Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:27, 17 July 2007

Block evasion by banned user

These articles are being plagued by sockpuppets of permabanned user:Dimror (& his checkuser confirmed sockpuppets, User:Vlug etc). He has been adding original research on the number of Muslims in Albania (changing the figure from 70% to 10%) with sources which needless to say don't support his claims. Before he was indefblocked he revert warred with his main username (e.g. ). After he was indefblocked, dynamic anon IPs from AlboTeleco Networks have continued his activities (e.g. ) and have now escalated to numerous articles. He was banned in early April but the anon edit wars have been continuous until the present day despite having been reverted by numerous users. Can an administrator please take a look at this and do something (watchlist the articles and block the dynamic IPs as they appear, give the articles a couple of weeks of semi-protection, something, anything). The affected articles are (just check their poor histories):

• Albania
• Albanians
• Demographics of Albania
• Islam by country
• Islam in Albania
• Religion in Albania

Thanks.--Ploutarchos 10:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs)

• EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" "This Annonymous User is so stuped." "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, ,. He has been warned numerous times , , . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order.

New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" refering to other users as idiots and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this .. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. YoSoyGuapo 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grandmasterka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

ignoring the block which using his 69.119.127.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . He has been blocked reblocked and continues to go around his block EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . I believe it's time for a permanent ban. YoSoyGuapo 11:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Loureid

Loureid (talk · contribs · block log) is a high school students who attend my school. Recently he and other students have been causing trouble, both aimed at me and at Misplaced Pages in general. This is often because of my status as an administrator. However, a few of them have either created or co-created a "political party". Earlier tonight (AEST) Loureid created an article on National Louis Party, which was deleted twice, once under the patent nonsense CSD (G1) and the other under the notability CSD (A7). When I tried to explain why the article was deleted via MSN, he refused to accept it, stating that Misplaced Pages is "corrupt" and is a "bureaucracy". Around 21:45 UTC, my userpage came under attack by two IP addresses, revealing personal information in the process. I added semi protection to the page and Loureid began to vandalise my page. I added full protection. He then began vandalising other pages. I subsequently blocked him for 24 hours. User:Chacor had suggested a block, just as I was applying the block. Loureid stated he wished to be unblocked, claiming that "HarryBoyles has been on my account hacking into it, he made those changes on my account, i didnt know of them, i wouldnt dream of damaging the good reputation of wikipedia, i belive that harryboyles has an alterior motive to getting me banned, you should concider taking action against him". Charor contacted me afterwards, suggesting I bring the issue here for wider input. I'm planning to talk with the deputy principal at school when it resumes to discuss issues such as this, as well as other incidents. Harryboyles 13:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. We'd rather trust you than a group of trollsocks. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention was Chacor's intention of an indefinite block, which is what I was really asking about. Harryboyles 14:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yamla took care of that after unblock template abuse. – Chacor 14:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe instead of posting here about your problems, you should go outside and get some fresh air...it seems you spend a lot of time on Misplaced Pages, no?

I'd normally suggest to delete those revisions but the personal information is only your first name, and you actually made your username out of your real first and last name. But then dealing with him in high school is a problem (offline when he'll harass you there). The vandal says (italics used as quotes) Firstly i said "I am way cool!!!, anyone who disagrees is wrong. So Naa Naa Na Na NAA" and "HAHAHAH. I changed it back "", if that is your real name. I am cooler than you! Naa Naa". Maybe you can print these diffs out and embarass them as this makes them sound 10 years old. SakotGrimshine 14:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:71.61.178.95

71.61.178.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received several warnings about vandalising pages since this March, but has refused to stop adding Kennywood / Re-Animated nonsense to pages. The IP has never been blocked and his/her edits are sporadic. On top of that, the IP might be 24.3.247.88, who was blocked for ten days on March 20, 2007 for similar vandalism. Pants 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the edits, it appears to be a static IP attacking the same articles over and over. I gave him a 24 hour block for now. IrishGuy 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Juiced_lemon (talk · contribs · logs) and WP:Point

Western Sahara articles I would like some assistance; this editor is disrupting Misplaced Pages by insisting that a particular issue is POV without resorting to talk or mediation. For instance, he insists on changing a flag template to include a map, thereby breaking its functionality. If you see his edits, he is doing a similar thing on several templates, breaking their functions and creating redundancies in articles. I would be happy to discuss the issue at the appropriate venue with this editor (i.e. Talk:Flag of Western Sahara, and consider mediation/arbitration, but all these template edits are basically a proxy for this one dispute as best as I can tell. Please assist. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Juiced Lemon has done just the right thing. Western Sahara is a disputed territory that the UN is yet to solve the issue. Actually it is arranging for direct negotiations between the conflict parties: Morocco and the Polisario Front. What Koavf has been doing as a fervent militant activist for the Polisario, is to anticipate the result of the conflict and use the flag of one of the parties (guess which) to the conflict as the official Western Sahara flag, whereas WS has no flag as a disputed territory. Therefore, WS should not have a flag template, while the SADR, the government-in-exile of the Polisario has one, and can be used in the SADR articles, but not in Western Sahara articles. The French Misplaced Pages for example uses exactly the map outline that Juiced Lemon has been using here. So, Koavf's complains are baseless. Needless to remind that Koavf has been so disruptive about the Western Sahara articles that he was indefinitely blocked for more than a half year. He was allowed to edit again as a gesture of goodwill from the community, and here we are again after just one day from being unblocked.--A Jalil 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The changes I have made don't break any functionality. Western Sahara is a disputed territory. The so-called Flag of Western Sahara is in reality the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and it symbolizes the opposition to occcupation of Western Sahara by Morocco. Any use of this flag in association with Western Sahara have an obvious political meaning.

So, I replaced the flag by a map of Western Sahara. I go to post a request for comments in the village pump. --Juiced lemon 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for this These arguments belong somewhere else (e.g. Talk:Flag of Western Sahara); the germane issue is the persistent blind reversion and template-breaking and controversial edits on articles with POV tags, etc. I tried to be conciliatory, but you didn't seem interested in listening or discussion, so I've asked for someone else's intervention to mediate, arbitrate, or whatever is needed. One thing that we can't continue doing is changing flag templates to maps so that we have abominations like this and this. Again, to reiterate: you're breaking the template's functionality. Lastly, could you please not use inflammatory language like "fervent militant activist," even if you think it's true? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is not abomination. Let me have a different opinion.

Template talk:Country data Western Sahara#Request for Comment: Western Sahara and the SADR --Juiced lemon 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can i ask you about one thing Justin? Do you know that the ANI is not the appropriate place to sort out edit conflicts? You are already discussing this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Stub sorting where many admins and the project contributors have explained to you why you are not correct. So what do you want exactly from admins to do for you? -- FayssalF - 15:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay Even if that is true, he's now definitely disrupting Misplaced Pages with unilateral and controversial moves that have no consensus or discussion. See Foreign relations of Western Sahara, which he has moved twice without any discussion. The talk of that page has an extensive discussion on the page name, and he apparently didn't even reference it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting? Who? Lemon? No. He has never set a foot on the article you are talking about. -- FayssalF - 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? He's moved it twice today. Did you even look at his logs? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages, the government of Western Sahara has been broken up since 2002. So, this government don't deal with foreign affairs for Western Sahara anymore.

I have not yet read critical comments regarding my last edits. I wait for Justin (koavf) argumentation in the appropriate talk pages. --Juiced lemon 20:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh "Juiced" all "government of X" articles redirect to "politics of X" articles. What does that have to do with anything? I don't even understand what the comment "this government don't deal with foreign affairs for Western Sahara anymore" is even supposed to mean. Why should it be that you make the contentious moves (twice, once after it was moved *back* by me) and then expect me to justify myself on talk? Aren't you the one who is supposed to justify moves? And why did you move it to two separate names? And why did you leave behind double-redirects? And why did you chose "legal status of" instead of "political status of"? These are a few of a host of questions that should have been resolved before a unilateral and contentious move that, in my opinion, shouldn't have taken place (cf. with all previous attempts to move that article on its talk.) You either ignored prior consensus, didn't care about it, or both, and that's not exactly ideal editing. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, you'll find a lot of "government of X" articles which are not redirecting to "politics of X" articles. What I said means that Western Sahara have no government, therefore don't deal with foreing affairs, and a subject like Foreign relations of Western Sahara cannot exist. Such title in an Encyclopedia has not more sense than Foreign relations of the Statue of Liberty.

So, I had two options:

• either to request the deletion of Foreign relations of Western Sahara which dealt with an inexisting subject
• either to rename the article with a name matching an encyclopedic subject

I have choosed the second option. Now, if you can suggest a better name than Legal status of Western Sahara, do it! --Juiced lemon 12:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Another option Or you could have posted on talk and requested comments. That would be the way you should work on a collaborative encyclopedia, and you know that. Consequently, you are disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There was enough comments in the talk page, and no permissions are required to improve articles in Misplaced Pages. You didn't use the talk page for your argumentation neither: you prefer to complain in the ANI. --Juiced lemon 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the contentiousness of this issue; frankly, if you ask me, it would be best if all interested parties developed a common way they can all agree on on how to deal with Western Sahara-related articles on Misplaced Pages, possibly by way of mediation or something like that. This issue comes up quite regularily, and it shouldn't be too much of a problem to develop a neutral, objective and standardised way of treating the Western Sahara issue while fairly representing both Morocco's and the SADR's points of views. —Nightstallion (?) 22:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. There is a general issue regarding numberous confusions between Western Sahara and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in Misplaced Pages. Example: In List of circulating currencies (Western Sahara), Moroccan dirham is associated with the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (due to ). Use of new templates have aggravated the situation. Such confusions are a godsend for Polisario supporters. I understand they work to keep them. --Juiced lemon 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation I'd be all for mediation if it will stop this incessant template-breaking, reversion, and unilateral moving. This is ridiculous and it can't go on for long. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The templates koavf refers to were mostly done by him at the time none of us was around. With the problems risen by the naked POV that polluted the Western Sahara articles is becoming a problem for the community and causing tensions, the need for a neutral point of view is necessary as Nightstallion wrote above. How can the flag of one of the parties of the conflict be forced to be adopted in Misplaced Pages as representing the disputed territory which has no flag, and how come two completely different things as "Western Sahara" and "The Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic" be used interchangibly?. The solution could look easy and there would not be a problem correcting the templates and neutralising the wording. Only if there were no stunch activists around. This is the problem that Juiced Lemon is rightly trying to correct, and which is discussed extensively elsewhere like in Dispute_about_the_wording_scope_of_a_stub.--A Jalil 21:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant The exact features of the dispute are irrelevant, Jalil: my statements still stand. These moves and edits are disrupting, confusing, and should not have taken place, regardless of your personal convictions about the subject matter. He should have discussed prior to make a contentious move, and that is true regardless of whether the contentious move is some propaganda that supports my or your or his or no one's political agendas; that is irresponsible editing. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor making personal attacks in edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is this the right place to mention this? Scott 110 has a history of insulting other editors, his last three edit summaries were removing moronic statement again, thats the most idiot thing ive ever read, and removed moronic, uncited statements. He has been warned about his behavious several times but he continues. I just happened to notice one of his summaries in an article I was looking at and I haven't seen edit summaries abused in this way before. 172.215.48.198 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's not particularly nice. Their edit history shows that to be their default setting. I've left a note on their talk page, so we'll see how it goes ... - Alison ☺ 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Such behaviour on the part of Scott_110 isn't appropriate all the time but isn't requiring of immidiate action. A note on the user's page is good. --Deskana (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I particularly care....but how is calling a statement, rather than the author of a statement, idiotic or moronic a personal attack on the author him/herself? Look up the word "criticism".Scott 110 03:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Look up the terms "courtesy" and "civility". "Ughh..you people are such nerds", etc, etc ... Plenty of examples out there. Like I said, focus on content and not on the person - Alison ☺ 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

stop de-valuing its importance, jerk. Yeah, that sounds like criticism of a statement. There are no "idiot statements", only idiot people. 172.188.21.78 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To find that out you really must have done some research...it must be nice to have that kind of time on your hands.Scott 110 20:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take that much 'research' - your edit history is replete with examples. Please - take the hint and stop the insults and personal attacks - Alison ☺ 04:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor uses edit summaries for personal attacks, refuses mediation

I need some advice on how to proceed with some allegations being made against me. Please see this user's contributions. Basically, I opened an informal mediation request here in March in order, to address this user's concerns and to provide evidence that I am not involved in a vendetta as the user alleges. I invited them to participate in the discussion here. The user has not participated, seems unwilling to consider my viewpoint, and is now calling me a vandal. The user openly admits to editing under another username and I suspect that they might be the user who wrote these allegations as Anniebelles. This statement seems to support that. I have tried to pursue mediation (I feel that I cannot remain objective about this person's statements) with a neutral 3rd party. The user seems unwilling to participate in any such endeavour. I'm reporting this because a kind fellow editor, who responded to a {{helpme}} request on my talk page here, recommended this as a next step. I have also notified her on her talk page here. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ringess, this current complaint is regarding your overall stalking of people like Sardaka, whose "good faith discussion" you removed from your talk page: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:TheRingess&diff=135811311&oldid=135806648# and about how you stalk people to remove their additions, and how you go into topics, remove all links and add an often lame dmoz link and a warning to not add any more links. TheRingess has most recently gone in and removed, without apparently any consideration, the very organized and useful link sections on the Bhagavad Gita page that had been well-pruned through the good work of many editors. Fortunately that page had an editor who knew enough to revert this destruction, but in other pages, many very useful links are lost. To see examples of TheRingess's wanton removal of links, you can look at TheRingess's contributions page and do a find on dmoz or external links, or look at the arguments she has had with other editors. I believe this editor is harmful to Misplaced Pages. And no, I'm not Anniebelles, and I'm a man (not that it matters, but just for the record). Ganesham 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ganesham, why have you rejected dispute resolution? You clearly have a dispute with this editor that needs discussion in a more proper forum. Instead of warning the world about what you think of TheRingess, why don't you discuss your issues with him/her directly? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As a further note, in order to emphasize my need for mediation regarding these allegations, I contacted the editor mentioned in reference to the Bhagavad Gita page. I asked this user to comment on my specific edits. My intial question can be seen here and his response can be seen here. I have notified the aforemention editor of my statement here.TheRingess (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I agree to continue this conversation on the above mentioned mediation page. I'm hoping that we can address Ganesham's concerns that I am actively engaged in a destructive, hurtful, personal vendetta against the subject of a biographical article on Misplaced Pages (please see user's contributions for specifics, I don't wish to name the article here).TheRingess (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I don't have time to pursue this matter. If no Misplaced Pages editors or administrators are interested in checking TheRingess's actions in following innocent editors and deleting their works or in deleting all links from many topics, then Misplaced Pages will be the worse for it, but it is not my job and no longer my interest to engage with someone who is half cry-baby and half dictator. I'm signing off and no longer participating in Misplaced Pages as a contributor. Please don't leave messages for me here or on my user page, because I won't be checking for them. Best to all. Ganesham 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was curious and looked to find that lo and behold, TheRingess and his thug buddy editor Buddhipriya went into Misplaced Pages today and removed every link they could find to the applicable free educational resources offered by the person that TheRingess is already on record as having a vendetta against -- he and Buddhipriya participate in a spiritual group (on and off Misplaced Pages) that has had a vendetta against the author because she wrote an unauthorized book about their path. This author, of whom I am a fan, is the one who created a website of completely free educational spiritual resources -- she's also the author of Spirituality For Dummies. TheRingess is on record as fighting to remove her wikipedia entry that was created by another fan from England, and which survived TheRingess's deletion attempts. I've added several appropriate links to her resources in appropriate topics, and other editors have apparently added others. Today, TheRingess even deleted two very useful links to her site without signing in, showing up with his isp# at: ], and for good measure, TheRingess deceptivly welcomed himself on his own isp's welcome page: ] (I've received email from TheRingess and know that this is his ISP#). Here is one example from Buddhipriya's rampage: ], where he removes a page with the completely free and very useful text and audio of Rudram, with a note saying, "commercial linkspam selling products" -- something he knows is false if he even looked at the page. Here are a couple more attacks from Buddhipriya just today, each with an insult to the resource: ], and ]. I'm back to retirement from contributing to Misplaced Pages. Go ahead and let these people ruin Misplaced Pages with personal vendettas if that is fine with you other editors and administrators. Ganesham

Just for the record, I have never emailed Ganesham. Due to the very serious nature of his allegations (carrying out a personal vendetta against the subject of an article on Misplaced Pages) I have preferred to keep all communication with this user public. I will continue to do so.TheRingess (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that Ganesham does not agree regarding the removal of spam links. He has crossposted the same complaint . The web site spiritual-happiness.com is a commercial site that advertises books and audio products (see: ). For information on spam guidelines, please read Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam. As a member of Wikiproject SPAM, I routinely follow the procedures given there, which say that once spam is found, one should look for other occurances of the same spam site. Here are the recommended procedures: "Check for similar links: ... This step involves finding all of the articles that contain a link to a particular site. If a link to www.example.com were discovered and removed in steps one and two, the next step is to use the linksearch command to find all articles that contain such links." That search feature shows that there are probably more spam links to the same site that still need to be removed.

The spam link on the Bhagavad Gita article was removed after specifically getting agreement from another regular editor there that the site should go:

Regarding the claims that I and User:TheRingess are members of the same spiritual community, I am not aware of what that might be. In fact my first significant editing experience with that user had to do with fact-checking an article on Siddha Yoga which I had never heard of prior to reading that article (See: ). I subsequently found the editor to be a very balanced contributor. Please avoid making personal attacks in the future and try to comply with WP:CIVIL while assuming good faith on the part of others. Buddhipriya 23:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish to comment that I have edited a number of articles which TheRingess has also been working on. I think he is a fine editor. He has been supportive of all edits, even to his own work, reflecting valid citations and references. He has fixed a number of my own sloppy edits and politely informed me on elements of style, etc. He has encouraged my contributions on my talk page and engaged in discussion on articles talks pages. I believe the current dispute in largely a misunderstanding. I sincerely hope that Sardaka will engage in mediation to get an outside opinion on why some of his contributions are being edited by others. -Vritti 07:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Amphitere

User:Amphitere appears to be impersonating User:Odst, here and here.

Also User:Orthodoxy, User:Ilha Youn, & User:Polleo all redirect to User:Amphitere. Now that's FIVE user accounts in one. Why did User:Amphitere take over the 4 other users? What's going on here? Are there any more others we don't know about?--Endroit 07:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note at their talk page. I've asked them to give explanations here. -- FayssalF - 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am the owner of all those accounts. The reason I made so many was because in order to make my user name the same throughout all Wikipedias, it was necessary for me to change it according to the user name that was not used in any Misplaced Pages. As you have already noticed, I am an international Wikipedian, so, sometimes, renaming is required. If this caused many trouble, I apologize greatly. (If you need proof that all those accounts are mine, you can check their IP Addresses , or you can check my email address for each of them). And also, according to the rules, one person can have as many accounts as they want, right? So, I am confused why I was depicted in this list.

I am not impersonating User: Odst. He is a good friend of mine, who lives quite far away. Currently, his computer is broken, so he told me to take care of his user page, and other articles that he used to contribute to. Because of this, it is my responsibility to be in his place while he is gone. I received permission from him, so this is not impersonation.

Again, if this caused trouble, I greatly apologize. I hope that this problem is all sorted out, and understood. Thank you very much. Amphitere 20:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If so, Younilha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have made some racist edits to User:Dokdo as well, inserting anti-Japan slogans there. Do you "own" User:Dokdo as well? Or do you just know him?--Endroit 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the history carefully, it says that my account's ID and password was leaked out to my friends. It said that my account was used my multiple users. Therefore, when I am away, someone (most likely, my friend) will be under my username and start to vandalize the articles/userpages. The User:Dokdo is not mine, nor anyone's. It is just simply User:Dokdo. My friend vandalized his page under my name, which was a mistake by me to let my info leak out in the first place. So, I apologize again. If you would like to know more about what exactly happened and this multi account, false vandalizing, users under the same account, multiple accounts using the same IP, you may check the history of each of my (or "my") userpages. Thank you.

P.S. Don't be so worried about User:Odst. He is a good friend of mine, and we contact each other often. If no one still doesn't believe me, you can tell me to give you his phone number, and contact him yourself. Plus, why was I listed in this place anyways? Multiple accounts are allowed. "Adoptions" are allowed. Did I do something wrong? Amphitere 16:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Amphitere, if you didn't understand what I said, I'll reword it slightly: You were pretending to be (impersonating) User:Odst, here and here. Since you admit that you are not User:Odst, I advise you not to sign your edits under his User ID again. If you do it again, I will report you here again.

With respect to User:Orthodoxy, User:Ilha Youn, User:Polleo, & User:Younilha, you have admitted they all belong to you. Some of these accounts were involved in vandalism before, and according to your story, they have been compromised by your "friends". Rather than keeping these accounts open and risk further suspicions, I suggest that you follow the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Changing username to have those accounts formally closed/transferred.--Endroit 03:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check please

See further up the board (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:M.V.E.i.). I indefinitely blocked User:M.V.E.i., a Russian user, for hate speech and repeated severe racist comments (such as the following), directed variously towards the French, Israelis, Estonians, Germans and Balts. And this is just a selection:

• "Half French, which explains his sexual orientation"
• "No such nationality as Israeli"
• "Thats the baltic way, cheat, lie, and when they loose they run to Europe and NATO to complain they are being smashed. Those Balts here are nothing but trolls"
• "Germans are your Enemies yet you were their uniforms and also "worked hard" for the SS in their name".
• "You Balts try to represent lies as truth so you could lower your national shame, it will never happen, the history is against you".
• "Estonian "democracy""
• "Those Estonians who we argue with are eated with self-hate. They know that their grandfathers from the forest brothers and the ss were creeps"
• "He's a German, so I expected it"
• "the Estonians started the Holocaust in Estonia even before the Germans arrived their"
• "you have baltic blood offcourse you will try to denie the crimes of those to who some of your blood belonges to".
• Entire post, personal and racist attack
• "Say thankyou that we, as winners didn't delete you, allies of the Nazis, from this planet"
• "Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people"
• "Stop this bullshit. The only reason that the baltics hate USSR, is because they are self-eated with hate. They baltic people feel little, useless".

He has been blocked before, with no effect. He has been asked to stop multiple times (see User talk:M.V.E.i. with no effect). He is evading his short term blocks with IP sockpuppets.

I thought this was a clear and obvious indefinite block. However, Alex Bakharev overturned my block and reduced it in length to a month. I've restored it and consulted with Alex, but he is still defending the user ("... if some edit can be interpreted as a racist hateful speech, might be it is worth to ask the author if the interpretation is correct? M.V.I.e. is not a native English speaker ...", "I have strong doubts that he meant something racist in his speech"), and I am wondering if I am going mental, because as far as I can tell the racism and intent is obvious. Was this a valid indef block? Neil ╦ 14:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at his block log , I'd say some drastic action is needed. I'm not going to unblock, and if no-one does the ban is effective. Failing that, block him for a month, and warn him that next time it is three months, then he's out.--Doc 14:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• We have a separate noticeboard to discuss community blocks. The user is certainly problematic but I see no particular "racist" connotations in his comments. Estonians and Russians are supposed to belong to the same race, for a start. Perhaps he's mad about the Holocaust denial on the part of the Estonian government. A month-block was warranted, but indef block looks to have been motivated by off-wiki considerations. --Ghirla 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  Describing the French as all gay isn't racist? Describing all Estonians as having SS members for grandparents isn't racist? Really? And I don't understand your comment about "off-wiki considerations". Neil ╦ 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  It is an extreme form of xenophobia and nationalism rather than racism. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races. Are you sure that the Russians and the French belong to two distinct races? --Ghirla 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• You're thinking of races too narrowly. The race taxonomy that was generally accepted in the heydays of racism (but most of which has become forgotten by now) is not a desk with Three Big Drawers. Instead, it was a tree, allowing the Nazis to hate the race of Gauls, even though both French and Germans (whom the Nazis generally didn't hate very much) are both of the Caucasian race as a 'main race'.

In general, any idea of ethnically comparative supremacy or inferiority is a manifestation of racism. That with the fall of racists from the power position, the more common categories used are bigotry or chauvinism does not nullify the racist aspect of these ideas. Digwuren 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is normal english usage to say "The Dutch Race" or "The Irish Race" - race is a very poorly defined word - see racism for the subtleties. WilyD 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  Race: I. A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin.

  In the widest sense the term includes all descendants from the original stock, but may also be limited to a single line of descent or to the group as it exists at a particular period.— Oxford English Dictionary (Online Edition

  Then perhaps we should stop using vague, fuzzy terms in block summaries. Once upon a time, I was told on this very noticeboard that speaking about racism between Jews and Arabs is technically incorrect and so better avoided. --Ghirla 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Now you're engaging in demagoguery. If you're unsure of what 'racism' means, you should read the article on racism. But a Wikipedian with your edit count would have known of this option already anyway, right? Digwuren 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This semantics discussion is pointless, there should be no real difference if person says "jews killed by nazis were subhumans" or "balts killed by soviets were subhumans".--Staberinde 18:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you refer me to a specific edit where M.V.E.i. referred to Balts as "subhumans"? If you can't, Digwuren's pontification indeed borders demagoguery. --Ghirla 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't said that he said exactly that, I just brought it as good and simple example. But in reality he said something very similar: "Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people)". What would you think if someone said "Besides, Nazi Germany never killed Slavic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Slavic Stalinists killed, there not considered people)"--Staberinde 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Why are you arguing semantics? That's not at all the point here. His comments are clearly absolutely inappropriate, whether you want to call them racist, xenophobic or otherwise.--Atlan (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Because "racist" is a stronger term than "nationalist" or "xenophobic". A person indulging in racist remarks should be blocked indefinitely, while a person who makes nationalist remarks is just that... a nationalist; we have plenty of them in the project. Nobody defends the guy's comments; they indeed deserve a month-long block, but he should be given the last chance to repent and reform. --Ghirla 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i don't make any distinction. Racist, xenophobic or my mamma name calling are all meant to make others feel like s**t. Calling someone a donkey, stupid arab, zionist israeli/jew or a supermacist american are all the same. I still don't fathom Misplaced Pages stance on this matter. All personal attacks of any nature should be treated w/ the same degree. -- FayssalF - 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All personal attacks are bad, but some of them are worse than others. In other words, not every PA deserves an indef block. --Ghirla 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Both "nationalist" and "xenophobic" are self-relative terms. M.V.E.i has, in general, not displayed a consistent nationalist, or xenophobic attitude. However, he has repeatedly made racist claims, noting that racism does not require self-relativeness. In other words, if an Irishman believes that the Yukagirs are inferior to the Bantus, he's being racist but not a nationalist or a xenophobe. In order to be a nationalist, he would need to think that the Irish people are superior to either Yukagirs, Bantus or both. In order to be xenophobic, he would need to have a phobia regarding a foreign ethnicity. Your ideas of "stronger claim" are nothing but a social stigma, caused mostly by the aftermath of WWII; in reality, all of these three ideas are manifestations of the same ur-idea, and their absurdity stems from the same logic. Digwuren 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• One month was enough to see if he'd cool down. We won't lose anything if we test their behaviour change. -- FayssalF - 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Fayssal. Please restore the block to one month. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil's comment that "He is evading his short term blocks with IP sockpuppets" appears to have been overlooked in the above discussion. Is this editor currently evading this block? --ElKevbo 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Define "currently". See, for example, and . --jpgordon 15:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd define "currently" as "is this editor evading the current block". --ElKevbo 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If consensus is leaning toards reducing to one month being an appropriate time out, then I have no problem with this. I would be delighted if M.V.E.i. would spend a month away thinking about his actions, without violating this block through the use of sockpuppets (which would be a first), and return as a civil and valuable contributor, no longer engaging in harassment, racism and hate speech. I am cheered that so many admins believe this will be the case. I really hope it is, too. However, I wouldn't bet one penny on it. Happy for anyone to reduce User:M.V.E.i.'s block to a month if and when a clear consensus is arrived it. Neil ╦ 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And note that I would appreciate anyone else's thoughts for a little while longer yet (he's blocked either way for at least another 29 days, no need to rush here). Neil ╦ 16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be reducing it to a month w/in 15 minutes. Any objection guys? -- FayssalF - 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I just asked you to wait to ensure there's a good consensus (ie, not you, Alex and Nick). It will make no difference if you wait a few hours. Neil ╦ 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer me to a relevant passage in WP:BLOCK or WP:BAN which leads you to discard my opinion as null and void. If you can't, I consider your action rather incivil and would welcome apologies. --Ghirla 18:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not incivil, just an oversight on my part. Apologies. Neil ╦ 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. No rush. Let's wait. -- FayssalF - 17:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Has M.V.E.i anywhere appologized for his comments? I mean he has made quite a few edits after being blocked(mainly with block evasion), , , , , but I personally failed to see something where he would actualy understand that such comments are very wrong.--Staberinde 18:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. However, I once saw a comment of him that appears to have indicated that he at least understood wrongness of some of his comments. I can't find it right now, but this is the main reason I'm not objecting loudly to the "let's rediscuss in a month" plans offered above.

However, I'm still rather skeptical in M.V.E.i.'s reformation's possibility, and believe Alex Bakharev is overextending the benefit of doubt.

Considering that per WP:BLOCK, blocks are preventive, not punitive, my understanding is that it is desirable to have a block whose length would be comparable to M.V.E.i.'s estimated time of changing his ways. Without any remorse, such an estimate would obviously be very long. If M.V.E.i. repents and recants his evil ways, this would obviously directly factor into such an estimate.

The state of psychology research being what it is, any such estimate would be quite rough. My experience would suggest about 3 months as the roughly minimum time for a non-coercive reformation of this kind. Thus, I would suggest starting with a three-month block, and not counting upwards from it if he comes back after these three months reformed and then gets into troubles not related to continuous incivility. In a sense, this would be offering him a clean slate as long as he does not fall into old evils. Digwuren 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So he is unrepentant? Jpgordon explained to him that his behaviour would not be tolerated. If he does not stop now, I would support banning this guy indefinitely. --Ghirla 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is 'now' any better cut-off point than, say, May 10 ( -- )? Digwuren 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: I've seen this kind of double measure from the part of Russian admins on Moldova- and Transnistria-related articles. The party perceived as pro-Russian or pro-Soviet usually gets helped in front of the other. Support meaning that minor and some major offences are forgotten for the pro-Russian, whereas rules are strictly applied for the others. Dpotop 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My view: One month is way too short for this kind of hate speech and incivility , no matter what "ism" is appropriate , without any signs of regret. Indefinite block seems just about right, since user has been blocked before, but because there is opposition and given allowance for expression, i think that minimal length for reforming should be three months. However, I feel that there is a most likely unintentional bias in Alex Bakharevs judgment so the final decision on the fate of this block should be made by an unrelated admin. It is hard to pass unbiased judgment on your "comrades in arms". --Alexia Death 19:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that indefinite block is appropriate. MVEi behaivour is way over line, also repeated block evasions(, , , ) show inability to learn from mistakes. Finally he has had plenty of time to publicly appologize either here or on his talk page and I would find it really hard to advocate indefinite block if he had said "I am very sorry, it will not happen again.". But nothing like that has happened, on the contrary he seemed to think that shouting "LIAR" with full capital letters , accusing others in forming some kind of coalition aganist him , asking block of others and accusing others playing cowboy , is correct way of action.--Staberinde 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's appalling that we'd even consider allowing a person who repeatedly makes such remarks to keep the privilege of editing Misplaced Pages. Raymond Arritt 20:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Estonian users' shouting "Kill him! Kill him!" is absolutely unproductive. Alex Bakharev has "comrades in arms"? Give facts. "asking block of others" is criminal? No. (BTW, do you, Staberinde, remember the case, when DLX, while avoiding WP:DR, cherry-picked Sandstein, who blocked me, new editor, without a warning?) As to LIAR, I'm not a judge, but looks like he wasn't far from truth. Beatle Fab Four 20:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your own slurs. Please don't put words into my mouth. As you see I'm willing to give the person benefit of the doubt that after three months he can contribute sensibly. My remark on "comrades in arms"(note quotes) was based on impression that he and the subject of this debate have shared a side in number of articles. I however assume good faith in Alex Bakharev actions. And I still believe that final decision should be made by an unrelated admin.--Alexia Death 07:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is moot to begin with. User Ghirla applies double standards, defending "people of the same blood", yet resenting racism, with a history of advocating indef. blocks for "nationalist trolls"- whether Romanian, Polish, Lithuanian, amend list here. Just the usual "Russian" way of "all hell breaks lose upon you if you disagree and make a big hissy fit if you dont anyway". Im sorry Ghirla, but your history of (ab)use totally discredits your campaign war for incivility based along racialist lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.209.162 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with the above statement. User Ghirla never misses a chance to advocate for Russian editors , no matter what they do. I haven't noticed him admonishing any Russian editors for anything either. People should be judged by their actions not by who they are or what nationality they are. This is the perceived bias that many people notice, when Russian editors get more advocats and always a second consideration that many others don't. --Hillock65 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hillock, I'm glad that your 31-hour block has just expired. Would you put the blame on me again? Of course, there is a great Russian cabal, and Dmcdevit (who performed the block) is apparently part of it, right? User:Bonaparte knows that too well, but he did not miss his chance to join the latest trollfest above. Misplaced Pages is tolerant, but even its tolerance has its limits. I won't stoop to commenting to this thread again. --Ghirla 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte being a troll does not make the provided edits less factual. And the limits for tolerance should be the same for all users. Which reminds me of Bonaparte: (by your co-national User:Mikkalai) were not for having socks, but for ethnic and sexual slurs, and this is what motivated his swift ban following the discovery of socks. How about applying the same rules here to your co-national User:M.V.E.i.? Dpotop 18:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ghirla, please don't insult people's intelligence with the above comments. I have never claimed that my block was unjust or accused anyone in mistreating me, I pointed out your bias in regards to Russian editors. It is everywere. If you don't stoop to acknowledge it, then someone else will. You never miss a point to point out at transgressions of others but blatantly prefer to overlook the same actions by the Russian editors. I am talking about the ones with the picture of Stalin proudly displayed on the front page. The ones who recruit revenge squads on the Russian WP . You not only knew about it, you participated in that discussion thread yourself, and yet never said a word to stop it! And yet you have the nerve to admonish others? --Hillock65 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Neil has a picture of Hitler on his user page, and so what? Having a dictator's picture on one's user page is not a crime. User:Piotrus wheel warred about unblocking his compatriots User:Molobo and User:Halibutt, and so what? Probably he knows them better then non-Polish editors do. You maintain uk:Вікіпедія:Ксенофобії — НІ! and uk:Обговорення Вікіпедії:Допомога англійській Вікіпедії, two special pages which urge Ukrainian editors to go to English Misplaced Pages and support your anti-Semitic edits on History of the Jews in Ukraine, so what? Well, in the latter case I am at a loss for an explanation, since for this very reason the page has to be permanently semiprotected. --Ghirla 19:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, context. That picture is there as a joke - note the caption. This does not mean I am a Nazi (far, far from it). Neil ╦ 21:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, settle all your disagreements with other users the way you like it, the discussion is not about them. And if their actions are deemed improper by you, is that a reason to justify your own bias? In regards to several month old message boards on uk. wiki, I guess even you can see the difference between asking for attention on a particular article and calling to "help put the user X in his right place" which is the last line in the diff I cited above. I dln't see any diffs implicating me in directing someone to get you or someone else. Additionally, I was not taking "holier than thou" attitude and didn't even attempt to advocate for Ukrainian editors that got banned here. Whatever happens, people should get the same treatment be they Russian or not. Double standards if practiced by someone else do not give you the right to do the same. --Hillock65 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again and again and again, absolutely pointless speech. M.V.E.i is from Israel. Beatle Fab Four 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pointless, you say? Dpotop 21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't comment the message above. I'm not a specialist in racial purity. Beatle Fab Four 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent help at RFCN

Can someone nip down to RFCN, I've closed a discussion as allow because non latin character usernames are allows - 2 users keep reverting me, my fingers edging closer to the block button - hence why I'm posting here. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking either one of us because you are in a content dispute with us is not proper. But don't worry, I won't revert any further your unfair speedy close of an ongoing discussion. Corvus cornix 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have my own opinions about what RFCN urgently needs but I doubt anything will be gained by reiterating them. — CharlotteWebb 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Charlotte, that now me and you can finally agree on something here. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You should never threaten to block someone you are in dispute with. Often these cases bring up lack of community support for a policy - why does the English wikipedia allow usernames people can't type and many can't display? It's not clearcut that we want this. Secretlondon 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names#だってばよ

I posted a request for comment on the user name of User:だってばよ, which clearly violates policy at WP:UN which says be careful to avoid names which may be offensive, confusing or unintelligible to English-speaking users. User:Ryan Postlethwaite keeps closing the discussion, claiming the name is allowed by policy, but I see entirely the opposite, according to what I quoted above. And not only that, but Ryan Postlethwaite is accusing me of biting the newbie for having the audacity to make a respectful request that he change his name. Corvus cornix 23:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So long as they use the English transliteration in their signature, then the username (which is read as Dattebayo) is fine by policy as far as I know.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, so if conrnux would like to stop being a dick and read policy before blind reverting me. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued amazement at people who think it's civil to call someone else a dick... /wangi 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if they revert my policy related closure - thats what they get. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The constant banding of WP:DICK really does piss me off... It's the assumption that it's not a "big deal" to badge someone as such... Well, lets look at it another way - I could say stop being a complete cunt. That's pretty much as acceptable where I come from :) Apologies for the off-topic rant. /wangi 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

More of the same from Ryan Postlethwaite, who seems to think that my repeated civil responses to the user were somehow biting him. Corvus cornix 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well WP:DICK suggests that anyone invoking it is also one. Secretlondon 23:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. I did read the policy, I've been quoting it to you. Alright, whatever, you want to allow people to have user names that only look like squares or question marks and can't be differentiated from anybody else'se user name with square or question marks, who am I to question an exalted one admin "we're admins, we don't work by consensus", indeed. Corvus cornix 23:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I think we've all been saying. So what we should be doing is advising the user to change his signature, not telling him his username is just fine as it is. So the request should not have been closed as "allow," but as "allow on the proviso that the user change his signature to one that is readable by English users." Exploding Boy 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've told the user to do so on his userpage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(after much edit conflicting)The former prohibition on non-English names is not really enforced any more. At some point in the not-all-that-distant future, we are going to have m:Single User Login and we certainly aren't going to refuse to recognize users who register to other wikis then. If someone is going to be a regular participant (as opposed to just doing minor updates here while focusing on another language), as said above, they should be encouraged to add something English to their signature, but we can't really disallow these names any more. One thing that is really a good idea for everyone is to download some of the more common Asian font packs - that way, you can differentiate between nonsense (? marks and squares) vs international characters. --BigDT 23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on en.wikipedia does not override consensus in the wider wikimedia community. This username is *permitted*. If this person edits often they may want to also include a latin signature, but that's for another day.

If you are seriously still having issues with squares and question marks, then please update your system. Software written this century typically has adequate UTF-8 support.

--Kim Bruning 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know what system they're using? How do you know it's not nine years old? How do UTF8 Japanese characters render on, say, a Braille display? Andy Mabbett 00:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

They have their own braille system. See Japanese braille.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but why would that be available to an English-language-Misplaced Pages user? Andy Mabbett 10:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief ... there's no reason to be rude about it. Asian font packs are not automatically installed with 2000 and I could be wrong, but I don't think they were with all versions of XP. --BigDT 00:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And should you be on a public computer, you may not be able to install Asian font packs. Phony Saint 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Single user login has been in the not to distant future for well longer than I care to remember. --pgk 00:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In an MMO I play, such updates are called to be showing up Soon™.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sort of the Duke_Nukem_Forever development team will get right on it as soon as they've finished the current project. --pgk 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the requirement of intelligible usernames from the nutshell of WP:UN to reflect current understanding of the policy. nadav (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy is flexible - if the community wants usernames they can type and display then they can have it, surely? Policy is not law, set in stone. (The underlying argument is presumably about language imperialism, however as a user you function much better with a username people can read. Asking people to change their username to something that doesn't show up as blocks doesn't make you a nazi). Plenty of public computers don't have those fonts - and even with the fonts you can't type them. Secretlondon 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Prematurely. The policy clearly states that user names must not be confusing. We can't reasonably expect every user to have every character set installed on his or her computer. And even if we did, we can't expect every user of the English language Misplaced Pages to be able to read every character of every available language. Exploding Boy 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, my PC is less than two years old and runs on regularly updated Windows XP, and this username prints out as little squares on my monitor.--Anthony.bradbury 23:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  ; 24.190.180.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Uses Avfnx and a number of other IP's particulary 24.190.180.244 which was discovered when he answered for a Avfnx question and fixes Avfnx edits for clarifications and when he gave a fairwell speech

Warnings for 3rr violations , Has engaged in multiple edit wars on different pages going from one non-NPOV version to another "Juan Pablo Duarte y Diez a man of virtue, a romantic in a romantic age, a philosopher and an idealist" His first edit fortold his POV with "What up with this Anti-Dominican Propaganda"
Multiple references of personal attacks "Run you propaganda, do you...cause people like you wikipiedia losing credibility...you wanted your personal attack there you got it. ...point blank if they don't like how they been people welcome them in Dominican Republic, they can go home. If i didn't like how USA treat me i would go home, I have a country, USA not my country...so i don't go out in the street burn the flag. And remember something Dominican flag has the bible and the cross that very disrespectful and we got treat them more rights then Dominican, feel lucky that we don't do like the Americans and send ya right home.. "Like in life, let the people that are full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are"
Has been warned multiple times for personal attacks with each one labeling the incident in which he attacked someone. He was also given a final warning. Seem to be an extremist, not caring about cited sources and denounces other nations while not caring about WP:Civility particularly Haiti .."This Anti-Dominican know so much that something i can't find where ceduala or passport is says race. This article everyday going to more to pure garbage. You could bring all this Haitian made article talking about DR..". Reverts edits on numerous pages that don't fit his liking . Claims edits that aren't with his opinion are propaganda, even if they are cited. Non- NPOV opinions, Deletes cited material with rationale being " Haiti facts on Haiti page " Places in information on cited material that cannot be derived from cited material , rationale behind support of a president .
A block is necessary at this point because it seems like that will be the only way in which to him cease from this behavior. YoSoyGuapo 10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New 3rr vandalism report on said user As well as removal of warnings on talk page. YoSoyGuapo 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to revolve around an article content dispute where no party seems innocent. Perhaps a nuetral admin should look at all the issues and comment. I will when I have more time. LessHeard vanU 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from 3RR board) This user has not appear to have previously been formally warned regarding 3RR. This diff shows that it is commented he might be in breach of 3RR but, and despite the edit summary, there is no mention of the possible consequences or a demand that he stop. I realise that warnings are a courtesy and editors are expected to know and abide by the rules, and that 3RR should be acted upon promptly, but I am a little concerned that User:Avfnx has been previously accused of sockpuppetry (cleared by checkuser), has had warnings for civility and personal attacks - the first of which is WP:KETTLE and the second of which I could find no evidence of in English (I cannot comment on Spanish remarks) - all levelled by individuals with whom he is in dispute with on Dominican Republic. I have a suspicion that some individuals are using admins and WP policies to conduct a campaign against this editor instead of attempting to resolve the dispute over the article in a more appropriate forum.LessHeard vanU 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm Being Stalked

I'm having trouble with the editor User:TheRingess, who follows me around and chops my articles up. With the last article, Gurudev Siddha Peeth, she turned up before it was even finished and started chopping it up.

I'm not the only one who's had trouble with her. I got a message from User:Ganesham, who said he's had the same problems and had to change his name to shake her off. Apparently, if she doesn't like you, she watches you and chops up your contributions. It's got to the point where, if I want to write an article, I have to ask myself how TheRingess will react to it.

Someone please do something about this woman. She's ruining Wiki for so many p[eople.

Sardaka 12:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in the article you reference... she did some wikifying, removed personal email addresses, and reformatted your references so they fit the Misplaced Pages format, and those are all things that needed to be done. I don't see where she 'chopped up' the article at all- she seems to have improved it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, you need to provide some diffs for what you claim. I generally turn a deaf ear (er, I guess a blind eye, in this case) to complaints that don't provide any evidence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks more like article ownership on Sardaka's part to me. I've looked at a few diffs (, , ), where Sardaka uses "my article" alot and where he demands explanations for all the changes (which are quite harmless). He also feels he should have been personally notified for the AfD on "his article". Meanwhile, he didn't bother to notify TheRingess about this report.--Atlan (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know the definition of "stalking" on Misplaced Pages myself, since I've been accused of doing it. When you observe somebody doing an edit you disagree with, then look at that user's edit history to find other similar edits, and possibly alter or revert them, is that "stalking"? *Dan T.* 16:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know. Stalking would be doing that just to annoy and disrupt that user's activities.-Localzuk 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tracking a user's edits you think is prone to making mistakes, vandalism or spamming, is common practice. Especially if those edits are in your area of interest. I haven't seen any evidence that TheRingess is following Sardaka around in bad faith.--Atlan (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would not have found this thread if I had not been checking up on my own incident report regarding an editor who refuses to enage in mediation with me regarding very serious allegations of deliberate malfeasance on my part (there allegations are that I used Misplaced Pages to carry on a personal vendetta against a specific person who is the subject of an article) see #Editor uses edit summaries for personal attacks, refuses mediation.

Thanks to the editors who decided to respond. I like to think that it's always a good thing to have my own edits reviewed by fellow editors.

This is actually the 2nd time Sardaka has created an incident and not notified me. See .

I have to express that I feel somewhat stymied in my attempts to discuss material with this user. One such attempt, on his talk page, to discuss my specific edits, seems to have been ignored. See here

In one statement he made it clear that he thought I was engaged in "ownership" of a particular article. See Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 3#More on deleting other people's contributions.

TheRingess (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any merit to the charge of stalking. On the contrary, keeping an eye on the edit history of users once a problem has been identified elsewhere is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. My impression is that User:TheRingess has been doing exactly what editors are encouraged to do, which is demand compliance with policies such as Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and WP:NOR, and that these requests have not been well-received by User:Sardaka. If there is any problem here, it is with User:Sardaka who has made a number of uncivil comments in connection with this matter, and also in the course of discussion on an article that he or she authored which was eventually deleted (see: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Shakti_mantras). User:Sardaka showed unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages procedures during that debate by deleting comments that I made regarding the article that in AfD (see: ). User:Sardaka, who may be unclear on Misplaced Pages procedures, has now taken this matter to the Village Pump: . Buddhipriya 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of TheRingess and Buddhipriya trying to delete Sardaka's work. ], where TheRingess and Buddhipriya are drowning out the only objective editor's suggestion to keep. And a link to some other documented examples of their personal vendettas in action: ]. Over and out. Ganesham 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Over and out? Is that some kind of joke? The first diff is just a delete comment in an AfD discussion, with absolutely nothing to substantiate the "stalking" claim. Even crazier, the second diff is you calling TheRingess and Buddhipriya thugs and claiming they are ruining Misplaced Pages. You certainly didn't help Sardaka there. If anything, you got yourself a block for personal attacks out of this.--Atlan (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have never emailed Ganesham. Due to the very serious nature of his allegations (that I have used Misplaced Pages to further a personal vendetta against a subject of a biographical article), I have preferred to keep all communication regarding these allegations on Misplaced Pages (for obvious reasons).TheRingess (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just a note of support regarding TheRingess, I was requested by Sardaka to review her editing pattern, and yes I fully concur, the edits are entirely helpful. However, regarding Ganesham, nearly all the edits are criticising TheRingess, so the account could be a sock. Addhoc 00:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of crossposting going on at this point. I have replied to some of these matters here: . The possibility of some sock at work did not occur to me, but I am wondering what a checkuser would show. Buddhipriya 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke and DRV

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Any further comments - take then to the Arbitration Page. ANI is NOT the place to argue about administrative actions.

More disruptive closures - I approached User:Coredesat about his closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Allison_Stokke_(second_nomination), he suggested DRV. I bring it to DRV, and User:^demon, User:Daniel, and User:Doc glasgow all disruptively close the review within minutes of it being posted. This is completely inappropriate, especially demon's repeated reference to me as a troll ( ). Will someone step up to the plate here and fix this problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We never had this many problems with the GNAA article, and it was AfD'd 17 times. –– Lid 13:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was making a good-faith closure of a disruptive DRV by a user who is known to often troll Deletion Review multiple times in order to get articles undeleted. ^demon 14:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never trolled deletion review. How absurd an accusation to make. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Let it go Jeff. DRV can speedy endorsed a close if there is no new legitimate reason to have the review. That seems to be the case here. When we are dealing with privacy issues related to a non-public person, we need to use some self-censorship, please. FloNight 14:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, add it to the arbitration. Although they may not be that impressed by your activity.--Doc 14:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Support closure of DRV. Learn to accept things when they don't go your way. Fully support closing reason given by demon. DRV isn't AFD take two, stop abusing DRV. – Chacor 14:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've unclosed this discussion. The assinine behavior of administrators hounding someone they're in a dispute with is totally unacceptable. Also, this is pertinent to a current arbitration case, and needs to be discussed. The Evil Spartan 14:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Flonight, the legitimate reasons were laid out in detail. Just because you disagree with them is no reason to disruptively close them, or any discussion, for that matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What's not being discussed is Jeff being called a troll repeatedly. If it's just being bandied about to annoy him and no one's actually doing anything (actual trolls are blocked), then it seems a lot like a personal attack. --W.marsh 14:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "troll" is sometimes used to describe someone who obstinately engages in stupid and pointless behavior. It's a personal attack, though. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not always. Sometimes it's just WP:SPADE (which IMO we could do more often). Raymond Arritt 14:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

People hold strong opinions about what Misplaced Pages should be, and about what does and does not belong in its pages, and about the balance between truth and kindness. Using established procedures such as AFD or DRV is not trolling if the editors who comment on them are more or less evenly divided, unless some want to claim that half or so of Wikipedians involved in the dispute are trolls. or that God speaks in their ear and they are incapable of being wrong about what needs deletion for such reasons as BLP. Unfounded accusations of trolling are incivil and may be a personal attack. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. Edison 19:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Durovina (not Durova)

• Durovina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on the user page comment about whack-a-mole and the very odd pattern of user contributions, I believe this is a sock puppet of a banned user. Could an admin look at this please, and also see if those pages moves need to be undone. This looks like it could be sneaky vandalism. See also this complaint about Durivona copying somebody else's user page, in part. Jehochman 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Which banned user? Or is it merely a suspicion? Evilclown93 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Evilclown93, unless some concrete evidence can be provided. Cool Blue 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the user page and the user's contributions. I believe Willy on Wheels has a history of page move vandalism. How many new users show up and start moving pages on day 1? How many new users say "let's play whack a mole." I posted here instead of WP:SSP because there are multiple issues: socks, sneaky vandalism, and inappropriate user name, if the user is seeking to disrupt by causing confusion with the real Durova. Jehochman 15:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Durovina hasn't edited in two months, so perhaps we can take a bit of time to figure it out. Or just block it as disruptive and leave it at that. Flyguy649_contribs 15:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The first thing to do is check if those pages moves are legit, and if not, fix them. I don't know anything about nobility and titles. Somebody who does should look at this. We shouldn't leave socks laying around so they can pop up and do damage later. Semi-protection stops new users, but not aged socks. Jehochman 15:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com, Alison will be happy to confirm it by the contribs. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I left her a message. Jehochman 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

When a new user cuts a chunk from another wikipedian's userpage to make a userpage for himself and adopts the name of another wikipedian who is mentioned just below, I have some trouble in assuming good faith. --Ghirla 16:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This account's actual contributions don't appear to be vandalism. Account was created April 11, made a couple of dozen normal-looking contributions, and then stopped the same day. (I did not see any page moves, just some redirects that appeared normal). Indef block is probably justified (pending user's clarification) based solely on the boast about sockpuppetry on the user page. (That's like waving a 'please block me' flag). If this is a sock of a banned user then adding that template would also be helpful. EdJohnston 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet of banned editor, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) - all the usual tells are there. Indefblocked now - Alison ☺ 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• And well, well - here's the answer - Alison ☺ 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock IP 87.234.91.126

87.234.91.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP has been blocked until 13:30, 25 May 2012 because the computer behind it was an open proxy. This long term doesn't make any sense since this is a dynamic IP (ISP is QSC). (I couldn't even ask earlier because even logged in users with that IP are blocked from editing here.) --32X 17:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask the blocking admin, User:Eagle 101. If you find yourself autoblocked because you are using this IP address, add {{Unblock-auto}} to the IP talk page. ˉˉ╦╩ 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Investigate, delete, salt block

A case probably needing investigation, deleting, salting, and blocking has come to my attention. This newspaper article led me to this Robert Crampton wikipedia article, which I tagged for feletion, appears to habe been deleted and then recreated. I looked at the first edit by the guy who recreated the article and his name and first edit seems like maybe he and his friends should be blocked. Something spamish/trollish is going on here by multiple accounts. WAS 4.250 22:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Article salted and protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wishbone Ash

Please see the history of Wishbone Ash; the user DiamondJack (talk · contribs), along with two IP ranges, 212.139.77.242 (talk · contribs) and 80.47.54.122 (talk · contribs) have been vandalizing the page. I put in a request at WP:RFP so that the 212 IP range would desist from replacing the Creative Commons image Image:281873485 4eae256491.jpg with the WP:FU image Image:Band 1989.jpg. I also went through the page and removed WP:PEACOCK terms and WP:NPOV/unsourced statements. Diamonjack has returned and mass reverted again twice in order for the information of "Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash" (a different entity then Wishbone Ash and given mention at Wishbone_Ash#2000.E2.80.93present already) to continue to exist. I am bringing this here because, even though I feel this does not break the WP:3RR rule, I want someone else to see and possibly evaluate this situation and whether the recent edits should be wholesale reverted. Cheers! -- moe.RON 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I reverted back, noting that I never removed any thing about the other "band" and requested on the users page not to revert it. Most of all, the user is removing the protection tag. Please advise. Thanks! -- moe.RON 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've warned User: DiamondJack for 3RR just now. Also, the article is now fully protected. This has been going on for months and really needs to stop - Alison ☺ 05:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Input requested: Badlydrawnjeff physical threat

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This was an unnecessary thread about a foolish comment in a wider silly argument which was exacerbated by a silly block. Block is gone, drama over, everybody please go edit some articles. --YFB ¿ 03:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BDJ appears to have made an oblique physical threat against another user in this edit where he states "I can't wait for the day you piss off the wrong person, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)". I asked him for clarification and needed to restore the question three different times when I realized that he wasn't accidentally removing it in an edit conflict, but was in fact erasing the question. The threat is absolutely unacceptable, and appears to be the only reasonable interpretation in the light of his unwillingness or inability to answer. I'd like to get some external input on the situation by an uninvolved administrator, the thread in question exists here. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say it's an incredibly incivil comment, but is not in itself a threat; if BDJ were the 'wrong person' then this comment is paradoxical, as it's clear BDJ is already pissed off, and therefore is not the one delivering the alluded-to beatdown. --Golbez 02:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Have to concur with Golbez. Incivil, yes; threat, no. DS 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, stop already. I don't give you the attention you want there, so you come begging for it here instead. You people will reach for anything, won't you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Incivil? Yes. Physical threat? Um... what? -Amarkov moo! 02:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's a physical threat, then (comment censored by thought police). --BigDT 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, again, I strongly encourage you to take a break and come back when you're not so upset. Please, attacks like these aren't helping anybody. Sean William @ 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sean, I strongly suggest you stay very, very far away from me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

not a physical threat; Chairboy, you are an idiot. --Duk 02:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... so a Jeff made a comment which is slowly developing into teh drama of teh century. This could have ended early if Jeff apologized and redacted, but instead he egged on the dispute. I can't say I'm not tempted to block people here, but that really won't help anything. (messedrocker • talk) 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly it's my fault. You haven't been paying much attention, have you? I love how people ask me to apologise after the mountain of shit I have to put up with from people who could give two shits about the well-being of this project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As it appears, you've earned a bit of an ill reputation. Apologizing and generally being cooperative (not saying you aren't already) could make yourself appear more redeeming. (messedrocker • talk) 02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, Jeff, I really don't know the drama background - I'm relatively new to the project, and frankly I tend to keep "step away from the drama" my motto... but I have to say that I think your characterization of anyone who is here as not giving "two shits about the well-being of the project" is unfair. We're all here because we do, in fact, care about the project. Regardless of your beefs - legitimate or not - (and I tend to think it's probably a mix of the two), I think that statements such as that do more to erode your position than to state it clearly. Philippe 02:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'll ask again here: What did you mean by I can't wait for the day you piss off the wrong person, Tony.? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to answer to you. Now you can freely take your attention seeking elsewhere. Maybe write an article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you think he meant by it? If he is talking about a real-life ticking off and real-life physical response as you seem to think, it is unlikely that Jeff would be there for the event and thus unlikely to derive any pleasure from it. Thus, logically, Jeff must mean something other than a physical IRL action. --BigDT 02:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave it alone, it's no big deal. Not remotely a physical threat. Rude, sure, but you reap what you sow. Friday (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that he made no attempt to stop being incivil, and in fact got worse on here, I've blocked him for a week for the incivility alone. That much incivility shouldn't be tolerated from any user, and we shouldn't be making exceptions. --Coredesat 02:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Highly inappropriate block ... I strongly advise lifting it immediately. --BigDT 02:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone else will have to. I see no evidence he was baited or provoked. --Coredesat 02:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Yeah, really. He's been up here on AN/I numerous times, on both sides of issues before. Here, he's clearly angry and getting more angry. He's not going to apologize for anything said here, he's made that clear. His opinion of editors in general seems to be a very low opinion, and in a few clear cases here, he's got serious malice towards them. I think the week long cooling off is about right. 24 or 48 hours would just let it stew and brew, but in a week, he should be able to cool off and get some perspective on things. (Were this one incident, the small blocks might be better, but his comments read as a long building thing, and might need longer to relax.) ThuranX 02:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be legitimate if it were a short (ie, sleep it off and come back in a better mood tomorrow) block all around and not singling out one person. This one is silly. --BigDT 02:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's been dickery all around. Picking one person to block seems unlike to help. I'd suggest an unblock also. Friday (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The block was probably justified. The problem is that other people who quite openly call people who dispute their decisions insensitive idiots are never blocked, because "by God they're enforcing BLP!" -Amarkov moo! 02:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The block is not necessary here; Jeff is merely unhappy Chair came here to discuss this matter. I don't think Chair was wrong to do so, but I could understand why Jeff might be unhappy (surely you've encountered those times when editors have not gotten the desired response from you so they quickly head over to AN or ANI saying there's some miscarriage of justice). A week-long block is excessive and unnecessary; I'll trust badlydrawnjeff gets the message w/o the block. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility blocks rarely help. Civility blocks for a week have even less chance of being effective. Civility blocks for a week on experienced and established contributors achieve the opposite to the desired effect. If this block was for twenty-four hours, I would still object, but I wouldn't see it as such a pressing problem. One week is ridiculous. Daniel 02:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you guys have your party and say what you wish about me, I'm done commenting in this shitfest of a thread. That way, no one will feel like they need to block me, or have any sort of responsibility about what they say. Good day, sirs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. --Coredesat 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User 71.235.81.39

This editor has been reported before, but no action has been taken. The editor continues to attack other users, including his most recent edit (not sure how to link it, but Talk:New England, time index 9 June 21:29 UTC is one instance). The editor has been warned about civility many times, yet no action has been taken. Please consider this user for blocking for violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA to name a few. Thanks for your time. Neo16287 02:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 48 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:The Anonymous One blocked 72 hours, should we make it indef?

I've just blocked The Anonymous One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 72 hours for this. I'm getting ready to leave a "one more stunt and it's indef" message, but I'm wondering, has this user ever been constructive? Is there any reason not to just go to indef now? ··coelacan 04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A no brainer, Coelacan. Indefblock indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I'm asking is if we indef, this one might just sockpuppet, whereas this account is not hard to keep tabs on. I know this is hard to predict, though. =/ ··coelacan 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, has his account been compromised? Based on his edit histories, It is very unusual of him to go rogue. Indeed I agree with the indef block, but only as a temporary measure until things sort out.--PrestonH 04:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The account has not been compromised. I don't think this is unusual; are we talking about the same "Anonymous One"? He's been planning this. I knew when that question showed up on the reference desk that there was trouble ahead. Other users warned him not to "make an ass of himself" but I'm honestly starting to wonder if he understands what that means. ··coelacan 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• What the--?! That behavior is unacceptable. Based on this diffs above, I support the indefblock. Again, that behavior is not tolerated.--PrestonH 04:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef. There's absolutely no excuse for his actions tonight.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As the one who reported him to Coelacan to begin with, I strongly support this block; however, there should be no problem allowing him back if and when he apologizes for his behavior and pledges not to repeat it, or anything remotely like it, again. Perhaps he should individually apologize to each and every user he harassed.

Though having looked further through his contribs, there seems to be a good deal of religion-related disruption; more than a matter of a simple apology would be needed, more like a very broad topical ban. Not sure.Proabivouac 08:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my…User talk:The Anonymous One#BlockProabivouac 07:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is persistently and perversely disruptive on topics of religion. He has form for this behaviour. His indignant responses to warnings and blocks show no sign of acceptance that his behaviour is unacceptable. Support indefblock. Worries about socks should play no part in the decision making on this issue. --Dweller 07:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefblock, per lack of contrition shown on his talk page. Rationalizing that kind of harassment is not acceptable, ever. I dunno how much weight my opinion carries as a non-admin, but under no circumstances should he be allowed back.--Blueboy96 12:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has been an unmitigated pest ever since he got here. His latest tirade of attempted self justification indicates that he still has no grasp of what this project is for - and more importantly what it's not for - despite having it explained to him a number of times. He is here for only one purpose: to seek out people of various religious convictions and confront them with comments which he knows full well are going to be inflammatory. Since he shows complete inability to take on board what is said to him and modify his behaviour accordingly, I am definitely in favour of an indef block. His disappearance will be a positive benefit to the community here. --Stephen Burnett 12:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as it depresses me, endorse. He was told from the second he got that list (well, category) to be responsible and courteous with it, which he blatantly went against. That was bad enough, but then he tried to defend his actions... I don't feel it's possible for him to have any positive effect on Misplaced Pages or it's community. A quick glance at the numerous warnings on his talk page is sign enough for this -- Phoeba Wright 12:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can someone please do something about this user: Filips 85 and his anon alter ego 91.150.121.215 (the IP is probably the same person before he registered). He did blatant vandalism to several articles regarding Dražen Petrović, Goran Ivanišević and Marko Perković. His only aim is by my first impression only to vandalize articles, especially ones regarding Croats. For what reason I do not know. --No.13 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the correct forum;WP:AIV would be. Second, he's not correctly warned. See WP:WARN. Cool Blue 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry, I registered only recently. Thank you. --No.13 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated NPA

Not sure if this is the correct forum but don't know where to go. Omegatron has in the past days taken it upon himself to violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. (I provided the discussion since just reading his comments suffices, if needed I can of course add the seperate diffs) For some reason he ignores my repeated requests to stop this behaviour. His most recent response is that I should start an RFC. While I don't think it warrants that I do want him to stop using ad hominems on my person. Specifically, how is does adding tags to his article to ask for WP:RS qualify as being disruptive? Could somebody advise/intervene in this matter? Nomen Nescio 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the first time Omegatron has been warned for his repeated attempts at making false claims of disruption, his use of ad hominem and misrepresentation to try to browbeat someone and then using the "report me" taunt. Questionable behavior False disruption accusations Report me taunt 1 Report me taunt 2 Fnagaton 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC is more appropriate here? Evilclown93 21:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty seeing where Omegatron is acting significantly out of line. Simply stating the belief that a particular editor's involvement is disruptive is not assuming bad faith. If/when he stated that you were trying to be disruptive, then this would be frowned upon.

In your own links, I see Omegatron attempting to contact you only to be stonewalled, while his attempts to contact other people with opposing viewpoints have resulted in a civil consensus. I imagine this situation is very complicated and nuanced, but from what I've seen, there is no need for administrative intervention against Omegatron. –Gunslinger47 22:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In my links you see Mr O going around calling me disruptive and tendentious. Have you understood why? Because he does not want to produce WP:RS, and let an advertisement be either altered or deleted. In any case, I think if all editors were allowed to call opposing editors all sorts of names we mights just as well get rid of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Heck, what is the point if "stating the belief that a particular editor's involvement is disruptive is not assuming bad faith." Let me state the belive that that particular user is a (fortunately I do accept that I need to refrain from such statements) Nomen Nescio 07:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that Omegatron is making false accusations of disruptive behaviour when editors make changes he doesn't agree with. That and the general bad attitude. Fnagaton 00:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

JB196 is back

IP blocked (several, actually) (But really, use WP:RFCU for this.) --jpgordon 14:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

One of our favorite puppet shows, JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is on the loose again. Three socks have popped up today:

• BBPscar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CICPpork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scream Machine 4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hopefully he'll eventually give away his open proxy so we can shut his mic for good.--Blueboy96 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And Scallop pope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not blocked yet. --YFB ¿ 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out 219.71.242.145 (talk · contribs). May be the range -- moe.RON 03:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, he's not really "back" -- it's more like he never left. But yeah, Moeron; that IP looks suspicious. --Haemo 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Next up, Homie quarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ! --Haemo 03:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In this corner, 68.14.37.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Haemo 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ding ding: 24.109.87.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --YFB ¿ 04:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Trumpscoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --YFB ¿ 04:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you get IP addresses, don't bother hitting them with 48 hours. Assume they are open proxies unless you have evidence to believe they are not, and in def them (had a discussion with jpgordon, who is the checkuser on this) we can confirm it by looking them up on the RBLs list. SirFozzie 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This Day In History error on main page

I'm not sure where to post this and I think time is probably of the essence here. The "On This Day" section shows that the U.S. paid $6,000 for ransom of U.S. prisoners in the First Barbary War but the article says $60,000. I think someone left a zero off. Since admins can edit the main page perhaps someone can fix it. I posted this at the Anniversaries page too. Thanks JodyB _talk 10:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Merope has corrected this. —freak(talk) 10:44, Jun. 10, 2007 (UTC)

Password requests from an IP address

195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has sent me 4 password requests over the course of an hour, can someone please block this IP address for me?? I reported it at WP:AIV but was told that here was the best place to mention it, so I'm mentioning it here.

If the IP address is blocked it'll probably stem the flow of password requests... --SunStar Net 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from AIV, once, before you reported second time. Like I said there, I dont see the anon making any on-wiki edits requesting password. Nor were the edits vandalism. How was the request made, then? Email? If so, blocking wont have any effect. You better create a filter in your mail service. --soum 13:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore the change password requests, unless you enter the password it sends you then your account will remained unchanged. It is just a way that people can bug you. 14:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I've been getting one or two of these a day for the last few days and I've been studiously ignoring them. I suppose it is just low-level irritation, presumably from some problematic user one has warned or blocked. --John 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have gotten these too and did not know what they were. I think this type of harassment should be considered a reportable offense, with a warning message put on the talk page of the IP address just as one would warn for any other type of vandalism. Is there a set of standard warning tags for this? Buddhipriya 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Physik/User:Dude user page issue

Physik wanted to change his name to Dude, so he moved his user page to User:Dude. Obviously, this is not the proper way to rename an account, but he didn't know that and I've directed him to Misplaced Pages:Changing username where he said he wants a different name. Could an admin move User:Dude back to User:Physik over the redirect and delete User:Dude? Also, he's got some images on there that he probably shouldn't. This may be a good time to discuss that with him. Leebo /C 15:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I've removed the fair use images from the userpage too. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll continue to answer his questions when he has them, but this was a great help. Leebo /C 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone doesn't like User:Seewolf

Someone seems to hold a grudge against Seewolf (talk · contribs) and Benutzer:Mnh, both admins on the German Misplaced Pages. I have just blocked Harald "Seewolf" Krichel muss weg! (talk · contribs), but a quick look at the history of Seewolf's userpage shows a lot more vandals:

• Mnh lutscht den Schwanz von Harald Krichel! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (translation: Mnh jerks Harald Krichel's cock)
• Mnh stinkt! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Mnh smells!)
• Harald Krichel ist ein Grüsel! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Harald Krichel is a freak!)
• Harald "Seewolf" Krichel stinkt wie ein Jauchefass! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Harald "Seewolf" Krichel smells like a manure tank!)
• Harald "Seewolf" Krichel wixt beim Scheissen! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Harald "Seewolf" Krichel masturbates while taking a crap!)

In the user creation log, I've found the following accounts:

• Mnh du dreckiger Arsch! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Mnh lutscht fremde Schwänze! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Harald Krichel hebt seinen Schwanz raus. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Seewolf hebt seinen Schwanz raus. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Seewolf steigt mit Mnh in die Badewanne. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The vandal also seems to be active on other Wikipedias: nl:Gebruiker:Mnh lutscht Administratorenschwänze!, nl:Mnh ist ein Arschloch!, nl:Gebruiker:Da hat er recht. Seewolf ist ein Schwein!, it:Utente:Mnh onaniert beim Scheissen!. This doesn't include IP vandals. Please keep an eye out for anyone targetting Seewolf or Mnh, either in username or in edits. Aecis 15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And for future reference, the following vandal accounts are also related:

• Harald Krichel stinkt! Pfui Teufel! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Harald Krichel ist eine Sau! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Aecis 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hayden Christensen and other stuff

68.60.137.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making unsourced and POV edits, particularly with the Hayden Christensen article, which s/he has "warned" me not to change. Ironically, I've incorporated some of hir changes into the article, but that's apparently not good enough for them. They have been previously warned and blocked, but continue with the same behavior. If they could please be blocked for whatever the maximum possible length might be (like, at least a week?), that would be lovely. Thanks all. -Ebyabe 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I reported this at WP:AIV, but they referred me here. -Ebyabe 16:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the IP a little note about owning an article, and that improvements should be encouraged. Keep us posted. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankee! Although I have serious doubts as to the effectiveness of warning them, based on the prior pattern of behaviour. I know, I know, assume good faith. We'll see what happens, but sometimes a leopard just doesn't change their stripes. Or something like that. :) -Ebyabe 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin blocking an IP indef

86.146.160.218 only made 5 edits to articles, which looking at the contributions didn't even seem to vandalize anyway, and it has been blocked indef by Mike Selinker (talk · contribs) for some reason. Is there any particular reason he did this? because inef blocking an Ip seems unfair. Francisco Tevez 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Its fine, he reduced the block duration. Francisco Tevez 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a little note: the future, it would be better to discuss things like this with the admin before posting here. Have fun wikiing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq (talk · contribs · logs) and Personnal attack

• Would not this deserve reaction :  ? Alithien 16:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible disruption

User:Hubier (his contribs) has been uploading dozens of images with no sources, no fair use rationales and using them to replace all of the James Bond film posters. Just about every one was deleted by a bot for having no information, so now he's just replacing the current posters with red links. I don't know if he knows they are all deleted. I didn't know where to take this, because it doesn't seem to be a clear case of vandalism, just plain disruption. The posters he was trying to use, even if they had sources, were not better than what was already there, some looking fan made. He was asked to stop several times by myself and another editor, but he refuses. I was hoping for some assistance on how to handle this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. I will unblock this user if he agrees to abide by our non-free content policy. ˉˉ╦╩ 19:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, seems like he's decided to simply not log in. User:72.205.56.90 put in the image that Hubier uploaded. Diff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Notorious sockpuppet User:BryanFromPalatine is back

User:FreedomAintFree

This user is a almost surely a sockpuppet of banned multiple puppet and puppet master User:BryanFromPalatine permabanned during the Free Republic case. His first edit was to Free Republic and within minutes he was editing Democratic Underground. Both these articles are on probation. He already 'knows' WP, all the issues and long-time editors. Just like socks Bryan and Dino Dean Hinnen, he claims to have been 'lurking' and studying up on WP. Highly doubtful. Please investigate.64.145.158.163 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide any diffs on which your claim is based? Looking at your edit history, all you've done on Misplaced Pages so far is claim FreedomAintFree is a sockpuppet all over the place. I wonder how you've come to that conclusion.--Atlan (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Ryulong. - Merzbow 05:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything negative that I've ever read about Misplaced Pages has been confirmed. The left-wing partisans are in control. All they have to do is point a finger and say, "Sockpuppet." Xboxwarrior 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the above user (Xboxwarrior) quacking? Interesting contribs. - auburnpilot talk 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated purging of text

Akhristov (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes text from the article Podilsko-Voskresenska Line w/o any real reasoning , , ,

Considering that there was no consensus on the talk page, I was wondering could this kind of extreme WP:POINT-violating behaivour be classed as Vandalism. I mean the article is a subway line and the text he is removing is of the language that the whole city speaks. And his only reason is I really have a strong point of view on this.... Do politics justify disruptive behaivour? Considering that these four (as of me writing this) edits are the only ones he did to the article so far. --Kuban Cossack 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems that the user is violating WP:3RR. I will place a warning in his user page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning is real, and a consensus was reached prior to the edit war. User:Kuban kazak has a prior history of edit warring, see . My reasoning is on the talk page, and Kuban kazak was continuously reverting to his revision, which didn't gain consensus yet. This is why I reverted to my revision, since it gained prior consensus. — Alex 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I marked this incident as unresolved until my comment above is commented on. — Alex 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not a unilateral near-violation of 3RR. Both parties should have been notified of that. Anyways, protecting the article was the right call. Also, the comments by Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) at Talk:Podilsko-Voskresenska Line#Russian name seems to be assuming bad faith. His contibs history shows him as a good editor, but block log suggests he is a bit over zealous.Corrected username. — Alex 09:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that umber of edits is not the yardstick to measure the validity of an edit. It should be on the merit of the edit in question. --soum 08:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that two days back he was blocked for edit warring for one and a half days on another Russian/Ukranian dispute. As soon as he gets out of the block, he starts doing it on another article. That aspect does bother me. --soum 08:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want sysops to do? To support one of the parties to this content dispute? This noticeboard is not part of dispute resolution procedures. --Ghirla 09:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not take sides, be impartial. Both sides should have been warned for impending 3RR violation, thats my point. Its us admins who have to act on the merits of the case, not merits of reporting. Its our responsibility to ensure that content dispute does not end up being disruptive. --soum 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the dispute has matured into a WP:MEDCAB, if anybody is interested please participate. --Kuban Cossack 22:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this right?

Could someone please take a look at what this administrator user:Alkivar has been doing. On more than one occasion he has removed huge chunks of information from an article, then proceeds to fully protect it so that no one else can edit it! (like in this case ). Surely there is no policy that allows this is there? Where we have to seek the permission of an Administrator to edit an article? 124.176.27.127 09:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that doesn't look right at all. An editor has contacted Alkivar on three occasions about this article without receiving any response. As it does not appear to be a correct use of an indefinite full protection, and as Alkivar has given no response to inquiries, I'm going to restore it to semi-protected. I'll leave a note on Alkivar's page linking back to this discussion. -- Merope 09:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Biographies of living person, the policy which governs biographical articles, says to remove any text that is not attributed to reliable sources. So, the removal is justified. As for the protection, people were reinserting the unsourced content without addressing the concerns. So, protection is also justified. Though whether an indefinite is proper or not I'm not sure. But indefinite is not infinite. Please find references that you can attriute such content to, without which they are not allowed here. Even if the article is protected, you can discuss the changes on the talk page. Once you are done aggregating the sources, request an unprotection. --soum 09:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

hum and look at the differences it's burntsauce again. I've got to ask - is Alkivar in his pocket? --Fredrick day 10:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like enforcing BLP to me. 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you asserting that this was all "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" (emphasis added)? Seems a bit excessive to me particularly when the admin in question has not responded to multiple questions about his edits. --ElKevbo 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that removing that much material went too far. He even took out basic information like a description of his role on AFHV and what he's currently up to. I would say about 75% of the removal was inappropriate since it wasn't nearly contentious.--Wafulz 20:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I support bringing this back to semi-protection (I semi-protected it last month due to libel concerns) — if the material was unsourced, which was largely the case, then it should have been removed according to policy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking, disruption, incivility, and personal attacks

(this argument is identical to the one a bit below this, resubmitted in some sort of lag-time glitch. The only difference is that an additional admin weighed in below.)