. With regard to this incident specifically, a 45 day block seems excessive. —]→] • 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The page about the Russian language needs to be looked at. Here is an excerpt.
:I agree with Centrx; this is over the top. Particularly when you consider that proportionally, Isarig was apparently blocked for only 1 day for the inappropriate content itself. So the message is that it may be bad to post libelous comments in edit summaries, but it is 45 times worse to "threaten" to advise someone about inappropriate things being said about them on a public web page. Had the editor simply informed Cole rather than "threatening" to inform Cole, we would consider his actions common courtesy rather than legally threatening. ] 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"Russian is not actually a language. It was invented in 1943, by dr. Egor Stravinski, during the second world war. It was originally German propaganda. They invented a race of monsters just like the catholics, which they have been known to persecute for the past 6 million years. Russians do not actually exist, they're just a myth, designed to sdcare children. In 1979, Andreas discovered this but was crucified before he could tell anyone. However he wouldn't have been able to tell anyone, because he doesn't have any friends."
:::His prior history was taken into account. ] 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Isupporttheblock.←]<sup>]]</sup> 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This person is spreading hatred and should be blocked from ever editing Misplaced Pages again. "] 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)"
:"Spreading hatred" was never, and thankfully is not, a criterion for permanent blocking. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 01:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::His request to be . He is by not logging in. ] 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Relax, just a routine case of vandalism. The IP source of the above nonsense has been repeatedly blocked. ] ] 10:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== {{user|Koavf}} blocked indefinitely ==
::::Absolutely no legal threat was made. 'advise" is not the same with "sue". Unblock request was denied, but it was denied by a probably non-neutral editor. Will requested another admin to review. ''Peace''. --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 18:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC) :Quote from ...''I am very serious about this. What credibillity is there to WikiP when a call for more neutral editors is called sockpuppetry? When an admonishment to Isarig and an effort to protect the inegrity of WP from libel is treated as threating a lawsuit? When advise is stretched to mean "sue?" When Humus can threaten a muslim with involluntary servitutde at the service of Israellis? Come on James Wales wake up. Where are you? Where are the officers of the foundation? How can you let this stuff go on unchecked? ''Godspeed John Glenn!'' ] 02:21, 28 November 2006 (UT''...
Koavf has managed to rack up '''eight''' distinct blocks for 3RR, and 2 more for other disruptive behavior(). Note also edits like .. I just extended his latest 3RR block to idefinite, as I think the community's patience is likely exhausted by now. He has had many opportunities to mend his ways. Having recently returned from a week-long block, he started edit warring again almost immediately. His behavior is unmodified despite the volume of blocks he has received. Of course, I put this possibly-controversial action up for review. ]·] 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
:Why is there no note on his User or User_talk page? - ] ] 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
::What are you talking about? He has lots of warnings on his Talk page. ]|] 00:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I was talking about the lack of note on his talk page regarding his indefinite block. A note has subsequently been added. - ] ] 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
::I don't think there's much possibility of recovery here. While I'm sure he's a nice guy, I don't think he has the temperament for editing here. I'm going to '''endorse''' this action, though sadly. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Hm, harsher than we usually are. But then perhaps we are usually too soft. Endorse with the proviso that we put a note on his talk page indicating that he will be considered for a 'last chance' if he indicates that he 'gets it' undertakes to behave.--]<sup>g</sup> 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I definitely agree that a long block of some sort is in order. Not sure if indefinite is needed, just yet (I'm not too familiar with the situation), but the long-term disruption and failure to learn from past transgressions is pretty worrisome. ] 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I don't think he deserves an ''indefinite'' block, but I think that some kind of length (maybe 3-6 month block) with the option of a "last chance" before indefinite would be appropriate. He has been a useful editor, and the disruption comes from edit warring rather than vandalism. - ] ] 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Justin is a nice user but w/ a temperament. It is this same temperament that leads him to edit warring non-stop. If you'd ask me i'd say i'd prefer a definite ban from editing Morocco/Western Sahara related articles where he got most of the blocks. -- ''] 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)'' <small>]</small>
::::::Agree with Svest. - ] ] 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I think this is a very strict block. I have edited on the Western Sahara articles before and I think that Kovaf has been struggling with some users who only have the aim to put certain viewpoints on Misplaced Pages. I'm not convinced by his neutrality entirely either, but I think the articles could become very unbalanced and that we would lose a valued contributor if he were indefinately blocked.
:::::::A block of a much shorter duration should be enforced here - 1 month, 2 maximum. I definately don't think he should be blocked from editing Western Sahara/SADR aritcles (but might support a block from aritcles on Morocco). --] 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
==]==
*) has unreasonably left vandalism messages on my usertalk page even after there was agreement on the http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Carnatic_music to delete such content. Further, he has suggested that I am a puppet of ] on the same page for A4ay's agreement with me, and so reverted back to his old changes on the ] page. In this process, I believe I have been defamed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:LIBEL . ] 06:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::* I don’t want to interfere in your discussion guys but Robdurbar’s remarks justifying Kovaf’s behavior as just a "a struggle with some users" oblige me to do so. I think this is simply unfair from an admin.
::::::::* There are reasons why Koavf has been blocked (no need to list them again) and this has nothing to do with any "other users". Trying to Justify his behaviour in this way is simply wrong.
::::::::* The unbalance of the topic is an other wrong argument. He had the chance to cooperate with all and he clearly did not. Now there is a real chance that the topics will be more balanced and the atmosphere among the editors more co-operative and peaceful. All he was doing is (mis-) using Misplaced Pages for a platform to fight for the independence of a disputed territory and discouraging others with his obsessive reverts.
::::::::* There are rules, and they apply for all, so remember which message you will give if you unblock this user; it's like telling everybody "ok, just continue with your edit-warring and reverts, you’ll always find a nice admin to defend and unblock you."
::::::::: Kind regards - ] 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
] (above) is removing content from ] without holding any discussions and against repeated requests. He has in the past blanked out ] related pages like and , and . He has also removed pictures and content from ] a number of times as per his own - , , and reverted the page very often - , , .
::::::::::User Koavf has been reverting and edit-warring on many articles, and especially on Western Sahara related. Normal when he declares in his user page "I try to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR).", and on Wikime that "I will do my darndest to free Western Sahara". His talk page and contributions show that he resorts to personal attacks, and has trouble issues with a large number of users on a wide range of articles. After coming form every block, he immediately started by reverting all the changes done in his absence, even the articles he was blocked for. Short period blocks seem to "only make him bitter" as he made it clear. Koavf has not shown any change after all the successive blocks. He misuses AWB for increasing edit counts at the price of creating confusion, although he was warned and blocked for it.
He seems to have violated the ] on ] article. I cautioned him about it, and placed the ] on his page. ] does similar acts on the same page (removing images etc), who might be a ] of ]. ] responds to me by placing a template warning on my page and . He says above that there was an agreement on ] to delete content from the article, which is false and absurd. And now, this report on Admin Noticeboard seems to be funny, if nothin else, since it should have been I who should have sought admin help against him. Since he and ] have been doing extensive edit warring and destructive edits violating ], hope they are warned suitably to participate in a constructive manner. <span class="sigSrkris" style="background:gold;color:#FF0000"><big>ॐ</big> ] (] | ])</span> 08:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::As to Robdurbar's comment, I think that Koavf has made the articles related to WS very unbalanced, and in his absence you are urged to watch if the "some users" commit the same mistakes as Koavf or are the articles becoming balanced by giving both views of the WS conflict.
::::::::::An indefinite block, or at least (as Francis suggested) a 6-month block after which a "last chance" is given to him to show he changed, otherwise 3RR loses its purpose and becomes a short vacation from Misplaced Pages before one returns to resume reverting and edit-warring. --] 00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:I didn't mean to infer any bias from most users - including wikima - though I hope he would accept that he, like us all, has some sort of inherent bias. With there being so few contributors to Western Sahara pages, I don't think we can afford to lose Koavf. I appreciate this ban is over conduct, not content, but when banning we do need to consider what a user has contributed to Misplaced Pages. Equally, I agree, that koavd's contributions have been far from neutral but they have been in good faith. Can we agree to at least reduce this from an indefinate ban? --] 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to Assume good faith in Srkris, however, his constant disrespect seems to signal that he is not at all innocent. I hope he is warned to not only participate in a constructive, NEUTRAL manner, but about his overt disrespect towards other Wikipedians (evidenced above from the humour he finds in something obviously quite serious, as well as when he rolls on the floor laughing ("ROFTL") and "Haha" in ].) His attitude needs to change.
::There appears to be a fairly even split so far between endorsing and not-endorsing, is 50% sufficient for an indef ban to be upheld? - ] ] 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Srkris' version of the facts are somewhat distorted compared to what actually happened - it seems he is not innocent. There is no absurdity or falseness. There was indeed agreement in deleting images of Modern artists in the article ], as is evidenced in ] - it was agreed that the images would be deleted until the issue was resolved - the issue of ] with why some modern artists pictures were on the article rather than others, and whether such images are appropriate in an article that does NOT focus on modern artists). Instead of signalling his disagreement, or respecting the wishes of another ] to let this issue be resolved by discussion before reverting, he chose to revert AGAIN ] to the version with images in question, and ONLY after this, does he bother placing warnings on my page and the Carnatic music page concerning ]. He then puts a warning regarding vandalism too. He then has the audacity to claim I am dictating views on others, when he seems to be guilty of the same.
:I've only had bad experiences with ]. When things haven't gone his way, he has tended to run off to an admin, which has backfired on him each time (, ). Lifting the block would be a bad move, in my opinion, which I'm sure will be proven if it happens. Several of his past blocks were reduced in length, only for him to pick up where he left off, which shows he disregards other people's good faith towards him. - ] 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
His latest reply in ] is further evidence. He misleadingly states that all I do is "undo other's painstaking work" - this is both disrespectful, unreasonable and defamatory. He suggests I haven't tried writing an article on Misplaced Pages from scratch before, and also explicitly states that the only reason the reverts have continued was because I think "The article doesnt need images other than what I upload" - which is untrue, regarding the latest edits and reverts, as can be seen in ]. His defamation didn't stop after the first warning, nor did his assumption of bad faith, after my first warnings. His failure to ] in dealing with other editors is a serious issue.
This is a rather difficult question, as he's mostly editting in territory which is *very* prone to POV-pushing. I'm fairly certain he has done it on occasion, too, and he's certainly revert-warred, but an indefinite block seems a bit harsh... Apart from all this, someone neutral should take a good look at all the Western-Sahara-related articles, as almost all of them contain either a pro-independence or a pro-Morocco POV. —]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
He seems to have violated ] on several occasions, notably and openly when requesting intervention ] against another member. He has blatantly insulted their behaviour, when he needs to have a look at his own from a neutral point of view.
:Francis, many others and me have been doing just that. We had experienced a very lenghty and hot debate at ] recently and i am sorry to say that among around a dozen of participants, only Justin was the most ''tendious''. The participants had reached a concensus but Justin kept arguing against that. This is what makes Justin's case a bit torn. On one side, we need to keep all the articles free of POV and on the other side, we need no tendious editing and edit warring.
I hope the administration will warn him about his behaviour so that it will improve in due course, without interfering with his and others contributions to Misplaced Pages.
:However, as i am not for a permablock, i'd still suggest a ban from editing Morocco/WS related articles as his POV pushing has reached limits. '']'' <small>]</small> 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::As Fayssal said, I would also oppose a permanent block. Koavf is an obstinate user regarding matters relating to his personal views but he has shown willingness to follow dispute resolution procedures. I know this is not the point but Koavf truely believes he's doing the right thing most of the time. Regarding a topic ban or a revert parole, these matters would have to be decided by ArbCom. If anyone wants to take this to arbitration, I am more than happy to express my views on the issue. Personally, I feel a bit guilty as I was informally mediating on the WS/Morocco articles but eventually left these aside because time restrains. Koavf has been with us for long enough to deserve a proper arbitration process instead of a fast-track community ban. Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Seconded. Well said Asterion. -- '']'' <small>]</small> 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Those opposing a permanent block are doing it out of good faith and kindness rather than out of rational and reality. This is a very clear case of someone for whom 3RR means nothing, blocks mean nothing, and edit-warring is a style.
] 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
He has proven it again and again and again. There is no hope at all that he will change. I am quite sure many users have been indef blocked for much less than Koavf's record, and if this case were to end in a no-indef ban, it will serve as an argument for warring-editors, and as a blatant failure to enforce Misplaced Pages's most basic rules.--] 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:Considering you have been here for under 3 months, I find it hard to believe that you've seen enough of Justin to make that call. Furthermore you have edit warred from the opposite POV to him. It is in your interests for him to have an indefinite block. Hardly the right person to be commenting on this. - ] ] 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*Please use ]. Also, this is difficult to follow. My advice: only wikify each specific item once and aim at a concise account. ] 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::If three months is a short period, I have actually seen during it koavf racking up so many blocks, using aggressive language, and disregarding Misplaced Pages's most basic rules, I have seen him promising admins he will obey by the rules but did not hold his word. I have seen 3RR losing its meaning in his case. A bad example for newcomers, like me, Isn't it?. Moreover, you can "see" all one's history of talk and contribs, even if you've been for just one week. So, one's opinion is not weakened (nor strengthened) by how long he/she has been on Misplaced Pages. You can't help Koavf by trying to redirect attention from his unjustifiable abusive behavior to other users, it is an insult to the admins' intelligence. You (Francis) have been recently blocked for edit-warring. As to my editing on WS, Koavf has reverted me , and would revert you , and everyone who writes anything that does not go his way. Is it enough that I support the WS articles to be filtered from POV by neutral editors (like you), as has been suggested above?.--] 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::srkris is a constructive editor, and placing bogus warnings on talk pages is meaningless.<b>] </b><font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 04:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Koavf is currently a problem editor, but not a vandal. I suggest a long block to give him a chance to mellow out, but not an indefinite block. ''—] ] <small>2006-11-14 16:16 Z</small>''
:::Thanks Bakasuprman, both for your faith in me and your support. I hope ] has more constructive work to do. <span class="sigSrkris" style="background:gold;color:#FF0000"><big>ॐ</big> ] (] | ])</span> 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'd agree with that. He has put a lot of time into editing up until now, so I wouldn't want to see all that negated by an indefinite ban. A time-out would suffice, in which time he'll hopefully expand his horizons. - ] 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::The defwarn templates are ridiculous. They look ugly on Kris' page. I request an admin to remove it. ] 18:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::* From what I can see now, the topic of Western Sahara for instance is like recovering in his absence, already. There is a sort of peace coming back and the atmosphere is likely to become cooperative and productive again.
The label is quite appropriate. ] 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::* I would prefer to see more people join and also feel encouraged to stay longer, than only koavf “owning” the pages and pushing others away with his possessive way.
::* His obsessive, always instant and systematic reverts and his extreme edit-warring discourage anyone who wants to do the tiniest change that does not fit his POV.
Thanks to Sarvagna also for the support and faith in my actions. Yes, I dont want to remove the warning messages myself, I request an admin to do it, and ask ] to start behaving. <span class="sigSrkris" style="background:gold;color:#FF0000"><big>ॐ</big> ] (] | ])</span> 14:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::* He certainly edited a lot (may be sometimes too much), but all his edits and article creations are POV and propaganda and it takes others always a huge effort to overcome his edit-warring and reverts in order to balance.
And yet, the hypocrisy continues.... ] 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::* Misplaced Pages is not about quantity. Articles that are shorter, neutral, concise, let say encyclopaedic, have much more value than long stories that are nothing than a fight in favour of an ideological organisation and against a country that is seen as enemy of this organisation.
== 64.107.1.251, etc. ==
::* This sort of behaviour clearly damages the topic areas in question and it damages Misplaced Pages as a whole.
*{{Checkuser|64.107.1.251}}
*{{Checkuser|64.107.220.170}}
*{{Checkuser|64.107.2.2}}
*{{Checkuser|64.107.1.197}}
*{{Checkuser|64.107.2.130}}
*{{Checkuser|64.107.2.65}}
*{{Checkuser|64.107.220.118}}
*{{Checkuser|66.99.1.4}}
*{{Checkuser|66.99.3.7}}
::* He had many chances but he just ignored all and he didn’t care about using one single of them.
User uses same grammar/mistakes in comments on history page of ] for their duplicate changes, replies to posts directed at one IP as if they are that IP (64.107.1.251 answering my response to a post made by 64.107.220.170 in the --see subsection "Hollywoodland"--) and makes threats/insults to others who disagree with them: "also I suggest you keep your hands off good links," and "you support each other, like cops and donuts ," etc.] 07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::* It’s time now to protect Misplaced Pages and these topics and for their sake I would plead for keeping the indefinite ban.
CanIgetalittlehelp-help?] 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Thanks and kindest regards - ] 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
: Try not to make it a personal vendetta against him. His misgivings are clear to those who care to look. The admins will act as they see appropriate. - ] 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:::"Koavf is currently a problem editor, but not a vandal" - I think this describes the situation best, thanks Mzajac. This is why I think an idefinate block is counter-productive and a long-but-not indefinate one could 'solve' the problem. Of course, any user - myself included -who is arguing for a long-but-not-indefinate would be happy to endorse a full block if his bevahiour did not improve upon return. --] 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Sounds fair enough to me. But i'd prefer that we agree on what ''problem'''s''''' we are refering to when we say a "problem editor". Are there many problems? Is there a particular one? I say this because i know for some of us or even for Justin, this may be debatable and could lead us to the same situation ''if'' he is back. Could we be more concise? ''']''' ····> <small>]</small> 13:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::::* Dude, nothing personal, and I am most serious about it.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET AN ADMINISTRATOR TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE?
::::* Rob, of course we are talking about a problematic editor and not a case of vandalism.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET AN ADMINISTRATOR TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE?
::::* Koavf had already received the warning of an indef ban when he was blocked for a week and he ignored it.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET AN ADMINISTRATOR TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE?] 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*Have you tried requesting page protection at ]? ] 05:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Or report him/them (I dunno) at ]--<font face="comic sans ms">]</font> 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Is "I suggest you keep your hands off good links" the strongest threat that has been made? Regards, ] 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::::: Rgds - ] 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:::No, actually this is a long term problem. A ''very'' long term problem. f and also, more controversially, here: (links deleted by the anon, and by me, 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)) Both of these pages were deleted by Jimbo himself as part of a negotiation with this person. What his part of the deal was I do not know, but if it involved ''leaving us alone'', he's broken his part. We may wish to get Jimbo himself to weigh in on this. I believe that several people were on the verge of opening an ArbCom case against this person because of his persistent abusive behavior and POV-warring, in addition to his general inability to get along with any other editor in any manner at all.
:::This particular user also left notes on my user talk page like "learn what movies are" along with posting: "==Enough== Of Deleting good links, this time you have no explanation, this deals with the movie, not actor,I AM WARNING YOU FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU WILL NO LONGER STAY ON WIKI IF THIS CONTINUES, i am on my public IP this time." Not only do I consider this a personal attack, I consider it a threat, even though it's probably not an actionable one on the part of the user who posted this. ] 02:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Minorofftopiccomment, can the pageonGRPbedeleted?Ihighlydoubtit'llberecreatedbythesubjectifitwasdeletedbyJimboduringtalkswithhimandSWhasn'tberecreatedyet. A suggestion... ] 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with the above. The indefinite block should remain permanent. No amount of reasoning or disciplinary action has made Koavf alter his behavior, even if some of his contributions are worthy. ] 12:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
===Summary===
When I saw the dispute over the Hollywoodland article, I tried reasononing with the anonymous user (who did jump around on various IPs), I tried explaining the policies, and I tried explaining that reverts are not meant as personal attacks. They seem a bit paranoid, and they don't seem to place much value on civility. They are very defensive of their edits, and I think their conduct is unbecoming of a good faith editor. ] 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
<p>Reply, verkovesky was told what to do, then when one of the people left a note on his page i am a troll i lost my cool, i did not mean to, and yea, i understand these things sounds mean, but again, when will one nice administrator look into suggestions,i am sick of being accused for all these months of being vandal, i may be uncivil at times (but mostly i am not), BUT I CAN NOT TAKE THIS ATTACK AND ATTACK AND SO ON. I simply try to improve few links on wiki and you call me troll, shame on you. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
* Endorsing: 8(3) ]*, ], ], ]*, ]*, ]*, ]*, ]
::Not typing in all caps would be a great first step in achieving a more collaborative spirit with the other members of the community. ] 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
* Endorsing a partial ban on Morocco/Western Sahara related articles: 2(1) ], ]*
* Endorsing a long block: 3(3) ], ], ]
* Endorsing a short block: 2(2) ], ]
* Endorsing a topic ban or a revert parole: 1(0) ]*
* Not endorsing: 1(0) ]*
**Total for not-endorsing indefinite ban: 9(8)
:Many of us have tried to reason with this editor. God knows we've tried. I for one am weary of it. We've tried to explain civility, NPOV, calmness, no personal attacks ... he has responded with extended campaigns of vandalism, revert wars, "I WIN I GET MY WAY,YOU ADMINS ALL VANDALS," other similar comma-spliced invective, torrents of e-mail to Jimbo (which is why the pages are deleted), --and yet he keeps coming back. Again, again, and again. This time I noticed that many people were colliding with him but none seemed to notice that they were not alone, and that there was a long story here. He seems to have valuable knowledge on a lot of topics, but a complete inability to work with other people in any kind of collaborative enterprise. It seems to me utterly hopeless.
<nowiki>*</nowiki> indicates non-admins.
:If anyone has any suggestions on how to deal with this, I'd love to hear them. ] ] 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
<p><b>Reply to real vandals... <p></b>
<P> Antandrus was never fair, nothing else, he reasoned with me? he never helped me, did he ever ever try to fix the proble, no, never, ever, hopeless, where were you when i needed assistance all the way back in january, where were you, shame on you, you are one of the 5 administrators i had problems, with the rest, i was able to communicate (even though they were no help at all) what grammar error, i dare you find those errors, none and good to know u unblocked that page, for long time i wanted to know what's that, 90% is pure garbage and nothing to do with me. I do know who you are and you keep on playing games, that will not be forgiven... If i do something wrong, where is your assistance, none, if i do things right, which they are mostly right, where is thank you, ok, good job, never, why, you do not want to be seen wrong.
Also why do you use name of GOd, God knows, God knows you did everything wrong, from very beginning with instruuctions to revert everything on site, also wales clearly said not to recreate the site and what are you doing, so many of you administrators do not belong here. So far only Ray wants to talk to me about why certain link should be included. And who knows if you can even reply to this and prove anything you say.
:Back in January you were vandalising us, and we were asking you to stop. Whatever. Have a nice day. ] ] 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- ] ] 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
While I endorse the "partial ban", I'm not sure if this can be done without ArbCom intervention. Can anyone advise? - ] ] 12:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
== Is mentioning ] a threat? ==
:In any case, the ArbCom should be informed i believe. Refering to the ] i understand that everything ''should'' follow that path. -- '']'' Ω <small>]</small> 14:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Personally I believe Koavf can still be of help to this project, and would agree with Nightstallion's idea of a short block. Probably the best way to resolve the problems concerning Koavf would be to put him on a revert-parole; but since this can be done only by the ArbCom, maybe we should bring Koavf to the arbcom.--] 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::It should be reminded that user Koavf was warned by admin William M. Connolley, when he blocked him for a week, that in case he continues edit-warring and reverting he will be blocked indefinitely ], but that warning had no effect on him.--] 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I may be late for this, and I'm not really into how the process works, but I would be very disappointed if Koavf gets a full-time, all-time, permanent block. As someone said above, his breaches of Misplaced Pages rules are almost all the result of a single POV battle, where I agree he has been playing rough at times, but he has hardly been the only one to do so. It has been about him trying to fend off Moroccan editors '''Wikima''' and '''A. Jalil''', who have for a long time worked in tandem trying to change the tone of Western Sahara-related articles (for better or worse, that's up to anyone to judge). Tellingly, they're both arguing for an indefinite ban above. Perhaps equally tellingly, I'm arguing against it: I haven't edited much lately, but I was generally on Koavf's side in those same battles. So I realize I'm not necessarily more or less credible than his opponents, as I've been part of the same battle.
Admin ] just threatened to block ] indefinitely for playfully suggesting that ] misuse use of the logical principle ] may "cut something important." Mongo left a note on SalvNaut's talk page warning against "suggesting bodily harm" and that he will block SalvNaut indefinitely." . Can someone have a word with Mongo about this? He either doesn't understand what Occam's Rasor is or he has seriously lost perspective. ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 14:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Admin Seabhcan was blocked for making a personal attack on an editor just yesterday..so his perspective regarding personal attacks is somewhat askew is seems. Your perception that SalvNaut was being "playful" is a matter of perspective. Tbeatty said that Occum's Razor applies and SalvNaut's full comment about Occam's Razor was " Be careful with razors, you can cut something important." which I see as an implied hope of physical harm. In addition to that, SalvNaut also had to cross out a comment where he called Tbeatty a liar as shown in that diff.--] 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Mongo, your own block record isn't a pretty sight either, so I'm surprised you raised that issue. Comments which are "a matter of perspective" are not crimes worthy of an indefinite. I suggest you are using your admin powers to bully SalvNaut. You have been in a content dispute with him for quite a while. ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 14:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh, you mean the wrongful block for 3RR which was retracted? Or the block for 15 minutes by now departed Kelly Martin which she even admitted was a poor thing for her to do. I now see you have also decided to call my efforts to keep people from posting comments that suggest bodily harm as ...just more food for the . Perhaps the threat of an infe block is a bit much, but we routinely do block those who make a death threat and I prefer to go firm rather than be passive agressive...I'll rephrase it.--] 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Word of advice, Mongo: ] work better as attacks than as a defense. (I see a Many Questions and an Ad Hominem here for starters.) — <em>]</em> 13:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Now, with that openly declared, I think Koavf should get a second chance, ''not'' because we've generally (not always) been on the same side on that one topic, but for the following reasons:
That comment about being careful with razors is a pun, a play on words. We indefinitely block people for puns these days? --] 15:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
* His edits have been in the grey zone, and he has broken 3RR. But his editing hasn't been malicious in the way I would expect is needed for an indefinite block. He's tried to stick to the rules, and I can't imagine he willingly broke 3RR -- that would just be stupid. There should be a sanction for failing to notice it repeatedly, but come on ... an indefinite ban for scraping up a handful of 3RR breaches over some thousands of edits and tens of edit wars?
:The "pun" is a matter of perspective...that talk page is always heated, so it's unlikely that editors who always dispute each other there have much concern for one another...also, the threat wasn't about Occams Razor as the heading of this shows, itr was about the comment made by SalvNaut...that is the issue. If you don't know all the facts, then stay out of the argument.--] 15:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
* Koavf has edited a myriad subjects apart from Western Sahara (something, I may add, which isn't the case with his WS opponents, who are clearly here on a mission), and has made a gazillion edits over a very long period of time. Apart from a good job expanding various odd topics, he has also done a lot of cleaning-up on his free-time, systematizing articles and correcting punctuation etc, which I think shows that he's no single-topic POV pusher: he's in fact a prolific and very serious editor who has unfortunately during this time also dirtied his hands in a few nasty, mostly interrelated, edit wars.
::Again, watch it with the fallacious arguments. Ad hominem "If you don't know all the facts, then stay out of the argument." — <em>]</em> 13:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Do you seriously think he was suggesting any kind of violence with that comment? It's a pun. There's no matter of perspective, it's just a simple pun. --] 15:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Agreed. I see no threat in the edit at all. ] is the well-known philosophical/scientific principle to prefer the most simple explanation consistent with the facts. I see the suggestion that it might "cut something important" is a witty way to warn against miss-application, not a threat with bodily harm. Occam's Razor cuts crap, not meat. Also, may I suggest that all involved keep ], ], and in particular ] in mind? Thanks! --] 15:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::The article talkpage is always heated, so comments where one is incivil suggesting that they are even indirectly suggesting physical harm are at the very leats incivil. SlavNaut also struck out his previous comment to Tbeatty where he had called him a liar. Why don't both or either of you watchlist the talkpage for a few days and as neutral parties, ensure civility is maintained.--] 15:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Koavf has made a zillion edits of the sort of blanket changing ] to ], (or ] to ]) without careful checking that the change was appropriate in context. I spent some time cleaning up after his messes on my watchlist, and he is utterly unrepentant of that behavior, too. I'm happy to see him blocked for that behavior. (Incidentally, I've not been a aprt of the Western Sahara edit wars; I haven't even ''read'' the article(s) in question.) ''']''' <small>]</small> 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Mongo, I think you should admit that you are an active participant in that talk page discussion and at least partly responsible for some of that `heat'. It is improper to threaten your admin powers to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 15:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Personally, your alteration to this new username you are using is an obvious pun on Osama bin laden. It borders on a ] violation.--] 15:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Excuse me Mongo, it isn't. `al' means `the' and `bin' means `son of'. Its actually a tip of the hat to Ibin Battuta, who I'm read and enjoying at the moment. ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 15:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Mongo, "If you don't know all the facts, then stay out of the argument" - don't ] people commenting on the case. As for SalvNaut and saying "it's unlikely that editors who always dispute each other there have much concern for one another" - that sounds like a monumental failure to ]. Most worrying is that you are very far from being a dispassionate observer of the SalvNaut-Tbeaty conversation. You are deeply involved in a long running content dispute against SalvNaut and for Tbeatty. It looks like you are threatening your admin powers in order to win that arguement. ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Oh, you mean as in cited here... whrre you protected a page and then edited it?--] 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::It doesn't really matter what other people do, and besides, protecting an article to get your version in is considerably better than blocking someone frivolously. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 15:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::SeabHcan shouldn't throw stones, is the point. "protecting an article to get your version in is considerably better than blocking someone frivolously"....I'll remember that line when you decide to become an admin...it is not a friviolous block if someone is being repeatedly incivil...as clearly demonstrated...first calling the guy a liar, which he struck out and then in the same edit, added the comment about the razor, which had nothing to do with the argument.--] 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Mongo, you do know that Occam's Razer isn't an actual razor blade, right? ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 15:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Mongo, ]'s previous record is irrelevant for this dispute. He is just the messenger. As I see it from the history, ] made a point in the discussion and called the opposing view by ] "lies". This was arguably incivil, and Tbeatty called him on it (and made a counter-point, invoking Occam's Razor). SalvNaut then struck out the "lie" part and replaced it with a more neutral phrase. He also took up the Occam's Razor term and warned against blind application. I see no reason for your warning at all. --] 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
* On Western Sahara specifically, he has done a great job, even if at times his opinions shine through. It's mostly thanks to him that this topic is so well-covered, and he's done a tremendous work filling gaps and editing non-political articles in the periphery of that conflict: not just fighting the battle over flags and sovereignty. He was working diligently and, for the most time, with no apparent bias, on the subject long before these battles even started, and I think it would be a shame to see him blocked after having put all that effort into it.
:'''NOTE:''' Mongo has again threatened SalvNaut with a block but seems to have changed his mind about the 'indefinite' part. ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 15:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:'''NOTE:''' Mongo has now warned ] ... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 16:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, those are my views. I do have a history in this battle, that's no secret, but hold that against me: not against him. Ciao. ] 22:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if ] were a real razor (and it's clearly not), I cannot possibly comprehend how that statement could be perceived as a threat. I'm sure you've been told at some point in your life not to run with scissors because you might cut yourself. Is that a threat??? No! -- ''']''' 16:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:That's a matter of perspective. The perspective is that that talk page is full of heated comments, so under the cuff commentary between two editors in constant dispute that alludes to anything suggesting physical harm is something to take note of. As shown, the previous comment was stuck out.--] 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Is there anyone else with this perspective? Should you really be threatening to block a user you are having a content dispute with in such a debatable case? Wouldn't a polite warning or request for clarification be enough?... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Perhaps, but then again, this is an issue of civility in which an editor has alluded to personal harm. I may very well be the ONLY one who sees it that way. Thanks for the clarification and of course, no block has been issued or will be, at least, not by me.--] 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::So you won't be blocking this user? Perhaps you will remove your threat to do so from the users talk page? An apology might also be propper.... al ] bin ] ''<small>(])</small>'' 17:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:wow. ] 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::A silly and somewhat inappropriate pun -- agree that it's something that SalvNaut should remember can be interpreted the wrong way, particularly on the talk pages of contentious topics. But MONGO, the indefinite block warning was a little over the top, don't you think? -- ] 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry MONGO, I'm just not seeing it. Occam's Razor comes up an awful lot in philosophical discussions and the most common admonitions to someone using it are "watch out, it cuts both ways" and "don't cut something important". It's certainly not a threat of physical harm at all; it's merely an intellectual play on words, with Occam's razor being imagined as a literal razor that is snipping through overly-complex ideas. It's not a "matter of perspective"; you're simply trying to twist the meaning of an innocuous statement to turn it into an actionable threat. I would suggest that, in the future, you don't threaten to use admin actions against people you're involved in content disputes with; if you're so involved you cannot accurately interpret what they're saying, you certainly shouldn't be blocking them for it. Please call in a third-party observer next time. --] 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
: Arre,
:This has been a problem once before when MONGO wanted to have an article call some people , another user reverted that as not being neutral, and MONGO blocked them and to reblock for a week if the user reverted him again. In that case there was not even a thin justification like this 'threat of violence with Occam's razor'... rather a direct statement that he would use his admin position to 'win' the content dispute. While the community largely gave him a pass (incorrectly IMO as that block threat was beyond the pale) there was a general agreement that he should refrain from admin actions/threats for disputes he is involved in. This current incident seems to be very much along the same lines. --] 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:* What you are saying is "mea culpa, the others are guilty". As I don't handle the art of telling something by pretending to say the opposit I will answer you in a strait way.
=== Is mentioning ] a threat? (cont.) ===
Moved to ] as suggestion by Tom. ] (]) 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:* You accusation against Jalil and me having a "mission" is grave and baseless. Truly, one can say that you and koavf have a mission in the Western Sahara subject. Koavf had defined this himself for instance when saying he tries ''"to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR)."'' He even ''"spoke at the United Nations' on the situation in Western Sahara"'' and everyone knows that he is "fanatic" about the independence of the territory. And based on what I read from you in discussion I can confidently say that you are an activist for the same cause who has visited the so called "Free Zone" and probaly Tindouf as well and who has met with people like Aminatou Haidar etc..
== Page disruption on ] by ] ==
::What you do togther with koavf is a clear abuse of Misplaced Pages for your political mission and aim.
Hi, I would like someone to look at the of the page and note csloat's ''continual'' page disruptions. At the moment, it hasn't got to 3RR, but it's frustrating to deal with an editor who incorrectly thinks his veto trumps the consensus on what is, or isn't to be included, and engages in ad nauseum arguments on talk which will only result in incivility and further frustration. ] 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Ad nauseum comments on talk are how disagreements are supposed to get resolved. Csloat seems to be making a good faith effort to document the source and reasoning behind their input. At the moment, I see a lot of talking past each other on the talk page; it's a little disruptive on both sides, but there's nothing on first inspection that's a policy violation. This doesn't seem like it needs any ANI involvement. Try harder on the talk page in good faith, please. ] 05:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::OK well do think this is a good case for mediation? Seriously, the discussion has gone nowhere for months. ] 06:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Mediation is never a bad idea, or maybe an article RfC. I don't disagree that it seems to be a long running nonproductive argument, but there being a long-running nonproductive argument doesn't equal a policy or abuse issue. These are what mediators and article RfCs and such are for. Neither side on first inspection has really abused anything, but figuring out how to perhaps come to an actual understanding with someone else's help might be worthwhile. ] 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Mediation and/or RfC sounds great to me -- really, I would be happy about any way of bringing other voices into the discussion, which has become dominated by people with an agenda. I don't think it is productive for editors to continue making misleading statements about "disruption" to WP:ANI or throwing around false charges of . This is a content dispute, not a dispute about violations of Misplaced Pages rules, and it is not a good idea to pursue content disputes as if they were rules violations. It's also courteous to let someone know you are reporting them (or to warn them beforehand) -- I think the goal should be to encourage disruptive editors to edit more productively rather than to "discipline" them. In any case, it's clear that I have not been disruptive on the page, but I look forward to bringing more voices into the discussion; I certainly agree with Armon that it has become unproductive. ] 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:* There is almost no article on Western Sahara in which you have not been involved togther with koavf, one supporting the other. All your versions of these articles reflect the polisario political and ideological position and are written to fight Morocco in Western Sahara. These articles only become somewhat balanced when other people have made a huuuge effort to overcome your intransigence and koavf's systematic reverts and agressivities before changing. I have the feeling most of them just hate the topic after this, feel discouraged and leave.
:::::I have an opinion on what is and isn't notable, I do not have a nefarious "agenda". csloat (and Will, below) appear to have trouble making that distinction, or understanding that whatever , it's not appropriate to . IMO if this was a simple content dispute, it should have be "fixable" via reasoned debate, and appeals to the evidence before now. Instead, csloat has engaged in continual edit-wars, , and any attempt find common ground -all the while, ]. At some stage, it seems to me, that this needs to be addressed as ]. ] 03:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I don't think I ever used the word "nefarious" or that I singled you out as the only editor with an agenda. There is no evidence of "disruption" in any of the comments you have cherry-picked out of those discussions. There is evidence only that I have tried to vigorously defend WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. You may see those rules different from me and that is where the content dispute arises. I am welcoming additional editors to the content dispute who don't have a "horse in the race" since I think both of us (and Will and Isarig and Elizmr) have pretty clear opinions on the issue. You are raising charges of "disruption" - which have now been rejected by an admin who looked at the page - in order to prevent one side from participating in the discussion. As I said, the Misplaced Pages rules are not there to be used as a hammer when you feel you can't support your arguments in a content dispute. Personally, I think it is disruptive to claim "vandalism" when there is none or to post charges to WP:ANI that are invalid on their face. Let's discontinue this nonsense and get back to discussing the article, shall we? ] 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Together with him you build a constant tandem in this topic (and to a certain extent in the Morocco topic as well). Both of you, obsessive activists for the independence of the Sahara, made all topics on Western Sahara look just like a Polisario made web site.
I guess i've gotten unblocked. Armon thinks the Cole page biography needs to be about Karsh smearng Cole with the protocols of Elders of Zion qote. this has been going on for about a year and a half. the page was protected at one time because of this. Even jimbo wales made an appearance. The matter was resolved by starting a separate page for V&C where the invidious Karsh Elders of Zion quote could reside. Now the V&C page has been done away with. And the Cole detractors want to make the "Protocols" live in spite of ]. Cole is not an ant-semite or new-anti-semite. However, he is a critic of a greater Israel or denial of the rights of the Palestinians. This puts him squarely in the gunsights of certain people. Juan Cole deserves a fair shake on Misplaced Pages and fighting for a fair page is not "disruptive." CSloat just happens to be of the Jewish faith. Moreover, he is a university professor. I don't know why he wastes his time reasoning with the seemingly unreasoning. More wikilawering to silence perceived ideological opponents. Sorry, I just have to tell it like I see it. It's called integrity. Will] 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::This kind of practice has generally severely damaged Misplaced Pages.
== Raul654 comments in my e-mail. ==
:* You can't plead for the xth chance for kovf as his he had already and his block log seems to be full. As you can clearly read koavf had been blocked several times before this, not only on the topic of Western Sahara and not only because of Jalil and me. Koavf has problems with many other users and in other topics as well. Some of them have given their opinion here. In the topic of Western Sahara other users (Daryou, SteveLo, Khalid Hassani etc.) had to face the extreme intransigence of Koavf enjoying your ideological support.
This message was in my e-mail when I logged on:
:* The support you provided to koavf has been systematic and you could become aggressive, using vulgar words and personal attacks against others who don’t share you POV (in both links just search the f** word).
JonMoseley <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.net> to me
:* Koavf has indeed been doing much effort on the WS topic, incl. spelling corrections etc., but what you don’t tell is that he was permanently present, like a guard to instantly and systematically reverted anyone who dared to touch any of the Western Sahara pages in a manner he didn't like. He dealth with Western Sahara as if it was his little garden, his property.
I demand that you TERMINATE Raul654 from any rights or authority at Misplaced Pages.
Raul654 is pushing a left-wing BIASED perspective on the page for Global Warming.
There are numerous false statements which I corrected -- backed up by clear citations for each point.
I allowed those statements to remain but BALANCED the discussion with CITATIONS to hard facts.
And rather than confront the hard citations that I provided, Raul654 HID FROM HIS ATTEMPTS TO LIE in the Misplaced Pages article by blocking me.
He did not identify anything incorrect about the corrections I provided.
He did not counter with any other citations to the contrary.
He only LIED and said that the matters had been previously discussed on the Talk page. THEY HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE. The first mention was today.
If Misplaced Pages is exposed as being a nest of left-wing activists, it will harm the entire enterprise.
Trust me when I say I have the news media connections to make the truth clear.
:* As I state above, accuracy and neutrality have more priority in an encycloaedia than just quantity. A just large nr of edits is meaningless or even negative when they are all POV and ideological propaganda. It does not necessarily matter how much people write or edit, but it does matter how they do it. It's better to not handle a topic at all than to present it in such a biased and propaganda manner like you do togther with koavf.
:* I din't have the intention to to write off-topic, but I simply felt it's my right to answer you.
Does anyone know the background to this and is prepared to comment/resolve the issue? I will post a message linking to here to Raul654 as well. ] 14:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:There's only one thing that can be said about things like this: oh my god! Not another pov-pusher trying to accuse wikipedia of a left-wing/right-wing/communist/fascist/terrorist-loving/treehugging/appeasing/anti-American/anti-Semitic or any other bias... ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::Itsabird, its a plane, its the Cabal! ] <sup>]</sup>14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Rgds - ] 20:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Unjust block ==
::Agree with ], it appears ] has been reverted several times by ] (and a quick look at edit history would suggest ] is the same editor). Looks like another case of "NPOV = My POV and I have ''powerful friends'' if you disagree".--] 14:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Despite my efforts to dialogate with ] and try to be constructive with the infamous disputed article ] (see ] and ], and despite having only one single warning (and a totally clean historial before this awful conflict), I have been blocked by administrator ] on very unclear grounds.
At least one other admin emailed me to ask why he got this. I wonder how many he sent out? Here's the love note he sent to me:
:''I have also just realized that you have violated Misplaced Pages's CHECK USER policy.''
:''I will be contacting Misplaced Pages's board about this violation of the established policy.''
Why don't we use this opportunity to go and so the developers fix it, and we don't have to put up with this nonsense anymore. ] 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::why do we even discuss this here? People should delete such emails on sight. ] <small>]</small> 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Because there's no physical location for Wikipedians to gather after an "interesting" period of interaction here & swap war stories over their favorite beverages. (I've been told Jimbo's been seen in the brew pub down the street from my house, but I doubt he goes there on a regular basis.) --] 07:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*They've been reverted by at least 3 different users. There's no conspiracy here, let alone abuse by Raul. Keep them blocked. - ]|] 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
She wrote (sounds very emphatic but there are no grounds):
Did he also threaten to SUE YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY? --] 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:''You've been asked multiple times by many people to stop being incivil, stop attacking other editors and especially to stop harassing Thulean. Unfortunately you've now continued this both in the mediation and on my talk page. I've given you a short block - please stop the behavior and try to approach the mediation in a civil manner - without attacking and belittling other editors whom you disagree with. Shell babelfish 20:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)''
:Ah, the fun you get from being the first sysop on ]. ;-) ] <sup>]</sup> 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell (there's no PAIN case, no diffs, no nothing) she could have been decided that I was making a persona attack on the following items (all based on what is written in ])
::Sorry - not able to connect the words "news", "media", "truth" and "clear" without falling off the chair laughing. --] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 11:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1. My comment inside a large discussion (almost unilateral teaching by my side) on European genetics (as per the diff provided by Thulean in Shell's talk page) that read:
:I don't think you would need an option to block users e-mail ability, isn't easier to just set up a filter to automatically delete mail from the users e-mail address? Anyone willing to use multiple e-mail accounts would be willing to make multiple wikipedia accounts as well, so that advantage is removed. You could, however, block account creation, but would that work on a registered account? If the e-mail block was set to work with the autoblock to circumvent multiple account creation it limits the number of e-mails people blocked as collateral damage can send. Overall, there are that need voting for instead. ;-) ] <sup>]</sup> 20:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::''Aditionally, I think you should check , from a previously sourced paper, where it does make a rather conclusive division between Neolithic (Near Eastern) and Paleolithic (Basque) ancestry. It's probably better than going around Cavalli-Sforza's maps, as it is a much more modern paper''.
::''You want to play with geneaologies... like the Jewish skinhead of the BBC article, you may get burnt. --] 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)''
2. My attempt of protest at his abuse on this kind of accusations that read:
=={{Vandal|Preform}}==
::''LOL - that's not an attack. I'm just saying that you really have no clear idea of where your ancestors may ultimately be from (and this is only in realtion with European genetics, a discussion on which you have shown very poor understanding).''
Strong suspicions that this user is banned user {{Vandal|MagicKirin}} who also used the now banned account {{Vandal|Tannim}}. Same group of articles - ] - ], ] - picking up where the previous account was banned. Same arguments. Same litany of poor edits reverted immediately by numerous editors. Same pattern of being oblivious to the fact that his use of a new sockpuppet is transparent.--] 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::''Stop whinning for everything (this might be a PA, who knows?). --Sugaar 13:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)'' ()
So where is the personal attack? I wonder. There's no such thing anywhere.
:You could request a checkuser check. ]|] 03:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am a little angry and sarcastic, maybe. But there's not a single personal attack in all those sentences (nor in anything I've written in a good while).
::I no longer watch the Chávez articles, as they are a POV wasteland and consensual good faith editing doesn't look like a near-term possibility; so I have no sense of whether Preform might be a sockpuppet. Seeing this here, I went over to check Preform's edits on ], and didn't see a problem with either of them. is completely defensible, and could be adequately sourced in five seconds if someone who disagrees with the source given took the time - the laws passed are well-documented and well known. I don't intend to defend the edits of a possible sockpuppet, but something really needs to be done about the entrenched POV-pushing throughout the Chávez articles. ] (]) 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There are also no such repeated warnings that Shell talks about. I just have '''only one warning''' from Shell herself and surely two dozens of pseudo-warnings (harassment) by Thulean. Nobody else has said anything about my behaviour, much less in a formal manner.
== New users ==
For your blocking pleasure. - ]
04:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)<br/>
*04:16, 28 November Jimboiswales created new account <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span>
*04:15, 28 November Jimboiswales created new account <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span>
*04:15, 28 November <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span> (New user account)
The first comment must be contextualized in a longer debate between Thulean and I on European genetics (]), where Thulean made also despective comments like:
=== Offensive username ===
*''LOL. By your "logic", the "European genome" is found mostly in Saudi Arabia...I dont want to dignify your other claims with more responses but I suggest you to read about this subject before making absurd claims.''
*''What part of this can't you get into your head?''
The header says it all ;) <font color="darkblue">]</font><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup> 04:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:While we're sniffing the creation log... - ] <br/>
::... And ] :) <font color="darkblue">]</font><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup> 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
And I was patiently replying in length, providing sources and all that can be done to reach an understanding, exposing carefully my understanding (based in many genetic studies) that European and West Asian genomes are strongly linked and that is dificult to find what is specifically European if anything...
All blocked. Usernames this obviously bad can usually go to ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
He just made those short disdainful claims, no sources, no ideas... but specially no constructive attitude at all.
== Request for Block of sockpuppets ] and ] ==
And then I bring up another source that suggests that Scandinavians are 50% West Asians and make that comment about playing with genealogies and the next I know is that he's writing to Shell to complain.
] and ] are the same. User also appears to have created sleeper socks ] and ]. All of the rest are inconclusive. Report: ].
:Requesting block for sockpuppetry and also for disrupting another check into older socks for same user . User has been removing SSP templates while evidence page was in progress of being made. . ] 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::First of all ] was not involved in any violation, the user made only one edit. Second, ] explains that ] is her huband. Third, ] has been harassing ] by posting countless investigations. ]'s second edit was a request for an investigation into Skinny. ] has since then created the following investigations into Skinny: . I highly suspect ] is someone's sockpuppet. ] 05:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I protest and what do I get? A block.
Here's the history for Defender99 and Skinny McGee and IP avoiding 3RR (by a hair):
* (Reverting again to previously agreed upon version)
* (Reverting again.)
* (Added Origins Award and link to site)
* (Reverting changes)
* (Whoops - just realized reverted version was incorrect, too. Sorry!)
* (Reverting changes ...)
...
Since you did a check on me already, adding my name to your GuardianZ list, and found me to ''NOT'' be a sock , please stop STALKING me. I only posted one investigation into Skinny McGee (1 for socks and 1 for ckuser), which already turned out to be trued. I then realized it had been going on far longer and wanted to recheck, just to be sure to check everyone. I am only trying to be fair. You continually hounded the editors on the opposing side and now you are hounding EVERY post I make, whether it be a report or a simple suggestion about archiving, or to check out all the users. This is my process before I can make a fair assessment of all the sides in a dispute—I need to know who and how many I am dealing with. If you choose to hinder the process, it won't help matters. '''Firm request for block'''. Because Skinny McGee has been socking, he should be punished with a ban of his sockpuppets and at least a 3 day block for himself. Same punishment was afforded to GuardianZ per Dionyseus' requests/checks. Let it be the same for Skinny McGee. Fair is fair. ] 11:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
'''I request''':
:I have never hidden behind sockpuppets. When I first started editing, I just used my IP address. When I realized that was frowned upon, I created my user name and have been editing under that ever since (except when I occassionally think I'm signed in, but am not - but I've gotten much better at that lately). As ] mentioned, I have already explained that ] is my husband, and he only made one very non-controversial edit to the article (which ] chooses to reference here). ]/] were continually inserting promotional material for Joseph Vargo and were linking to sites created by Joseph Vargo that are defamatory to the band, and to articles in which Joseph Vargo defames the band (] is a confirmed sockpuppet of ] and has been banned infinitely - the two of them would actually "talk" to each other and even appear to disagree). I did not want to let that stand, so I felt I had no choice but to revert. I have never tried to hide what I was doing. I was just trying to protect the integrity of the article the only way I knew how to protect it. Also, I find it very suspicious that ], who was so vehemently fighting over the article, would just disappear after her block for sockpuppetry and be replaced by ] who has done nothing but attack me. - ] 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*I'm not an admin, but from the outside looking in, this appears to be a content dispute that has boiled over a bit. I don't see any real evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of ] in regards to ] as there is exactly 1 edit by ] who ] contends is her husband. There is an active sockpuppet investigation request ] and any action should pend on this. I do find it a bit curious though that the editor bringing this up had his/her first edit as an extensive . As much as ] is a single purpose account for editing ], ] seems to be a SPA for investigating editors who contributed to that article. The article is locked right now anyway, so I recommend all parties be ] wait for the outcome of the sock investigation, and remember... you are fighting over an article on a band that doesn't even meet the ] guidelines.--] 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1. To find out wether any of those comments actually constitutes a PA and why. I just don't see it. I was trying to be pedagogical and hoping he might learn something of all this mess.
== Angry Bahraini yet again ==
2. If nothing is found that the block is reverted retroactively, just for the record.
This time he's reverting edits from ]. Please block and roll-back this IP too. ] 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
3. To recuse permanently Shell Kinney from any future case that I may be accused of. At this point I have not the slightest trust in her ability or neutrality and I am doubting seriously of her good will.
: Ah, now from ]. Please block and roll back. Also would be a good idea to semi-protect ]. He dislikes that article for some reason. He would seem to be Shi'a, but I can't see what would offend a Shi'a in the article. ] 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
...
::Done. Sorry for sending you around from one place to the other like this, but I still think given the frequency of the complaints, it had better be taken to ] then here. ] ] 11:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally I have disconnected myself from the White people article, discussion and mediation. This has crossed all red lines and I just can't bear this anymore. The article is a collective responsability of Misplaced Pages (that means in abstract: all wikipedians) and I have done much more than my share, getting as reward only an unbearable witch-hunt and some scars that will take some time to heal.
::: I posted a complaint there and it was removed, on the grounds that I hadn't gone through all the prescribed warning steps and that there was no evidence that these were not legit edits. IF you consider the various anonIPs used as separate users, then perhaps this stance by the AIV folks makes sense. When it's clearly one person cycling through many IPs, it doesn't. Thanks much for the blocks and rollbacks. ] 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
And I am not the only one, I believe. This one-sideness of Shell Kinney is causing problems to all wikipedians of good will, as far as I can see. Soon that article will have only one editor and that one will be Thulean (and maybe ideologically akin Dark Tichondrias too). I have done what I could but I can't keep that push if the Wikibureaucracy, impersonated as Shell Kinney, is so hostile against me and other veteran serious editors. --] 07:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I know, that was evidently someone who didn't know the whole story. The guy can be considered warned often enough, because he's been blocked so often before and he knows why. When you report on AIV, perhaps just give a link to this discussion here? I've actually had such situations several times when we had to use AIV for serial block evaders. ] ] 12:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:I think that this kind of complaint is better suited at ]. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::I've edited slightly so you can see better where the request is. The first part is basically explainatory for unaware admins to understand what happened (as far as I can understand it myself) --] 08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:Sugaar, on first inspection of your pages, the mediation, and Shell's talk page, Shell is right that you have been crossing the line into personal attacks. You seem to be extremely resistant to hearing that, but please listen: it's not ok to attack people on Misplaced Pages. What you're doing is beyond the limits of what the community feels are ok. The things that the people you're arguing with are doing aren't going across the line. Please, calm down, and listen to people in the mediation and elsewhere. Thanks. ] 07:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
== Single purpose account? ==
::Where is the PA? I am not attacking anyone, at least not since the warning.
I came across {{user|Principal Schoolswatter}} in AFD. Appears to be nominating school articles alone. Based on his name, can he be banned, or am I being oversensitive? - ]|] 10:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::And I'm not getting again in that rat-trap of White people article. I fell in that by accident and is not my area of interest. If it is of your interest, you can join the discussion and the mediation yourself and feel in first person how it is like. --] 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:I would say his contributions are in good faith. He did flag ] as copyvio but without realising there was good text in the history, which is an easy mistake for copyvio-fighters to make. <tt>].]</tt> 10:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::I think there's no PA anywhere. But more important: there are not the many warnings that Shell claims. I have just one warning and, as far as I can tell, I have not just not repeated the error but also tried to be as constructive as possible (with no results but disdainful comments and this unjustified block).
::I think they're both in good faith and a single purpose account. However, editors are encouraged to merge rather than delete non-notable schools (into a district, or city/town/locality article). I am going to leave them a note. ] 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Block is according to ] a measure against extreme cases:
== {{userlinks|SilvaStorm}} ==
:::''In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial.''
::Obviously there's no such grounds in this case and all the procedure is highly irregular and unclear.
::I am also worried about ALWAYS being judged by the same administrator and precisely by the one who seems most heavily biased against me. I hope not to get involved in any more PAIN cases now that I have detached myself from the conflictive article but you never know and, just in case, I request that the next time the administrator judging my hypothetical case is someone different. I think it's a very reasonable request. --] 08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've only come across this when updating ], but this user appears to be a load to deal with. Might need admin watching - a quick scan of his contribs suggests ] violations by leaving articles tagged {{tl|underconstruction}} even after he's no longer editing the page, and there seem to have been a lot of potentially unilateral, undiscussed moves (perhaps against consensus) in his past 150-200 edits.
:::I was the admin who declined your unblock request. I'd say that comparing someone to a skinhead ("like the Jewish skinhead of the BBC article, you may get burnt") is a personal attack. ''I'' for one would have been quite offended, had I been the subject of that comment. At the very least, it's a serious breach of civility, especially in a content dispute in ''such'' a contentious article as ]. Additionally, you actively mock your opponent's knowledge of genetics in your second comment, and even ''admit'' that it may be a personal attack. That right there shows me that you know exactly what a personal attack is, and that you know when you're making one. For my part as a neutral, uninvolved party, (I don't think I've ever edited ] in my life) I must support the (now-long-expired) block. <font color="#000000">♠]</font><font color="#FF00FF">]</font><font color="#000000">]♠</font> 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Only spotted him because I removed a stub unencyclopedic entry from the current events list; I see that that stub is up for ] and apparently this user has already violated ] by blanking the AFD notice and adding speedy tags to the deletion debate.
::::It wasn't a PA and that's why I feel that this is a witch hunt. It wasn't meant to compare with an skinhead but I mentioned the case earlier in the conversation (what seemed funny to Thulean, as he replied with one "LOL") and I thought the comparison was appropiate not because I may think this or that about his ideology but because the skinhead that found out that he was Jewish seemed a good comparison for a person who is claiming that Scandinavia has no West Asian heritage (my documentation suggested it is c. 50%), hence the "Nordic Semitic" irony.
Worth keeping an eye on, as he's also seemed to have resorted to incivility and personal attacks (and his talk page suggests a history of such, too). – ]] 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::::You can't decontextualize the phrase in such manner. It's absolutely out of place.
:He has appeared on my DRADIS several times now.. He's also been making unilateral moves etcetera; He has also created pages, they've been deleted, he recreates them, there deleted, he recreates them under a new name (]) <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Also you said that my unblock request was wrong because "I had many warnings" what is not true. Check it. --] 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::Final warning issued. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 11:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::*Yeah, the unilateral moves from ] to ] has created all kinds of inconsistancies as in some cases people reverted back to the original namespace. Nothing like undiscussed moves to throw a wrench in things.--] 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Its very disappointing to see this come up again. When Sugaar was first calling Thulean a nazi, he opened an Arb case, tried mediation and finally posted here complaining because I had warned him. He was told every place he went that it was a personal attack; he continued the attacks on the ] page and was warned there by the mediator. He refuses to accept that warnings from the aggrieved party are valid as he has many of those as well. I spent more than a week discussing personal attacks and civility in great detail with Sugaar and gave him many ideas of how he could avoid this problem in the future. He is now following Thulean around and making belittling and rude comments where ever he goes - I hope the two agree to stay away from each other since they cannot work together. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
== Requesting rollback ==
::I don't want to discuss with Shell. She has shown to be strongly one-sided and I doubt her sincerity and good-will at this point. I ask Shell to recuse herself from any further cases involving me, LSLM or Thulean, or anything related with the problematic article. If I can recuse her, I do it.
::Still, just for the record:
::*I have not persecuted Thulean anywhere. I had Shell's talk page watched, as it activates as such when you write in it. So I protested his irregular pseudo-PAIN demand. Was it rude or just somewhat sarcastic? I sadly can't trust Thulean or Shell. And it is not a PA in any case, much less an extreme case that requires a block.
::*I opened the ArbCom because I got confused on what procedure to follow and misread Shell re. mediation. Later I admitted she was partly right and retrieved the case myself. We went to mediation as per her suggestion and the case was rejected as pertaining to ANI. I posted here and some administrators clarified my doubts. Fine: case closed (I hoped).
::*Andronico (the mediator) only said that Shell's only warn was right regarding the PAIN, something I disputed then. He did not warn me for any other thing but the same that she did. So it's not any additional warning in any case. Just that he agreed with Shell then.
::*The warnings from Thulean are as valid as any warnings I could post in his talk page. I am not so easily "offended" as he is, so I have not intiated any sort of action against him nor ever visitied his user page. I don't think that what he's doing is right and I don't want to fall to the same type of lawyering harassment. It would be against my own feeling of dignity and good will. Anyhow, Thulean's "warnings" are just his personal opinion and I consider most of them insulting and harassing. They are not official nor any thing of the like.
::*I don't agree with Thulean in almost anything, no matter how hard I try. But I have decided for my own emotional and mental health to disconnect permanently from that article, that was what Thulean wanted from the beginning anyhow. I hope not to find that element ever again in my life... but you never know. As he feels his tactics are successful, he may want to expand his area of action and we may find each other in any other article. I may also be unlucky enough to meet with someone else with his same more than dubious methods, or any other case, like I myself being attacked by another user, as happened in the past once and was solved to my total satisfaction and with remarks of having managed the case very well by the involved administrators. I believe that would Shell have to manage any other case involving me she would have a clear.
::Finally I find quite offensive the a priori attitude of some administrators that read: "this user has a warn" and seem to understand "he's systematically problematic", without even looking at his/her historial, that in my case was perfectly clean until I stumbled with that element and his favorite administrator.
::If the case is not reviewed, next time (hopefully never) they may say: "this user has a block: he's a convicted dangerous criminal", no matter I never had a proper trial. As blocks are only suppossed to be issued in very extreme cases, they could even have some reason to think so in principle, and that's why I am requesting that the case is throughtly reviewed to see if the alleged personal attacks actually constitute reason for a block. What I think is clearly abusive interpretation of the policy and dangerous abuse of power. --] 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Sugaar, it's this simple: You have to abide by our community standards, as interpreted by us, or you're going to get blocked for abusing people. You don't set our standards - we do. You're welcome to disagree in principle, but how you act will be judged by our interpretations.
:::You came here to complain, and you've got a number of admins and editors telling you that you're in the wrong. If you don't listen, your future here at Misplaced Pages is going to be short.
:::It's up to you to listen. You've had plenty of chances. Please start doing so. ] 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Shell seems to have this about right. Sugaar, we are supposed to bend over backwards to be civil here, not engage in uncivil discourse then Wikilawyer about whether it technically crosses the line into personal attacks. Just treat other editors with courtesy and you won't keep getting into trouble. ] 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
If I'm in the wrong place, please redirect me. There is a user who has spent a night replacing <nowiki>]</nowiki> with <nowiki>]</nowiki> in around 75 articles. There was no reason for this, and IIRC it violates WP policy. Maybe they misunderstood what disambiguation is, or maybe they think this is a useful thing to do, or maybe it is part of building support for/against a rename the article with the ] name "]", or maybe it is part of a two-step plan to replace the name "GNU/Linux" with "Linux" (first "dab" the link, later "dab" the text). Here's the user's contributions: ]. ] 12:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:It's common practice to disambiguate links when they point to a disambiguation. This is nothing to be concerned over, as it was obviously a good faith effort to help out 0 see ] (and I currently see no problems with it). If you have a real problem with the changes, feel free to revert them yourself, but it would be helpful to explain ''why'' you're reverting back (sorry, but I'm still unclear), and to leave a reason on the user's talk page. I also might like to remind you of ], an official Misplaced Pages policy. -]<sup>]]</sup> 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You also as administrators, maybe more than anyone else have to abide by our community standards. And it's clear that, if there was any fault (what I question strongly), it wasn't such a severe case as to generate a block. Read ] please:
::I should have made clear: the user is not disambiguating anything. "GNU/Linux" does not point to a disambiguation page, it is a redirect to "Linux". ] 13:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:''In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial.''
:::At this moment, it isn't, it's been a dab since the latest revert on 10 November. ] ] 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you point out which is the personal attack(s) at all and, if it exists (that I deny), why is it so '''extreme''' as to justify a block?
Else, can you proceed with the review, as requested? Thanks.
Note 1: my impression is that you're just backing each other (out of mere corporative solidarity maybe) without putting forward anything that justifies the application of such clause.
::::Oh. My apologies for not checking that. ] 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Note 2: I have never rejected the norms of Misplaced Pages, I may have violated them out of ignorance and maybe arrogance in the past, not in this case, but I accept that I must abide by them. Can you do the same and apply the policy correct and justly without prejudice against me? That's what we, the users of Misplaced Pages, expect from you: fairness and justice. Nothing more but nothing less. --] 01:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:Gronky, can you please explain what the problem is here? It looks to me like he is changing the link from ] which is a disambig page, to the actual article on "Linux (also known as GNU/Linux)" located at ]. Usually when a link leads to a diambiguation page, we try to diambig the link and direct it straight to the precise article. I don't understand what the problem is. ] (]) 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::The only problem I can see now is that the dab page at ] has apparently been rather controversial, forever switching between being a redirect to ] and being a dab page. As long as it was a redirect, the rules at ] would apply, but given the instability of the target, I agree it's highly preferable to have all links go directly to the stable real article. ] ] 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Aditionally, I don't mean to "wikilawyer". I just mean justice. I believe that the one wikilawyering was Thulean and that he does have bad faith whatever you may think. The common of us mortals has not the steel nerves he has to be so calculating.
:::Yes, Fut.Perf., that is that policy I was thinking of. And thanks to all three for the quick responses. However, the controversy you've seen is not the one I was talking about (and is quite small and irrelevant). There is a large debate ongoing over whether GNU/Linux should be a redirect to Linux, or should it be that Linux is a redirect to GNU/Linux, or should they be two seperate articles. For this reason, that users' actions fit the above policy due to the effects on ]. Should I now go to those 75 articles and express my preference by doing the same replace? Surely the policy exists exactly to prevent silly situations like that. The current note of encouragement on his/her userpage doesn't seem to lead to a productive or even neutral outcome. ] 13:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::::There's no need to do anything. As long as the articles which were edited are actually meant to link to an article that describe the operating system, the links are fine now. Even if it should later be decided that the Linux page should be moved, to ] or wherever else, all will still be fine. As long as ] itself doesn't become a dab page... ] ] 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::::<after ec>I still can't see any reason to do a mass revert of those changes. With regard to ], it's a guideline, not a policy. And it doesn't say that once those changes have been made, they should be mass reverted. I think it would be better to talk to the editor who made the changes and try to resolve the issues that Fut mentioned above. Edit warring over it is not the way to go. ] (]) 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I have 100% dropped any relation with the article in question voluntarily. I am not risking a heart attack for that. But I believe someone should investigate a little and find that Sugaar has a totally clean historial before this nasty problematic, two years editing Misplaced Pages productively (I don't know how many edits I may have but must be over the thousand or more), not a single conflict other than the typical POV riff-raffs (and not many). I am not any '''extreme case''' and your severity and lack of imparciality seems totally out of place.
:::::Ok, I will talk with the user and/or re-evaluate now that I see I was mistaken about GNU/Linux currently being a redirect instead of a dab. Thank you each for your comments and advice. ] 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think honestly that some among you should step forward and try to see my point of view. I am no wikilawyerist. I have only filed a single RFI before this awful situation, I took attacks and hostility for one month before doing it, and that single case was ruled in my favor with all blessings (he did got a block, but only after repeated vandalism). I have never ever been accussed of anything by anyone before Thulean stepped in out of nowhere. So what's the problem?
== ] and ] ==
For you I am not (apparently) but just another quasi-anonymous troublemaker. But I had a completely clean and productive historial and your lack of fairness and seriousness in investigating the case is dirtying it.
Hola admins et al,
thereseemstobesomesony-spamon].He(])seemstohavebeenwarnedbefore(Ilookedathistalk page). ] 13:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
And some among you even dare to make threats, without even studying my appeal. This is total madness. I have no other name for this. --] 02:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:Page blankings and vandalism have been reverted and user warned. ] ] 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Just let it go, Sugaar. You were blocked for a mere 6 hours over an article that you've repeatedly said you're not going to edit anymore. The block is done. Your relationship with the article is done. A bevy of respected editors has told you you're in breach of civility. Just let it go. <font color="#000000">♠]</font><font color="#FF00FF">]</font><font color="#000000">]♠</font> 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== Vandalism to ] ==
::I can't let it go. I would be failing to my duty as wikipedian if I would allow administrators to abuse the policy.
Several new users (or one user creating sockpuppets) are vandalizing ]. Could we please get it semi-protected? Thanks! (Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, this is my first protection request) ](]) 14:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Personally this doesn't feel nice but it is not my feelings what are at stake. When administrators here pointed out what I had done wrong previously and how it was a clear violation of NPA I accepted and tried to redirect my efforts in a constructive way despite the huge difficulties.
::But now is not my fault. I have been punished for non-existent faults and beyond all measure (as per NPA). It is somebody else's fault (no need to name, we all know) and it is this person and collectivelly the administrators of Misplaced Pages who must correct the wrong.
::It is blatant abuse of power. --] 04:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I wish I knew what would satisfy you. Many different people have come along and given there opinions during this saga, but that doesn't seem to sway you. Please read the ] - persistent personal attacks is considered a non-controversial block reasoning - that's precisely why templates like ] warn you that you may be blocked if you continue. There has been nothing in my behavior over the past week that has been an abuse of power or policy - if you feel the need to continue making these accusations, please open a ] on my behavior; otherwise, please stop making snide comments about me in multiple places. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
There was no personal attack, nothing at all since that warn and the subsequent discussion. I was trying to discuss with a person that has very marked ideas on what he wants and is not used to Misplaced Pages working style (though he's getting addict at PAIN and your user page). I was trying to be pedagogic and constructive and the whole last section of ] page and ] are evidence of my constructive and positive behaviour (though not of Thulean, but anyhow).
This user posts on my talk page. I don't know who he is and have never seen him before. After I removed his accusations of vandalism from my talk page, he proceed to restore them. on a seemingly random basis. Please roll back his contributions. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There were no ''Persistent personal attacks''. Not since the warn and what you took as such isn't but a touch of irony and then a little more angry sarcasm. But no major nor constant PA, nothing that might justify a block of any sort. I was just discussing genetics, census of Latin America and future possibilities for the article structure and discouraging LSLM from keeping his tone of political denounce, as it seems to be problematic.
:Issued a 24 hour block (someone already blatantvandal'd him, he passed it). Some of his early edits look ''reasonable'', up until today with ] and the vandalism. If he keeps it up, just report him to ]. -- ] <small>(])</small> 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides ] says:
== Multiple IP vandalism to ] ==
:''Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages. They should not be used as a punitive measure.''
:...
:''Caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith.''
:...
:''Blocks may be damaging when consensus proves elusive. Examples include:''
:* ''blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block''
:* ''blocks that, while possibly wise, lack policy basis.''
:* ''short term or cool-down blocks, e.g. if a user is angry about something controversial, blocking that user will rarely cool him or her down''
:Obviously you ignored all that.
You are claiming a justification that does not exist and, meanwhile, you ignored all the rest of WP:BLOCK. You used block as means of punishment, you took no cautions but acted on impulse (I deduce), you blocked an active user with a substantial history of valid contributions, you blocked without any policy basis, you tried to use the block as a "cool down" block.
Could we please get ] semi-protected? Several IP addresses are vandalizing it. ](]) 15:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You broke all the rules.
:Requests like this go to ]. <tt>].]</tt> 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
My appeal is more than justified. And it is not just for my name but specially for the good working of Misplaced Pages that I am appealing.
:All the vandalism came from 168.184.*.*. <tt>].]</tt> 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides I insist that you recuse yourself or get recused otherwise on intervening in cases affecting my person or the controversial article (where I won't be anymore anyhow but you may cause more damage than good), as you have clearly shown strong bias and misuse of policy. --] 07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:I blocked 168.184.0.0/16 for 3 hours - this is a school IP range belonging to Orange County Public Schools. <tt>].]</tt> 16:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Also: I don't see where the RfC fits in. The right place to appeal a wrong block is ANI, as per ]. RfC is for articles, users' editing or civility behaviour (maybe Thulean or you, Shell, should had started with that) and policies and conventions. Not for appealing a block or, it seems to me, recusing an administrator.
I just rolled back edits by ]. ] 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Still no cause for alarm; IP seems to have stopped after test1 was given. <tt>].]</tt> 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think everybody would gain if you would recuse yourself voluntarily. And I have no questions about the validity of my appeal as such and, the more policy I read, the more convinced I am that the block was absolutely wrong.
== Cute 1 4 u, abusive sockpuppet ==
Additionally, I have no interest in persecuting any direct confrontation with you, Shell, and, definitively, I won't be disturbing the peace of your campaign for ArbCom or your user page. Personally, I have no problem if you and I don't talk to each other for a while. But I can't trust you after this. I don't know how you expect me to trust an administrator who instead of appliying the policy and guidelines applies martial law, that uses wrong (I'd say "false", but maybe it's too harsh) justificactions for her actions, that has clear prejudice against one side of a very complex and difficult conflict, that assumes that if I did wrong once I will always do the same without any comprobation. No: I've seen other admis recussing themselves on much weaker grounds but you insist in staying in charge and admit no error.
As established by checkuser, {{User|Cute 1 4 u}} has just been caught creating '''yet another''' sockpuppet ({{User|Jibbs fan}}) to get around the ban placed on the account. Apart from blatantly violating the ban, this new account was once again involved in copyright violations and in personal threats. I have rolled back all identifiable contributions that I could find as per ]. However, given that this is approximately the 11th sockpuppet created for this long-term abuser, it is clear that Cute 1 4 u will create a new account before the end of the week and resume the abusive behaviour. What additional steps can we take to enforce the ban on this user? The user edits from a series of dynamic IPs in the Chicago area which makes an IP block unreasonable. However, I am sick to death of dealing with this long-term vandal and it is taking us weeks, not days, to track down each new account. --] 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:I think you just need to watch ] as that's her favorite artist or something. I'm pretty sure there have been edits from all of them to that page.—] (]) 18:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what wikipedia's policy is on filing complaints with ISPs, but it would be something to consider in the case of longterm vandals.--] 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::As far as I know it's ok in cases like this. ---] (]|]) 19:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:::How do we go about getting this done? --] 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you expect from me. I strongly believe in Misplaced Pages's principles, independently on wether I may agree or disagree, be aware or not of some particular aspect, and I am each day more convinced that you have broken all them with this totally unjustified block.
== {{user|The Return of Sturm}} moving pages from {{user|Natalinasmpf}} ==
I understand that you can commit errors. We all do. But I also think you should meditate on this and accept what is your part of fault. That's actually much more honest and respectable than just castling on your unjustifed position. --] 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
User has admitted to not being {{user|Natalinasmpf}} . Could an admin look into this and undo the page moves if appropriate. Thanks. --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Sugaar, your complaint here is bordering on stalking Shell. Please give it up and move on. ] 10:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
:Pages have been restored and user blocked, thanks to {{user|Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh}} --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::I don't mean to stalk anyone. I just mean justice done. If the common user must abide to policy, much more administrators.
== ] requested he be blocked ==
::I have tried to avoid direct discussion with Shell because at this moment doesn't really seem helpful. I have unwatched her talk page and any other case related pages apart of this one.
::But I am right and you are not applying policy as you are suppossed to be done.
::I insist you do your work and stop protecting each other: study my appeal, determine if the block was right and say why. I have put forward many reasons so far why this block was totally wrong.
::As I said, we all commit errors but we must be able to admit it and fix them. It is my right and my duty as wikipedian to appeal an unjust block. I must not renounce to it and you should not abide by other reasons than policy: that's why you have been named administrator, not to protect each other but to protect Misplaced Pages and good willed wikipedians as I believe I am.
::I am astonished that no administrator here has said: you have a point Sugaar, policy was violated in your case and your appeal is at least in this or that way correct.
::I am also disappointed because Shell, on whose good will and seriousness as administrator I once believed in, doesn't seem to be able to admit her error. I'm not calling for the head of anyone, just for justice and due prudence.
::And personally I have felt stalked myself by Thulean and this attitude protected by Shell and other administrators somehwat. I am insomniac, I am smoking double than normal and I am quite worried at some "irregular" trends inside Misplaced Pages only now I am realizing.
::I have a great trust in Misplaced Pages as such and, if I dropped the case I would be betraying it and Misplaced Pages itself. It is a very good case but I am still waiting for any of you to step forward and admit even a small part of the great deal of reason I do have. That also worries me, sincerely. You have a major responsability as administrators: you are the custodians of the integrity of Misplaced Pages (and its policies and spirit). I want to think you will be at the height of the enormous trust that Misplaced Pages has deposited on you.
::And this is the place where I am suppossed to appeal my unjust block. I still have to see my appeal rejected with any good reason. Just calls for dropping the case, for giving up without any grounds. ::I am very worried at Misplaced Pages's system of justice. --] 10:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
] has requested that I block him on my talkpage . Since I can't (non-admin and all), I'm passing it on to you. I thought he was blocked previously, but I guess not. ] (]) 18:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked for username. <tt>].]</tt> 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*I'd like to say few things. Of course I'm hugely biased but hear me out. First of all, Sugaar called me Nazi many times, among other PA's. I warned him unofficially and then officially and then reported him and he got a warn. After all this he continued and was even warned by the meditator.
== Approximately 295 redirects "broken" by user ==
And even after all this Sugaar went to Shell Kinney's page and even managed to continue his PA's while appealing. See ]
While the guidelines on ] specify that in order for template tags to work correctly, they should be "one space after and on the same line as #REDIRECT," ] has gone through and changed approximately 295 redirects in {{tl|R_with_possibilities}} so that the template tag is on a different line. Given the timestamps on the changes, my guess is they are being performed via a mass change tool like ]. I left a message on the user's talk page about the proper syntax for redirects, however would it be possible for an admin to rollback the changes so all these broken redirects do not have be fixed by hand? --] (]) 20:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
: Yeah, they have to be on the same line. Currently, they work, but that's undefined behavior subject to change in MediaWiki, so that isn't really an excuse. Working on it. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Done. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
An example:
== Block enforcement requested ==
{{vandal|64.107.2.62}} was blocked earlier for 3RR and civility violations. Now back as {{vandal|64.107.3.73}}, as shown by . Can an admin block please? Thanks! ] 22:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"But that page has been under consistent attack by (mostly anonymous) vandals of clearly nazi/racist ideology. Thulean and Dark Thicondrias have been the only ones in that spectrum to do it with a username."
I've also made a response there, at the bottom of that section, trying one last time to tell how I feel. But afterall this he likened me to a jewish skinhead. So I believe the block was just. Shell Kinney has been very patient with him despite continuous accusations from Sugaar:
1) He claimed Kinney refused meditation.
2) His answer when told that he was wrong:
"You are right: you accepted the mediation request but I misread you because of your patronizing tone and threatening questioning of my terminology."
3) His meditation was rejected and he moved it to ANI. But he accused Kinney of misleading him again. which was wrong:
4) After ANI, he accused Kinney of not mentioning the correct policy which was also wrong
He also directed PA's to Kinney, one of which was pointed out by another administrator:
""we can hardly struggle against such one-sided admins as you, really." ...
...That would also qualify as a personal attack, per WP:NPA. So far as I can see, that's all Shell has been trying to tell you. Crimsone 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC) "
And still he is talking about how his comments werent PA and how he wasnt warned enough after all this:
]<br/>
]<br/>
]<br/>
]<br/>
] ] 12:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually he was advised to knock off name calling even in here: ] 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
After reading here ], it's clear he implies me and anyone who follows the link to ], which he gave, can understand he implies me. And besides "For instance, I have been warned for descibing one POV-pushing editor's ideology as "nazi" and "racist", which is blatantly true", he managed to say this:
"This is just allowing certain twisted people to gag others."
And he said this AFTER his block. Amazing...
And his refusal to apply wiki policy of "commenting on debate, not on editors" seems NOT only towards me:
"If not in the ANI, where admins seem to behave like a wolfpack..."
"Ironically Shell Kinney is running for ArbCom herself. Guess that her campaign is something like "Misplaced Pages needs an iron man and that's me" of Thatcher. I don't know. I'm voting a more promising candidate." ] 13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::I am trying to disengage from Thulean. All mentioned above has been said previously and I have discussed all point by point. The only exception being my '''private''' note to user LSLM who is also very disappointed at the running of Misplaced Pages justice system and is yelling despair. It is anyhow decontextualized and if he wants to persecute me despite my attempts of disengagement, he should do it somewhere else. As it is irrelevant for the block or my appeal.
::I have not asked anyone to come here to comment as I see it just as a matter of application of policy, not and RfC. Hence I request that Thulean's comments, along with my reply are deleted as irrelevant.
::He is chasing me and looking for any error I might commit (not the other way around, as some seem to think). --] 02:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Truth hurts, doesn't it? So long as you can stand around yelling that someone else is at fault, you seem to be happy, but when faced with facts, you back into a corner and attack. Not a single person who has ever looked at this case agrees with you. Perhaps I'm not the one that needs to take a hard look. And yes, ] is the correct place - please see "This is not the complaints board" up top. Take it to RfC if I'm so horribly overstepping my bounds. If you continue to attack and harass me at this point, I will ask another administrator to step in. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::What Thulean may say does not hurt me. What hurts is that you and the other admins accept his activity as valid. That was my private comment to another user that has been also witch-hunted by Thulean and you (though he's much more stubborn in ignoring NPA) and was only intended that way. Not for you to read, not to cause harm to anyone, just to express my feelings at all this.
::::I really want some other administrator to step in, anyone cannot be less neutral than you. If I would not want other admins to take note and act, I would not be appealing at ANI but probably just quitting Misplaced Pages.
::::But I want that other administrator(s) to take a look at this appeal first and resolve clearly on it. Nobody has done that yet.
::::In any case, if you or Thulean think that's a fault, it should be a separate case, it can't afect my appeal because it is not cause of that block but a comment on how unjust it is and how I feel treated here by the admins who are suppossed to review the case. But it has no relevance to the case as such. It's only loosely connected.
::::If you are such a good and fair administrator as you and others seem to believe, you should accept my part of reason, what this appeal is about. And therefore you should remove a block that is so clearly against policy.
::::You cannot pretend that I have not done my best to correct my error on ideology as cause of PA. It is clear that I have, but you are ignoring it. You cannot ignore that since the first warn was made and clarified I have not made any personal attacks against Thulean or anyone and that what you are taking as such are just totally decontextualized irony (and anyhow an isolated case).
::::That's the problem: you tag someone as "troublemaker" and he/she seems to have to carry that mark forever and ever no matter how hard one tries. Now by applying unjust emergency measures against me you have tagged me as "convicted criminal", no matter that you are judge, jury and part and I never had any sort of trial. What I want is that trial, even if ''a posteriori''.
::::I can't renounce to that because that would be betraying the values of Misplaced Pages and as member of this community I feel strongly about defending its values. You should too and therefore you should not have abused of your power nor violated policy. And, as you actually did, the less you could do is admit your errors and revert your wrongdoing.
::::I have read twice or thrice RFC by now and nowhere it says that administrators' actions are to be dealt with that way. We both must abide to policy and hence I stand that here is where this appeal belongs. --] 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Something more of certain relevance: I just stumbled on this: ]. It is clear that my case could only fall under one case:
::''''Personal attacks which place users in danger''' — Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l@wikipedia.org) and Jimbo Wales (jwales@wikia.com) of what they have done and why. See also Misplaced Pages:Oversight.''
Obviously I wasn't placing anyone in danger (and I deny it was any personal attack). But that's the only case that is admitted by the policy.
Please, Shell or whichever one is in charge. Admit the error and undo the block, else I will have to go to ArbCom, what for me is a waste of energies but surely that's also something that nobody here wants. I don't know how ArbCom would in practice rule this, but every single piece of policy supports my case (and by now you should know I'm not leaving this abuse standing).
So let's not make it more difficult, Shell, and please let's fix it in voluntary good-will terms: you delete the block, you recuse yourself from any further case involving me and the White people article. I decline to intervene in that article anymore (I have already done it). Let's close the wound but let's do it well.
Else, unless some other admin intervenes here and accepts my appeal in its due terms, this will have to go to ArbCom and it is a very clear case of abuse of policy and sysop powers. --] 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::There is also a couple about harassment and disruption. Focus on content, not other editors. —]→] • 06:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Every editor is expected to follow the policies developed by the community, not pick and choose which parts they feel apply to them or wikilawyer their way out of trouble. You appealed the block by requesting an unblock on your talk page and to the mailing list, both were declined. If you cannot accept the fact that no one has seen fit to agree with your contention that the block was improper, feel free to take it to RfC or ArbCom. As I mentioned to you once before in this now almost two-week long dispute, I would highly suggest you use RfC first this time instead of going straight to ArbCom and have another case dismissed outright for failing to follow procedures. I look forward to giving the community the chance to review both our behaviors. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. Examples include (but are not limited to):
::* Personal attacks which place users in danger (See Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks)
::* '''Persistent personal attacks'''
::* Posting personal details
::* Persistent copyright infringement" ] 13:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It was no ''persistent personal attacks''. I had stopped that (ideological identification) after the ONLY WARN and Thulean knows it well, as all the late part of ] and the ] pages show clearly. Besides it was no personal attack but just contextualized irony and that's why I wrote "stop whinning" under your totally unjustified complaint.
I am not wikilawyering (that's Thulean, who likes to jump to the throats of people who dispute his POV). I am extremely concerned, every day more, about possible abuse of policy by Misplaced Pages administrators, as happened in this very clear case.
As per ], it is here where the appeal belongs. I am not opening an RfC but, if you think I am acting wrongly, you may want to open an RFC on me. Thanks. --] 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:I give up, I've opened an RfC in the hopes that this can reach some kind of ending after two weeks - if anyone who's commented here would like to review the entire case or comment on the RfC, its at ]. Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::Nevertheless, the RfC should not interfere, I think, with this appeal, on which I am still waiting for a resolution. --] 17:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
==Harassment by SlimVirgin==
SlimVirgin is harassing me. She blanked my comments on a talk page without providing an edit summary or any other explanation. When I asked for an explanation she blanked that too, and then left a message on my talk page threatening to block me. I do not believe that my comments violate BLP or any other policy. It is proper for me to ask editor Cberlet whether his edits violate an arbcom ruling, as I think they may. I especially object to SlimVirgin trying to keep the whole matter secret rather than allowing the community to observe and make their opinions known. --] 01:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:It looks to me as if you were harassing ]. -] · ] · 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:Thats not threatening you, thats warning you that what you are doing is a blockable offence. There is a difference. ]] 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::However, it is worth stating that the ''approach'' taken here was sub-optimal. In almost no instance is blanking text without an edit summary going to accomplish anything, the page protection(s) was/were probably uncalled for, and the talk-page warning was a little Draconian. No point using a steamhammer to crack cashews, really. The body of NathanDW's complaint reads as more about how it was handled than any objections to the idea of having negative statements well sourced. <br/>] 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:Please read ]. '''Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, and user pages.''' It's the second sentence in the policy. It appears to me that SlimVirgin is trying to save you from being permanently blocked. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:There's been a lot of nonsense on that talk page for a long time, conducted by various editors, including LaRouchies. It was mentioned during an ArbCom case (I believe it was Nobs01), and it was decided that material not directly related to the article could be removed. Editors need to understand that they can't leave snide comments for the subject of the article on the talk page; if they want to speak to him about his real-life persona, they should contact him off-wiki, where he'd be able to ignore them more easily than when they're pestering him on the article talk page. Also, it's incorrect that I left no edit summaries; the summaries were "archiving," "blp issues," and "see your talk page" to NathanDW, followed by an explanation there. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::: I have no beef with the ''results'' and agree with your stand regarding using using the page to communicate in "real-life." However:
:::* Semi and full protection should be used sparingly. Here dealing with the editors directly would have been preferable to the slightly brute-force approach. Looking over the of the talk page, there does appear to have been a fair bit of frippary, but not to protection-requiring levels.
:::* Atempting to "tidy up" discussion without transparancy usually only ends up in having it spill out elsewhere. ''Replacing'' the material with an expository paragraph reminding users of their "living person" obligations would have had a better chance to succeed in the longer run.
:::* I was referring specifically to edit when I spoke of not using edit summaries. Further, edit was also a bit non-standard as there already existed two "page move" style archives.
::: I'm not trying to yank your chain Slim, simply observing some ways that misunderstanding might be avoided next time. <br/>] 04:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)<br/><small>I'd also like to recant on "draconian" from before, that was too strong. Something like "brusque" would have been better said on my part.</small>
::::Something like "necessary and entirely appropriate" would have been better still. :-) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, maybe I'm a bit slow. I suggested to Cberlet that his edits to the article may have violated an ArbCom decision. I agreed with an earlier editor who said that his decision to change the word "liberal" to "progressive" was POV. And, I pointed out to Cberlet that statements he had just made on the talk page were contradicted by his own real life published statements. Can someone please explain how any of this violates WP:BLP? It seems to me to be normal talk page activity. --] 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*You mean other than your unsourced and borderline libelous claims regarding what Berlet is supposed to have called "prominent conservatives", nope, can't see a violation of ] here. --] | ] 02:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*Other than harassing the real person on the talkpage of the ''bio'', not a thing. The talkpage is for discussing the article. If you think pestering its subject about his real life is "normal talk-page activity", perhaps you missed the post from SlimVirgin above? It makes it very clear what bio talkpages are ''not'' for, so let me quote it for you over again: "Editors need to understand that they can't leave snide comments for the subject of the article on the talk page; if they want to speak to him about his real-life persona, they should contact him off-wiki." It's quite simple, really: don't "suggest to Cberlet" and don't "point out to Cberlet". You're doing it ''in the wrong place.'' ] | ] 03:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
:: Pointless sarcasm aside, there are (at least) three issues here. Going in reverse chronological order:
::# How it was handled it (per above),
::# How to handle editor/article duality in cases like this, and
::# How these talk page edits relate to the living person's guideline.
:: It's best to pretend the editor is not the article subject as #2 can get messy quickly. So instead of saying ''"and '''you''' never tire of calling him a fascist"'' say ''"and '''Berlet''' never tires of calling him a fascist."'' This would help to make it more clear what's normal talk page interaction and what's out of bounds. This approach also makes it a ] issue rather than a ] issue. Which leads nicely to #3... <u>Provide citations for these claims and there is no problem here.</u> I'd prefer to avoiding re-hashing #1 above, but NathanDW is (clumsily) addressing a valid point, that this guideline should not be used to stifle debate, and that it's neither required nor productive to "vanish-ify" discussions of this sort.
::] 03:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: And can someone lift the protection of ] while we are at it? - ] 03:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I'm leaving the page semi-protected for a few days, because some of the problematic material was restored by an IP address within a range often used by LaRouchies. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The subject heading is not a new one.] 12:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
==Possible open proxy and user Fu kinell==
] (] <small>•</small> ]), who opened an RFA on his/her seventh edit, may be editing through an open proxy if isn't just more trolling. I'd have reported it on the open proxies page, but I don't have the ip address ... ] ] 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
: Talk to someone with checkuser such as Raul or Jayjg. ] 00:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:I've blocked the account for its username ("Fucking hell"). --]<sup>]</sup> 00:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:* It is alleged that there was once a racehorse by the name of Norfolk Inchance... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
] (] <small>* </small> ])- something needs to be done about this guy. He's being disruptive, and also '''very''' annoying. --] <small>]</small> 19:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Also, this guy is a policy wonk. Which is amazing for a new user. I think we nee a block here but I'd prefer to get some support from other admins before any action is taken. --] <small>]</small> 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Many editors, myself included, participate in a number of aactivities besides article contributions. However, this editor has never made a single edit to any article, ever. A few deletion debates, and much nonsense on the talkpages of other editors. Since it's not overt vandalism, I'm not sure that a block is in order, but is this user really contributing anything to the project? Maybe a block is in order after all? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Right now all the user is doing is aggravting other users by overciting policy. --] <small>]</small> 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::I would tend to think a "new" user acting like this is a sockpuppet with experience. --] 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::We don't even need to prove sockpuppetry. We can block for disruption and trolling if the community so wishes. And I believe he has met both criteria. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Sounds good, as this user has and not contributed or even . Users who are not here to contribute to the Encyclopedia in any way are candidates for blocks.--] (]) 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Trolling, disruption, and no useful contributions at all. This editor does far more harm than good; blocking is appropriate. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to ask Physicq210, ArmadilloFromHell, Ryulong, and so on a question. I have been contributing towards cleaning up some areas where Misplaced Pages talkspace and wikispace is being misused, as opposed to articlespace. I'm labeled as "overciting" policy when a user removes a speedy delete tag I placed — something classified as vandalism. The user responds incivilly by stating I don't know what I'm doing, then removes the entire section from his talk page — and shows no sign of putting it anywhere else. Something that my brother, on his anonymous IP account, was blocked for 24 hours for. I tell him he's not supposed to do that, and all of a sudden, you gentlemen here are talking about blocking my account? And as a "disruptor" or a "sockpuppet," moreover -- or, worse yet, a "policy wonk"? What the bloody heck? — ] <small>(])</small> 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Also, not that it honestly really matters on Misplaced Pages, but one might ask you to consider what the "-ette" suffix usually implies about one's gender. — ] <small>(])</small> 20:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::DDWTMAP: ]. ] 20:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't feel you can consider enforcing Misplaced Pages's vandalism policy as disruption. Disruption seems to be an extremely flexibly defined offense: if you don't like what the user's done, ban them for disrupting. Disrupting what ... a peaceful state of mind? The way things should be under an administrator's subjective viewpoint? The reason policies exist is so that people have metrics by which they know whether they're going to get punished or not. If any behavior a particular admin doesn't like can be slapped with a "block due to disruption" label, then why do policy pages exist here at all? — ] <small>(])</small> 21:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Instead of throwing walls up around yourself and covering your ears and shield yourself away from truth, perhaps it will help if you actually listened to others' advice and start actually contributing to the encyclopedia instead of ramming what was a trivial complaint into all of our faces. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I wasn't the one who brought it to the noticeboard; I hardly was "ramming" any of this "in your faces." — ] <small>(])</small> 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::] and this thread prove otherwise. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::And you should be glad I brought this here- my first instinct was to block you. --] <small>]</small> 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::For all your wikilawyering, you seem to misunderstand a few key points. First of all, it's not the action that constitutes vandalism, it's the intent behind the action, y'know, in a Kantian sort of way. Secondly, the "removing warnings is bad" thing really has no significant backing/consensus at the moment, so it's generally discouraged to bug people about that. Also, you should know that userspace is generally exempt from most of the rules governing encyclopedic content. Hope that clears up a few things for you, and I hope you stop harassing people about the contents of their userspace and actually build an encyclopedia. (By the way, this is addressed to Whedonette, not Cbrown.) --] <small>(])</small> 21:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::], this would be a great opportunity to avoid blocking by taking these comments to heart and making some productive edits. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Not today. What with being called a wikilawyering disruptive sockpuppet policy wonk (boy, you boys sure know how to make a girl feel ''real'' welcome!), I can't say that I'm precisely in the mood to be a productive and beneficial member of Misplaced Pages today. So in the best spirit of ], I shall not be a dick and get some air and some turkey in my stomach before I approach Misplaced Pages again. <small>(I got to get myself some friends like SUIT.)</small> — ] <small>(])</small> 21:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::"then removes the entire section from his talk page -- and shows no sign of putting it anywhere else." - complete bollocks. One needs only to read ]'s talk page to see that this is a total lie. When this user was told about this the user started ramblinb on about SUIT using multiple accounts, then cited ], which as a quick read of ] suggests, is one of the worst defenses in the world. I'm totally sick of this person now. --] <small>]</small> 21:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Where on ] does it say "warnings or other talk pages will be archived at ]"? And I cited ] to Nemu when I was told I was "acting high and mighty" and doing it to "make myself look better." Interestingly enough, that section now says I'm going to "get what's coming to me." — ] <small>(])</small> 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::You seem to be under the illusion that ] is an answer to all accusations when it is not. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Unfortunately, I believe that this user doesn't know that ] can only go so far until community patience wears out. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 21:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows... the two pages involved in the dispute are
*:: ...we need to get some of this guy's actions and use as an example in the wikilawyering article. He is appearantly operating under AABF and Always Assume Others Are Idiots. Anyone considered running CU? It would be interesting to see what turned up. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Final comment:''' I have to sign off now to catch a train; I am heading out of town to visit family. If you choose to block me for a limited time, fine. If you choose to block me on a permanent basis, I would simply respectfully ask that, at the time of your blocking, you also advise me as to the appeal procedure for such a decision, as I don't feel it's warranted given my behavior and intentions. To ignore Elaragirl's insult and instead sift through all of what's been said above for positive comments, it appears that my reputation would be better enhanced if I were more of a contributor to articlespace. I will endeavor to do so in any future time I spend on Misplaced Pages. I also ask you to please ] when I say that I have no intent to purposefully disrupt Misplaced Pages simply for the sheer sake of disrupting Misplaced Pages. To conclude, honestly, have a great holiday with whomever you're spending it with. — ] <small>(])</small> 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Per Elaragirl: run CheckUser, do. Like there's ever been a newbie who Wikilawyered like this. A block is not merited but a reminder to the editor to quit harassing people, let people who know more about policy take care of that, and to actually write some articles would not go amiss. Just my 2 cents. What is more, it wasn't even SUIT who removed the Speedy Tag, as far as I can make out. ] 22:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not an admin but this user seems to be violating ] and ]. Please, block this user. All he's doing is violating policy and causing disruption. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 02:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a bad feeling about this user, based on the language & attitude that I've seen: Whedonette reminds me of a specific user whom the Arb has permanently banned & who also showed a similar flair for aggressive Wikilawyering & disruption. If it's not this person, then Whedonette should be given a firm warning for the imitation alone. -- ] 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::One word ... ... There, I said it... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::It's quite difficult to prove that you are ''not'' somebody. I'm not this Wikistar user you linked to, but I can't really effectively prove that to you, can I? — ] <small>(])</small> 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I will make a respectful offer to any administrator who's currently dealing with this: if it will help everyone concerned with the issue instead be at peace with it, block me for a day, a week, a month; I merely ask that you not ban me permanently. ''That'', I would respectfully fight. When I come back, I will try to do some articlespace edits to somehow cement my reputation in better form in case this ever happens once again. I honestly '''don't''' admit to any guilt. The phrases thrown at me here are very incivil ("wikilawyering", "troll", "disruption", etc.) and have rushed, with no proof, to poor assumptions of me — I find the irony darkly humorous that I am being accused of assuming bad faith and being incivil in a manner that in and of itself assumes bad faith and is incivil. And wikilawyering is a rather humorous way of saying, "Damn it, Jim, she's citing policy at us! How devious!" But, practically, at this point, what can I do? Obviously, the tide of opinion feels differently than I do, and I can hardly change all of these editors' opinions. If it will make peace to accept a punishment, fine, then let's do that. At this point, I'm just amazed that this has exploded so quickly, and so universally against me. It makes no sense for this to be a battle I (figuratively) die for, so do what you like; I concede to whatever you like, short of permaban, that will just end this "SHE SUCKS!" montage. — ] <small>(])</small> 04:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Everyone's annoyed at you, yes, but no one is going to block you unless your actions ask for it. About others "falsely" calling you incivil, please note that ''we'' also find it ironic that you are so quick to accuse us of incivility and impropriety while shoving ] down our throats. I don't see why you are so willing to turn a discussion that was only discussing your actions into some sort of us launching a crusade against you. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 04:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::Okay. Well, then, the purpose of this discussion seems fulfilled: if I'm not going to be blocked, then I think we've discussed the issue enough, and I think further discussion will just aggravate both parties. I will try to start focusing more of my work in articlespace (although I won't begin that campaign this weekend, most likely). — ] <small>(])</small> 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Pardon me if I ask, Whedonette, but did you miss your train? ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 04:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::Writing from the folks' house. — ] <small>(])</small> 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:: The idea that this user expects us to seriously look at their actions with good faith is insulting to my intelligence. We don't have to AGF when we all see evidence to the contrary. And Wikilawyering means "to deliberately twist policy to your own means rather than the letter and spirit of the law to game the system" , which you're doing. Stop. And yes, this all does seem eerily familiar. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 06:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Who is "you" referring to? I'm not the grammar police, but... --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 07:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
==British Adjective==
] has gone on a disambig streak changing every instance of the word ] to point away from the disambig page, yet in this case, the disambig page is the only place where the adjective is explained. The links he is pointing ] too make less sense than the disambig page. He's also left some rather nasty notes on other editors pages when they use the word ]. Could someone more familiar with disambig issues look into this please? Right now it seems he's making more confusion by moving it away from the content of ]. Thanks. ] | ] 04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Though ] is the only page at which the adjective is explained, it is surely appropriate that we point links to the nation to which the adjective refers (see, e.g., our general treatment of ] qua adjective of nationality, viz., the piping <nowiki>]</nowiki>); many of Jeff's edits appear to be of the former variety, such that they are probably appropriate ] (although I share in pschemp's assessment that some changes have been inexact/confusing and ought perhaps to be reverted). Similarly, whilst Jeff might perhaps have been a bit a more decorous in phrasing his —the tone in its prescriptivism is perhaps a bit high-handed (and the substantive submission is not completely accurate; there are instances in which one properly links to a dab page generally and to ] in specific)—he doesn't seem to have been disruptive or incivil here; indeed, concomitant to his boilerplate has been a welcome to several new users, and, in general, though terse, his messages have not in the least, been, to my estimation, ''nasty'' (apologies if I've overlooked something a bit more untoward). Perhaps this issue has been addressed to Jeff on the talk pages of other users to whom he has written, but it surely hasn't been mentioned on his talk page, and I wonder whether this issue, to the extent that there's anything about which the community ought to be concerned (I don't know that there is), ought first to have been addressed to the user in question. ] 04:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::I know of at least one user talkpage where he left a less than civil message and then did not answer at all when the issues were pointed out to him. ] | ] 04:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::] was the colloboration of month during the September disambiguation project, see ], where over 3000 links were disambiguated. There were multiple editors, including ] (through his dab username ]) and others who all worked over weeks to disambiguate the term, as well as other links. In fact, the country terms are one of the links that come up the quickest, and a set of users have been set up to disambiguated them before they become a problem; see ], and ]. I am not the only one who is working on this project. As for the ambiguity, when the term is ambiguity of a term is being discussed, I link straight to ], which makes it clear that the term should not be disambiguated. Note from ], "''Ideally, Misplaced Pages articles should not link to disambiguation pages (with rare exceptions where the ambiguity of a term is being discussed); instead links should go directly to the appropriate article''".
:::Now in regards to my messages, they are not uncivil at all, but informative, and the vast majority of people thank me for informing them; they are just unaware that linking to disambiguation pages is not preffered, and in this way the tireless work of the people disambiguating is lessened. You can see all my dab messages at ].-- ] 04:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Leaving comments for established users who are well aware of exactly what ] links to is not very polite. However, not answering them is much more so.] | ] 04:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::How do I know if a user knows of the dab page recommendations? I am not a mind reader. I, also, reply to editors who respond to me to my talk page; I don't keep watch of others' talk pages. -- ] 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::IF you make a post to another's talk page, it is your responsibility to then answer objections raised there. You don't get to just ignore everything not on your talk page, ''especially'' when you posted on theirs! That's awfully condescending of you, again. ] | ] 04:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Now its not. Some users do so, but the vast majority do not, and expect people to respond on their talk page. Of the people who have asked me something on my take page (in the past couple days), they can be categorized as:
::::::*Thankful: , , , , ,
::::::*Thinks that I offended him: (explained to him that I did not, and that I was just pointing out why linking to disambiguation is not so good.
::::::*Questions my statement, (responded to him on his talk page)
::::::The vast majority thank me for informing them of the disambiguating work. -- ] 04:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::That's nice. You still didn't answer why you are so important that you can ignore responses to statements you post on other's talk pages. ] | ] 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::As I already mentioned, I do not watch other people's talk pages, as is standard practice for Wikipedians (those that expect a response on the talk page they wrote to, state so on their own talk page), and given that I do not know of any responses, thus I am not ignoring them. -- ] 05:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Your claim that that is standard practice is not true first, and second, you don't know of any responses because you haven't been paying attention at all obviously. IF you leave a message for someone, it is your responsibility to answer them, plain and simple. And *most* people answer on the same talkpage the message was left. You attitude here that you aren't responsible to responding to others is terrible. Communication is important, and you are ignoring half of it. ] | ] 05:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree with you. Look at your talk page, you have a note that mentions that you will watch other talk pages; if it was standard practice, you wouldn't need such a note. Regardless, I've stated my opinion about my actions, and unless others have any comments or suggestions, there's not much more to say. I would also like to note, that you could have asked me to change my message (which I believe is not uncivil in any way) or asked me to respond to some message on some talk page, but instead you came straight here, without even informing me. Instead ] had to inform me of this thread. -- ] 05:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:IF you had been communicative and paid attention to the responses to the messages you left, you would already have been aware of this. Ignoring responses to messages you leave is not acceptable. You already ignored responses on others' talk pages so then why would I think you wouldn't ignore one on your own talk. Im sorry, but if you leave messages, it is your responsibility to respond to answers you get. Burying your head in the sand deserves a post here. Besides, I have every right to ask other people to look at a situation. Posting on your talk page does not accomplish that. ] | ] 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::Still disagree with you. Can you find a policy page that states that one must watch a talk page one posts on? Regardless, I went through all the talk pages I posted on. The vast majority had nothing posted on them. Two of them had thank you notices , and one, which I assume is the one you are talking about where she states 1) would have been nice to know where she did not disambiguate, and 2) disagrees with the dabbing. True, I could give the diff, but most people are thankful just for the tip, and the few that have wanted the diff have asked me on my talk page. As for the second point, the standard practice is for disambiguation of these country terms is to disambiguate to the country of origin, unless there are specific reasons not to. In the article in question, the ambiguity of a term is not being discussed. -- ] 05:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Jeff3000, you can add me to your list of those who found your message to be mildly insulting. I was going to post a pithy retort on your talk page, but decided it wasn't a good idea to respond at all since it could only leave me looking bad.
:::Next time you correct one of my links, I don't really want to know about it. I'm not trying to disrespect your work... ---] (]|]) 06:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Putting aside the contents of Jeff's boilerplate message, I do think that disambiguating links to ] is consistent with Misplaced Pages policy and ought not to be discouraged. There are exceptions but they are relatively rare. And I think it is usually a good thing to provide some form of notice to the editor who originally created the link, since they might want to see what has been done and might even suggest a more appropriate target for the link. (Or they might not, in which case they can just ignore the message.) I offer to Jeff my own boilerplate text (which I'm not actually actively using) at {{tl|dablink notice 1}} for his consideration, although it was designed for a slightly different context. --] ] 12:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note on this - British and United Kingdom are different things. For example, a company may be British but is subject to ] - there are more but too many to go in to. Surely it would be better to rewrite British so as not to be a disambig page? British needs adequately describing and should not be simply a "click on" page. ] 21:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:To a certain extent I disagree. I think this is an example of an occurence where we need more than a disambiguation page, but where a full article would be repeating detail from elsewhere and not reflecting the fact that the majority of links to the page will be intending to go to, say, the United Kingdom, rather than to article about British. I think the current halfway house works best. --] 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
==]==
{{vandal|HolocaustResearchProject}} would appear per their userpage to be a ], which I understand to be problematic. Their only contributions are to linkspam articles with their URL — added to the ''top'' of the 'external links' list, as is typical. What can be done (reverting 20+ articles isn't exactly 'fun'). ] 06:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:...Unless you're lucky enough to have '''ADMIN ROLLBACK!!!''' Reverted and warned. (And watched.) ]]] 06:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::The user page was a copyvio and I've deleted it. ] ] 08:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You can read more about HRP . --] () 16:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Would seem to be the same person as , at ]. <strong>]]]</strong> 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:: I requested spam blacklisting. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== Possible new vandal bot(?) ==
I'm noticing a disturbing trend on new pages patrol. I've seen at least a half-dozen new accounts create a plausible title, leave an edit summary stating "Created article with..." and the only "content" was those godforsaken, idiotic echoes of the title or unrelated nonsense. The style is the same on all of these. I am simply going to start blowing those accounts out of the water on sight. Thought you all should be aware. - ] 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like it's a relatively new feature of the mediawiki software. When certain changes are made without an edit summary, a summary is automatically added. See ]. ] 07:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
ROFL. This new thing has caused quite a stir...this is the third or fourth comment I've read about this new feature. ] 07:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ha! Just when I thought a new, improved breed of vandal came along, it's something ''we'' did! I love it! What a great way to clobber nonsense!! - ] 07:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*Zowie! Just clobbered three nonsense articles and was able to skip over a legit new article from a longtime user who forgot to summarize it. Didn't have to open 'em first! I repeat: I ''love'' this. - ] 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
**Yah. A little bit of surprise and WTF? at first, but when I realized the deal, I was quite happy. Yay! More turkey fighting! --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== ] -- follow up ==
{{user|NRen2k5}} sent me an email requesting unblocking and unprotection of his talk page to appeal the block. I protected the page and extended his 24-hour NPA block because he was continuously removing warnings with abusive edit summaries. He said:
:''I was justified in my actions because I have been suvbjected to harassment, threats, stalking, constant reverts, personal attacks, outright lies and appeals to authority over the past 48 hours.''
:''I also notice that my usertalk page has been protected, which will interfere with the appeal process. please remove the protection and the block.''
Would I be right to ignore this, or is he just not adept at properly reporting abuse done to himself? - ]|] 11:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:To anyone considering this please do fully review this editor's recent ] and note how he's been to not only myself but admins that have been counseling/warning him. The block message and warning blankings are just the last in a series of examples of problem behavior (including using his user page -since blanked per G10- to attack me) by this editor. ] is illustrative as well. Thanks. ''(]])'' 13:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
==] removing sourced information on ]==
] was for some time a mess, with large amounts of unsourced text based on stuff heard on the radio. At some point the real Mike Mendoza, who is now editing from ] (identity confirmed) started removing material. After some back-and-forth, during which I got involved, the article now contains only sourced information - or at least, none of the unsourced information is under dispute. Unfortunately, ] is continuing to remove the following paragraph.
<blockquote>
Mendoza is ] and has co-founded a ]-based Jewish radio station, Shalom FM, in order to provide, he says, "some balanced reporting about the community and ]."</blockquote>
The source seems legitimate and we haven't been given any reason to believe the contrary. ] only justification, expressed solely via edit summaries, is ''"i am no longer connected in any way with shalom"'' - which we don't say he is, but it seems undisputed that he founded it, and for a notable DJ that's a relevant fact. Despite repeated requests he's never communicated via ] or ].
I'm asking someone to warn him that he may be blocked if he continues, then follow through if necessary - not as punishment, but in the hope that being unable to edit will force him to communicate. I can't do either as I've been active editing the article. The only other route I can see to stop the edit warring, apart from the unacceptable one of continuing to revert until he gets bored, is to suggest mediation - which he will almost certainly ignore - and then go to Arbcom, which would be a massive waste of their time, in my view. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*He appears to take offense to the implication he's still connected to the station. What if you added the fact he left at the end of the sentence? - ]|] 13:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::Do we have any reliable sources that say he has no connection, or that say that he says he has no connection? If not, this "fact" has to go. What an anonymous user says isn't really reliable. ] 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::It's not an anonymous user, however. I'm assuming that when Sam Blanning states that he has confirmed the identity of this user, we can take that statement at face value. (Sam has been around here for a while, and is both technically competent and ''not'' prone to fits of gullibility.)
:::I see no reason not to add "Mike Mendoza is no longer associated with Shalom FM" (per Mgm) and slap a {{tl|citeneeded}} tag on it so that everything is kosher. This really doesn't seem to be a particularly controversial point, and I admit to having trouble seeing why the individual would want to ''lie'' about this. I'm ''assuming'' – and if there's more backstory than is immediately visible, please fill us in – that he's busy full time with Talksport, and just doesn't do the Shalom FM stuff anymore. (I note that our source supporting Mike's link to Shalom FM is almost three years old, which is an eternity in the entertainment industry.)
:::In other words, I see no reason why we shouldn't let individuals update uncontroversial biographical and career information in their articles. I ''also'' agree with Sam's point that blocks may be necessary to encourage ''discussion''; the correct way to deal with Mike's change of jobs isn't to delete the reference to Shalom FM, but to note that his affiliations have changed. Per WP:AUTO, individuals about whom Misplaced Pages has written are strongly encouraged to use the talk pages when they encounter conflict. ](]) 14:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::This issue has been the subject of a report at ]. I suggested there that attempting to enforce as a blockable 3RR violation would be inappropriate. It's more appropriate to look at it under ] and ] together. ]. “] ] ]”. 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
There is indeed no reliable source, so far as I know, that would show that Mendoza has left Shalom - in fact, he's still listed on their website . We could say he left anyway and leave it unsourced, but a) that's sloppy article writing and b) as long as he's still listed on Shalom FM's website anyone would be within their rights to challenge the sentence.
And yes - Mendoza confirmed his identity to me and to the Unblock mailing list, which led to him being unblocked by ] before I did. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This might be solved by changing "has co-founded" to just "co-founded". The former connotes continuing affiliation, the latter does not. - ] | ] 19:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
: I've blocked MM for 3h for 3RR, and left a note encouraging him to talk, in the hope he will stop simply reverting ] 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== Joeshawuk removing speedy deletion notices from ] ==
] removing speedy deletion notices from ] - & . User uncivil on my user talk page - - and vandaliseed talk page - ,
::In future, you should use ] for blatant vandalism such as this. ] 14:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== IP Address 216.167.223.130 ==
This IP Address is of Chaska High School in Chaska, Minnesota. It has shown consistent vandalism, not just to the Chaska High page, but to many others as well. Anyone in the school can access Misplaced Pages through this IP, and as such, are truly anonymous. If someone at the school wants to edit Misplaced Pages that badly, they can get a user account and contribute that way. I would propose a indefinite block on the IP, as it has been shown to cause more harm than good.
Reference the Chaska High School article to view this IP address and its 'contributions' to Misplaced Pages. --] 14:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've placed a long term block on that IP. // ] (]) 14:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== Is three edits over five days enough activity to justify semi-protection? ==
I was under the impression that it's not, but, as is always the case with this site, there are plenty of people on-hand to disagree. So I'm bringing {{la|Poop deck}} here for review. -- ] 15:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:I wouldn't say so. ] | ] 15:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Maybe 3 in 5 minutes, but no have you asked the admin who protected about it, they may know more or may have made a genuine mistake. --] 15:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*Please bring requests for page protection to ]. In this case, I'd say protection isn't needed. (]) 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
*: I don't think he's requesting it (a could initiate it himself anyway), it's a description of what has already happened --] 15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Umm.. I'd not look to protection until I saw twice - 3x that in ''one'' day personally ] 15:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::I go for more than that. If it's a popular page, there should plenty of people watching to rvv. A few times a day is nothing - your average sports team article gets that much ''on average'', esp. during the season. There's VOABot II as well. —] (]) 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected. -- ] 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
==Mystery of the missing Buddha==
Where has this file gone? ] Lots of pages link to it. There's nothing in the deletion log. There are no deletions in the history. Has it been killed and all revisions oversighted? Am I missing something obvious? Is this a database blip? A lesson in the transience of all things? Most strange. ] ] 18:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
: An image of that name is referred to by , implying it is (or rather was) on commons. I can't, however, immediately see it in the commons deletion log. -- ] | ] 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Ah, they did delete it: - "05:11, 23 November 2006 Loco085 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Buddha-Sarnath-sepia.jpg" (missing essential source information)" -- ] | ] 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks: I guess if a commons image is deleted, it leaves no trace on the projects which may use it. "]" ] ] 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== User:Disko ==
I have indefinitely blocked {{vandal|Disko}} as the account seems to have been used only for vandalism and other disruptive edits. —]] 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
== Deletion Request ==
I just received an email from ] asking me to delete his sandbox (]). This user, while not being the most diplomatic person on the planet, has in my opinion calmed down since his first altercations with Shell and myself. He ''seems'' to have turned the page, and I can understand why he wants to delete his sandbox and its history (not being an expert in MediaWiki syntax, he used it to prepare a retort to one of his "opponents"). Would anyone care to oblige? Thanks. ] 21:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Can't he just tag it with {{tl|db-self}}? ''semper fi'' — ] 21:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:I've done so, but in the future {{tl|Db-userreq}} should suffice. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'd thought about db-self, but I think it's only for articles. I didn't know about userreq, though. We live and learn. Thanks for the quick reply. ]
:Done: I blocked ''that'' IP, but there will be hundreds more. Please see the thread higher up on this page ] -- this is a much larger problem than meets the eye; I see a ''lot'' of editors who are individually colliding with this person, not seeing the bigger picture. ] ] 22:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Oh wow, I had ''no'' idea what I was getting into. ] 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Revert war over interwikilinks to the siberian-russian wiki
Recently a Siberian-russian wiki was started and there is currently a motion to get is closed down again .
Nevertheless it has some articles and bots are starting to add interwikilinks to articles here but they get reverted by the people, that want that wiki gone. I personally have no preference as to the existance of the wiki, but I think while it is alive it would be a violation of WP:POINT and a disription to enwiki to remove the interwikilinks. See Talk:Ingria#Ru-Sib for some of the arguments involved. The User I came accross on the Germany article doing this is Mikkalai (talk·contribs) but apparently there are more. Agathoclea22:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The issue hasn't really been resolved either way. None of the above answers the question whever there is some policy that would allow the removal of interwiki links. The debate on meta seems very heated, and despite the fact that the "discussion" is of extremely low quality and heavily politicized there do seem to be some genuine problems with the Siberian Misplaced Pages (though the POV argument can be also be called of many others, and from what I could read of that page, there doesn't seem to be anything really terrible on sib like for example genocide denial).
I think this might be a cultural issue, with our Russian partners not understanding that in European culture there is an assumption of innocence. Therefor it has to be first determined if the Siberian Misplaced Pages violates the rules of the Wikimedia Foundation and only then, if it does, should the iwiki links be removed. --84.16.230.24912:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is he still allowed to edit? I've not seen him do anything productive, he appears to be here purely to spam his company. --Sam Blanning00:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
He's continuing to add commentary to various archive pages, trying to get the last word in various long-dead discussions. His comments include accusations that Wikipedians are sending e-mail viruses to his company, among other things. *Dan T.*14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The "Quebec Vandal"
Ok, this is just getting to be enough here. The guy has used 51 sockpuppets now on a regular basis. Multiple checkusers have been done and the latest one has found that it's a dynamic IP. The latest vandal was User:134.173.56.219, which according to one of Essjay's tools belongs to Claremont Colleges in California. It follows the regular pattern displayed by these users. So, can I propose some kind of community ban of IP's or something? I know we're the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but this is just getting ridicules. It's not just this guy either. Quebec is regularly vandalized, some IP's showing up in the midwest, some on either coast. One was an open proxy (reported to WP:OP). Is there really anything that we can do here, short of protecting the article for all time? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
134.173.56.219 doesn't appear to have made any "unconstructive edits" to Quebec lately - his/her most recent edit to that article was to revert vandalism. BTW, 134.173.56.219 is not a dynamically assigned address; it's a statically assigned address in the 134.173.56.0/21 HMC student range. It's probably a student editing from their desktop computer; an open proxy is highly unlikely. - A Concerned Mudder
Concur with above, you're misreading that latest edit it's undoing the vandalism. I'd say at the moment this is a classic WP:RBI, don't feed the trolls etc. incident. The vandalism is obvious and reverted quickly, if someone is sad enough to want attention by damaging things don't reward them with what they want. By all means continue the checkusers but if our checkusers can't find a consistent enough pattern to do something more permenant no amount of talking about it here or in any other forum will make any difference, nor will it make the vandalism any more obvious than it already is. --pgk09:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we strike other user votes in an AFD when we are not even an admin and on the other side of dispute. If not then please warn the user because I reverted it back but he continues to do that again. And I do not know what I suppose to do now? --- ALM12:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
In general nobody's comments should be struck out on an AFD because they are not really "votes", and anonymous users are welcome to contribute to the discussion. On the other hand, in this case the item struck out was a useless '''keep''' ~~~~, so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Sjakkalle(Check!)12:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Useless delete? humm? Should I go ahead and strike this keep too. "Keep, --Shamir1 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)"? Being a fair person we all should be consistent in our opinion --- ALM12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a "'''delete''' ~~~~". Whether we like it or not, unreasoned "vote" type contributions on AFDs do count for something (how much is up to the closing admin) when they are made by well established contributors (I have even seen arbitrators make such posts). When an anonymous person makes such a contribution they usually don't count for squat. I would not recommend that you strike out anything, but if you will remove the the strikethrough and make a comment of the lines of "Please don't strike out anything unless it was made in bad faith" below it, then I don't think anyone will complain. Sjakkalle(Check!)13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that striking out anonymous votes are a good idea. However, as long as the editor striking out the vote makes it clear that he and not the original anonymous editor struck out the vote, and indicating the reason for striking out the vote, then I'm not going to get up in arms over it. —Psychonaut12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I love the idea of AFD is not a vote and hate when they do become votes. But that what not the action of closing admin sometimes reflect. Can someone ensure me please that this AFD will not be closed after reading both sides comment and will not be a simple counting? --- ALM12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
In general striking out the comments of any user in AfD is not permitted. Anon IP users are welcome to express their opinions in AfDs. I will remove the strike and ask the user who struck it not to do this again. We should allow the closing admin to exercise their good judgment in closing AfDs. In this case I doubt much weight will be given to the delete opinion expressed, but it is not okay to strike it out. Gwernol13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to strike out anything by others actually. Usually on close inspection the closing admin of any XfD can tell which to discard and which to consider. - Mailer Diablo21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
IP 68.208.176.52
This IP vandalizes wikipedia since 19 January 2005. The user have been warned, but he keeps trolling.
Examples:
As of 2006, vigilante involvement in road rage highway battles has risen sharply. Vigilantes often when identifying a road battle involving rage will join in the chase in an attempt to disable the aggressor's vehicle. Vigilantes have been known to employ the use of spears, handfulls of rocks, and cinder blocks to aid in the disabling of an offending vehicle. They maintain that the easiest and safest way to stop a speeding vehicle is a direct hit with a cinder block or spear to the driver or radiator. In Maine in July, a vigilante confused another vigilante who was engaged with a raging driver. The original vigilante noted that the "other guy went racing past in front, slowed, and all of a sudden a spear came flying out the drivers side and hit me in the chest."
The agressive driver will continue to punish weaker, more ignorant drivers until he feels sufficient retribution has been had, or a lesson has been taught.
Wrong speedy tagging by sockpuppets with strange usernames
I have noticed that a user tags many pages that are at WP:PNT wrongly with {{db-notenglish}}, and some of these are wrongly deleted. Please do not delete pages that are not in English unless they exist on other Wikimedia projects: they should be tagged with {{notenglish}} and listed at WP:PNT.
The sockpuppets I am talking about are many new users with random usernames like Miui-kaoa (talk·contribs) and Iwtb (talk·contribs). These users also update cleanup tags, just like the the user Ppgj-nzng (talk·contribs) who recently made the same wrong redirect as Qhkj-mdhm (talk·contribs). Has anybody else seen this kind of behavior and does anybody have an idea why this guy makes lots of new accounts like these and with edits like these? Kusma(討論)19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Those are just other unrelated users, that much I'm sure of. There doesn't seem to be much more to do other than block any others who show up with the same frivolous deletion request, and if they persist, a checkuser request to block whatever range they're using could be in order. Cowman10920:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This troll has other accounts which have been indef blocked for the same thing. Seems like a good case for quiet blocking when necessary per WP:DENY. --Ginkgo10022:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone please hurry up and take action against this user. Since my notice was posted, he has created yet another article about himself (Peter Watson (political activist)), inserted information on his own non-notable publications to Warwick, Queensland, and made personal attacks by calling editors neo-Nazis . His user page is overflowing with warnings about such behaviour (and not just from me). —Psychonaut10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
64.107.3.104 (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) This one is kind of complicated. This user has a static IP address and is blocked under this IP but is editing under 66.99.3.172, 64.107.2.2, 66.99.1.109, 66.99.0.8, and 64.107.1.221. I don't really know how you handle this. But he's engaging in edit wars on the Yasser Arafat article and the Katyn massacre article. He seems to be the only one using these IP's. He's vandalized my user page several times. The IP's are clearly the same person when you look at the edits they've made to the Arafat article attempting to insert the same information over and over when he's been told that the source isn't reputable. --Strothra22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is one of our better-known troublemakers from about a year ago: the "George Reeves" vandal, aka "Squidward", who I don't think been around for a while. Those are his IP ranges, and the edits all show his characteristic interests, editing style, comma splices, and "I'm right, I'll revert until I get my way" manner. Here's an example from earlier this year . ; here's an even better contribs list . Not sure if there's a long term abuse page on him or not, or if we killed it under WP:DENY. Antandrus (talk)05:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've never had to report sockpuppets before and don't know if this is the right venue or format, but here goes. Five accounts were created within the past 24 hours which all appear to be SPA accounts, all have made near-identical edits to a group of closely related Somalia articles, blanked sections and images for POV reasons, and supported each other in revert wars on the articles and in the talkpages. The contrib histories are relatively short, and almost any diff in their histories supports my assertions. I'm not involved in the article itself, I became aware of this through RC Patrol and followed up. The page has been protected, but the dispute revolved around the assertions of these suspect editors:
If I haven't come to the right place, please re-direct me. Otherwise, please investigate: it looks like some blocks are in order. --Doc Tropics04:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response and good advice. I thought they were obvious, but have limited experience with socks. I (and others) really appreciate your help :) Doc Tropics04:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Possible vote stacking and sockpuppetry at a TfD
Hi all. I'd like to bring everyone's attention to the recent TfD nomination of {{Turkish History Brief}}, which seems to have caused a lot of controversy. I had to warn Zaparojdik (talk·contribs) for the talk page spamming he did, in addition to another user. However, the strangest thing is that these users are voting were clearly notified either by email or somewhere else off-wiki. For example, before ErdemTuzun voted, he his last edit was in 2002, and many other of the users aren't that active either, such as Bugtrio. There might also be some sockpuppetry involved as well, I'm not sure. However, I could appreciate if some other admins could look into this. Thanks. Khoikhoi05:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The main issue isn't sockpuppetry, but the massive vote stacking that occured due to talk page spamming, and possibly something outside wiki. Khoikhoi06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we have the same combination of original research, Japanese nationalism, anonymous IP's, mangled English, and revert battling, now shaping up at Korean-Japanese disputes. Maybe protecting this page too is the only answer. Thanks. Room21806:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
211.131.246.10 (talk·contribs) has directly edited Korean-Japanese disputes, and also vandalized Room218's talk page. Although it's hard to be sure, it seems likely that there's one person who has been using frequently changing IP addresses to make controversial and repeated changes to Korea-related articles, specifically where Japan-Korea relations are involved. The use of language and the specific edits are usually very consistent across changing IP addresses. --Reuben10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
IPs on Ollanta Humala article
There is an IP in the Ollanta Humala article who keeps adding false information that Humala's father is named "Alonso Vargas". As the de facto head of the Wikiproject Peru I can tell you that Ollanta Humala's father is Isaac Humala (whom himself is very well known in Peru). The IP seems persistant and it doesn't seem like he will stop. I am not sure if the IP is driven by malice, in order to vandalize the article, or if he simply doesn't understand that the information he is adding is false. Either way, I do not want to have to be watching this article and getting into a revert war over this and thus I ask for some administrator intervention.
We have one user from Bahrain who seems to be a Shi'a Muslim and an opponent of the current Bahraini regime. He edits from various anonIPs. After he reverted the Rafida article five times in two hours, I asked to have that article semi-protected -- which was done. This seems to have enraged him. As User:89.148.41.41 he left an epithet on my user page and a nasty comment on my talk page accusing me of being anti-Shi'a. Now he's using User:89.148.40.178 to follow me around WP, reverting anything I edit. Could someone please roll back the 178 edits and block that IP, or range of IPs? Zora06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, and he's come back from different IPs just as quickly. He keeps reverting, various admins keep rolling back and blocking, he gets another IP. This is one determined dude. Fascinating, in a serial-killer-movie kind of way. Zora09:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
JFD has been removing any Indian influence on Chinese culture incessently. He has removed sourced text from Shaolin temple and posted unsourced POV statements on Zen and Chan. Kindly see that this incessent violation of mentioning unsourced text and removing sourced text does not continue.
The article is NPOV, well sourced, provides only information which is absent on all other Gibraltar related articles and simply refers to a community of people (Gibraltarian Spaniards) explaining who they are and a bit of their history. No POV related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute on Gibraltar is even touched and thus is non-controversial. The article was deleted in with a very small number of votes and in a very short time (5 days?).
I know that this issue got be posted at WP:DRWP:DRV. But, Burgas and I thought it would be a good idea to inform admins that Burgas is planning to recreate the article under a diff title and NPOV. What didn't look fine at the AfD process is the duration of the discussion. It was closed after 5 votes and after only 5 days!
Anyway, i believe that after the article is freed from POV (in case there are), it can be recreated under the new title. Apart from the duration of the vote, the nature of the votes are also unfounded (most voters talked about POV -which not a valid reason to delete an article), the nomination was based on that "there exists articles on Gibraltar and Demographics of Gibraltar" is also questioble and not convincing at all as there exist people caled SPANISH GIBRALTARIANS. Any comments or feedbacks? -- Szvest → 17:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask user Gibnews to stop deleting or requesting speedy deletion of the copy of the article on my talk page. He already got it deleted from the talk page of Spanish Gibraltarians and has now requested speedy deletion from my talk page (??) This seems like an attempt to disrupt the current process of undeletion. Thanks.
--Burgas0015:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw a piece of vandalism from TheBigDirtyBastard (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), and rolled it back. I then checked his contribs to see if it was a vandalism-only account, which I would have blocked indefinitely. It doesn't seem to be, but it is a fairly new account. In that case, I'd just give him a warning. However, I'm wondering should he be blocked for his username. My feeling is yes, definitely, but I think I would tend to be less tolerant of such names than other people might, and I'm not actually experienced in username blocks. I may have done one or two, but if so, they were really offensive names. As it is, I haven't even warned this user for his vandalism, because it seems a bit silly to warn someone for vandalism if I'm going to block him two minutes later regardless of any possible change in behaviour. Can someone please advise? Thanks. AnnH♫19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as an opinion, there have been a lot of requests for uName blocks recently for names which are really fairly inoffensive, and it seems to me a trend is starting which may be ill-advised. We're not Disney, after all. This one could offend some; however it is not "profane" - bastard being a legal term, and dirty having several meanings - and may be a semi-witticism on the part of the editor. I applaud Ann's reluctance to block precipitously for uName. KillerChihuahua10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps he is a fat guy who works on a farm and gets dirty, and was born out of wedlock. This may be really funny to him, and not profane at all. Or perhaps it has less meaning. HighInBC19:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Violation of good faith by user Shamir1
Palestinian Exodus is the scene of a long-running content dispute (but that's not what this complaint is about). Admin User:Steel359 protected the article on Nov 12 for this reason. However, User:Shamir1, one of the main warring parties, was unhappy about which version was protected so on Nov 18 he claimed on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection that the dispute was over. Since the argument was continuing ferociously on the Talk page, with Shamir1 involved, this claim was a deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article. And in fact Steel359 unprotected the article in good faith, only to be forced to protect it again soon afterwards. I respectfully request action against Shamir1 for this dishonest behavior. --Zero05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The article had been protected since Nov 12 except for the brief unprotection on Nov 18 that I mentioned, that's why he didn't edit it. Look on the talk page to see his continued involvement in the dispute (8 edits since Nov 12). --Zero
I think what Zero is saying is that he had the intent of doing so, and ought to have action taken against him. An attempted crime is almost as bad as a crime itself. -Patstuart07:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
About Shamir1, if you look at his contribs he requested unprotection several times this week. He kept coming back each time after unprotection was declined , and yesterday (his third or fourth request) I decided to AGF and unprotect. It was promptly reprotected when the edit warring started again. I can't say I was surprised. -- Steel12:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I say they should both at least get a severe tongue-lashing, and, if it checks out on Isarig, the version should be reverted. If it happens again, they should be temp-blocked for disruption. I would do so myself, but I'm not an admin. Patstuart19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
If anybody acted in bad faith it was User:Zero0000 himself. Note that this is not a content dispute per se - it's simply Zero0000 deleting mass sourced material. Amoruso21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
We're not debating here the legitimacy of the changes, we're debating the fact that this user seems to have made a bad-faith request to get the page unprotected, so that he could get his own version back before it was reprotected. Regardless of the legitmacy of the claims, that's breaking faith if it was true. Patstuart22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean "put an autoblock" on, the original user was blocked quite a while ago before the option to disable autoblocks was available. Autoblocks themselves are not necessarily that simple, in this case it is unlikely the original user id has edited from that IP so an autoblock will not occur (indeed that user has come back under various usernames and IPs over time). I've blocked the IP. --pgk12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I got a mail saying this( I have added the wikisyntax):
I have been autoblocked by you because I happen to be assigned some IP
address that was used by a blocked user. I (A_Jalil (talk·contribs)) have nothing
to do with the sockpuppet nor the edits that led to the block. Can you
please unblock my username so I can do some edits. Thanks.
the block note is:
Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Fred Chess for the following reason (see our
blocking policy):
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Featured article (talk·contribs)". The reason given for Featured article's block is: "Blocked user,
sockpuppet".
Your IP address is 213.216.199.6.
I don't have the time to investigate this right now, but I think it is important not to block innocent people, if that's the case here. Could someone take a look and take appropriate actions?
The IP in question (213.216.199.6 was blocked on 01:43, November 11, 2006 for a period of 1 week. This means that it should not be blocked by now!
Anyway, i received an email as well from user:A Jalil who has nopthing to do with the edits of the IP as Jalil maily edits Morocco related articles. I'll unblock the IP which i believe should have been technically ublocked by today! -- Szvest → 12:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed User:Qbkd10's contrib history thinking I'd find blatant linkspamming (mmm, my favorite!). Instead, this seems to be a good-faith editor who has made a couple of questionable contributions, probably because they are unclear on some WP basics (like not creating extra userpages). I fixed a couple of article edits that were problematic, but haven't touched any of the userpages or contacted User:Qbkd10. Hopefully this quick little "background check" will help the responding admin :) Doc Tropics21:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Coat of arms of Wigan - removing perfectly good quotations, apparently in retaliation at being caught and blocked
The socks are User:Copiedimage, User:Tauex and User:Uhrwerkmaus. They've denied being socks even though this is quite blatantly obvious from the identical editing pattern. The vendetta has recently increased in scope, to attempt to remove all coat of arms from Misplaced Pages. I expect more socks to be created. This user has also vandalised my userpage (check contrib history of IP to match to other similar edits made). Please block on sight. Morwen - Talk21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Generic Mouse, Uhrwerkmaus, Tauex, Rodentiaest, Copiedimage, all blocked indefinitely. Generic Character still indef blocked from last time. I've also blocked the IP (which has been used as yet another persona) for a month for the relentless sockpuppetry - David Gerard23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Please consider blocking User:Lepetitvagabond for abusing the use of discussion page and making un-factual comments on other users,tagging advertisements on certain page such as Tourism in Kuala Lumpur which is not an advertisement.This particular user is criticizing other editor's language ability and predicts i'm the person who comment in the discussion page without signing which i did not comment anything. User keep putting in comments which is not even related to the article.Therefore,i hope the admins can consider blcoking this user.Marcusaffleck05:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, you have to make a stronger case for the block, after all, what I have mentioned in the discussion forums is nothing more than the truth, in view of the main article itself. Take a good look at your posts, the sock puppets you have created, the numerous pages you have started that has been since deleted... if anything goes, it is you who should be blocked and not me. -le petit vagabond15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please consider blocking SSS108 (talk·contribs) for repeated disruption related to Sathya Sai Baba. User began editwar by disputing references to Salon.Com in article, which led to a warning from user:Jossi (admin). User:SSS108 has continued to remove disputed references without gaining consensus among editors, leading to an RFA on the subject. Even after comment was obtained by ArbCom member (Fred Bauder), User:SSS108 refused to accept ArbCom decision on superficial grounds to the annoyance of several editors and admins involved in this dispute, for violating WP:POINT and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. User:SSS108 has been causing great disruption at Talk:Salon.Com by repeating invalid arguments and continually misrepresenting arguments of other editors, leading to great frustration and annoyance in a gross violation of WP:POINT. User has also been accused of partiality and bias in relation to Sathya Sai Baba, as article was subject of previous ArbCom dispute where User declared himself as an "advocate" of article's subject. User has also been observed to be involved in long and tedious disputes of Misplaced Pages policies in support of article's subject, removing controversial material on superficial grounds. User continues to repeat invalid arguments and disrupt. Request is made for 48-hour block or longer to allow for a cool-off period. -- Ekantik05:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I came into the dispute only a few days ago as an uninvolved admin trying to sort things out. Since becoming involved my impression closely matches the above. This seems to meet the new guidelines on tendentious editing. A block might be in order. JoshuaZ04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as no one is going to see this section way up on the page, I would suggest reporting to WP:AIV, pointing to this section. I'm not sure if it's standard procedure, but if user needs to get blocked, it needs to be done. That not working, try WP:PAIN and WP:AN/3RR. Patstuart01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, what we have here is a heated but legitimate difference of opinion between two editors in good standing. It's been to ArbCom but the disputed text is not really covered by that ruling (it's too content-specific). What it needs, more than anything else, is more eyes. I can't really pitch in because I have a pretty strong bias against the subject, plus I always tend to make things worse these days, so if any experienced pourers of oil on troubled waters want to take a look I think it will be appreciated by all concerned. It's certainly not straightforward. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a complex issue because there have been a number of editors banned on this page, and this editor could just be taken a hard nose skeptic to the article. My suspicion, however, stems from this editors "blanket revert" then edit. Also, there has been a number of sesible edits mixed with the blind importing of edits written by banned users. This were both characteristics of the banned editors, and a behaviour that led to months of circular discussion, failed mediation, failed mentorship, and bans. The banned editor had create a complex network of sockpuppets that work together to evade arbcom rulings. This editor, AlanBarnet (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) appears to be a carefully planned attempt. Either way, we'll need to continue to monitor this page and discussion. I will make edits that are entirely within policy to see if this user reverts blindly again. --Comaze01:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Behavioral evidence for evasion of ban/blocks (latest at top): I will then concentrate on blanket reverts as that was a tactic used by the banned editors
This revert was a blatant violation of wikipedia policy with misleading edit comment. The reasons given in following discussion was inadequate to justify the reversion. The changes removed by this revert were all properly discussed on the discussion page, entirely neutral, and based on paraphrases and summaries of peer reviewed psychological literature. Also removed pejorative words.
This revert adds bias back onto the page. Removes some style guidelines for headlines. Adds a spam link back onto the page.
Another blanket revert that removes NPOV-section tags, add some misleading statements, undoes update to cleanup tags, undoes cleanup of whitespace in headings as made by other wikipedian.
Revert my attempt to make sense and clean up the "ritual/techniques" section without discussion. This was followed by a series of edits that imported biased information written by banned editors which is what initial raised the flags that this user may be evading blocks. --Comaze09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Behavioral evidence (POV edits)
This editor reverts then adds POV edits mixed with useful edits. The follow import POV text written by banned editors (HeadleyDown, etc.)--Comaze11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I ran a CheckUser on Karcha (talk·contribs) on request, since this ostensibly new user has gotten right in the middle of edit wars and existing conflicts from the beginning, and is obviously not new. It is very likely that Karcha, who has been used for reverting to E104421's revision frequently, is the same user as him based on both the IP evidence, and the editing pattern. Dmcdevit·t01:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The sock has been blocked indef, and I've extended the block on the main (which was already blocked for a 3RR violation) to 6 days. Any admin is welcome to change that duration (longer or shorter) at their discretion. -- Steel02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've received an email from E104421 insisting that he's not a sockpuppeteer. He says he mainly edits from his office but sometimes from a guesthouse (which I assume is public). I'm not sure what people want to make of this. -- Steel02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Gimme an hour or so to investigate their edits further. From what I saw during the last days, I had the impression the contents and profile of their edits was sufficiently dissimilar that I wouldn't have supposed sockpuppetry. In particular, Karcha had some particular issues that didn't seem to be shared by E. Fut.Perf.☼08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Having looked into their contributions a bit more, let me express some doubts:
IP addresses/checkuser: In his e-mail, E declares that his main IP is a stable non-shared address at his workplace, while others he's used are from a public pool. Dmcdevit, could you perhaps check if that stable IP has also been shared by Karcha? (I'll forward you the IP from E's e-mail).
Temporal patterns: E and K have sometimes been editing simultaneously, in ways that only a very skilled sockpuppeteer could fake. For instance, 17 Nov, 10:16-10:17: 3 edits by K (, , ), one simultaneous edit on an entirely unrelated topic by E (), all of them substantial. 16 Nov, 21:34-21:42 two edits each by K (, ) and E (, ), alternating with only a minute in between.
Language: While both accounts are clearly not native speakers of English, K's English seems substantially poorer than E's.
Editing interests: K has a bee in his bonnet about removing historical Ottoman spellings of Turkish names. E does not seem to share this obsession. Examples:
Hate to butt in, but I just would like to point out that even new users have a right to jump into the middle of edit wars.. Hasn't the possibility that K is a friend of E, and E told K about Wiki and his contributions, and when K joined wiki, he automatically went to articles that his friend E told him about, but later found his own interests, crossed anyone's mind? I am not vouching for the guy by no means, but let's just not be so impulsive and not slap six-day bans on users before a detailed check had been done, as was the case for E104421. So let's not assume.. If u assume, u make.. :)) Baristarim10:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is too suspicious - even ifthey aren't the same person, the nature of behaviour (3 reverts, then the other account/person kicks in) is at least meatpuppetry. And a "detailed check" has been done - the most detailed possible - Checkuser. Daniel.Bryant10:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, tag-teaming revert wars are quite common on these articles, everybody seems to be doing it, and it's not really evidence of planned coordination. And about the reliability of the checkuser, I've only heard Dmcdevit saying they were using the same university's IP range. However, we are dealing with particular, stable workplace IPs, so I've asked Dmcdevit for clarification if he's also checked that. Fut.Perf.☼10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Daniel, what u say doesn't make sense: there are tag-team reverts happening by the masses by people who live in the farthest corners of this planet. I don't even know if E knows K, and the link that you gave doesn't mean anything, the fifth edit in question is 12 hours after the fourth one, how is that tag-team revert meatpuppetry?????? Such things happen in the space of tens of minutes. There is nothing wrong with a number of people who feel strongly about a subject to edit insistenly, without being part of a planned conspiracy. The six-day ban was given for sockpuppetry, and unless you have more evidence about meatpuppetry than a fourth and fifth edit spaced by a period of 12 hours, this ban should be annulled and these editors re-instated, and their revoked edits undone. The fact that their IPs are similar doesn't mean much, pls read my post below about that issue. Baristarim10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
People doing these edits believe in what they do, that's why they are doing those edits. We are not talking about vandalism here, the edits in question are legitimate edits. I also exchanged emails with E on this, he says that he goes to university in METU, a university in Ankara that has 50,000 students, and that teaches in English. So it is extremely probable that there are other wiki users in the same campus. And generally, big organizations like universities have computer centers that assure their Net liasion, and as such they dish out range of IPs. Your temporal check was particularly enlightening, nobody can simply switch back from a computer to another with 60 sec intervals. A six day ban is extremely unfair, since, even though not an administrator, I am not at all convinced by this evidence that they are the same person. I just think that it is not too fair to slap such a ban, without more concrete checks like the one you had done.. That's all.. Baristarim10:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: In addition to what I pointed out above, I have forwarded some further evidence to Dmcdevit which, I believe, establishes with sufficient certainty that E104421 and Karcha are in fact two different individuals. They just happened to be both at the same university (which is one of Turkey's largest) and shared certain opinions (which are likely to be shared by 90% of all Turks). Contrary to all appearances (which, I admit, were strong), Karcha seems not to be a sockpuppet of E. E has plausibly explained to me that he doesn't even know K.
Unless there's some strong objections here, and pending ultimate confirmation from further checkuser details, I'd propose lifting the indef block on Karcha and reduce both blocks to something appropriate to "normal" 3RR offenses. Fut.Perf.☼18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I oppose lifting the indef block on Karcha. In his short time here, he has been nothing but disruptive, with 90% of his edits being reverts, and the rest being personal attacks like "Kill Persianism". I don't see what good to the project we'd be doing if we unblocked him. He is essentially just another version of -Inanna-. I have no problem with lifting the block on E104421, however. Khoikhoi18:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Point taken - in fact, I have no doubt Karcha is pretty disruptive (just like many of the people he keeps warring against). Just a question of whether he's disruptive enough for an indef; I haven't watched him closely enough for that. But I'd like to cut back E's block to normal. Fut.Perf.☼18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I echo Khoikhoi. If you're confident they're different users then I have no problem with lifting the block on E<numbers>. Karcha has been edit warring quite a bit but I'm also unsure whether s/he's done enough for an indef. -- Steel18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Watch what you say about "other people" Lukas. Keep it cool. Indirect remarks like that by a new admin is terrible behavior and can be seen as personal attack. See WP:CIVIL. Khorshid18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose to lifting both blocks. Karcha has made personal attacks against me and Iranian editors and has called me "Khorshit". No way thats just wrong Khorshid18:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Even this other guy E112312 whatever his name is, look at his edit summaries. You trying to tell me that This is a productive user????? Khorshid18:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I Agree with Khoikhoi; Karcha should remain blocked, as he is an extremely disruptive editor. As for E104421, while I can't help feeling something fishy in what seems his coodination with Karcha, I think we should always in doubtful cases assume good faith, so the unblocking is OK for me to.--Aldux18:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Dmcdevit is the only admin here with the checkuser tool, his findings indicate that Karcha (talk·contribs) is indeed a sockpuppet of E104421 (talk·contribs). Since then, User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise has been campaigning/Wikilawyering for User:E104421, and now he's unilaterally overruled User:Dmcdevit's checkuser of User:E104421 by unblocking him, caiming that "sock-puppetry accusations have been disproven" when User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise is a new admin who has no access to checkuser, and hence is in no position to "prove" or "disprove" anything beyond doubt, and User:Dmcdevit's position has not changed. I find this whole thing very disturbing, especially considering User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise's history, under his previous username, and the fact that he unblocked Zaparojdik, a freind of E104421, and another problematic Turkish user only last week , or how he tried to justify Karcha addressing an Iranian user as "KhorSHIT". There is a trend here, and it isn't good. --ManiF23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"Problematic Turkish user".. Well great.. "Problematic user" would have sufficed since there are many "problematic" users of all nationalities. Please let's all take a chill pill.. Baristarim03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There is also this issue: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee#Comment_by_Fut.Perf.. Again for a new admin he is quick to criticise and single out others and speak on "admin authority". I can respect motivation but for a new admin he is too familiar with the "admin style" and technical parts and also as Mani says above its kind of weird for him to be so quick to step over Dmcdevits finding and make an unblock on a clearly troubling user. To me this all seems like playing games and WP should not be about playing games or backdoor politicalisms. Khorshid00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No backdoor what? Please stop attacking other admins because they don't agree with you. FPAS' check was thorough and in good faith. Please be more respectful. In any case, how is this any relevant? FPAS's comments in an RfC in a totally different issue has nothing to do with the case at hand. And I don't understand your beef with FPAS either, just because he made his own investigation, that doesn't justify such ad hominim attacks. Gees, what the hell is going on? Baristarim03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised, to say the least, to see that E104221 had already been unblocked. (Especially since we exchanged emails afterwards still discussing this without Future Perfect at Sunrise telling me he'd already unblocked.) The "further evidence" he sent me was not very strong, and he shouldn't have unblocked over it, without consensus. Keep in mind tha "CheckUSer is not a magic pixie dust" works both ways: seemingly vague CheckUser results are not proof that two users aren't the same person, especially when the behavior is proof in itself, and the CheckUSer only serves to confirm it. As I replied in email, Many of FPAS' objections seem oversimplification: remember that both were on many common shared IPs. The behavior is just too coincidental to be believable: hardly ever do two users on the same IP range, much less the same university, edit the same articles at the same time. But editing the same articles at the same time, both involved in the same dispute, reverting to each other, and doing it in such a way that each avoids 3RR by the other's reverts? I think we may be grasping at straws here trying to find a way to demonstrate their distinct, when the opposite is much more obvious. Please remove blocks without consensus in the future. I've reblocked E104221 since the sockpuppetry was in no way "disproven". Dmcdevit·t21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, they can be two friends in the same university. Did that cross your mind DMC? And how do you know how this university dishes out its IP addresses? avoiding 3RR blocks by tag-team reverting is done by people who lives tens of thousands of kilometres away, are we going to block all of them too? And besides there are many software tools and web-sites out there to escape such IP identification. This guy goes to Middle Eastern Technicla University in Ankara, the best technical university in Turkey, so I guess he would have been much smarter if he wanted to engage in sockpuppetry instead of just jumping into the computer next to him and typing away. There is no question of coincidence. So you are basically saying that I have no right to tell a friend at office or university "hey, why don't you check out wiki, these are some of the articles that i have been involved in"? I don't know that guy, and I don't know how anything happenned, but he told me that he doesn't even know Karcha. And escape 3RR in a period of 14 hours? You gotta be joking. In the case that got E suspended in the first place, there is a period of 14 hours between the fourth and fifth revert, how is that such a blatant case of tag-team reverting? Baristarim21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I don't think that calling another user "Khorshit" are the grounds for an indef. Bans should increase with every other offence. First give him smaller bans, and see what he will make of it. Maybe he continued being "disruptive" since nobody warned him that he could get banned for doing so. And he continued since he never got banned. Baristarim21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Holocaust Research Team
Normally I know what to do when a new user posts promotion across a number of articles and pages. But not this time. is potentially a very sensitive cleanup, even though it doesn't need administrator privilege. And so I thought maybe I should bring it here. (Let me know if this was wrong). Notinasnaid17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, not so hesitant - I've warned and am reverting. Anyway, keep an eye out for more of this in Holocaust-related articles. FreplySpang20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
This continues, and appears to be a confirmation (in case one were needed) that the website owner/operator is adding the links. Which is a simple and clear violation of WP:EL, perhaps? Notinasnaid21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Mhm. Thanks for the background info, WAS 4.250. It certainly explains why so many of the edits were replacing links to deathcamps.org. FreplySpang23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I blocked them for 24 hours last night for these offences, and have tried to explain the problem in email, though I'm not certain if they'll change, as they seem to think they were correct (that's the impression I get). Martinp2307:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd say at least 48 hours, as it's the second time he's been blocked this month for the same thing. However, Tawker already blocked him for 24 hours... Titoxd02:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Question about Replacing page with: type vandalism - Just a question ?
I haven't found that type of vandalism in my first nine months since i've started to edit at Misplaced Pages. But over the past two days, i've been concern about a new trend of vandalism. There have been tons of IP's along with registered users doing vandalism by using the edit summary : Replacing page with XXXX (which is generally non sense). I've first spotted in the San Francisco, California article when it was a featured page. Then multiple pages such as Ségolène Royal, Colombia, Ottawa Senators and many many more were attacked by the same method. Even my own User Page got attacked today.
I'm wondering if those types of vandalism are coming the same group or a same user using multiple suckpuppets and IP's or it. Or it's just a new option I haven't notice? Thanks!--JForget03:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a new feature of MediaWiki. If someone doesn't use an edit summary and they blank or almost blank a page, it's smart enough to put that as the summary. There is no massive attack of vandals. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks a lot for that! I was wondering about the suddent apparence of that especially when User:64.235.216.166 did that to my page. But it certainly make vandalism removal a bit easier for us. Thanks!--JForget03:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Crzrussian
I recently was checking new pages, and I then received a message from Crzrussian. It was all about not biting newbies, and I was trying to be nice while still doing the right thing. So I wrote him back and said talk about biting the newbies, as I haven't had alot of time here myself. Then I got a message from an anonymous user telling me that crz has been causing alot of problems and "throwing his weight around like he owns the place". I'm asking now, to review what Crzrussian has been doing and deal with him or look into the matter deeper as you feel necessary. Not taking any sides here, just making a suggestion. Please read the respective comments on my talk page, and thanks so much. Ard004:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Based on the message you received , looks like CrzRussian's got a stalker. Probably the same banned user who complained about him here . Looks to be from the same ISP. Fan-196704:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ardo, welcome to Misplaced Pages in case no one's said that before. I wouldn't worry too much about the last person who posted on your homepage. He seems to be involved in a dispute with Crzrussian that you don't have anything to do with. As for the note you got from Crzrussian, I think he is right that you are probably being a little bit too quick to put deletion tags on bios of potentially notable people. You might want to wait a couple of days after an article is created before tagging it, for example, in case the original author is planning on expanding it, and speedy tags should only be used on bios of people who are definitely not notable. I might not have said what Crzrussian said in exactly the same words he used, but he does have a point, and I'm sure you'll bear it in mind.
In hopping over to your userpage and talkpage as you requested, I noticed that you have a lot of information about your "real world" self on your userpage. There has been a lot of discussion about whether it's a good idea for younger editors to be revealing too much identifying information. Especially if you're going to be active in vandal-fighting and proposing articles for deletion, you might not want some jerk who gets annoyed with you to be able to see that information. I say that not because I want to breed paranoia here, but it's a concern that's been expressed from time to time and you might want to delete the information like your real name and school from the page. Newyorkbrad04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Angry Bahraini again
Um, the angry Bahraini has come back as User:89.148.41.227 and is reverting everything I edit. Please block THIS IP as well. Does this guy work at the ISP, so that he can evade blocks at will? Zora04:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Do not need to work on ISP. Usually many ISP have big pool of IP address (many class C or few Class B address). Hence each time when you reconnect to them you might end up having differnt IP address thanks to DHCP (espacially when using dialup connections). Furthermore, in places like Lahore, Pakistan you can buy a one Euro card of any ISP use it for few hours and next time can get different card of differnt ISP. Remember we had there dozens of ISPs. So changing IP address is very easy. Just for your information and also I have never done that myself :) (that guy is not from Pakistan too but it was an example country) .... --- ALM11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
problem at Abraham Lincoln
One editor named Stevewk has a problem with the major article on Abraham Lincoln. He says the article is too long and proposes to remove all the information on the American Civil War in order to shorten it. The other editors unanimously and strongly disagree with his insistence first that the information (over half the article) be blanked, and then that it be moved somewhere else. Warnings seem not to help, as he goes back again and again. Probably 3R is involved, and more serious anti-Wiki behavior as well. Rjensen06:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have pointed the user at Misplaced Pages:Summary style, which discourages this kind of wholesale moving of content without leaving a summary in place. The cut-down version of the article was very non-optimal and didn't even mention the Emancipation Proclamation outside the lead : its excessive length is a minor fault compared to that. Morwen - Talk11:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
DRV on Cleveland Steamer
Cleveland Steamer recently went through it's 6th AfD (here) instigated only two weeks after the last one. The response was 'keep', and in all previous AfDs it has either been Keep or No Consensus. It was brought to Deletion Review here (where the nominator essentially tried another AfD, pretty much in the wrong place) and consensus was building to endorse closure when User:Improv deleted it out-of-hand. He's entitled to his opinion on the matter, but he can't ignore process (which involved support from other admins to keep) and delete it like that. I would welcome opinions on the conduct of the decision (not so much on the content of the page). Trebor22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't process meant to help improve the encyclopaedia? I've got nothing against debate on the merits of the page, just against admins making decisions unilaterally. The article has been restored (the talk page hasn't) now. Trebor22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Process (i.e. the rule of law) is the only thing that keeps wikipedia from descending into a Hobbesian state of eternal wheel warring. An admin that shits all over process - whatever the Cleveland Steamer of the moment - thereby demonstrating pure disdain for fellow users who are participating in good faith in the process, should not be an administrator. An administrator who becomes convinced that his judgement is more worthy than the collective contribution and thinking of hundreds of other users no longer has the self control to act as an administrator. This event was a good example of why all admins should be open to recall. --JJay23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Now now, I don't think we should be recalling Improv because of this. He's a good admin and deserves to keep those responsibilities. Does he make bad decisions now and then? Sure, but so does everyone. A bad decision once-in-a-while doesn't mean we should take away a person's admin duties. Here, just like with the cookie fiasco, I believe he was acting in good faith. He might have made bad decisions, but he was certainly editing in good faith. - Lex20:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, in the real world you don't get too many shots at fiascos before you are ousted. Just ask Patricia Dunn, Mark Foley or Nick Leeson. In the real world, the issue is competence, good judgement and the impact of decisions, not good or bad faith. This is not this administrator's first fiasco. Since in his remarks below, he indicates strong opinions on who should and should not be an administrator, let him show good faith by adding his name to Category:Administrators open to recall --JJay20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You might note that a website encyclopedia is quite far from the state of nature, and that Hobbes was a bit mad. —Centrx→talk • 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about the philosopher or the stuffed tiger? The Misplaced Pages article lacks any details about Thomas Hobbes' mental health. --- llywrch17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Consensus can't override foundation issues. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a slang dictionary. This should have been left deleted. Friday(talk)23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And we've been through all those issues ad nauseum, and they have not gained a lick of traction. At best, they don't violate any "foundation issues," at worst it's a judgement call - which is why consensus should rule the day. --badlydrawnjefftalk23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You cannot assert that it overrides foundation issues, it is not clear-cut. If it was, there would not have been nearly so much debate. It was an issue with experienced editors arguing coherently for both sides, and in these cases consensus is the only way you should decide it. It is not up to the discretion of a single admin. Trebor23:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I must say, though Improv might have broken process, that seeing it go would have been very good riddance. To give my nasty opinion, it's a shame that humanity would even think of such an awful deed, let alone practice it and glorify it with an article. One thing Misplaced Pages does not need for publicity is Jon Stewart standing on comedy central and quoting directly from this article. Granted, I can't support this with rule (hence the reason I didn't vote in the last afd), but wow, this is pretty low. -Patstuart03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It isn't at all clear to me that this should have been deleted. The matter is sourced at this point and I see no obvious foundation issue. As for Jon Stewart, I think Misplaced Pages can survive ribbing from Comedians. I could very well see someone see this as a reason to get rid of BDSM or some other sexual article that offends people's sensibility. Personally, I find this topic disgusting and revolting to the point where I almost have to work to suppress my gag reflex. However, none of that is a reason for deletion and is certainly not a reason for an out of process deletion.JoshuaZ03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree completely with JoshuaZ and JJay above. I don't see "Does Jon Stewart find this article amusing? (YES/NO)" on our list of inclusion criteria. A) I don't understand why this is a Foundation issue; B) It is inherently outrageous and anti-wiki for an admin to blatantly overide consensus; C) It is deeply offensive (far more offensive than the article itself) that anyone should seek to censor the encyclopaedia because they don't like the information it contains- see e.g. this, and many similar, for some examples of how and why this is done. 6 AfDs is enough. Badgerpatrol04:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is not that people don't like it, but that the article consists of a dictionary definition, some original research, and "pop culture references" (aka cruft). There is nothing encyclopaedic about this article. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say to censor it, I said it would be good riddance if someone did. But, in any case, my personal opinion (not Misplaced Pages policy, so I can't ask for it to be enforced), is that sometimes we take free speech, which is supposed to be a means, and make it into an end. Free speech is supposed to help people become more informed for a useful purpose (a means), help improve something (a means), etc.; becoming offended at the lack of free speech (an end) does not fit into this category. It's proper to become offended at the lack of free speech where it's used repressively, or in order to hurt content. Do you see my point about free speech being a means, not an end (I'm not sure if I'm communicating it well). Even Misplaced Pages says Misplaced Pages is NOT anarchy, meant to test the limits of free speech. Again, I don't think it's policy, so I have no right to enforce it or call for its enforcement; just my opinion, as we all have opinions. -Patstuart04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
For reference, my deletion had nothing to do with finding the subject disgusting or anything of that sort. I am libertine when it comes to such things. I deleted it solely because it was very clearly a dictionary definition. Consensus is not about voting, it's about discussion, and good arguments. This is an exceptionally clear case of when loud users who don't understand our project goals lead a bunch of fans away from them, ignoring everything our project is about and confusing consensus with democracy. I don't intend to redo my deletion (although I would encourage other admins to do so) because I don't wheel war, but I stand by it entirely. Wiktionary and Misplaced Pages are not the same project, and process is not sacred. People who would never go against a "vote", no matter how ill-informed and ill-conducted, even when it stands in the way of project goals, are people who should probably never be either closing discussions, nor should they be administrators. --Improv07:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
So although you have no intention of engaging in a wheel war personally, you encourage other admins to do so? Take a bow my friend. RFerreira07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I encourage other admins to delete it, not to wheel war. This is how we reconcile project goals, IAR, and a desire not to wheel. As you say, I shall take a bow. *bow* :) --Improv07:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
But the way you deleted it implied it was something you would have happily deleted on sight, seeing as you deleted it in the midst of a DRV (which is about process, not content), which was endorsing the previous decision anyway. If it is so "exceptionally clear", how come admins support both sides? Should the admins who closed the 6 AfDs on the article all step down? I would say that people who will happily delete something, out-of-process, against consensus from experienced editors and admins, because of their personal opinion of the arguments shouldn't be an admin either. Trebor07:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Look at the AfD. Half of them don't even address the article, merely saying "abuse of AfD" or something, and are invalid on their face because they ignore the question of if the article should be deleted. None of the other arguments adequately deal with the fact that a definition and a few references that the term is indeed used does not make it anything more than a dictionary definition. Neither consensus nor AfD consist of taking votes. I am not proposing that anyone step down, merely that people had mistaken ideas about what AfD is about. We all make mistakes, and we all come to understand the project and its goals better as time goes on - demanding "justice" for an inadequately thought-out position would be a bad idea. I should note that what actually happens always comes down to judgement, whether from one person or from some combination of people - there is no shame in "personal opinion/judgement". --Improv07:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason they don't address the article is because there were five previous AfDs. The issue had been discussed at length and every time no consensus formed to delete. And no, you didn't ask anyone to step down, but you did say they shouldn't be administrators (and the only way for that to happen is via voluntary desysopping or arbitration). Of course the issue comes down to judgement, but when many users have the same opinion on something it is called consensus. Your opinion is not worth more than anyone else's, and where there's disagreement you shouldn't take action on it alone. Trebor16:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, they could come to understand what's needed to keep the project working. I'm not a big fan of removing admin bits from people - if it becomes too common, then the project will fall to rabid populism and we'll see even more use of the resources of the project by people doing unrelated things. I'm not saying I don't believe in consensus, but I have a very different understanding/definition of it than yours, and to whatever extent yours means "let people vote and give them whatever they vote on", I think that's a recipe for killing Misplaced Pages. Long-term users should be educating less long-term users, and having discussions on where the project is going and how to interpret/apply policy. This is very different than voting, and it's what's needed to keep the project healthy. Previous AfDs don't give one a blank checque to not contribute to the current one. AfD is about judgement, not voting, and people pretending that they're voting while not contributing to the discussion should be ignored. The case is clear, most of the people aiming to keep are people who have never shown a significant understanding of policy (newbies), and previous people who closed the AfDs were not doing their job (as is anyone who goes by numbers rather than argument). --Improv19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
My opinion isn't so much "let people vote and give them whatever they vote on", but I don't think that this applies in this case. You say previous AfD closers weren't doing their job because they went by numbers, not arguments, but in this case I don't believe that applies. Do you honestly think that the decision on this debate was clear-cut, that it should be deleted beyond a doubt? Because that means there are a lot of experienced editors and administrators who are seriously misunderstanding policy, which is not encouraging for the project as a whole. I think this is a judgement call. Trebor21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You have it exactly. I believe that the decision was clear-cut, and that the project as a whole is not in a good state. What we need, I think, is a very hard push against voting and towards discussion with a strong reliance on project goals. As a thought experiment -- what would need to change about the article to make it a dictionary definition? --Improv21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a great deal, I admit, but I think it has the potential for expansion beyond that (plus I generally think it is a useful article on a topic which won't be covered in a dictionary). Can I ask you what you think of Dirty Sanchez, Teabagging and Donkey punch? Do you think they should be deleted? And if so, should you/would you delete them on sight as in Cleveland Steamer? To be honest, my concern is not so much about the merits of this specific article but the deleting of it in such an out-of-process way. You essentially speedily deleted it based on a dicdef argument, which is specifically listed as a non-criteria on WP:CSD. Under what grounds did you think that was justified? Trebor22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't looked at them, but if they're nothing more than a dicdef, then I'd delete them on sight if it became clear that Wiktionary did not want them. Very few "processes" on Misplaced Pages are hard rules - they're guidelines that, as per WP:IAR, are ignored when they lead to problem results. That naturally causes trouble/conflict when people notice (and in situations like this, people are bound to), but when people arn't so caught up in rules that they lose sight of the project, sometimes the right thing happens despite the rules and the people who are sticklers for them. Process is not sacred here, and out-of-process is not always a mark of something bad happening. I felt it was justified based on the content, the fact that we have a project specifically for that stuff, and that having talked with some representative folk for that project, they don't want it there either. Misplaced Pages is not a "rule of law" type community. It's a bit more cowboy, and involves judgement, give and take, a certain amount of oligarchy, and a lot of messiness. People who attempt to simplify it *into* rule of law generally find their stay here disappointing. --Improv00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree very much with your last 2 sentences, and I think I now understand your reasoning behind your action. The problem with WP:IAR, however, is that it can be invoked in either direction (and if I recall correctly, someone used it as an argument in one of the AfDs). You could say delete it on sight per IAR, because it violates policy. I could say keep per IAR (because it's useful and not actually gonna be found in a dictionary), and don't delete on sight because that violates policy. The result? A mess. I don't think you're going to change your mind and say it's useful and should be kept anymore than I'm going to say it should be deleted - we both have our views. I would merely ask you take more care over using IAR on an obviously contentious issue (and, I suppose, state explicitly that you're using it). Trebor01:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The big problem with IAR is that it might encourage people to ignore all rules! The end result? Either a) complete chaos (likely) or b) domination of the project by an elite "superclass" of users (i.e. admins) who, despite making up, what- 0.01% - or less- of the project, can take action in spite of clear consensus. Depressingly, I often see comments by certain admins that come very close to actively agitating for the latter scenario. This article has been nominated for deletion 6 times, survived every time, and yet I do not hear trumpets sounding or the walls of Wiki-Jericho crumbling. Is there any scenario that would justify ignoring consensus in such a blatant fashion. By the same token, I'm not necessarily arguing that the admin concerned was acting in bad faith- but it was, IMHO, a bad, bad call. Badgerpatrol19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it means don't follow a rule that will result in the wrong outcome. Ignoring people who want the wrong outcome may be a side effect. In fact, that's a desired side effect. — Saxifrage✎20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
But then you have to decide which is the "wrong" outcome. Which in a contentious issue is not agreed on. So how do you decide which is wrong? By looking at the arguments made by the people. Which you can then choose to ignore...it's a circular argument. Trebor21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I also speedy-deleted an article the kid created with basically the same information, and told him on his talk page to refrain from posting personal information about himself. -- Jim Douglas(contribs)05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, of course, that there isn't a "WP:CHILD policy" -- it's a proposal under discussion, without consensus. Not saying it's a bad idea to remove this stuff from Misplaced Pages, but you're doing it on your own, not as a matter of policy. --FOo05:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. But whether it's an official policy, a proposal, or just simple common sense, an 11-year-old child shouldn't be posting his full name, city of residence, school name, names of several friends, and other personal information, including a description of his house. -- Jim Douglas(contribs)06:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder: Several of these "I'm very young, here's my photo and personal information" accounts cropped up recently that turned out to all be from the same IP. One theory is that someone was either doing basic trolling or looking for a perverted-justice style incident. Now back to our regularly scheduakled programming. - 152.91.9.14405:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
However, we should also not be WP:BITEing newbies, and comments such as "We cannot allow you to post personal information about yourself" could have been worded a bit more tactfully. Perhaps we should create a template for this matter. (Radiant) 10:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, that's right. Make a template so pedophiles can just search for all the pages the template is used on to find young kids easily. That's not a good idea folks. Neither is posting the information here, where now in the archives for all time, people will know how old that user is. Be smart about this. Find an admin and contact them priavtely to get info removed. pschemp | talk00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so, but I still think the user posting said information should be told directly what happened (The deletion) and why to prevent them recreating the content because it disappeared without a trace and (for them) for no obvious reason. 68.39.174.23800:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
User:NazireneMystic removal of npa warnings and sockpuppet
NazireneMystic has removed two npa3 warnings I placed on his user page . Please restore them. User subsequently received an admin warning and a temporary block, see warning.
I see your Wikipedianlawyering never stops. It was clearly pointed out on the
Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard in this following DIFF that your prior warnings were unfounded . As far as Im conserned unfounded warnings are vandalism to my talk page.
As no warning (other than some unnecessary ones from Oyidah at an earlier date) were issued, I've warned NazireneMystic for this edit, which was unacceptable. I would hope that unless he/she continues making edits of this kind, the matter is now closed. Proto::type15:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Most reasonable people would consider being called deceitful, ignorant, diabolical, and a meatpuppet to be personal attacks on their character. In this diff this user admits to calling me these things and argues they are not personal attacks because they are all true. A continuation of this behavior is why this user was warned and blocked. Ovadyah06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Admins, See what I mean? After two admins have already read that post and after looking things over desided it was not a personal attack this editor keeps proving my points through his actions.
Just defending myself becomes a personal attack in his eyes. Read the warning and block section of my talk page and you will see the reason given for both. Its worth noting the warning and block resulted from the same edit,at least according to the admins that posted them, maybe not in the mind of my accuserNazireneMystic18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as your unfounded report of socketpuppetry please read up on the socketpuppetry artical and maybe your unfounded personal attacks of me would stop. It is clear the account was created after I forgot my password to the Nazirene account and in my first edits using it I ID'ed myself as NazireneMystic. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=SpiritualEbionite Hardly a socketpuppet.
It should be noted this editor has already tried to claim on the Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard I evaded a block by the use of this account when it is clear from its contributions page it was not even used during that timeframe. So now the claim that I moved my tlak page because I anticipated a block? what evidence do you have ? I moved my tlak page because of past vandalism to it by you as can be seen in your frivolous warnings and wiki lawyering tactics and ongoing reports of things that do not exist. Please stop throwing invented crap up on the wall hoping something will stick.
Again, I beg to differ. The user page was copied over to evade an expected block.
09:17, 14 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:SpiritualEbionite (saving endangered info) (top)
The other account hasn't been used since 11 November and the move occurred before I administered the block. Suggest you follow-up with a suspected sockpuppet report. Post again here if problems resume. Durova01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes he/she did sugest a suspected socket puppet report after this editor made false claims I evaded a block. This editor still seems to be fixated on this even with evidence given from Durval in the above post that I did not evade a block and both contribution pages that during the block I did not edit. This is the hostile stance I have faced from him since I attemped to NPOV an artical he has strong religous and or political interest over and has lead to all the tactics shown in my talk page. Some of his deception I exposed that is on the talk page was mearly a defense from acusations against Allan Crownshaw in the edit were you called him my leader and tried to make it seem that Phillps person is a mear secetary as can be seen in the archived section or my talkpage. Just constantly facing his allegations becomes a personal attack to him. This editor has even ran off one of the scholars mentioned in the artical as a source and he is only after me because I stand up to this garbage he postNazireneMystic18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Admins, please do not say this is not the place to resolve this dispute, so far all Ihave seen from the RFC TO peerreview to deletion hearings is this editor act as a meat puppet and his POVshoping among other tactics. I only waht to present evidence that this is just another unfounded complaintNazireneMystic00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. This user constantly trolls my contribution logs, and this sort of thing happens wherever I post. My purpose was not to complain or dispute anything. Please refer to my initial request: 1) to restore npa3 warnings placed on the users page. These were scanned by a bot, and should be removed by an admin if deemed inappropriate, not the user himself. 2) PA Noticeboard suggested I report duplicated userpage as a possible sockpuppet. Ovadyah13:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages, so no can do there I'm afraid.
The sock allegations have already been given and discarded above (the other account hasn't been used to evade the block) yandman13:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Tourette's Guy has been AfD'd twice, but entries about the website are often made to Tourette syndrome. The latest issue is a post to Talk:Tourette syndrome by Turrets Guy (talk·contribs). I don't know if the user name or user page content is OK given the AfD, and if the talk page entries should be removed as spam/advertising. The people who follow and support that website are aggressive and coordinated, so I'm not inclined towards taking any action myself, and not sure if any action is even appropriate to the case. There are also constant posts of this nature on various pages. Thanks for any advice and help, Sandy (Talk) 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I appreciate JzG's help. If they continue to troll the TS article or talk page, I don't want to delete the entries myself, as I've seen other people become targets of the followers of that site. Sandy (Talk) 13:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm mediating a debate which has become somewhat overpopulated by sock puppets. (checkuser request with it's results). The following users are confirmed to be the same individual:
I'm not sure what course of action should be taken, but I figured an admin over here might be able to give me some idea! The ongoing mediation can be found here. From my perspective, I'd be happy so long as the above user doesn't saturate my case with comments under multiple accounts. Thanks for the help. →Bobby←15:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose striking out all the socks from "interested parties"/"breakdown" except for Shortcut.road, and then retagging all his comments made under different socks with his name. I've got some free time right now, so I'm willing to do it if you want. yandman16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That works for me. Feel free to leave a note on the mediation to let the other users (of whom there are now a mere 3) what's happening. →Bobby←16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If you have a minute, could you take a look and see whether this version of the article is substantially identical to versions that had been speedied in the past? Thanks! -Hit bull, win steak17:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Need someone will rollback button to deal with linkspammer
User:125.23.21.153 has been linkspamming various Bollywood-related pages. I don't have the rollback button ... could someone please roll back his edits? (I can't take this to AIV, since he's only just been warned.). Zora19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
with respect for your swift action - that user comes on every few weeks to a month, vandalises a series of pages, then vanishes again for another few weeks. A 24 hour time-out will have zero effect. raining girl19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
True but my block was the second one after Bishonen's block which was a 3h block. It would be harsh if i'd have given the vandal more than that. If he returns, it would be longer for sure. -- Szvest Ω 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
it is a school, but as I pointed out, the vandalism has recurrent themes (Dan was here, Dan is best) that indicates it is the same person who is using it to vandalise. raining girl23:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
True, it's a school IP, but 100% of the contributions, over several months, are vandalous. It's also likely that it's not the entire network, or there would be more contributions; just a single computer (or set of computers). -Patstuart23:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst responding to an WP:OTRS compaint, my attention was drawn to the userpage of Budo (talk·contribs). This seemed to me to contain possible libels and certainly to violate WP:USER. I have deleted the page . As this is an unusual action, I am reporting it here for review.--Doc22:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello all, you still haven't found many of the pages which have been defaced. I will continue to do so until some sort of compromise is reached in relation to administration of Internode_Systems. Lots of proxies to go and plenty more random pages to edit. Love, Chuq/Longhair Vandal aka Guy with a grudge. :P 66.45.235.13206:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
On speedy patrol, I came across RuneScape Cheats, which seemed to contain detailed how-to advice on how to hack into other players' passwords/accounts on RuneScape. As this might be potentially dangerous information that people could use to harm each other, I've speedied under IAR. Feel free to overturn if you think I overreacted. Wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell on AfD, of course. Fut.Perf.☼02:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Heheh, this will teach me doing speedy patrol late at night when I'm sleepless - I didn't even read it carefully enough to realise it was a scam. Maybe if I had, I would have left it there? After all, anybody who falls for it will only get what they deserve... ;-) Fut.Perf.☼08:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And, as a followup: I sent in some clearly false information. Got the following reply:
The Accont info u sent us was inviled.
plz resend us the info it must be right.
Not many people use this to recover thir account any
more.
Plz sent us your usser name not your real name.
And send us a different users name and pass so we can
look that up in our info and we will send u the other
pass for your other account.
If this other accont info is right we will send u the
Carnildo, you shouldn't be sending inviled Acconts to these helpful people. You should be sending links to spelling resources. Otherwise, how can u b shure you're interpreting their response accurately? KillerChihuahua10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I made the comment because Courtney is indeffed with sockpuppets, and it's an odd topic to have been brought up again by a different editor. Anchoress03:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm seeming suspicious, but it's just an odd coincidence. You've got a provocative username, you claim to be 14, and your first edit was to create an article on a fringey topic brought up recently by a banned editor. Not harshing your buzz, I'm not an admin and I am not trying to razz you or whatever. It just seemed a bit peculiar. Consider me 100% supportive of your constructive edits to WP, and if the speedy was illegitimate, I hope it's resolved. Anchoress04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It was deleted as "nonsense", which means that the editor who tagged it, and the admin who looked at it, couldn't figure out what it was about. I suggest, if you recreate the article, trying to be more coherent and using the "show preview" button - I apologize if that wasn't the case. -Patstuart03:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Would someone mind checking the contributions for Whotookthatguy? I have seen his edit summaries and he keeps placing swear words in edit summaries. He did it here, here, and here, using "shit" in each of them, but some of you might think these are considered personal attacks. Could someone mind talking tho this user about using profanity in edit summaries? I'm quite sure there's a policy about pervasive edit summaries around here somewhere... --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams14:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Afaik there are no policies against such words in edit summaries. You might ask him to change his tone, but this doesn't seem to require admin intervention. Aecis15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Using the word 'shit' in an edit summary is not offensive in itself. Misplaced Pages's not censored. However, some of the uses are not particularly civil. To see which ones are incivil (see WP:CIVIL), just replace the word 'shit' with the word 'garbage' - does it still seem unnecessarily blunt or terse? Then it's incivil. If it's just because he's used the word 'shit', then those warnings are not fair. Proto::type15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I've brought this topic up before and I think it bears repeating- please people let's excercise some common sense. Misplaced Pages not being censored for minors means we have articles like clitoris and penis with pictures. This doesn't mean we should use profanity when it doesn't advance the encyclopedia. All that does is drive more people away from the project and make fewer parents and teachers willing to have their kids use Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, edit summaries are one of the places that people are most likely to read and because of the GFDL will under most circumstances be there indefinitely and are not even easily refactorable like talk pages. Our goal always should be what will help the project most and we should use language accordingly. JoshuaZ15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well said Joshua!!! It's about common sense Proto. Why not use something else instead of "shit"? The problem is that when the user in question used that word in the edit summary, he/she was refering to something he/she didn't like and wanted it removed. So it is about respecting other contributors and not censorship. I believe this section explains a bit what i am talking about. -- Szvest Ω 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that you decided to make a comment and then immediately post this on AIV. Nope, let's not look at his contributions, or the fact that the comments were on things that were completely asinine, let's get some administrative intervention. Common sense tells me that 3 instances across several months do not a high-level problem make. --Elaragirl20:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, it is about common sense. Using the phrase 'no shit' is perhaps a bit sarcastic, and maybe not the most suitable phrase. Come on, though - it's not 'really abusive'. Kinda reaching there, the guy (assuming it's a guy) has done nothing particularly wrong. Of course, it's not ideal, and avoiding the use of 'shit' would be preferred. Finding, as Elara says, just three, extremely mild uses of 'shit' in edit summaries across months of good edits is not a problem, at all. Flipping heck. Proto::type09:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I was using this article for a class presentation. Now when I click on the above link - all the previous information is gone. Can you bring it back? Can you protect the page? I was relying on the information for my class presentation. I really need this information back.--75.44.41.13600:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The information is present at the moment; however, because pages are likely to change over time, I would advise you to look at a link on the left of your screen under the toolbar that says "permanent link". The links is here, btw. -Patstuart00:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This user is a persistant vandal: however, he/she attends the school that I do, and this is the school's IP address: as such, if it is banned, I will probably be autoblocked as well. Nonetheless, I believe that this user should be banned indefinately, as nearly EVERY SINGLE EDIT, despite COUNTLESS WARNINGS, has been vandalism of one sort or another. Please do not block me too, aside from one sandbox edit (at the beginning) I have been relatively good. Thank you.
We cannot block an IP indefinitely (especially when it's a school IP). With the new software you could probably continue editing throughout a block, though. Please report their activities to the school's system administrator so they can take action. - Mgm|12:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Some moron messed with the title for the bust of Homer on this page. It has "ass hole" put in as if it were a middle name. I'm new here so I'm not sure how to fix it but I'll look around.
I know it's usually against procedure, but something has to be done in the short term about the levels of vandalism to it and several related articles and talk pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I emailed myspace for you here: . You should do the same. They will take the profile down and hopefully ban the user. DVD+ R/W04:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No, they probably will wipe the page; they have to worry about getting sued as much as we do. They may not ban the user, though. Patstuart04:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of sending off a lengthy e-mail as well. I think the content will be removed soon enough. I'm sure that Uncle Mart will learn soon enough that it's a decidedly bad idea to screw around with lawyers. -- Samir धर्म06:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I blocked the ranges it appears, based on the long-term abuse page, he always comes from, for 24 hours. Someone should contact his ISP and get them to disconnect him, as it appears he has been using the same ISP for months. —Centrx→talk • 10:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked Yrgh for 24 hours for disruption. He's been going around removing links to soapcentral.com from soap opera-related articles. He continued to do so after being asked to stop and explain his edits, and repeatedly blanked his Talk page. If anyone else thinks this was premature or unjustified or whatever, please feel welcome to undo my block. --Slowking Man10:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I just semi-protected Rory Fitzpatrick. I figured I would post about here, since it isn't may not appear justified at first glance. The basic story is that a message forum wants to nominate Fitzpatrick to the NHL all-star game as a joke. They have set up a website and are discussing various ways of promoting it, including adding the information to Misplaced Pages (see their thread about it here: ). I have removed the unverifiable information a couple of times and just semi-protected it. If another admin feels I was out of line, feel free to unprotect it. Otherwise, I'll unprotect it in a few days. -- JamesTeterenko04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have it on my watchlist. My comment in his talk page has made it back to HFboards with general acceptance that a major media outlet has to report this first. Most users accepted this (oddly apparently not realizing that I was posting in that very thread all the way through), but, of course, a couple wish to add the website anyway. FWIW, I believe these are good faith edits rather than deliberate vandalism, and given how many people (and how many forums) are on board, I am surprised that the level of incidents has been this low. Resolute23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
After a discussion on my talk page, I've decide to unprotect Fys's talk page and give him one last chance. It's easier than arguing with him. --Tango16:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The block and protecting his talk page are both completely pointless, and could be construed as stupidity. What are either supposed to achieve, all they have done is proved that newly qualified admins should not be allowed the block buttons. Giano16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't. I just mean that the block log was the reason for your statement, but you did give any reasoning for it. Say why it was stupidity, preferrably not using that language, if you would like to contribute to the discussion. Dmcdevit·t16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please take the time to read what is written "could be construed as stupidity" if you want to analyse that, it could be construed because it was obviously the wrong decision, personally I tend to concur with Mackensen below - it was a "disgrace" Giano16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I will leave it to others to discuss the etiquette of the WP:AN/3RR page and the merits of the initial three-hour block, or for that matter of an 8-fold increase in the length of a block based on the protest of the original block. I will note, however, that there appear to be differing views as to when it is appropriate to protect a blocked user's talk page, a step that cuts off all possibility of on-Wiki communication. My understanding had been that this step was considered drastic and was reserved for situations where the page is degenerating into true personal abuse, revelation of private information, or the like. More recently, however, I have seen page protection invoked based on allegedly "disrespectful" responses to a block or replacing one unblock request with another. It might be appropriate to develop a broader consensus on this issue. Newyorkbrad16:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A general discussion on the issue is probably a good idea. I went on the logic that you're entitled to one appeal (the unblock template clearly says not to try again), so once you've had that appeal, you have no need to edit your talk page, and it's just a waste of admin's time to let you keep going. Combining an extended block with protecting the page (as I did) is questionable, I think it's right, which is why I did it, but I can see good reasons not to, which is why I undid it again. --Tango16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like Fys may of gotten a bit ahead of him self.. but since when did being interested in 'helping' become part of the blocking policy? Fys actions don't seem overly disruptive, I concur with Brad above about the protection of his talk page. MatthewFenton (talk16:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The disruptive nature was because he "helpfulness" looked like an admin making a decision (). I don't see a problem with non-admins offering opinions, but stating "no block" is disruptive. --Tango16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Be serious here.. this is an encyclopaedia.. not a court room.. its hardly disruptive to the encyclopaedia, a warning would of surely sufficed. MatthewFenton (talk16:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a disgrace. Am I to understand that he was blocking for the offense of disagreeing with an administrator? And that the block was extended because he thought that was ridiculous. Has it come to this? Mackensen(talk)16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No, he was blocked for disrupting 3RR and refusing to stop when warned. The block was extended for wasting admin's time with pointless repeated unblock requests (again, after being warned to stop). --Tango16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
First post since I got told to basically fuck off from ANI... I haven't read the rest of the conversation, and I don't have time to right now, but in case it's of any importance, Fys sent me an e-mail earlier asking if I wanted to review his block. JDtalk16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that Fys has been acting in disruptive ways, (inventing Duty Solicitor as a role, changing the 3RR writeup, claiming ("no block") that 3RR blocks are not to be imposed and giving the impression of being an admin, etc) but I'm not sure I agree that everyone else has been sufficiently sensible in their communication of these issues to Fys. I'm also not sure I agree with Giano's characterisation of events or his comments bordering on personal attacks either, but that should not be much of a surprise, really, we rarely agree on approaches to matters these days. But if Mackensen says that there is reason to be concerned, then stepping back and reviewing matters with a view to making sure things go more smoothly in future might be a good idea. ++Lar: t/c17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Lar, you and I have never agreed on an approach to anything. It is a pity that 1000 plus admins took so long to spot an obvious error. Giano17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Giano, that's not true, we have in the past agreed on many many things, but lately, since your unwarranted attack on me during the Carnildo re RfA, you and I have not seen eye to eye. In this case, you are right about there being some significant question about whether this sequence of events is appropriate, but you are delivering the message wholly inappropriately. There is no need to be so strident in your criticism, and I stand by my comment that your comments here border on incivility. That's not a crusade by me against you, by the way. ++Lar: t/c17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Giano, I don't think you should bother responding. Anyone following Lar's crusade against yourself knows what to think about his latest comment. Some people are here to write encyclopaedia; others to block these people from editing and to follow them with incivil comments for months. We now have 1,5 admins for each active editor. Some of these admins find it prudent to block more active and dedicated wikipedians, who contributed to multiple featured articles, as their first action after obtaining the tools. Some defend this behaviour as perfectly reasonable. Since RfA has been broken, it's quite useless to point your opinions on WP:ANI, WP:3RR or other public boards. --Ghirla-трёп-17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confusing a supposed crusade by me against Giano with an apparent crusade by you, against every admin, just about, or so it seems. The comment you make about "block more active and dedicated wikipedians, who contributed to multiple featured articles" suggests you think there are free passes. There are not. Internalise that. ++Lar: t/c17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I just commented that we have ca. 500 active article writers and more than 1000 administrators. You can't get away from the facts. The latter often think themselves superior to the former, for some reason that escapes me. The present case is a nice illustration of what happens then. That's all I had to say, thanks. --Ghirla-трёп-18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That rather depends on what you mean by article, there are a few who do write articles, and I suppose the rest must have done once I suppose. I rather think now though it depends on popularity and chatter on IRC. If the 1000 or so elected are not active then perhaps they were not as dedicated as those editors who have been editing away here for years without seeking to be admins. Giano18:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is their choice. And how about all the editors who aren't here any more. Shame on them too! I've come here to dispute the conduct of two sysops over a blocking, not to have another go-round about the evil IRC conspiracy. You've no cause to continue this crusade. Mackensen(talk)18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"You say you want a revolution... we're all doing what we can". Ghirla, et al, I'm not sure that going down the who contributes what road is all that useful. We all ARE doing what we can, or what we want to contribute. Myself, I write for a living (in part) so, while I could write big articles, I don't find writing large amounts of text all that relaxing. I tend to get involved in other things, like smaller articles, project templates and mosaics and gadgetry, and helping out with janitorial tasks. We all know that without writers there would be nothing to keep clean and without cleaners, the writing wouldn't last long. So let's stay focused on this case... ++Lar: t/c19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh Lar, This is a general converstion, why do you always have to turn everything arownd to yourself? You folow me about having a pot here and pot there, I was not even thinking about you, in fact I don't think about you Giano21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Giano, I guess I long for the day when you don't think about me... so I don't have to read silly threads like this one, User_talk:Lar#.23wikipedia-en-admins where you turn up on my talk page and disruptively interfere with my answering a question from another user with inane cloak and dagger stuff. But that's not what this is about, it's about Fys, a user already under sanction from ArbCom who was revert warring and was called o n it. You made disparaging and not very nice comments (which Dmcdevit in turn called you on, remember) in this thread about how it went down (your point was valid, the way you delivered the message, not at all valid) and now you're trying to spin it all around as if I'm following you about. As if! I'm not the one that turns up on your talk page harassing you, you're the one that turns up on my talk page harassing me, several times now. Whatever. Stay focused man. This is about Fys, not you, not me. ++Lar: t/c22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There we have it: a gentle hint to be less interested in 3RR. Shoo. Go away. Input not wanted. If that's the way the 3RR noticeboard is being run, then it's broken. I've had run-ins with that place before, and I've always come away with the impression that it was obsessed with the letter of the law rather than the spirit, and that appealing a block made there was like pulling teeth. Mackensen(talk)17:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I get confused when i look at Fys's block log. He's been editing since early 2004 and had never been blocked until this month. He got blocked 4 times in November 2006 (mainly because of 3RR, evading block, disruptive incivility, personal attacks). I am just wondering about this sudden change of behaviuor. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ®17:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree with User:Mackensen. "with an expiry time of 3 hours (a gentle hint to be less interested in 3RR)", "A gentle hint to be less interested in 3RR"? I realize that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy but can someone honestly tell me where such blocking reasoning corresponds to Misplaced Pages blocking policy? Regardless of whether or not User:William M. Connolley was correct in this block (which given the blocking reason I don't think he was) an uninvolved admin should be the blocking party... not an inolved one like himself. (→Netscott)17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to accuse or defend anyone but the truth is that William has been doing a great job on the 3RR. Misunderstandings happen all the time. It's getting a bit personal above between some wikipedians and what i suggest is to just take it easy and that all parties in this discussion calm down. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ®17:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Except that you do mean to defend William and are doing so. Which is fine, but don't claim you're not. My concern is that William blocked someone with whom he was in a dispute, and with whom he has been in a dispute before. That's completely inappropriate. Mackensen(talk)18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't accused Fys but wondered about the change of his behaviour lately before getting an explanation. I haven't defended William actions but for the sake of calming the situation down i reminded people about William hard job. Maybe my comment was understood differently. -- Szvest Ω 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This actually brings up a reasonable question; is there anyway the devs can make it so user logs transfer across with a users contribs when doing a name change? Glen17:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh perish the thought, did you not follow the "Giano Case" the developers have better things to do with their time was the comment I think there Giano18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
We have a tradition here that a user can abandon an old account, make a clean break of it, and start over with a new identity and a clean slate, as a fresh start. (with no reputation, good or bad, to build on) If the new identity edits in good faith, and doesn't get into trouble, bygones are bygones. This even holds true (defacto) for people who are indef banned, as long as they don't repeat what got them banned, and never connect the accounts no one would ever know. We also allow changing user names with a retention of history (the name is changed, the old name redirected, etc.) but no "start over". Where it gets muddy is when it seems like some of each is desired. It does seem that way to me, Fys moved some things by copy/paste with a stated reason of wanting it to be harder to tie things together to his older ID. That's not a clean break... a clean break is in my view starting over completely. Many people who are indef banned don't seem to want to really break with their past, they want the best of both worlds. I don't favour that, it needs to be one or the other. If there is probation evasion, etc, the terms of the probation come over if any deliberate connection is made. Including copypasting things to evade easy linking. ++Lar: t/c18:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw Fys' edits to the 3rr board, and it looked to me like he was being disruptive. I figured he was setting himself up for yet another block. Given my past interactions with Dbiv/Fys, I saw nothing to be gained by involving myself. It looks to me like William M. Connolley blocked him for 3 hours for disruption. Even if the block summary was less than apt, I support the 3-hour block. Tom HarrisonTalk18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In looking at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR it seems that there are only a few folk who regularly get involved in deciding blocks for 3RR violations. I think we all agree that if one is involved in a dispute it's not a good thing to also be involved in handing out blocks around it. Would it be helpful if there were some way to encourage more admins to participate in this part of keeping things running smoothly? (I have given out a few but it's only because people turn up at my talk page and ask me to get involved...) ++Lar: t/c19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I've moved Bishonen's post out so it's clear it's not a response to this post, which I think is still an open question... do we have enough people helping out on 3RR to avoid potential conflicts of interest? That maybe should be discussed somewhere else, not sure... (Please feel free to change it back if that is not the desired effect) ++Lar: t/c22:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite upset. I agree 100% with all the comments of Mackensen above, and with his unblocking of Fys. Tango, your notion that a blocked user, confined to his talkpage (how is he going to disrupt the 3RR board from there?) needs to have his block extended, and his page protected, for talking back to you on that page, is hair-raising, and so is your statement above that he has ""no need to edit his talkpage" once the unblock request has been reviewed. Do please consider the unequal power balance between an admin and a blocked user, and the shock effect of being blocked at all; it is to be expected that a newly blocked user will be terse rather than humble, and it is expected that you, from your position of power, be prepared to put up with some of that and stay cool. Yes, even that you extend a little patience to such "disobedience" as restoring the unblock template--what's the huge deal there? What are the tremendous swathes of "admin time" being wasted, what's the "quiet life" being torn to tatters? I'm very sorry you didn't see any need to post here for review before performing those actions, because they're a big deal. Perhaps you should be excused for being a new admin... or perhaps, being new, you should all the more make a point of posting on ANI before zapping a productive user for 24 hours and simultaneously closing off their single means of communication? Please request input from the community next time you feel that a user must be prevented from wasting your time by speaking to you. Bishonen | talk19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC).
I think you have a point, additional communication and help might be good, but did you mean it as a reply to my inquiry as to whether more eyes on the 3RR process and notice board might be beneficial? Also do you think that Tango is more likely to learn from friendly feedback and guidance or from the sort of feedback that uses "utterly stupid" and similar phrasing? ++Lar: t/c19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stay focused on this case, as you say above, Lar. Even I, who can read your subtext, am bored by seeing you trot out that old Giano grudge/Bishonen grudge for the nth time—how bored must other people be? Sorry if the thread formatting seemed to imply I was speaking to you, I'm not entirely clear on these intricacies. Please note for future reference that unless I should directly address you, you can quite safely assume I'm not speaking to you. I was speaking to Mackensen and Tango. Your yearning to see me criticize Giano and let you watch didn't come into it. Bishonen | talk22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC).
Who Lar has used the phrase "utterly stupid" please provide a diff for that, as you have phrased it within quote marks. I have yet to note an awful lot of friendly feedback from Tango, or am I missing something here. All I can see is you sniping away as usual. Giano21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I redact any claim that you precisely said "utterly stupid". Instead you just said "could be construed as stupidity", "proved that newly qualified admins should not be allowed the block buttons", and "disgraceful" (not your initial remark, just your latch on when someone else said it first)... for which you were warned by Dmcdevit. Twice. Seems pretty clear cut to me, you need to work on how you deliver messages, even when you're right. That's not a grudge, not a snipe, no matter how you or Bishonen spin it, it's merely an observation... that your input to this process may not have been as helpful as it could have been if you had been more collegial. Do you actually dispute that? Further, that it is I that points it out to you doesn't mean it's not true. You can have the last word, my point's made. ++Lar: t/c22:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes Lar, I will have the last word, until I started to make a noise none of you fair minded dedicated admins could be bothered to do a thing about Fys's block, presumably all too busy chatting away on IRC playing with your cloaks and daggers. - Good night. Giano22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you're missing the fact that I extended the block after the *3rd* unblock request, I simply warned after the 2nd. And a blocked user can affect more than just their talk page - they can affect Category:Requests for unblock, which causes other admins to waste time dealing with a matter which has already been dealt with. --Tango20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the point is, in relation to Tango, that he was an admin of not quite 24 hours standing. He chose to involve himself in a block review involving an admin of quite considerable standing. To decide to unblock is in effect saying to the other admin "You have broken policy and done something you shouldn't have done". I ask as a rhetorical question of human psychology whether a new admin, however fair they try to be, is really going to do that to someone much more senior? No, of course they aren't. They are going to bend over backwards to see the other admin's point of view. That's why Tango should not have chosen to be involved. I do not fault his inexperience as an admin, I fault his judgment in getting involved in something where there was only one conclusion he was ever going to reach. Fys. “Tafysaym”. 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right, I would never have unblocked you, even if I'd disagreed with the original admin, however that doesn't mean I would have endorsed the block. I would have sat back and let someone else deal with it. Agreeing with the original admin is pretty uncontroversial, so there is no problem with a new admin doing so. Disagreeing with the original admin is very controversial, so I wouldn't have gotten involved. You've assumed that I made the decision to get involved before assessing the case, which is completely incorrect - I decided if I felt the block was appropriate, and then decided if I should get involved. --Tango20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a clear problem with the unblock template, then. Much like flipping a coin where heads count and tails dosen't count, unless adminstrators reviewing unblocks have the courage of their convictions, the answers will ALWAYS be heads, regardless of how many tails were flipped already. How many adminstrators are reviewing unblock requests pro-forma? Stop it, if you are. JBKramer20:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I would imagine most administrators do have "courage in their convictions", as you put it. The only reason I wouldn't generally go against a decision another admin has made is because I'm new to the job - give me and month or two to get used to things, and if I disagree with another admin, I'll do something about it. Until then, I'll let someone else do something about it. --Tango21:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes Lar, I will have the last word, until I started to make a noise none of you fair minded dedicated admins could be bothered to do a thing about Fys's block, presumably all too busy chatting away on IRC playing with your cloaks and daggers. - Good night. Giano 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That is a slur on every administrator on this encyclopaedia. I, for one, am offended. Am I to understand that this is acceptable discourse? I believe I asked this question two months ago, but was told that because Giano had been so grievously violated by Tony Sidaway that some harsh language was understandable. Well, he wasn't even blocked this time and it's happening again. What especially troubles me is that everything obviously took place on-wiki. The initial block, the extension, the protection, my unblock--everything happened on-wiki. Yet this is all apparently the fault of those grievous off-wiki machinations, which Giano credits as the cause of all our problems. This is utterly unacceptable behaviour, especially from an experienced article editor who has been warned repeatedly that incivility is unacceptable. There have been many words of censure today for an inexperienced admin who made a mistake. Are there any for an experienced editor, who has yet again demonstrated his sovereign contempt for civility and politeness in public discourse? Mackensen(talk)23:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this is a good point for everyone to just stop posting in-thread. The extraneous conflicts are out of order here. Fys is back up and running; his point has been made and agreed with by a number of admins and users, and disagreed with by a number of other ones. I think that this would be an appropriate topic for a RFC for Tango, if Frys wants to continue the point. Everyone else getting into a fight on ANI isn't going to help anyone. Please calm down. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no desire to start an RFC on Tango and will not do so. On William M. Connolley, that's different. Fys. “Tafysaym”. 23:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a block on Fys was really warranted this time. However, Fys should immediately cease from sending rude emails to users who do not agree with him. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick10:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want me to complain about your actions, then don't block me for having not broken a policy. Fys. “Tafysaym”. 13:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Move attempts by Gene Nygaard
Gene Nygaard's unilateral moves for the remotion of diacritics in articles' names have been reported here on AN/I last month (see )
which resulted in a community probation banning him from non consensual article moves (see ).
However, I believe that he might be trying to dodge the probation by his recent attempt to propose a move while tagging along more than ten other moves. On November 17, Gene contested moves carried out by Mibelz by proposing Árpád Élő to be moved back to Arpad Elo (see proposal and discussion). 13 other moves were associated to Árpád Élő's, resulting in a lack of proper discussion relevant to each individual case. I am frankly worried about this situation because if there is consensus about removing the diacritics to Árpád Élő, the others would follow suit without even being discussed. This is the nth time that I try to explain to Gene that his moves are disruptive and compromise Misplaced Pages's accuracy, but it's hopeless really. Could somebody please verify this situation? I propose the 13 moves to be detached from Árpád Élő's and I suggest Gene's conduct to be once again evaluated.--Húsönd20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't have time to dig into this when you brought it to my talk page, thanks for bringing it here. I'm thinking that each of these moves should be discussed and consensed on separately. Bundling them all together by Gene may not be the best approach. The community ban from moving suggests that it's clear to the community that Gene shouldn't move things or cause them to be moved by confusingly obscure mechanisms. ++Lar: t/c20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I have been watching the Indian Buddhist Revival page and it's talk page since I posted a response to an RFC there. I haven't made any edits to the article itself, because the article has a lot of...stuff going on and I want to be very careful to thoroughly source any edits I make.
In the past two days, I've watched as User:Hkelkar has removed every single edit from User:ShrilankaBuddhist. without any comment on the talk page first, and adding what I would describe as inflammatory edit summarys. I've done nothing, though, I really felt for this user - as far as I can tell,he has little command of the English language, and he's doing his best to make good faith edits.
When User:Hkelkar actually removed the post from this user on the article TALK PAGE, I put my foot down]. This person at least has the right to speak. My very first edit to this page was to revert the talk page. In the edit summary I put "I double dog dare you..."].
He left the Talk article as it was, and added a comment. He then put a civility warning template on my user page. Another user (whom I barely know) very kindly took it off - not at my behest, though I thank him for it. Hkelkar put it back. The other user removed it. There is now an EDIT WAR going on at my USER TALK PAGE].
I want someone to look at this. Hkelkar has no business editing my user talk page. He also, in my opinion, has no business removing a post from an article talk page. The other user is simply helping me do something I would otherwise do myself. I didn't ask him to do it, but I did post a thank you on his talk page the first time he did it.
Notice the extremely inflammatory nature of NinaEliza's comments. I have "no business" editing her talk page? last time I checked any wikipedian can comment on a talk page.Plus, she seems not to understand the concept of neutrality at all.
Srilankanbuddhist keeps persistently adding bogus edits to the Indian Buddhist article and making highly incivil comments
in his talk page. This goes above and beyond the normal background noise of incivility and is outright rubbish (in this edit, he refers to "nomadic tribes in Mumbai", a nonsense statement he keeps entering everyday, you know of any "nomadic tribes in Mumbai?". First he says millions of people converted to Buddhism, not in citation given, now he bumps it down to thousands, using an extremist Sinhala propaganda source. If he uses that then I will use tamilnation.org in the article as well). He clearly has no concept of wikipedia policy and perhaps you should drop a word on his talk pae about civility.In fact, these Neo-Buddhist editors seem to be shuttling back and forth. First Dhammafriend, then he disappears and Ambedkaritebuddhist, now he's gone and Srilankanbuddhist appears. Some kind of sock/meatpuppetry is definitely afoot.
And then, Ninaeliza rushes to defend his extremely inflammatory comments here by using incivil edit summaries like "I double dog dare you" (for which I duly warned her).She seems to think that wikipedia norms do not apply to her.Hkelkar09:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So, if you kept reverting the new users edits with popups (meaning no explanations in your edit summary), how did you expect his edits to get better exactly? BhaiSaab09:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
For details, see this case in point, where Blnguyen (an admin) arrives at the same conclusion of incivility. Also, see this and this regarding her "friend" BhaiSaab (an anti-semite , no less)Hkelkar09:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hkelkar and other users, you have no business removing other users comments from the talk page of the articles or the user talk pages. Please remember that the userpages and the user talk pages alloted to you are not your property, they belong to the Wikimedia Foundation. Please assume good faith with other editors. NinaEliza, that double-dog dare you edit summary is provacative if not a personal attack. Hkelkar, edit summaries like this can be construed as disruption and newbie biting. In case you think that this user is a sockpuppet of another user, you can report this to WP:RFCU along with evidence. Please do not edit war over any page of wikipedia. In case you think that a warning has been unfairly given to you, you can comment below the warning and let the administrators decide. Hkelkar, in this case your civility warning was not justified at all. BhaiSaab, please do not leave edit summarieslike these, they can be construed as personal remarks. You have every right to comment below the comments left by other users. — Nearly Headless Nick10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize to Misplaced Pages for my provacative edit summary. I will never do it again. Thank you for the correction. NinaEliza10:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the point was merely that the URL should be added to the spam-blacklist so the bot doesn't just re-post it rater than that the page should never be deleted. --Sherool(talk)14:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
An editor has just re-uploaded an image Image:Teairra Mari - Second Round.JPG that was deleted yesterday because it lacked origin and copyright ownership problems. It has again been tagged for those problems, but now it has seven days before it will be deleted again. As this was 'speedy' deleted before, speedy as recreated material doesn't seem to apply. The editor, Lilb1293 (talk·contribs), has a history of uploading unattributed images, and does not respond to talk page messages. Can anything be dome about either the re-uploaded image or the editor -- Donald Albury14:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Our article Universal Life Church has been systematically vandalised for another church's own personal gain. Our church ULC Monastery has been in a continuous edit war trying to maintain the legitimacy of the article. The user ULCGUY was banned from editing because of his repeated defacement of the article. But now a new user un-registered user with the IP of 75.26.52.67 is starting to deface our article. I would like to request that this page be put under semi-protection too keep this from happening. I am new too Misplaced Pages so I do not know how too post this under the request for protection page. Regards, ULC Monastery. --Brdennis15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - You can request protection for a page here. However, as Yandman points out, a few "experiments" a day isn't really too bad, and if all these edits come from a single user it is often better to deal directly with the user and not lock a page from potentially helpful input. →Bobby←16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Those are multiple IPs over a single range. This page has been added to the watchlist of IRC Antvandalbots and would be monitored over time. However, if that does not help, I would suggest a temporary semi-protection of the page over a period of few days, so that it might stall vandalism. — Nearly Headless Nick16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The IP range 84.255.148.0 - 84.255.158.255 is the Batelco, or Bahrain Telcommunication Company, DSL range. Can we block the whole range? And communicate that to Hussain Ghasra, (hussain@batelco.com.bh)the listed contact for Batelco? I'm told that Batelco hasn't been cooperative in the past, but perhaps someday pigs will fly and the Mac lie down with the PC. Zora17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Could I get a block for disruption for this user? He just posted what he claims is his account password on his userpage in this edit. If he were a more constructive editor, I'd say to remove it from the page history and give him a talking-to, but he's been a problem in the past. -Hit bull, win steak17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to the evidence I presented at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, Prosfilaes attempted to start an argument with me here. Essentially, Prosfilaes took aggressive exception to my observation that while academic credentials are correlated with notable ideas, they are neither a cause nor a logical prerequisite thereof. Shortly thereafter, apparently in retribution for requesting arbitration here, I was aggressively stalked by one "Haldane Fisher", who (among other nuisances) reverted all of my edits, and only my edits, to the article Academic Elitism. Fisher was quickly spotted as a bogus account and blocked by administrator Cowman109. But this was not the end of the problem, for Prosfilaes, apparently smelling a golden opportunity to extend his quarrel with me, immediately capitalized on the situation by following in the footsteps of "Haldane Fisher" and removing all and only my own edits to the page, using the false pretext that only my edits were not referenced. In fact, none of the generic references listed at the bottom of the page were cited anywhere in the section I edited ("Arguments For/Against"), which shows that this pretext was invented by Prosfilaes to cover his violation of WP:Harass. Nevertheless, while trying to hold the line against Prosfilaes' damage to the article, I attempted to reason with him/her on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, in return for my patience, Prosfilaes indignantly reported me for "violating 3RR" while again reverting on his own, thus prompting administrator William M. Connolley to block me. When I explained the situation to Connolley, he irritably refused to lift the block. He did, however, advise me to report Prosfilaes to WP:ANI. I'm following Connolley's advice, and would appreciate it if something could be done to prevent a recurrence of this blatant harassment. Thank you, Asmodeus17:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Brendan Loy
A message board has posted a link to Brendan Loy resulting in a spike of vandalism and unregistered edits. Requesting semi-protection. Zz414 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If you look at Wp:fac#Christopher_Reeve and click on edit you get taken to a blank page. Click on project page and you will see a note that this is a redirected page. This makes it hard to figure out how to edit the page. I think fixing this requires Admin intervention. --Ideogram22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Wblakesx (talk·contribs) is spamming my talk page with text dumps after I got involved with a debate between him and KillerChihuahua (talk·contribs) regarding the God page. I'm honestly not sure what's going on here. He's constantly left messages on people's user pages despite being warned against doing so. I really don't think he means any harm, but I need someone with more authority than I to set him straight on what is and is not acceptable behavior here. Danny Lilithborne03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
He left another message complaining about admins here. I'm not sure if he's targeting these veiled insults at me. Because I left him warnings about editing other people's user pages, he might assume I'm an admin. *shrug* Danny Lilithborne01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello all, tis I the 'vandal' This is what happened:
I added a remark, a reference from gnosticism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Gnosticism ) to Huxely ( Ape and Essence ) that was perhaps too sophisticated for my own good. I got a note from Kchi ( I can't remember what he said, and my record, MY talk page was destroyed by someone ) so I clicked on the link he left on my web page... big mistake, I got the vandalism charge laid on, but I didn't understand what was happening so when other admin warnings ( attacks ) came I replied to the LINK Posted on my Page. I explained all this to no avail. I tried the help button and was roundly abused for it. Meanwhile the record has gone, God knows where and I'm not at all sure other conversations I had on my talk page have been restored by reversion. There's something smelly about the hole thing, some bugs at ( the very )least. Not much better here than the kids running Iraq. Disappointing. Gnothi Sueton.
Incidently, this all started on the discussion page, I don't think I have ever touched an article directly. Wblakesx02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)wblakesx ( pity more people haven't read my namesake-sx )
I found a back door to my talk page. Dl sounds al calm and reason on this admin page, compare what Was on my talk page till it was wiped:
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Danny Lilithborne00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not sympathetic. This is an encyclopedia, not a theology discussion forum. If you want to air personal grievances with the Jewish faith, there are places on the Internet you can do that. On Misplaced Pages, it is not appropriate. Danny Lilithborne01:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above is a load of thin skinned, small minded crapulence. My SERIOUS OFFENCE was to reply top the links LEFT ON MY PAGE ( there is no talk page on at least the first nasty admin, neither a page search, nor a wiki search turned one up ). There was nothing of vandal in my post. I posted "your God my Satan" on the God discussion page, which is well understood by those with serious interest, education, and intelligence. Not exactly a koan, it was none the less meant to Stimulate thinkers. Also, I didn't have time to discuss the Gnostics and others beliefs that the Old Testement God is the Demiurge, a persona =to Satan, and I said Jews intesd of followers of the old testement ( seems anything resemling criticism of ******* even saying the jews, is damnable while it is quite ok to criticise almost any other group! OH the lunacy in the world!). For the rest, I am not expert in this rather large rule set and rather than a polite redirect I have been threatened with banning'
The first page of the user's guide says "be bold", methinks boldness to some of these faux adminitrators would be such things as taking a smell of a can of beer. I am Very disappoited but I suppose I can only blame myself for being very surprised.
Oh, and I "aired my 'dirty laundry'" by asking for help!!!! Methinks there's a student of Karl Rove running things here, now. Unreal the idiocy passing as lofty. It's a sadomaso thing.
[ Saved from dispute res page for future ref:
"Label the comment neutrally but do not sign and do not use names (type 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC), which gives only a timestamp)....". don't know if I understand this bit? My problems can be picked up at my user talk page, wblakesx talk. I have never modified an article itself, and have never had any problems before. I have found incivility and presumtions, from some admins, of bad faith where none existed. After removing the objected to material have "been left hanging in the air". I replied to links left on my talk page and have been threated for vandalism and serious vandalism. . I am here for procedural reasons only, feedback to avoid runaway system destruction ( info theory and electronics metaphor, also applied in a work called "The Nerves of Government" governance. I firmly believe I have met some admins who are not ethically ot tempermentally up to the job. I don't have a lot of time presently to deal with this but would like to see Wiki not taken by little tyrants. But who cares?Wblakesx 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)];
well who cares, busy busy busy
Second opinion needed
Would someone mind looking at this? I think that User:Aaronjonesinsocal and User:24.72.202.130 are the same person, violating 3RR. Normally I wouldn't take this here, but I'm more concerned by the content he insists on adding than by the 3RR violation. IMHO, if anyone from the organisation in question sees it their lawyers will go into overdrive. Luckily, looking at the IP's contribs, it looks like it's static. I'll give him a final warning, and if he adds the material again, I'll ask for a block. Sound appropriate? yandman14:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that he seems to be the same person as the IP, as they are putting in the same content with the same misspellings. So you can get him on 3RR if he keeps going.... or he can get you similarly. This seems to be a content dispute rather than vandalism, so you aren't immune from 3RR either, and shouldn't call it vandalism on his talk page. (User talk:Aaronjonesinsocal). I suggest a compromise, rather than just reverting. You may be right that the source only mentions flag burning, not violence, but in your reversion, you took out the whole thing out completely, that's a bit much. At least leave in the stuff backed by the source. AnonEMouse15:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to give precisions: of the three sources, 2 are youtube videos, and while the other source is (nearly) reliable, the author of the paragraph grossly misrepresents it, ignoring the content of the entire article (that supports the mexicans) and focusing on one image of someone holding a flag with their fist inside it (no flames). I deleted the entire section because there was already a criticism section that stated the facts: right wing groups have criticised the Mexica movement. 3RR doesn't apply to potentially libelous material, and IMHO this is. yandman15:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Unbelievable. He just vandalized both my user AND talk pages (blanked everything) and replaced it with some blurb about being a group of lawyers or something Hkelkar23:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
His first edits requried an explanation: "don't replace the whole article with your own stuff". After that, it was either a mistake, or vandalism. If it obvious vandalism continues, report to WP:AIV. Patstuart03:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Chick Bowen has blocked Godblessindia indefinitely. All their edits either removed sources and inserted their own POV and when they were warned, they went on to vandalize a userpage. Clearly an abusive user. If not for that, I would've blocked them for the username. Don't use religious figures in your username, period. - Mgm|09:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
What the targets all have in common is we strongly protested Stevewk who tried repeatedly to remove all the information about the Civil War from the Abraham Lincoln article. Stevewk was given a 3R suspension but may be using sockpuppets to hit editors.
Thus he may be using 70.110.174.121 151.197.233.65 70.110.155.238 70.110.174.121 etc. Rjensen23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have used the subject article Talk page, the Individuals' Talk pages, the Admn. Noticeboard, but with no real attention paid to the issue.
There are a group of editors, including Administrators that are reverting good-faith reliably sourced information, without discussion, in violation of the spirit of Misplaced Pages. This is an allied attempt at gaming the system, and a disgraceful display of conduct.
1st revert 20 Novmeber
2nd revert: 20 November
3rd Revert: 20 November
4th Revert: 20 November
5th Revert: 21 November
6th Revert: 22 November
7th Revert: 22 November
The article is basically on lock-down due to an allied group that is violating the spirit of WP:OWN. Please look at all my work that was deleted, as all the reverts involved new information for the article. Disgraceful.
Can someone who is not INVOLVED or allied to this group please review? This POV oriented group of allies is not interested in collaborating in good-faith and the mass reverts without any discussion illustrate this clearly. I believe they are trying to get me to quit Misplaced Pages out of frustration, that is my honest opinion of this. Can a group of allied editors take over an article, and block all information they dislike? Please review the full content of these reverts tha include whole new paragraphs and sourced info, it's disgraceful conduct. Thanks.Kiyosaki06:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Kiyosaki, this is a content dispute which does not require administrative attention, nor does it concern the use of administrative tools. In this situation the appropriate course of action is to engage in dispute resolution. --bainer (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1) Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
2) "Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint, in part because they leave no explanation for the revert in the edit summary. Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor."
3) All the reverts above violate all the "Don'ts" from that same page.
Several of those samples weren't admin rollback. And, like Doc Tropics mentioned above, WP:RFC is where this sort of thing is reviewed. Shell07:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If a single editor were reverting your changes, it might violate 3RR which could be "actionable". These diffs don't seem to indicate violations of specific policies; just content disagreement and some behaviour issues. dispute resolution is really the proper venue for that. --Doc Tropics07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Kiyosaki, your edits are usually disruptive, often poorly written, often poorly sourced, and often involve the deletion of good material simply because you don't like it. That is why you're being reverted. You've been doing little else for a month since you got here, mostly on one article, when you're not complaining on AN or AN/I, or being blocked for 3RR. It's also very obvious that you're not a new user, but you won't say what your other accounts are/were, which gives rise to the — possibly unfair but definitely justified — suspicion that you're a banned user. SlimVirgin07:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, you were asked as an involved party to not comment. It's obvious I am a new user, I don't know how to "game the system" like you do. You work with allies to violate WP:OWN and limit properly cited, relevant material without explanation . Please stop attacking me and trying to discredit me, if anyone looks at the article's Talk page they can see through your lies. I edit in good-faith, I don't think you do at all. Perhaps you could review Help:Reverting and the entire section on "Dont's" in particular. The "Do's" says: "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it." I have been doing the work, the research, you merely revert what you personally dislike.Kiyosaki07:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not for you to dictate who may comment here. You're not a new user. One of your first edits as Kyosaki (talk·contribs) was to warn someone about 3RR. I think you're someone who's been editing for a long time. I also think you're the sockpuppet of a banned user, and I have a feeling I know who. SlimVirgin09:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Kiyosaki, you asked for help and got some good advice; let me offer one last tidbit for your consideration...this would be a perfect time to drop this discussion and move on. You're not in the right place and you're not helping your cause. Really. --Doc Tropics07:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Kiyosaki, you might want to take a step back and review Misplaced Pages policies on civility and personal attacks. Other people have commented on your questions; if you believe there is a complex problem please use dispute resolution - nothing you've mentioned requires administrator intervention. Food for thought - numerous editors reverting your changes is usually a sign that you need to discuss your edits and work out the problems with them, not that there's a hidden conspiracy to control the article. Shell07:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately don't have time to investigate further, 3RR, AFD, or apply for protection on those. I'm doing what I'm hoping is the second best thing by bringing it up here. --user:Qviri21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried reporting this user on WP:AIV but was told (through an edit summary that I had to search through the history to find) that he had "no final warning". However, I already told him that if he continued I'd report him, and he did continue. His images at least need to be deleted. Was I correct to take it here, or is there a better place? I would have thought AIV was appropriate, but it seems bogged down in bureaucracy. --NE222:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the orphan images and told him to provide sources and copyright information for the remaining ones. If he doesn't provide those, those images will be removed pretty soon. - Mgm|09:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Fact Finder (talk·contribs) is at it again. He's written comments on my user talk page falsely accusing me of deleting his comments when in fact the deletion was done by Bobet (talk·contribs), and consisted of reverting Fact Finder's edits to archived project and talk pages that weren't supposed to be forums for further comments. He's also made even wilder accusations in other comments, such as accusing Misplaced Pages editors and admins of sending computer viruses to his company. *Dan T.*01:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The user has been excessively disruptive in his determination to obscure or delete the word Ecopave wherever it is written (e.g. , , ; there is no credible explanation for this other than keeping the Google results for Ecopave "clean"
The user is incivil, e.g.
The user has responded to requests to cease disruption with aggression, denial and no change in behaviour
The user's Talk page currently contains a quite meritless personal attack on me: The real irony here is that Guy Chapman who is a Misplaced Pages administrator, appears to be running he's own spamming and PR campaign in Misplaced Pages by using 3 seperate IP addresses which are clearly designed to assist in bringing consensus into arguments against users who's article (ideology) is not in par with his - this is an absurd assertion. I did note that I use three separate static IPs, in response to Fact Finder's assertion that to use a static IP is "insane" - the fact that I edit from multiple locations, each with a static IP absolutely does not mean that I am in some way gaming the system, it simply means that most of the places where I edit have static IPs. Anyone who wants to register an RFCU is entirely welcome to do so. Frankly I don't have time to edit as other accounts as well!
All in all, I don't see much evidence that this user is here to build an encyclopaedia. I suggest giving them the bum's rush. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
His initial block, as one of a series of socks on the Ecopave AfD, was perfectly valid. Since he was unblocked (on the kind-hearted theory that he'd try to be a productive editor) he's just trolled, edited other users' comments, made legal threats, attacked other users (including kind-hearted Guy, whose idea it was to unblock him in the first place), made the bad-faith speedies of Ecopave's competition Guy mentioned, and filled his talk page and others with increasingly paranoid rants about the army of sock-admins out to get him. While his silliness was confined to his talk page I was content to let him stew, but his renewed propensity to wage his pointless war elsewhere leads me to believe we've indulged his trolling long enough. His initial ban was valid, none of his (hundreds) of subsequent edits have been contributions to the encyclopedia, he's not interested in anything more than whining about his spam campaign being thwarted. Restore his block. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Very strange blanking activity going on at User:Rjensen
For last eight hours or so, his user page and talk page has been blanked by many different ip addresses (between the two pages 18 times in the 8 hours). I applied for semi-protection and was told the user should ask for protection himself. User seems to think he knows who's doing it, but am concerned about the very strange ip blanking. BusterD05:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the abuse has spread to a number of user and talk pages, I've given both of the involved ranges a brief block (anon-only, account creation allowed, what I think is a pretty friendly block message). 48 hours does the trick, I hope. Luna Santin07:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice while lurking from time to time that User:Snow Shoes (contributions) seems to be an obvious sock puppet of User:Thewolfstar. She is, however, acting a bit more clever. Moreover, what seems obvious to me might not be to the next person, and everybody deserves an initial benefit of the doubt. I'd just like to suggest that an admin familiar with this issue should keep an eye out. --AaronS05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This user has been permanently banned from editing Misplaced Pages. However, this person has persisted in editing numerous pages across wikipedia simply by avoiding registering an account. Here are just some of the IP address that has been used in recent days by this same individual.
Dynamic IP (British Telecom). No point in blocking more than 24 hours at a time since he can change them faster than we can block them. Any new account he uses can be listed at WP:AIV. Explain that it's Leyasu and hopefully the admins patrolling there will be familiar enough with the situation to block (otherwise his edits look like a content dispute). Or you can list here I guess. Thatcher13112:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Felix Portier has uploaded copyright images Image:Women's fiel hockey chile vs australia.jpg, Image:Las leonas vs India.jpg (and others, but it's over these I've had most dealings wih him). I have listed them at WP:CP and informed him. I then removed the image links from the articles where he had inserted either of them: Field hockey and Las Leonas. He later amended the image licensing information slightly (still clearly non-compliant however) re-inserted the images into field hockey, and I then gave him 2 hours to remove them again, which he failed to do. So I reverted the addition. Overnight (UK-wise) he has attempted to claim that the images are logos (!) and again inserted them into the field hockey article, and also converted women's field hockey from a redirect into a stub primarily consisting of the copyvio images. I have again reverted the addition of the images - in both articles. I am not clear if his actions constitute vandalism, and hence if I'm covered by the exemptions to 3RR. It does appear that he may now be a bit more prepared to enter into dialogue (he has just left a message on my talk page about the women's field hockey article). I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look at his actions (this is not the first time he's run into trouble over images before). David Underdown10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The user appears to flout copyright rules. Uploads are from websites, all mistagged as either logo, or GFDL when it's clearly not free. I need help deleting all this stuff. - Mgm|12:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
THanks MGM. Could you or someone lese jsut clarify the situation on 3RR, reverting repeated addition of unfree images doesn't seem to be specifically covered by an exemption - would I be OK to carry on reverting the images if they get re-uploaded? I notice from your edits that i didn't actually manage to remove them from field hockey this morning anyway, I got side-tracked by the changes to Women's Field Hockey, and some constructive intervening edits on Field hockey and didn't get roud to tidying them up. David Underdown13:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
User Mikinthy blanking Talk page to remove warnings
Nothing that can be done I'm afraid. The templates were taken off because they were judged to be contrary to our policy on harassment. The best thing to do is to make sure your edit summaries say what level warning they're up to, that way a quick look at the history says it all. yandman13:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I just blocked MisterB4390 (talk·contribs) indefinitely. In the past 7 months, the user has created a vanity autobiography 6 times at Brandon Mathewson. The user has previously been warned not to recreate this page and had a blatant vandal warning on his talk. In addition to the block, I protected the article as a deleted page. Can I just get a review of this since this is one of my first significant blocks as an admin? Thanks, Metros23216:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Image change issues, unsourced and possible copyright violations
THEBLITZ1 (talk·contribs) has changed a large number of articles, mostly by replacing or adding images. A number of them are incompletely labelled and will be deleted, leaving a "hole" in the changed article, I'm not sure whether it's correct for me to revert those or wait for the image to expire. Others have been labelled as created by him, but of those, several appear to be copied from websites. I've reported a couple of them, but when I do, he games the system by removing the image from the article. It's very time consuming tracing the images, and trying to find where they really came from. A number of his edits have been reverted by me or others. I'm tempted to revert all of his changes. He's also generally disruptive and not co-operative, probably violating WP:CIVIL, including edit warring on Breast. He's been blocked for 24 hours, but I think the penalty needs to be more severe. --ArmadilloFromHell19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed a couple pictures, in particular Image:F22-R.jpg and Image:FB-2235.jpg are taken from F-16.net. Their piracy policy can be found at and does not allow for these pictures to be used in this way. I thought I would mention this here, since I have little time right now to post them at WP:PUI. -- moe.RON19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked the rest of the socks on that list. Well spotted, SunStar, I'll have to start checking that log next time another of his sockpuppets comes calling. --Sam Blanning22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the vandal latches on to current controversies - it may have been Exicornt then, but one of the sockpuppets today faked a message from Jimbo saying Homey was unbanned, and there have been others. --Sam Blanning00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
And a further identical attack by User:Rancidity at 17:25, 20 November 2006. This vandal is apparently chosing user names close to my own in order to pursue his vendetta against me. Please help put a stop to this. RolandR22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked all the name accounts above and semiprotected David Bukay against further IP vandalism. Your userpage was already s-protected. I have a feeling you probably haven't mentioned all the pages with IP vandalism problems; please do so here, and I hope somebody will s-protect them. I'm going to bed myself. Bishonen | talk02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
I recently blocked this user for 24 hours after noticing these two personal attacks , . Bishonen then upped the block to a week and more personal attacks ensued after the blocks such as calling Bishonen a "facist" and Calton "sociopatic". Swedenborg's accomplishments here inlcude little more than incivil remarks, personal attacks, spam, edit warring, and attempts to solicit meatpuppets off site. Upon my review of Swedenborg's contributions I am inclined to extend the block to indefinite, but would like some other opinions first. DVD+ R/W19:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hm. These edit summaries (), not to mention comments such as this, are pretty uncivil. Even assuming good faith, I see little evidence that this user really wants to have a constructive and enlightened discussion. I would support a longer block, but not sure about indef, as it seems there has been some provocation. Again doing my best to assume good faith, perhaps after the edit war dies down the disruption will improve. --Ginkgo10020:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Swedenborg losing his temper when blocked is a big deal, I wouldn't extend his block for such a thing as that. But the lack of constructive edits and the lack of comprehension of what the encyclopedia is for is extremely concerning. As for the edit war "dying down," edit warring is what he does; what makes you think it'll ever die down? Swedenborg seems convinced, from many comments, that he has a moral right to spam articles, that anyone thwarting him (such as Calton) is evil, and that any admin warning him (such as me) is Calton's evil sock. But there's no hurry about extending the block, as he just stormed off in indignation at the amount of evil in the place. I suggest we consider the indef issue when/if he and his edit war return. Bishonen | talk23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
User:Davidcannon has twice recreated GetWiki, refusing to accept its AfD nomination or participate in the already ongoing deletion review. Admins must use deletion review to challenge AfD closures, same as everyone else. I have already redeleted it once per WP:CSD G4, whereupon he re-recreated it and threatened to continue wheel warring until he gets his way . Much as I would like to not waste other admins' time when policy is clear, someone other than me needs to be the one to respeedy this as I'm not going to be accused of wheel warring myself. --Sam Blanning20:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Article deleted again. Furthermore, I will block the user if he engages in wheel-warring. He is an admin and should know the rules. Joelito (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
He undeleted it twice, which is pretty bad form IMO, but I assume he's gotten the hint now. If for some crazy reason he were to undelete it again perhaps some action like that may be in order. Friday(talk)21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go through the proper channels this time. But is it acceptable to delete an article when there are 7 votes in favour and 7 against? Similar votes have always resulted in a "no consensus" verdict. David Cannon22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Non Admin Comment - Given the fact that Davidcannon participated in the debate (supporting a keep decision) it seems to me like he should have asked an uninvolved admin to examine the case and perform (if deemed appropriate) the undelete. →Bobby←15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that: he did the same thing with Editing Category:Ba, Fiji, wheel-warring with Nickptar and Mets501; rainbow.jpg which probably has a perfectly reasonable explanation; I'm not sure what this one is about . Probably nothing, but the category wheeling looks bad. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll be more cautious in future. The other incidents you named : the Ba category incident was over a template that somebody else moved, breaking numerous double redirects without making any effort to redirect them. I didn't feel like fixing all the broken redirects myself, so I just undid his page move. When it became clear that he wouldn't accept my reversion of his move, I ended up accepting that, and fixed all the broken redirects - without any help from him. As for the image restoration: My memory is foggy, but if it's the event I think it was, that was tagged for deletion by somebody who had previously vandalized my user page (or at least, had the same IP address as somebody who had). But I can't remember the event accurately now, and thought that water was well under the bridge. Anyway, I think I have been a bit arrogant lately, and apologise. I will be more cautious, and will take care to follow the proper channels, from now on. David Cannon00:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just scratched part of the above comment. I was confusing that image issue with a separate event. At any rate, I regret my high-handed manner and will not make unilateral decisions in future. David Cannon10:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
New account
I am very concerned about the first edit to User talk:Stud24wi which I immediately deleted. It appears to be an attack containing personal info of the accused. I think this merits the attention of an admin, possibly the page needs to be deleted. Thanks. --Doc Tropics07:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
PS - I didn't even think of a "db" at the time. The content really freaked me out a bit and I just ran screaming to the nearest admin :) --Doc Tropics07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, if you make a big enough donation, Thatcher will make 10x the salary ;) There's nothing wrong with posting issues like that here either - sometimes this page gets a bit clogged, so I just thought I'd mention the speedy idea as a backup. Shell07:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday, Myrtone made a series of unhelpful edits to warning templates, such as this one directing joke-minded users to Uncyclopedia and this one describing circumstances in which Misplaced Pages is censored in a template stating that Misplaced Pages is not censored. I don't know that talking is likely to produce a positive result, since he's been involved in problem edits to templates on numerous occasions in the past. Ideas? -Hit bull, win steak14:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
He obviously knows what he's doing, so a warning would not do much good. Since technically blocks aren't meant to be punitive I suppose all that could really be done is to issue a harsh warning. He has been blocked before for disruption, I remember clearly. – Chacor14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd say this user needs a bit of a preventative timeout so that he'll cease using active templates as sandboxes and understand not to do so in the future. (→Netscott)14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that he's had any warnings left on his talk page, even after the flurry of these he did yesterday, for the record. Tony Fox(arf!)16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Why would we warn him again? He's not an IP that might have changed hands, he's an account, and I'm sure he can remember why he was blocked three months ago. --Sam Blanning17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just pointing it out; it seemed odd to me that there was this discussion going on, but no indication that the user under discussion had been informed of it. Tony Fox(arf!)19:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Mytone is *still* editing templates disruptively today. I'm blocking for 24 hours to prevent the continuance of this behaviour. And warned him not to continue when the block expires. pschemp | talk17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been keeping an eye on User:Myrtone86 for many weeks but never interacted. This is an editor that makes some useful contributions, but does not play well with others. Not at all. Somehow she skates on the thin edge of acceptability all the time. I'm still not sure if a block is warranted, but her activites definitely tend to be disruptive. Perhaps an official warning and a good "talking to" would be sufficient. At least it would establish some official presence on her talkpage for future reference. --Doc Tropics17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain of gender, but this editor was once addressed as "Mr. Tone" and went to great lengths explaining the feminine history of the name. Color me confused. Doc Tropics19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, well the editor once tried to tell me that Wikipedians couldn't die (after one did) because "Wikipedian" is an office. I still haven't got the logic of that one. pschemp | talk23:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This user was warned before. Just because those warnings aren't still visible doesn't mean they don't apply. The block is short and contains another warning. That is sufficient. Certainly if he continue after the block expires, a longer block will be warranted, but talking to this one does little good, he's been around long enough to know better. This isn't a new user by any means. (Though there was a name change a while back if you are confused). pschemp | talk17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: I made my initial comments based on previous experience, without checking for more recent developments. This editor has indeed been warned and blocked repeatedly for a variety of disruptive activities. At the very least I think an admin should monitor this one closely, and further disruptions would certainly warrant longer blocks. --Doc Tropics20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ashibaka unblocked claiming this user was being blocked punitively and without attempting to discuss the block with me, or posting here. I can't say I'm impressed with his actions considering he *always* seems to be the one unblocking, and the edits were clearly disruptive. pschemp | talk05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
From the quick glance I saw there's nothing autobiographical or POVish going on. The edit did break naming conventions, so I left a message about that and redirect to help him out. - Mgm|08:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
My name is not offensive, as it is based on my school days with a teacher we used to call "Mr File" because he was thin and scaly. He always let me do what I want while constantly undermining the confidence of the other kids. Just like that Pink Floyd song. Well anyways, since "Mr. File" always gave me my way I was considered the teacher's pet. As a result,this is the ego shattering nickname my classmates gave me.P.O.F.00:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't see it, but the pronunciation of your former username turns out to be the same as "pedophile." Or maybe because I have a dirty mind. ;-) --physicq (c) 00:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about a newcomer whose first two edits are to ANI. Is this considered "typical behaviour" for a new account? Only, I'd been editing over a month before I even heard of ANI...I'm feeling like a slowpoke now. Doc Tropics00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand (did the same myself actually). It just struck me as a bit odd that an editor with a questionable username makes their first edit an official complaint about a questionable username. I didn't mean to sound accusatory, but I do find it curious...Doc Tropics00:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hehe well, let me just say that a checkuser linking the reporter and reportee herein wouldn't surprise me a lot ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c)01:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I suppose the blocking for personal attacking this user recieved from Blnguyen after calling me a racist yesterday didn't seem to get the message across. Now I'm being called a "shameful Muslim" and "punk". Go figure. (→Netscott)05:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The page about the Russian language needs to be looked at. Here is an excerpt.
"Russian is not actually a language. It was invented in 1943, by dr. Egor Stravinski, during the second world war. It was originally German propaganda. They invented a race of monsters just like the catholics, which they have been known to persecute for the past 6 million years. Russians do not actually exist, they're just a myth, designed to sdcare children. In 1979, Andreas discovered this but was crucified before he could tell anyone. However he wouldn't have been able to tell anyone, because he doesn't have any friends."
Koavf has managed to rack up eight distinct blocks for 3RR, and 2 more for other disruptive behavior(block log). Note also edits like this.. I just extended his latest 3RR block to idefinite, as I think the community's patience is likely exhausted by now. He has had many opportunities to mend his ways. Having recently returned from a week-long block, he started edit warring again almost immediately. His behavior is unmodified despite the volume of blocks he has received. Of course, I put this possibly-controversial action up for review. Dmcdevit·t08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's much possibility of recovery here. While I'm sure he's a nice guy, I don't think he has the temperament for editing here. I'm going to endorse this action, though sadly. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hm, harsher than we usually are. But then perhaps we are usually too soft. Endorse with the proviso that we put a note on his talk page indicating that he will be considered for a 'last chance' if he indicates that he 'gets it' undertakes to behave.--Doc01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree that a long block of some sort is in order. Not sure if indefinite is needed, just yet (I'm not too familiar with the situation), but the long-term disruption and failure to learn from past transgressions is pretty worrisome. Luna Santin01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he deserves an indefinite block, but I think that some kind of length (maybe 3-6 month block) with the option of a "last chance" before indefinite would be appropriate. He has been a useful editor, and the disruption comes from edit warring rather than vandalism. - Francis Tyers·01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Justin is a nice user but w/ a temperament. It is this same temperament that leads him to edit warring non-stop. If you'd ask me i'd say i'd prefer a definite ban from editing Morocco/Western Sahara related articles where he got most of the blocks. -- Szvest19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a very strict block. I have edited on the Western Sahara articles before and I think that Kovaf has been struggling with some users who only have the aim to put certain viewpoints on Misplaced Pages. I'm not convinced by his neutrality entirely either, but I think the articles could become very unbalanced and that we would lose a valued contributor if he were indefinately blocked.
A block of a much shorter duration should be enforced here - 1 month, 2 maximum. I definately don't think he should be blocked from editing Western Sahara/SADR aritcles (but might support a block from aritcles on Morocco). --Robdurbar16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I don’t want to interfere in your discussion guys but Robdurbar’s remarks justifying Kovaf’s behavior as just a "a struggle with some users" oblige me to do so. I think this is simply unfair from an admin.
There are reasons why Koavf has been blocked (no need to list them again) and this has nothing to do with any "other users". Trying to Justify his behaviour in this way is simply wrong.
The unbalance of the topic is an other wrong argument. He had the chance to cooperate with all and he clearly did not. Now there is a real chance that the topics will be more balanced and the atmosphere among the editors more co-operative and peaceful. All he was doing is (mis-) using Misplaced Pages for a platform to fight for the independence of a disputed territory and discouraging others with his obsessive reverts.
There are rules, and they apply for all, so remember which message you will give if you unblock this user; it's like telling everybody "ok, just continue with your edit-warring and reverts, you’ll always find a nice admin to defend and unblock you."
User Koavf has been reverting and edit-warring on many articles, and especially on Western Sahara related. Normal when he declares in his user page "I try to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR).", and on Wikime that "I will do my darndest to free Western Sahara". His talk page and contributions show that he resorts to personal attacks, and has trouble issues with a large number of users on a wide range of articles. After coming form every block, he immediately started by reverting all the changes done in his absence, even the articles he was blocked for. Short period blocks seem to "only make him bitter" as he made it clear. Koavf has not shown any change after all the successive blocks. He misuses AWB for increasing edit counts at the price of creating confusion, although he was warned and blocked for it.
As to Robdurbar's comment, I think that Koavf has made the articles related to WS very unbalanced, and in his absence you are urged to watch if the "some users" commit the same mistakes as Koavf or are the articles becoming balanced by giving both views of the WS conflict.
An indefinite block, or at least (as Francis suggested) a 6-month block after which a "last chance" is given to him to show he changed, otherwise 3RR loses its purpose and becomes a short vacation from Misplaced Pages before one returns to resume reverting and edit-warring. --A Jalil00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to infer any bias from most users - including wikima - though I hope he would accept that he, like us all, has some sort of inherent bias. With there being so few contributors to Western Sahara pages, I don't think we can afford to lose Koavf. I appreciate this ban is over conduct, not content, but when banning we do need to consider what a user has contributed to Misplaced Pages. Equally, I agree, that koavd's contributions have been far from neutral but they have been in good faith. Can we agree to at least reduce this from an indefinate ban? --Robdurbar09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There appears to be a fairly even split so far between endorsing and not-endorsing, is 50% sufficient for an indef ban to be upheld? - Francis Tyers·11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've only had bad experiences with Koavf. When things haven't gone his way, he has tended to run off to an admin, which has backfired on him each time (example 1, example 2). Lifting the block would be a bad move, in my opinion, which I'm sure will be proven if it happens. Several of his past blocks were reduced in length, only for him to pick up where he left off, which shows he disregards other people's good faith towards him. - Dudesleeper15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a rather difficult question, as he's mostly editting in territory which is *very* prone to POV-pushing. I'm fairly certain he has done it on occasion, too, and he's certainly revert-warred, but an indefinite block seems a bit harsh... Apart from all this, someone neutral should take a good look at all the Western-Sahara-related articles, as almost all of them contain either a pro-independence or a pro-Morocco POV. —Nightstallion(?)18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Francis, many others and me have been doing just that. We had experienced a very lenghty and hot debate at Talk:Morocco recently and i am sorry to say that among around a dozen of participants, only Justin was the most tendious. The participants had reached a concensus but Justin kept arguing against that. This is what makes Justin's case a bit torn. On one side, we need to keep all the articles free of POV and on the other side, we need no tendious editing and edit warring.
However, as i am not for a permablock, i'd still suggest a ban from editing Morocco/WS related articles as his POV pushing has reached limits. Szvest18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
As Fayssal said, I would also oppose a permanent block. Koavf is an obstinate user regarding matters relating to his personal views but he has shown willingness to follow dispute resolution procedures. I know this is not the point but Koavf truely believes he's doing the right thing most of the time. Regarding a topic ban or a revert parole, these matters would have to be decided by ArbCom. If anyone wants to take this to arbitration, I am more than happy to express my views on the issue. Personally, I feel a bit guilty as I was informally mediating on the WS/Morocco articles but eventually left these aside because time restrains. Koavf has been with us for long enough to deserve a proper arbitration process instead of a fast-track community ban. Regards, Asterion18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Those opposing a permanent block are doing it out of good faith and kindness rather than out of rational and reality. This is a very clear case of someone for whom 3RR means nothing, blocks mean nothing, and edit-warring is a style.
He has proven it again and again and again. There is no hope at all that he will change. I am quite sure many users have been indef blocked for much less than Koavf's record, and if this case were to end in a no-indef ban, it will serve as an argument for warring-editors, and as a blatant failure to enforce Misplaced Pages's most basic rules.--A Jalil21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering you have been here for under 3 months, I find it hard to believe that you've seen enough of Justin to make that call. Furthermore you have edit warred from the opposite POV to him. It is in your interests for him to have an indefinite block. Hardly the right person to be commenting on this. - Francis Tyers·18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If three months is a short period, I have actually seen during it koavf racking up so many blocks, using aggressive language, and disregarding Misplaced Pages's most basic rules, I have seen him promising admins he will obey by the rules but did not hold his word. I have seen 3RR losing its meaning in his case. A bad example for newcomers, like me, Isn't it?. Moreover, you can "see" all one's history of talk and contribs, even if you've been for just one week. So, one's opinion is not weakened (nor strengthened) by how long he/she has been on Misplaced Pages. You can't help Koavf by trying to redirect attention from his unjustifiable abusive behavior to other users, it is an insult to the admins' intelligence. You (Francis) have been recently blocked for edit-warring. As to my editing on WS, Koavf has reverted me , and would revert you , and everyone who writes anything that does not go his way. Is it enough that I support the WS articles to be filtered from POV by neutral editors (like you), as has been suggested above?.--A Jalil08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Koavf is currently a problem editor, but not a vandal. I suggest a long block to give him a chance to mellow out, but not an indefinite block. —MichaelZ. 2006-11-14 16:16 Z
I'd agree with that. He has put a lot of time into editing up until now, so I wouldn't want to see all that negated by an indefinite ban. A time-out would suffice, in which time he'll hopefully expand his horizons. - Dudesleeper17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
From what I can see now, the topic of Western Sahara for instance is like recovering in his absence, already. There is a sort of peace coming back and the atmosphere is likely to become cooperative and productive again.
I would prefer to see more people join and also feel encouraged to stay longer, than only koavf “owning” the pages and pushing others away with his possessive way.
His obsessive, always instant and systematic reverts and his extreme edit-warring discourage anyone who wants to do the tiniest change that does not fit his POV.
He certainly edited a lot (may be sometimes too much), but all his edits and article creations are POV and propaganda and it takes others always a huge effort to overcome his edit-warring and reverts in order to balance.
Misplaced Pages is not about quantity. Articles that are shorter, neutral, concise, let say encyclopaedic, have much more value than long stories that are nothing than a fight in favour of an ideological organisation and against a country that is seen as enemy of this organisation.
This sort of behaviour clearly damages the topic areas in question and it damages Misplaced Pages as a whole.
He had many chances but he just ignored all and he didn’t care about using one single of them.
It’s time now to protect Misplaced Pages and these topics and for their sake I would plead for keeping the indefinite ban.
Try not to make it a personal vendetta against him. His misgivings are clear to those who care to look. The admins will act as they see appropriate. - Dudesleeper00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"Koavf is currently a problem editor, but not a vandal" - I think this describes the situation best, thanks Mzajac. This is why I think an idefinate block is counter-productive and a long-but-not indefinate one could 'solve' the problem. Of course, any user - myself included -who is arguing for a long-but-not-indefinate would be happy to endorse a full block if his bevahiour did not improve upon return. --Robdurbar11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough to me. But i'd prefer that we agree on what problems we are refering to when we say a "problem editor". Are there many problems? Is there a particular one? I say this because i know for some of us or even for Justin, this may be debatable and could lead us to the same situation if he is back. Could we be more concise? Szvest ····> 13:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Dude, nothing personal, and I am most serious about it.
Rob, of course we are talking about a problematic editor and not a case of vandalism.
Koavf had already received the warning of an indef ban when he was blocked for a week and he ignored it.
I agree with the above. The indefinite block should remain permanent. No amount of reasoning or disciplinary action has made Koavf alter his behavior, even if some of his contributions are worthy. BGC12:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I believe Koavf can still be of help to this project, and would agree with Nightstallion's idea of a short block. Probably the best way to resolve the problems concerning Koavf would be to put him on a revert-parole; but since this can be done only by the ArbCom, maybe we should bring Koavf to the arbcom.--Aldux15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be reminded that user Koavf was warned by admin William M. Connolley, when he blocked him for a week, that in case he continues edit-warring and reverting he will be blocked indefinitely ], but that warning had no effect on him.--A Jalil22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I may be late for this, and I'm not really into how the process works, but I would be very disappointed if Koavf gets a full-time, all-time, permanent block. As someone said above, his breaches of Misplaced Pages rules are almost all the result of a single POV battle, where I agree he has been playing rough at times, but he has hardly been the only one to do so. It has been about him trying to fend off Moroccan editors Wikima and A. Jalil, who have for a long time worked in tandem trying to change the tone of Western Sahara-related articles (for better or worse, that's up to anyone to judge). Tellingly, they're both arguing for an indefinite ban above. Perhaps equally tellingly, I'm arguing against it: I haven't edited much lately, but I was generally on Koavf's side in those same battles. So I realize I'm not necessarily more or less credible than his opponents, as I've been part of the same battle.
Now, with that openly declared, I think Koavf should get a second chance, not because we've generally (not always) been on the same side on that one topic, but for the following reasons:
His edits have been in the grey zone, and he has broken 3RR. But his editing hasn't been malicious in the way I would expect is needed for an indefinite block. He's tried to stick to the rules, and I can't imagine he willingly broke 3RR -- that would just be stupid. There should be a sanction for failing to notice it repeatedly, but come on ... an indefinite ban for scraping up a handful of 3RR breaches over some thousands of edits and tens of edit wars?
Koavf has edited a myriad subjects apart from Western Sahara (something, I may add, which isn't the case with his WS opponents, who are clearly here on a mission), and has made a gazillion edits over a very long period of time. Apart from a good job expanding various odd topics, he has also done a lot of cleaning-up on his free-time, systematizing articles and correcting punctuation etc, which I think shows that he's no single-topic POV pusher: he's in fact a prolific and very serious editor who has unfortunately during this time also dirtied his hands in a few nasty, mostly interrelated, edit wars.
Koavf has made a zillion edits of the sort of blanket changing China to People's Republic of China, (or Russia to Russian Federation) without careful checking that the change was appropriate in context. I spent some time cleaning up after his messes on my watchlist, and he is utterly unrepentant of that behavior, too. I'm happy to see him blocked for that behavior. (Incidentally, I've not been a aprt of the Western Sahara edit wars; I haven't even read the article(s) in question.) Argyriou(talk)19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
On Western Sahara specifically, he has done a great job, even if at times his opinions shine through. It's mostly thanks to him that this topic is so well-covered, and he's done a tremendous work filling gaps and editing non-political articles in the periphery of that conflict: not just fighting the battle over flags and sovereignty. He was working diligently and, for the most time, with no apparent bias, on the subject long before these battles even started, and I think it would be a shame to see him blocked after having put all that effort into it.
Well, those are my views. I do have a history in this battle, that's no secret, but hold that against me: not against him. Ciao. Arre22:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Arre,
What you are saying is "mea culpa, the others are guilty". As I don't handle the art of telling something by pretending to say the opposit I will answer you in a strait way.
You accusation against Jalil and me having a "mission" is grave and baseless. Truly, one can say that you and koavf have a mission in the Western Sahara subject. Koavf had defined this himself for instance when saying he tries "to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR)." He even "spoke at the United Nations' on the situation in Western Sahara" and everyone knows that he is "fanatic" about the independence of the territory. And based on what I read from you in discussion I can confidently say that you are an activist for the same cause who has visited the so called "Free Zone" and probaly Tindouf as well and who has met with people like Aminatou Haidar etc..
What you do togther with koavf is a clear abuse of Misplaced Pages for your political mission and aim.
There is almost no article on Western Sahara in which you have not been involved togther with koavf, one supporting the other. All your versions of these articles reflect the polisario political and ideological position and are written to fight Morocco in Western Sahara. These articles only become somewhat balanced when other people have made a huuuge effort to overcome your intransigence and koavf's systematic reverts and agressivities before changing. I have the feeling most of them just hate the topic after this, feel discouraged and leave.
Together with him you build a constant tandem in this topic (and to a certain extent in the Morocco topic as well). Both of you, obsessive activists for the independence of the Sahara, made all topics on Western Sahara look just like a Polisario made web site.
This kind of practice has generally severely damaged Misplaced Pages.
You can't plead for the xth chance for kovf as his he had already and his block log seems to be full. As you can clearly read koavf had been blocked several times before this, not only on the topic of Western Sahara and not only because of Jalil and me. Koavf has problems with many other users and in other topics as well. Some of them have given their opinion here. In the topic of Western Sahara other users (Daryou, SteveLo, Khalid Hassani etc.) had to face the extreme intransigence of Koavf enjoying your ideological support.
The support you provided to koavf has been systematic and you could become aggressive, using vulgar words and personal attacks against others who don’t share you POV (in both links just search the f** word).
Koavf has indeed been doing much effort on the WS topic, incl. spelling corrections etc., but what you don’t tell is that he was permanently present, like a guard to instantly and systematically reverted anyone who dared to touch any of the Western Sahara pages in a manner he didn't like. He dealth with Western Sahara as if it was his little garden, his property.
As I state above, accuracy and neutrality have more priority in an encycloaedia than just quantity. A just large nr of edits is meaningless or even negative when they are all POV and ideological propaganda. It does not necessarily matter how much people write or edit, but it does matter how they do it. It's better to not handle a topic at all than to present it in such a biased and propaganda manner like you do togther with koavf.
I din't have the intention to to write off-topic, but I simply felt it's my right to answer you.
Despite my efforts to dialogate with User:Thulean and try to be constructive with the infamous disputed article White people (see talk page and mediation page, and despite having only one single warning (and a totally clean historial before this awful conflict), I have been blocked by administrator User:Shell Kinney on very unclear grounds.
She wrote (sounds very emphatic but there are no grounds):
You've been asked multiple times by many people to stop being incivil, stop attacking other editors and especially to stop harassing Thulean. Unfortunately you've now continued this both in the mediation and on my talk page. I've given you a short block - please stop the behavior and try to approach the mediation in a civil manner - without attacking and belittling other editors whom you disagree with. Shell babelfish 20:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell (there's no PAIN case, no diffs, no nothing) she could have been decided that I was making a persona attack on the following items (all based on what is written in her talk page)
1. My comment inside a large discussion (almost unilateral teaching by my side) on European genetics (as per the diff provided by Thulean in Shell's talk page) that read:
Aditionally, I think you should check this map, from a previously sourced paper, where it does make a rather conclusive division between Neolithic (Near Eastern) and Paleolithic (Basque) ancestry. It's probably better than going around Cavalli-Sforza's maps, as it is a much more modern paper.
2. My attempt of protest at his abuse on this kind of accusations that read:
LOL - that's not an attack. I'm just saying that you really have no clear idea of where your ancestors may ultimately be from (and this is only in realtion with European genetics, a discussion on which you have shown very poor understanding).
Stop whinning for everything (this might be a PA, who knows?). --Sugaar 13:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (diff)
So where is the personal attack? I wonder. There's no such thing anywhere.
I am a little angry and sarcastic, maybe. But there's not a single personal attack in all those sentences (nor in anything I've written in a good while).
There are also no such repeated warnings that Shell talks about. I just have only one warning from Shell herself and surely two dozens of pseudo-warnings (harassment) by Thulean. Nobody else has said anything about my behaviour, much less in a formal manner.
The first comment must be contextualized in a longer debate between Thulean and I on European genetics (Talk:White people#Just for the record), where Thulean made also despective comments like:
LOL. By your "logic", the "European genome" is found mostly in Saudi Arabia...I dont want to dignify your other claims with more responses but I suggest you to read about this subject before making absurd claims.
What part of this can't you get into your head?
And I was patiently replying in length, providing sources and all that can be done to reach an understanding, exposing carefully my understanding (based in many genetic studies) that European and West Asian genomes are strongly linked and that is dificult to find what is specifically European if anything...
He just made those short disdainful claims, no sources, no ideas... but specially no constructive attitude at all.
And then I bring up another source that suggests that Scandinavians are 50% West Asians and make that comment about playing with genealogies and the next I know is that he's writing to Shell to complain.
I protest and what do I get? A block.
...
I request:
1. To find out wether any of those comments actually constitutes a PA and why. I just don't see it. I was trying to be pedagogical and hoping he might learn something of all this mess.
2. If nothing is found that the block is reverted retroactively, just for the record.
3. To recuse permanently Shell Kinney from any future case that I may be accused of. At this point I have not the slightest trust in her ability or neutrality and I am doubting seriously of her good will.
...
Additionally I have disconnected myself from the White people article, discussion and mediation. This has crossed all red lines and I just can't bear this anymore. The article is a collective responsability of Misplaced Pages (that means in abstract: all wikipedians) and I have done much more than my share, getting as reward only an unbearable witch-hunt and some scars that will take some time to heal.
And I am not the only one, I believe. This one-sideness of Shell Kinney is causing problems to all wikipedians of good will, as far as I can see. Soon that article will have only one editor and that one will be Thulean (and maybe ideologically akin Dark Tichondrias too). I have done what I could but I can't keep that push if the Wikibureaucracy, impersonated as Shell Kinney, is so hostile against me and other veteran serious editors. --Sugaar07:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've edited slightly so you can see better where the request is. The first part is basically explainatory for unaware admins to understand what happened (as far as I can understand it myself) --Sugaar08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Sugaar, on first inspection of your pages, the mediation, and Shell's talk page, Shell is right that you have been crossing the line into personal attacks. You seem to be extremely resistant to hearing that, but please listen: it's not ok to attack people on Misplaced Pages. What you're doing is beyond the limits of what the community feels are ok. The things that the people you're arguing with are doing aren't going across the line. Please, calm down, and listen to people in the mediation and elsewhere. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert07:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Where is the PA? I am not attacking anyone, at least not since the warning.
And I'm not getting again in that rat-trap of White people article. I fell in that by accident and is not my area of interest. If it is of your interest, you can join the discussion and the mediation yourself and feel in first person how it is like. --Sugaar07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there's no PA anywhere. But more important: there are not the many warnings that Shell claims. I have just one warning and, as far as I can tell, I have not just not repeated the error but also tried to be as constructive as possible (with no results but disdainful comments and this unjustified block).
Block is according to WP:NPA a measure against extreme cases:
In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial.
Obviously there's no such grounds in this case and all the procedure is highly irregular and unclear.
I am also worried about ALWAYS being judged by the same administrator and precisely by the one who seems most heavily biased against me. I hope not to get involved in any more PAIN cases now that I have detached myself from the conflictive article but you never know and, just in case, I request that the next time the administrator judging my hypothetical case is someone different. I think it's a very reasonable request. --Sugaar08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I was the admin who declined your unblock request. I'd say that comparing someone to a skinhead ("like the Jewish skinhead of the BBC article, you may get burnt") is a personal attack. I for one would have been quite offended, had I been the subject of that comment. At the very least, it's a serious breach of civility, especially in a content dispute in such a contentious article as white people. Additionally, you actively mock your opponent's knowledge of genetics in your second comment, and even admit that it may be a personal attack. That right there shows me that you know exactly what a personal attack is, and that you know when you're making one. For my part as a neutral, uninvolved party, (I don't think I've ever edited white people in my life) I must support the (now-long-expired) block. ♠PMC♠ 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a PA and that's why I feel that this is a witch hunt. It wasn't meant to compare with an skinhead but I mentioned the case earlier in the conversation (what seemed funny to Thulean, as he replied with one "LOL") and I thought the comparison was appropiate not because I may think this or that about his ideology but because the skinhead that found out that he was Jewish seemed a good comparison for a person who is claiming that Scandinavia has no West Asian heritage (my documentation suggested it is c. 50%), hence the "Nordic Semitic" irony.
You can't decontextualize the phrase in such manner. It's absolutely out of place.
Also you said that my unblock request was wrong because "I had many warnings" what is not true. Check it. --Sugaar23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Its very disappointing to see this come up again. When Sugaar was first calling Thulean a nazi, he opened an Arb case, tried mediation and finally posted here complaining because I had warned him. He was told every place he went that it was a personal attack; he continued the attacks on the mediation page and was warned there by the mediator. He refuses to accept that warnings from the aggrieved party are valid as he has many of those as well. I spent more than a week discussing personal attacks and civility in great detail with Sugaar and gave him many ideas of how he could avoid this problem in the future. He is now following Thulean around and making belittling and rude comments where ever he goes - I hope the two agree to stay away from each other since they cannot work together. Shell18:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to discuss with Shell. She has shown to be strongly one-sided and I doubt her sincerity and good-will at this point. I ask Shell to recuse herself from any further cases involving me, LSLM or Thulean, or anything related with the problematic article. If I can recuse her, I do it.
Still, just for the record:
I have not persecuted Thulean anywhere. I had Shell's talk page watched, as it activates as such when you write in it. So I protested his irregular pseudo-PAIN demand. Was it rude or just somewhat sarcastic? I sadly can't trust Thulean or Shell. And it is not a PA in any case, much less an extreme case that requires a block.
I opened the ArbCom because I got confused on what procedure to follow and misread Shell re. mediation. Later I admitted she was partly right and retrieved the case myself. We went to mediation as per her suggestion and the case was rejected as pertaining to ANI. I posted here and some administrators clarified my doubts. Fine: case closed (I hoped).
Andronico (the mediator) only said that Shell's only warn was right regarding the PAIN, something I disputed then. He did not warn me for any other thing but the same that she did. So it's not any additional warning in any case. Just that he agreed with Shell then.
The warnings from Thulean are as valid as any warnings I could post in his talk page. I am not so easily "offended" as he is, so I have not intiated any sort of action against him nor ever visitied his user page. I don't think that what he's doing is right and I don't want to fall to the same type of lawyering harassment. It would be against my own feeling of dignity and good will. Anyhow, Thulean's "warnings" are just his personal opinion and I consider most of them insulting and harassing. They are not official nor any thing of the like.
I don't agree with Thulean in almost anything, no matter how hard I try. But I have decided for my own emotional and mental health to disconnect permanently from that article, that was what Thulean wanted from the beginning anyhow. I hope not to find that element ever again in my life... but you never know. As he feels his tactics are successful, he may want to expand his area of action and we may find each other in any other article. I may also be unlucky enough to meet with someone else with his same more than dubious methods, or any other case, like I myself being attacked by another user, as happened in the past once and was solved to my total satisfaction and with remarks of having managed the case very well by the involved administrators. I believe that would Shell have to manage any other case involving me she would have a clear.
Finally I find quite offensive the a priori attitude of some administrators that read: "this user has a warn" and seem to understand "he's systematically problematic", without even looking at his/her historial, that in my case was perfectly clean until I stumbled with that element and his favorite administrator.
If the case is not reviewed, next time (hopefully never) they may say: "this user has a block: he's a convicted dangerous criminal", no matter I never had a proper trial. As blocks are only suppossed to be issued in very extreme cases, they could even have some reason to think so in principle, and that's why I am requesting that the case is throughtly reviewed to see if the alleged personal attacks actually constitute reason for a block. What I think is clearly abusive interpretation of the policy and dangerous abuse of power. --Sugaar23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Sugaar, it's this simple: You have to abide by our community standards, as interpreted by us, or you're going to get blocked for abusing people. You don't set our standards - we do. You're welcome to disagree in principle, but how you act will be judged by our interpretations.
You came here to complain, and you've got a number of admins and editors telling you that you're in the wrong. If you don't listen, your future here at Misplaced Pages is going to be short.
Shell seems to have this about right. Sugaar, we are supposed to bend over backwards to be civil here, not engage in uncivil discourse then Wikilawyer about whether it technically crosses the line into personal attacks. Just treat other editors with courtesy and you won't keep getting into trouble. Metamagician300023:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You also as administrators, maybe more than anyone else have to abide by our community standards. And it's clear that, if there was any fault (what I question strongly), it wasn't such a severe case as to generate a block. Read WP:NPA please:
In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial.
Can you point out which is the personal attack(s) at all and, if it exists (that I deny), why is it so extreme as to justify a block?
Else, can you proceed with the review, as requested? Thanks.
Note 1: my impression is that you're just backing each other (out of mere corporative solidarity maybe) without putting forward anything that justifies the application of such clause.
Note 2: I have never rejected the norms of Misplaced Pages, I may have violated them out of ignorance and maybe arrogance in the past, not in this case, but I accept that I must abide by them. Can you do the same and apply the policy correct and justly without prejudice against me? That's what we, the users of Misplaced Pages, expect from you: fairness and justice. Nothing more but nothing less. --Sugaar01:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Aditionally, I don't mean to "wikilawyer". I just mean justice. I believe that the one wikilawyering was Thulean and that he does have bad faith whatever you may think. The common of us mortals has not the steel nerves he has to be so calculating.
I have 100% dropped any relation with the article in question voluntarily. I am not risking a heart attack for that. But I believe someone should investigate a little and find that Sugaar has a totally clean historial before this nasty problematic, two years editing Misplaced Pages productively (I don't know how many edits I may have but must be over the thousand or more), not a single conflict other than the typical POV riff-raffs (and not many). I am not any extreme case and your severity and lack of imparciality seems totally out of place.
I think honestly that some among you should step forward and try to see my point of view. I am no wikilawyerist. I have only filed a single RFI before this awful situation, I took attacks and hostility for one month before doing it, and that single case was ruled in my favor with all blessings (he did got a block, but only after repeated vandalism). I have never ever been accussed of anything by anyone before Thulean stepped in out of nowhere. So what's the problem?
For you I am not (apparently) but just another quasi-anonymous troublemaker. But I had a completely clean and productive historial and your lack of fairness and seriousness in investigating the case is dirtying it.
And some among you even dare to make threats, without even studying my appeal. This is total madness. I have no other name for this. --Sugaar02:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just let it go, Sugaar. You were blocked for a mere 6 hours over an article that you've repeatedly said you're not going to edit anymore. The block is done. Your relationship with the article is done. A bevy of respected editors has told you you're in breach of civility. Just let it go. ♠PMC♠ 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't let it go. I would be failing to my duty as wikipedian if I would allow administrators to abuse the policy.
Personally this doesn't feel nice but it is not my feelings what are at stake. When administrators here pointed out what I had done wrong previously and how it was a clear violation of NPA I accepted and tried to redirect my efforts in a constructive way despite the huge difficulties.
But now is not my fault. I have been punished for non-existent faults and beyond all measure (as per NPA). It is somebody else's fault (no need to name, we all know) and it is this person and collectivelly the administrators of Misplaced Pages who must correct the wrong.
I wish I knew what would satisfy you. Many different people have come along and given there opinions during this saga, but that doesn't seem to sway you. Please read the blocking policy - persistent personal attacks is considered a non-controversial block reasoning - that's precisely why templates like npa2 warn you that you may be blocked if you continue. There has been nothing in my behavior over the past week that has been an abuse of power or policy - if you feel the need to continue making these accusations, please open a request for comment on my behavior; otherwise, please stop making snide comments about me in multiple places. Shell04:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
There was no personal attack, nothing at all since that warn and the subsequent discussion. I was trying to discuss with a person that has very marked ideas on what he wants and is not used to Misplaced Pages working style (though he's getting addict at PAIN and your user page). I was trying to be pedagogic and constructive and the whole last section of Talk:White people page and Talk:White people/Mediation are evidence of my constructive and positive behaviour (though not of Thulean, but anyhow).
There were no Persistent personal attacks. Not since the warn and what you took as such isn't but a touch of irony and then a little more angry sarcasm. But no major nor constant PA, nothing that might justify a block of any sort. I was just discussing genetics, census of Latin America and future possibilities for the article structure and discouraging LSLM from keeping his tone of political denounce, as it seems to be problematic.
Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages. They should not be used as a punitive measure.
...
Caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith.
...
Blocks may be damaging when consensus proves elusive. Examples include:
blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block
blocks that, while possibly wise, lack policy basis.
short term or cool-down blocks, e.g. if a user is angry about something controversial, blocking that user will rarely cool him or her down
Obviously you ignored all that.
You are claiming a justification that does not exist and, meanwhile, you ignored all the rest of WP:BLOCK. You used block as means of punishment, you took no cautions but acted on impulse (I deduce), you blocked an active user with a substantial history of valid contributions, you blocked without any policy basis, you tried to use the block as a "cool down" block.
You broke all the rules.
My appeal is more than justified. And it is not just for my name but specially for the good working of Misplaced Pages that I am appealing.
Besides I insist that you recuse yourself or get recused otherwise on intervening in cases affecting my person or the controversial article (where I won't be anymore anyhow but you may cause more damage than good), as you have clearly shown strong bias and misuse of policy. --Sugaar07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Also: I don't see where the RfC fits in. The right place to appeal a wrong block is ANI, as per WP:BLOCK. RfC is for articles, users' editing or civility behaviour (maybe Thulean or you, Shell, should had started with that) and policies and conventions. Not for appealing a block or, it seems to me, recusing an administrator.
I think everybody would gain if you would recuse yourself voluntarily. And I have no questions about the validity of my appeal as such and, the more policy I read, the more convinced I am that the block was absolutely wrong.
Additionally, I have no interest in persecuting any direct confrontation with you, Shell, and, definitively, I won't be disturbing the peace of your campaign for ArbCom or your user page. Personally, I have no problem if you and I don't talk to each other for a while. But I can't trust you after this. I don't know how you expect me to trust an administrator who instead of appliying the policy and guidelines applies martial law, that uses wrong (I'd say "false", but maybe it's too harsh) justificactions for her actions, that has clear prejudice against one side of a very complex and difficult conflict, that assumes that if I did wrong once I will always do the same without any comprobation. No: I've seen other admis recussing themselves on much weaker grounds but you insist in staying in charge and admit no error.
I don't know what you expect from me. I strongly believe in Misplaced Pages's principles, independently on wether I may agree or disagree, be aware or not of some particular aspect, and I am each day more convinced that you have broken all them with this totally unjustified block.
I understand that you can commit errors. We all do. But I also think you should meditate on this and accept what is your part of fault. That's actually much more honest and respectable than just castling on your unjustifed position. --Sugaar08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to stalk anyone. I just mean justice done. If the common user must abide to policy, much more administrators.
I have tried to avoid direct discussion with Shell because at this moment doesn't really seem helpful. I have unwatched her talk page and any other case related pages apart of this one.
But I am right and you are not applying policy as you are suppossed to be done.
I insist you do your work and stop protecting each other: study my appeal, determine if the block was right and say why. I have put forward many reasons so far why this block was totally wrong.
As I said, we all commit errors but we must be able to admit it and fix them. It is my right and my duty as wikipedian to appeal an unjust block. I must not renounce to it and you should not abide by other reasons than policy: that's why you have been named administrator, not to protect each other but to protect Misplaced Pages and good willed wikipedians as I believe I am.
I am astonished that no administrator here has said: you have a point Sugaar, policy was violated in your case and your appeal is at least in this or that way correct.
I am also disappointed because Shell, on whose good will and seriousness as administrator I once believed in, doesn't seem to be able to admit her error. I'm not calling for the head of anyone, just for justice and due prudence.
And personally I have felt stalked myself by Thulean and this attitude protected by Shell and other administrators somehwat. I am insomniac, I am smoking double than normal and I am quite worried at some "irregular" trends inside Misplaced Pages only now I am realizing.
I have a great trust in Misplaced Pages as such and, if I dropped the case I would be betraying it and Misplaced Pages itself. It is a very good case but I am still waiting for any of you to step forward and admit even a small part of the great deal of reason I do have. That also worries me, sincerely. You have a major responsability as administrators: you are the custodians of the integrity of Misplaced Pages (and its policies and spirit). I want to think you will be at the height of the enormous trust that Misplaced Pages has deposited on you.
And this is the place where I am suppossed to appeal my unjust block. I still have to see my appeal rejected with any good reason. Just calls for dropping the case, for giving up without any grounds. ::I am very worried at Misplaced Pages's system of justice. --Sugaar10:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to say few things. Of course I'm hugely biased but hear me out. First of all, Sugaar called me Nazi many times, among other PA's. I warned him unofficially and then officially and then reported him and he got a warn. After all this he continued and was even warned by the meditator.
"But that page has been under consistent attack by (mostly anonymous) vandals of clearly nazi/racist ideology. Thulean and Dark Thicondrias have been the only ones in that spectrum to do it with a username."
I've also made a response there, at the bottom of that section, trying one last time to tell how I feel. But afterall this he likened me to a jewish skinhead. So I believe the block was just. Shell Kinney has been very patient with him despite continuous accusations from Sugaar:
1) He claimed Kinney refused meditation.
2) His answer when told that he was wrong:
"You are right: you accepted the mediation request but I misread you because of your patronizing tone and threatening questioning of my terminology."
3) His meditation was rejected and he moved it to ANI. But he accused Kinney of misleading him again. which was wrong:
4) After ANI, he accused Kinney of not mentioning the correct policy which was also wrong
He also directed PA's to Kinney, one of which was pointed out by another administrator:
""we can hardly struggle against such one-sided admins as you, really." ...
...That would also qualify as a personal attack, per WP:NPA. So far as I can see, that's all Shell has been trying to tell you. Crimsone 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC) "
And still he is talking about how his comments werent PA and how he wasnt warned enough after all this:
After reading here Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#The_elephant_in_the_room, it's clear he implies me and anyone who follows the link to White people, which he gave, can understand he implies me. And besides "For instance, I have been warned for descibing one POV-pushing editor's ideology as "nazi" and "racist", which is blatantly true", he managed to say this:
"This is just allowing certain twisted people to gag others."
And he said this AFTER his block. Amazing...
And his refusal to apply wiki policy of "commenting on debate, not on editors" seems NOT only towards me:
"If not in the ANI, where admins seem to behave like a wolfpack..."
"Ironically Shell Kinney is running for ArbCom herself. Guess that her campaign is something like "Misplaced Pages needs an iron man and that's me" of Thatcher. I don't know. I'm voting a more promising candidate." Thulean13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to disengage from Thulean. All mentioned above has been said previously and I have discussed all point by point. The only exception being my private note to user LSLM who is also very disappointed at the running of Misplaced Pages justice system and is yelling despair. It is anyhow decontextualized and if he wants to persecute me despite my attempts of disengagement, he should do it somewhere else. As it is irrelevant for the block or my appeal.
I have not asked anyone to come here to comment as I see it just as a matter of application of policy, not and RfC. Hence I request that Thulean's comments, along with my reply are deleted as irrelevant.
He is chasing me and looking for any error I might commit (not the other way around, as some seem to think). --Sugaar02:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Truth hurts, doesn't it? So long as you can stand around yelling that someone else is at fault, you seem to be happy, but when faced with facts, you back into a corner and attack. Not a single person who has ever looked at this case agrees with you. Perhaps I'm not the one that needs to take a hard look. And yes, WP:RFC is the correct place - please see "This is not the complaints board" up top. Take it to RfC if I'm so horribly overstepping my bounds. If you continue to attack and harass me at this point, I will ask another administrator to step in. Shell02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What Thulean may say does not hurt me. What hurts is that you and the other admins accept his activity as valid. That was my private comment to another user that has been also witch-hunted by Thulean and you (though he's much more stubborn in ignoring NPA) and was only intended that way. Not for you to read, not to cause harm to anyone, just to express my feelings at all this.
I really want some other administrator to step in, anyone cannot be less neutral than you. If I would not want other admins to take note and act, I would not be appealing at ANI but probably just quitting Misplaced Pages.
But I want that other administrator(s) to take a look at this appeal first and resolve clearly on it. Nobody has done that yet.
In any case, if you or Thulean think that's a fault, it should be a separate case, it can't afect my appeal because it is not cause of that block but a comment on how unjust it is and how I feel treated here by the admins who are suppossed to review the case. But it has no relevance to the case as such. It's only loosely connected.
If you are such a good and fair administrator as you and others seem to believe, you should accept my part of reason, what this appeal is about. And therefore you should remove a block that is so clearly against policy.
You cannot pretend that I have not done my best to correct my error on ideology as cause of PA. It is clear that I have, but you are ignoring it. You cannot ignore that since the first warn was made and clarified I have not made any personal attacks against Thulean or anyone and that what you are taking as such are just totally decontextualized irony (and anyhow an isolated case).
That's the problem: you tag someone as "troublemaker" and he/she seems to have to carry that mark forever and ever no matter how hard one tries. Now by applying unjust emergency measures against me you have tagged me as "convicted criminal", no matter that you are judge, jury and part and I never had any sort of trial. What I want is that trial, even if a posteriori.
I can't renounce to that because that would be betraying the values of Misplaced Pages and as member of this community I feel strongly about defending its values. You should too and therefore you should not have abused of your power nor violated policy. And, as you actually did, the less you could do is admit your errors and revert your wrongdoing.
I have read twice or thrice RFC by now and nowhere it says that administrators' actions are to be dealt with that way. We both must abide to policy and hence I stand that here is where this appeal belongs. --Sugaar19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
'Personal attacks which place users in danger — Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l@wikipedia.org) and Jimbo Wales (jwales@wikia.com) of what they have done and why. See also Misplaced Pages:Oversight.
Obviously I wasn't placing anyone in danger (and I deny it was any personal attack). But that's the only case that is admitted by the policy.
Please, Shell or whichever one is in charge. Admit the error and undo the block, else I will have to go to ArbCom, what for me is a waste of energies but surely that's also something that nobody here wants. I don't know how ArbCom would in practice rule this, but every single piece of policy supports my case (and by now you should know I'm not leaving this abuse standing).
So let's not make it more difficult, Shell, and please let's fix it in voluntary good-will terms: you delete the block, you recuse yourself from any further case involving me and the White people article. I decline to intervene in that article anymore (I have already done it). Let's close the wound but let's do it well.
Else, unless some other admin intervenes here and accepts my appeal in its due terms, this will have to go to ArbCom and it is a very clear case of abuse of policy and sysop powers. --Sugaar06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Every editor is expected to follow the policies developed by the community, not pick and choose which parts they feel apply to them or wikilawyer their way out of trouble. You appealed the block by requesting an unblock on your talk page and to the mailing list, both were declined. If you cannot accept the fact that no one has seen fit to agree with your contention that the block was improper, feel free to take it to RfC or ArbCom. As I mentioned to you once before in this now almost two-week long dispute, I would highly suggest you use RfC first this time instead of going straight to ArbCom and have another case dismissed outright for failing to follow procedures. I look forward to giving the community the chance to review both our behaviors. Shell09:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. Examples include (but are not limited to):
Personal attacks which place users in danger (See Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks)
It was no persistent personal attacks. I had stopped that (ideological identification) after the ONLY WARN and Thulean knows it well, as all the late part of Talk:White people and the Talk:White people/Medietion pages show clearly. Besides it was no personal attack but just contextualized irony and that's why I wrote "stop whinning" under your totally unjustified complaint.
I am not wikilawyering (that's Thulean, who likes to jump to the throats of people who dispute his POV). I am extremely concerned, every day more, about possible abuse of policy by Misplaced Pages administrators, as happened in this very clear case.
As per WP:BLOCK, it is here where the appeal belongs. I am not opening an RfC but, if you think I am acting wrongly, you may want to open an RFC on me. Thanks. --Sugaar20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the RfC should not interfere, I think, with this appeal, on which I am still waiting for a resolution. --Sugaar17:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Harassment by SlimVirgin
SlimVirgin is harassing me. She blanked my comments on a talk page see this and subsequent edits without providing an edit summary or any other explanation. When I asked for an explanation she blanked that too, and then left a message on my talk page threatening to block me. I do not believe that my comments violate BLP or any other policy. It is proper for me to ask editor Cberlet whether his edits violate an arbcom ruling, as I think they may. I especially object to SlimVirgin trying to keep the whole matter secret rather than allowing the community to observe and make their opinions known. --NathanDW01:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats not threatening you, thats warning you that what you are doing is a blockable offence. There is a difference. Viridae02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
However, it is worth stating that the approach taken here was sub-optimal. In almost no instance is blanking text without an edit summary going to accomplish anything, the page protection(s) was/were probably uncalled for, and the talk-page warning was a little Draconian. No point using a steamhammer to crack cashews, really. The body of NathanDW's complaint reads as more about how it was handled than any objections to the idea of having negative statements well sourced. 152.91.9.14403:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLP. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, and user pages. It's the second sentence in the policy. It appears to me that SlimVirgin is trying to save you from being permanently blocked. Jayjg 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There's been a lot of nonsense on that talk page for a long time, conducted by various editors, including LaRouchies. It was mentioned during an ArbCom case (I believe it was Nobs01), and it was decided that material not directly related to the article could be removed. Editors need to understand that they can't leave snide comments for the subject of the article on the talk page; if they want to speak to him about his real-life persona, they should contact him off-wiki, where he'd be able to ignore them more easily than when they're pestering him on the article talk page. Also, it's incorrect that I left no edit summaries; the summaries were "archiving," "blp issues," and "see your talk page" to NathanDW, followed by an explanation there. SlimVirgin04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no beef with the results and agree with your stand regarding using using the page to communicate in "real-life." However:
Semi and full protection should be used sparingly. Here dealing with the editors directly would have been preferable to the slightly brute-force approach. Looking over the history of the talk page, there does appear to have been a fair bit of frippary, but not to protection-requiring levels.
Atempting to "tidy up" discussion without transparancy usually only ends up in having it spill out elsewhere. Replacing the material with an expository paragraph reminding users of their "living person" obligations would have had a better chance to succeed in the longer run.
I was referring specifically to this edit when I spoke of not using edit summaries. Further, the "archiving" edit was also a bit non-standard as there already existed two "page move" style archives.
I'm not trying to yank your chain Slim, simply observing some ways that misunderstanding might be avoided next time. 152.91.9.14404:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC) I'd also like to recant on "draconian" from before, that was too strong. Something like "brusque" would have been better said on my part.
Excuse me, maybe I'm a bit slow. I suggested to Cberlet that his edits to the article may have violated an ArbCom decision. I agreed with an earlier editor who said that his decision to change the word "liberal" to "progressive" was POV. And, I pointed out to Cberlet that statements he had just made on the talk page were contradicted by his own real life published statements. Can someone please explain how any of this violates WP:BLP? It seems to me to be normal talk page activity. --NathanDW02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean other than your unsourced and borderline libelous claims regarding what Berlet is supposed to have called "prominent conservatives", nope, can't see a violation of WP:BLP here. --Calton | Talk02:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Other than harassing the real person on the talkpage of the bio, not a thing. The talkpage is for discussing the article. If you think pestering its subject about his real life is "normal talk-page activity", perhaps you missed the post from SlimVirgin above? It makes it very clear what bio talkpages are not for, so let me quote it for you over again: "Editors need to understand that they can't leave snide comments for the subject of the article on the talk page; if they want to speak to him about his real-life persona, they should contact him off-wiki." It's quite simple, really: don't "suggest to Cberlet" and don't "point out to Cberlet". You're doing it in the wrong place.Bishonen | talk03:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
Pointless sarcasm aside, there are (at least) three issues here. Going in reverse chronological order:
How it was handled it (per above),
How to handle editor/article duality in cases like this, and
How these talk page edits relate to the living person's guideline.
It's best to pretend the editor is not the article subject as #2 can get messy quickly. So instead of saying "and you never tire of calling him a fascist" say "and Berlet never tires of calling him a fascist." This would help to make it more clear what's normal talk page interaction and what's out of bounds. This approach also makes it a sourcing issue rather than a civility issue. Which leads nicely to #3... Provide citations for these claims and there is no problem here. I'd prefer to avoiding re-hashing #1 above, but NathanDW is (clumsily) addressing a valid point, that this guideline should not be used to stifle debate, and that it's neither required nor productive to "vanish-ify" discussions of this sort.
I'm leaving the page semi-protected for a few days, because some of the problematic material was restored by an IP address within a range often used by LaRouchies. SlimVirgin07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, this guy is a policy wonk. Which is amazing for a new user. I think we nee a block here but I'd prefer to get some support from other admins before any action is taken. --Deskanatalk19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Many editors, myself included, participate in a number of aactivities besides article contributions. However, this editor has never made a single edit to any article, ever. A few deletion debates, and much nonsense on the talkpages of other editors. Since it's not overt vandalism, I'm not sure that a block is in order, but is this user really contributing anything to the project? Maybe a block is in order after all? Doc Tropics19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
We don't even need to prove sockpuppetry. We can block for disruption and trolling if the community so wishes. And I believe he has met both criteria. --physicq (c) 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Trolling, disruption, and no useful contributions at all. This editor does far more harm than good; blocking is appropriate. --Doc Tropics20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to ask Physicq210, ArmadilloFromHell, Ryulong, and so on a question. I have been contributing towards cleaning up some areas where Misplaced Pages talkspace and wikispace is being misused, as opposed to articlespace. I'm labeled as "overciting" policy when a user removes a speedy delete tag I placed — something classified as vandalism. The user responds incivilly by stating I don't know what I'm doing, then removes the entire section from his talk page — and shows no sign of putting it anywhere else. Something that my brother, on his anonymous IP account, was blocked for 24 hours for. I tell him he's not supposed to do that, and all of a sudden, you gentlemen here are talking about blocking my account? And as a "disruptor" or a "sockpuppet," moreover -- or, worse yet, a "policy wonk"? What the bloody heck? — Whedonette (ping) 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, not that it honestly really matters on Misplaced Pages, but one might ask you to consider what the "-ette" suffix usually implies about one's gender. — Whedonette (ping) 20:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel you can consider enforcing Misplaced Pages's vandalism policy as disruption. Disruption seems to be an extremely flexibly defined offense: if you don't like what the user's done, ban them for disrupting. Disrupting what ... a peaceful state of mind? The way things should be under an administrator's subjective viewpoint? The reason policies exist is so that people have metrics by which they know whether they're going to get punished or not. If any behavior a particular admin doesn't like can be slapped with a "block due to disruption" label, then why do policy pages exist here at all? — Whedonette (ping) 21:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Instead of throwing walls up around yourself and covering your ears and shield yourself away from truth, perhaps it will help if you actually listened to others' advice and start actually contributing to the encyclopedia instead of ramming what was a trivial complaint into all of our faces. --physicq (c) 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
For all your wikilawyering, you seem to misunderstand a few key points. First of all, it's not the action that constitutes vandalism, it's the intent behind the action, y'know, in a Kantian sort of way. Secondly, the "removing warnings is bad" thing really has no significant backing/consensus at the moment, so it's generally discouraged to bug people about that. Also, you should know that userspace is generally exempt from most of the rules governing encyclopedic content. Hope that clears up a few things for you, and I hope you stop harassing people about the contents of their userspace and actually build an encyclopedia. (By the way, this is addressed to Whedonette, not Cbrown.) --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Not today. What with being called a wikilawyering disruptive sockpuppet policy wonk (boy, you boys sure know how to make a girl feel real welcome!), I can't say that I'm precisely in the mood to be a productive and beneficial member of Misplaced Pages today. So in the best spirit of m:Don't be a dick, I shall not be a dick and get some air and some turkey in my stomach before I approach Misplaced Pages again. (I got to get myself some friends like SUIT.) — Whedonette (ping) 21:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"then removes the entire section from his talk page -- and shows no sign of putting it anywhere else." - complete bollocks. One needs only to read User:SUIT's talk page to see that this is a total lie. When this user was told about this the user started ramblinb on about SUIT using multiple accounts, then cited WP:AGF, which as a quick read of WP:AAGF suggests, is one of the worst defenses in the world. I'm totally sick of this person now. --Deskanatalk21:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
...we need to get some of this guy's actions and use as an example in the wikilawyering article. He is appearantly operating under AABF and Always Assume Others Are Idiots. Anyone considered running CU? It would be interesting to see what turned up. --Elaragirl21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Final comment: I have to sign off now to catch a train; I am heading out of town to visit family. If you choose to block me for a limited time, fine. If you choose to block me on a permanent basis, I would simply respectfully ask that, at the time of your blocking, you also advise me as to the appeal procedure for such a decision, as I don't feel it's warranted given my behavior and intentions. To ignore Elaragirl's insult and instead sift through all of what's been said above for positive comments, it appears that my reputation would be better enhanced if I were more of a contributor to articlespace. I will endeavor to do so in any future time I spend on Misplaced Pages. I also ask you to please assume that I mean it when I say that I have no intent to purposefully disrupt Misplaced Pages simply for the sheer sake of disrupting Misplaced Pages. To conclude, honestly, have a great holiday with whomever you're spending it with. — Whedonette (ping) 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Per Elaragirl: run CheckUser, do. Like there's ever been a newbie who Wikilawyered like this. A block is not merited but a reminder to the editor to quit harassing people, let people who know more about policy take care of that, and to actually write some articles would not go amiss. Just my 2 cents. What is more, it wasn't even SUIT who removed the Speedy Tag, as far as I can make out. Moreschi22:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a bad feeling about this user, based on the language & attitude that I've seen: Whedonette reminds me of a specific user whom the Arb has permanently banned & who also showed a similar flair for aggressive Wikilawyering & disruption. If it's not this person, then Whedonette should be given a firm warning for the imitation alone. -- llywrch03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It's quite difficult to prove that you are not somebody. I'm not this Wikistar user you linked to, but I can't really effectively prove that to you, can I? — Whedonette (ping) 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I will make a respectful offer to any administrator who's currently dealing with this: if it will help everyone concerned with the issue instead be at peace with it, block me for a day, a week, a month; I merely ask that you not ban me permanently. That, I would respectfully fight. When I come back, I will try to do some articlespace edits to somehow cement my reputation in better form in case this ever happens once again. I honestly don't admit to any guilt. The phrases thrown at me here are very incivil ("wikilawyering", "troll", "disruption", etc.) and have rushed, with no proof, to poor assumptions of me — I find the irony darkly humorous that I am being accused of assuming bad faith and being incivil in a manner that in and of itself assumes bad faith and is incivil. And wikilawyering is a rather humorous way of saying, "Damn it, Jim, she's citing policy at us! How devious!" But, practically, at this point, what can I do? Obviously, the tide of opinion feels differently than I do, and I can hardly change all of these editors' opinions. If it will make peace to accept a punishment, fine, then let's do that. At this point, I'm just amazed that this has exploded so quickly, and so universally against me. It makes no sense for this to be a battle I (figuratively) die for, so do what you like; I concede to whatever you like, short of permaban, that will just end this "SHE SUCKS!" montage. — Whedonette (ping) 04:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Everyone's annoyed at you, yes, but no one is going to block you unless your actions ask for it. About others "falsely" calling you incivil, please note that we also find it ironic that you are so quick to accuse us of incivility and impropriety while shoving WP:AGF down our throats. I don't see why you are so willing to turn a discussion that was only discussing your actions into some sort of us launching a crusade against you. --physicq (c) 04:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Well, then, the purpose of this discussion seems fulfilled: if I'm not going to be blocked, then I think we've discussed the issue enough, and I think further discussion will just aggravate both parties. I will try to start focusing more of my work in articlespace (although I won't begin that campaign this weekend, most likely). — Whedonette (ping) 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The idea that this user expects us to seriously look at their actions with good faith is insulting to my intelligence. We don't have to AGF when we all see evidence to the contrary. And Wikilawyering means "to deliberately twist policy to your own means rather than the letter and spirit of the law to game the system" , which you're doing. Stop. And yes, this all does seem eerily familiar. --Elaragirl06:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Jeff3000 has gone on a disambig streak changing every instance of the word British to point away from the disambig page, yet in this case, the disambig page is the only place where the adjective is explained. The links he is pointing British too make less sense than the disambig page. He's also left some rather nasty notes on other editors pages when they use the word British. Could someone more familiar with disambig issues look into this please? Right now it seems he's making more confusion by moving it away from the content of British. Thanks. pschemp | talk04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Though British is the only page at which the adjective is explained, it is surely appropriate that we point links to the nation to which the adjective refers (see, e.g., our general treatment of American qua adjective of nationality, viz., the piping ]); many of Jeff's edits appear to be of the former variety, such that they are probably appropriate disambiguations (although I share in pschemp's assessment that some changes have been inexact/confusing and ought perhaps to be reverted). Similarly, whilst Jeff might perhaps have been a bit a more decorous in phrasing his don't link to Britain boilerplate—the tone in its prescriptivism is perhaps a bit high-handed (and the substantive submission is not completely accurate; there are instances in which one properly links to a dab page generally and to Britain in specific)—he doesn't seem to have been disruptive or incivil here; indeed, concomitant to his boilerplate has been a welcome to several new users, and, in general, though terse, his messages have not in the least, been, to my estimation, nasty (apologies if I've overlooked something a bit more untoward). Perhaps this issue has been addressed to Jeff on the talk pages of other users to whom he has written, but it surely hasn't been mentioned on his talk page, and I wonder whether this issue, to the extent that there's anything about which the community ought to be concerned (I don't know that there is), ought first to have been addressed to the user in question. Joe04:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I know of at least one user talkpage where he left a less than civil message and then did not answer at all when the issues were pointed out to him. pschemp | talk04:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
British was the colloboration of month during the September disambiguation project, see WP:DPL, where over 3000 links were disambiguated. There were multiple editors, including User:RussBlau (through his dab username User:RussBot) and others who all worked over weeks to disambiguate the term, as well as other links. In fact, the country terms are one of the links that come up the quickest, and a set of users have been set up to disambiguated them before they become a problem; see WP:DPM, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages. I am not the only one who is working on this project. As for the ambiguity, when the term is ambiguity of a term is being discussed, I link straight to British (disambiguation), which makes it clear that the term should not be disambiguated. Note from WP:DPL, "Ideally, Misplaced Pages articles should not link to disambiguation pages (with rare exceptions where the ambiguity of a term is being discussed); instead links should go directly to the appropriate article".
Now in regards to my messages, they are not uncivil at all, but informative, and the vast majority of people thank me for informing them; they are just unaware that linking to disambiguation pages is not preffered, and in this way the tireless work of the people disambiguating is lessened. You can see all my dab messages at User:Jeff3000/dab.-- Jeff300004:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Leaving comments for established users who are well aware of exactly what British links to is not very polite. However, not answering them is much more so.pschemp | talk04:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
How do I know if a user knows of the dab page recommendations? I am not a mind reader. I, also, reply to editors who respond to me to my talk page; I don't keep watch of others' talk pages. -- Jeff300004:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
IF you make a post to another's talk page, it is your responsibility to then answer objections raised there. You don't get to just ignore everything not on your talk page, especially when you posted on theirs! That's awfully condescending of you, again. pschemp | talk04:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Now its not. Some users do so, but the vast majority do not, and expect people to respond on their talk page. Of the people who have asked me something on my take page (in the past couple days), they can be categorized as:
Thankful: , , , , ,
Thinks that I offended him: (explained to him that I did not, and that I was just pointing out why linking to disambiguation is not so good.
Questions my statement, (responded to him on his talk page)
That's nice. You still didn't answer why you are so important that you can ignore responses to statements you post on other's talk pages. pschemp | talk04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
As I already mentioned, I do not watch other people's talk pages, as is standard practice for Wikipedians (those that expect a response on the talk page they wrote to, state so on their own talk page), and given that I do not know of any responses, thus I am not ignoring them. -- Jeff300005:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Your claim that that is standard practice is not true first, and second, you don't know of any responses because you haven't been paying attention at all obviously. IF you leave a message for someone, it is your responsibility to answer them, plain and simple. And *most* people answer on the same talkpage the message was left. You attitude here that you aren't responsible to responding to others is terrible. Communication is important, and you are ignoring half of it. pschemp | talk05:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree with you. Look at your talk page, you have a note that mentions that you will watch other talk pages; if it was standard practice, you wouldn't need such a note. Regardless, I've stated my opinion about my actions, and unless others have any comments or suggestions, there's not much more to say. I would also like to note, that you could have asked me to change my message (which I believe is not uncivil in any way) or asked me to respond to some message on some talk page, but instead you came straight here, without even informing me. Instead Joe had to inform me of this thread. -- Jeff300005:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
IF you had been communicative and paid attention to the responses to the messages you left, you would already have been aware of this. Ignoring responses to messages you leave is not acceptable. You already ignored responses on others' talk pages so then why would I think you wouldn't ignore one on your own talk. Im sorry, but if you leave messages, it is your responsibility to respond to answers you get. Burying your head in the sand deserves a post here. Besides, I have every right to ask other people to look at a situation. Posting on your talk page does not accomplish that. pschemp | talk05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Still disagree with you. Can you find a policy page that states that one must watch a talk page one posts on? Regardless, I went through all the talk pages I posted on. The vast majority had nothing posted on them. Two of them had thank you notices , and one, which I assume is the one you are talking about where she states 1) would have been nice to know where she did not disambiguate, and 2) disagrees with the dabbing. True, I could give the diff, but most people are thankful just for the tip, and the few that have wanted the diff have asked me on my talk page. As for the second point, the standard practice is for disambiguation of these country terms is to disambiguate to the country of origin, unless there are specific reasons not to. In the article in question, the ambiguity of a term is not being discussed. -- Jeff300005:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Jeff3000, you can add me to your list of those who found your message to be mildly insulting. I was going to post a pithy retort on your talk page, but decided it wasn't a good idea to respond at all since it could only leave me looking bad.
Next time you correct one of my links, I don't really want to know about it. I'm not trying to disrespect your work... ---J.S (t|c) 06:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Putting aside the contents of Jeff's boilerplate message, I do think that disambiguating links to British is consistent with Misplaced Pages policy and ought not to be discouraged. There are exceptions but they are relatively rare. And I think it is usually a good thing to provide some form of notice to the editor who originally created the link, since they might want to see what has been done and might even suggest a more appropriate target for the link. (Or they might not, in which case they can just ignore the message.) I offer to Jeff my own boilerplate text (which I'm not actually actively using) at {{dablink notice 1}} for his consideration, although it was designed for a slightly different context. --Russ(talk)12:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note on this - British and United Kingdom are different things. For example, a company may be British but is subject to Scots Law - there are more but too many to go in to. Surely it would be better to rewrite British so as not to be a disambig page? British needs adequately describing and should not be simply a "click on" page. Regan12321:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
To a certain extent I disagree. I think this is an example of an occurence where we need more than a disambiguation page, but where a full article would be repeating detail from elsewhere and not reflecting the fact that the majority of links to the page will be intending to go to, say, the United Kingdom, rather than to article about British. I think the current halfway house works best. --Robdurbar22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm noticing a disturbing trend on new pages patrol. I've seen at least a half-dozen new accounts create a plausible title, leave an edit summary stating "Created article with..." and the only "content" was those godforsaken, idiotic echoes of the title or unrelated nonsense. The style is the same on all of these. I am simply going to start blowing those accounts out of the water on sight. Thought you all should be aware. - Lucky 6.906:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
ROFL. This new thing has caused quite a stir...this is the third or fourth comment I've read about this new feature. Hbdragon8807:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ha! Just when I thought a new, improved breed of vandal came along, it's something we did! I love it! What a great way to clobber nonsense!! - Lucky 6.907:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Zowie! Just clobbered three nonsense articles and was able to skip over a legit new article from a longtime user who forgot to summarize it. Didn't have to open 'em first! I repeat: I love this. - Lucky 6.908:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Yah. A little bit of surprise and WTF? at first, but when I realized the deal, I was quite happy. Yay! More turkey fighting! --jpgordon17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
NRen2k5 (talk·contribs) sent me an email requesting unblocking and unprotection of his talk page to appeal the block. I protected the page and extended his 24-hour NPA block because he was continuously removing warnings with abusive edit summaries. He said:
I was justified in my actions because I have been suvbjected to harassment, threats, stalking, constant reverts, personal attacks, outright lies and appeals to authority over the past 48 hours.
I also notice that my usertalk page has been protected, which will interfere with the appeal process. please remove the protection and the block.
Would I be right to ignore this, or is he just not adept at properly reporting abuse done to himself? - Mgm|11:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
To anyone considering this please do fully review this editor's recent contributions and note how he's been repeatedly uncivil to not only myself but admins that have been counseling/warning him. The block message and warning blankings are just the last in a series of examples of problem behavior (including using his user page -since blanked per G10- to attack me) by this editor. This ANI thread is illustrative as well. Thanks. (→Netscott)13:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Mike Mendoza was for some time a mess, with large amounts of unsourced text based on stuff heard on the radio. At some point the real Mike Mendoza, who is now editing from User:Mike mendoza (identity confirmed) started removing material. After some back-and-forth, during which I got involved, the article now contains only sourced information - or at least, none of the unsourced information is under dispute. Unfortunately, Mike mendoza is continuing to remove the following paragraph.
Mendoza is Jewish and has co-founded a London-based Jewish radio station, Shalom FM, in order to provide, he says, "some balanced reporting about the community and Israel."
The source seems legitimate and we haven't been given any reason to believe the contrary. User:Mike mendoza's only justification, expressed solely via edit summaries, is "i am no longer connected in any way with shalom" - which we don't say he is, but it seems undisputed that he founded it, and for a notable DJ that's a relevant fact. Despite repeated requests he's never communicated via Talk:Mike Mendoza or User talk:Mike mendoza.
I'm asking someone to warn him that he may be blocked if he continues, then follow through if necessary - not as punishment, but in the hope that being unable to edit will force him to communicate. I can't do either as I've been active editing the article. The only other route I can see to stop the edit warring, apart from the unacceptable one of continuing to revert until he gets bored, is to suggest mediation - which he will almost certainly ignore - and then go to Arbcom, which would be a massive waste of their time, in my view. --Sam Blanning13:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
He appears to take offense to the implication he's still connected to the station. What if you added the fact he left at the end of the sentence? - Mgm|13:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any reliable sources that say he has no connection, or that say that he says he has no connection? If not, this "fact" has to go. What an anonymous user says isn't really reliable. yandman13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not an anonymous user, however. I'm assuming that when Sam Blanning states that he has confirmed the identity of this user, we can take that statement at face value. (Sam has been around here for a while, and is both technically competent and not prone to fits of gullibility.)
I see no reason not to add "Mike Mendoza is no longer associated with Shalom FM" (per Mgm) and slap a {{citeneeded}} tag on it so that everything is kosher. This really doesn't seem to be a particularly controversial point, and I admit to having trouble seeing why the individual would want to lie about this. I'm assuming – and if there's more backstory than is immediately visible, please fill us in – that he's busy full time with Talksport, and just doesn't do the Shalom FM stuff anymore. (I note that our source supporting Mike's link to Shalom FM is almost three years old, which is an eternity in the entertainment industry.)
In other words, I see no reason why we shouldn't let individuals update uncontroversial biographical and career information in their articles. I also agree with Sam's point that blocks may be necessary to encourage discussion; the correct way to deal with Mike's change of jobs isn't to delete the reference to Shalom FM, but to note that his affiliations have changed. Per WP:AUTO, individuals about whom Misplaced Pages has written are strongly encouraged to use the talk pages when they encounter conflict. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This issue has been the subject of a report at WP:AN/3RR. I suggested there that attempting to enforce as a blockable 3RR violation would be inappropriate. It's more appropriate to look at it under WP:BLP and WP:COI together. Fys. “Tafysaym”. 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
There is indeed no reliable source, so far as I know, that would show that Mendoza has left Shalom - in fact, he's still listed on their website . We could say he left anyway and leave it unsourced, but a) that's sloppy article writing and b) as long as he's still listed on Shalom FM's website anyone would be within their rights to challenge the sentence.
This might be solved by changing "has co-founded" to just "co-founded". The former connotes continuing affiliation, the latter does not. - Jmabel | Talk19:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This IP Address is of Chaska High School in Chaska, Minnesota. It has shown consistent vandalism, not just to the Chaska High page, but to many others as well. Anyone in the school can access Misplaced Pages through this IP, and as such, are truly anonymous. If someone at the school wants to edit Misplaced Pages that badly, they can get a user account and contribute that way. I would propose a indefinite block on the IP, as it has been shown to cause more harm than good.
Reference the Chaska High School article to view this IP address and its 'contributions' to Misplaced Pages. --Pseudolus4214:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe 3 in 5 minutes, but no have you asked the admin who protected about it, they may know more or may have made a genuine mistake. --pgk15:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he's requesting it (a could initiate it himself anyway), it's a description of what has already happened --pgk15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I go for more than that. If it's a popular page, there should plenty of people watching to rvv. A few times a day is nothing - your average sports team article gets that much on average, esp. during the season. There's VOABot II as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Where has this file gone? Image:Buddha-Sarnath-sepia.jpg Lots of pages link to it. There's nothing in the deletion log. There are no deletions in the history. Has it been killed and all revisions oversighted? Am I missing something obvious? Is this a database blip? A lesson in the transience of all things? Most strange. Antandrus (talk)18:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I just received an email from User:Iwazaki asking me to delete his sandbox (here). This user, while not being the most diplomatic person on the planet, has in my opinion calmed down since his first altercations with Shell and myself. He seems to have turned the page, and I can understand why he wants to delete his sandbox and its history (not being an expert in MediaWiki syntax, he used it to prepare a retort to one of his "opponents"). Would anyone care to oblige? Thanks. yandman21:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd thought about db-self, but I think it's only for articles. I didn't know about userreq, though. We live and learn. Thanks for the quick reply. yandman
