Misplaced Pages

That last comment was way over the line, Fyslee. Regarding "I believe it should be a condition that he leave the template and agreement at the top of his talk page for the benefit of other users," I agree. Profg has a history of archiving his talk page using the Permanent link archives method, but I think he should be strongly encouraged to use the subpage method instead, and to leave the agreement on his main talk page. --BlueMoonlet 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonlet. I did get carried away and have struck out my last comment. My apologies to B. -- Fyslee / talk 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me; I agree to do so. --profg 07:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Profg. I hope to see a good followup on your intentions expressed here. -- Fyslee / talk 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, one admin, who seems to be supporting these type of useless editors (I note the Ferrylodge arbitration), has decided to undo what the community believes. B should put himself up for recall, because he shouldn't have this power. This is a terrible decision that ignores the mass of evidence of Profg's behavior. I can't believe it. OrangeMarlin 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OM, if you want to take this to a venue where a significant number of impartial and uninvolved people will make a fair decision, feel free. I think our point is that that's what should have been done in the first place. --BlueMoonlet 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And I think you're overstepping. •Jim62sch• 17:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, to be perfectly honest, this is just taking a turn for the weird. The flagrant personal attacks here are worse than anything I have seen from Profg. No uninvolved user has even weighed in here in support of the ban - this isn't how community bans work. Community bans are COMMUNITY bans, not involved editor bans. A ban is the last step in the dispute resolution process, not the first one. But if you really feel that a ban is warranted, have a legitimate discussion with input and agreement from uninvolved editors - uninvolved means people who don't edit the same topic area - and an uninvolved admin to make the block and I won't stand in the way. If the decision to ban him is really the correct decision, you ought to be able to convince a few uninvolved editors of it. --B 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with this user being unblocked. I think that too many people are far too lenient with such editors who have been given far too many chances and continue to disrupt. Essentially every editor involved with ProfG agrees that he is disruptive and problematic. My question is, why do so many people assume that an editor not involved has a more accurate idea of this editor than editors who have spent weeks or months with him? Sure, involved editors might be blinded by their own emotions, however I think that is drastically underestimating most editors. I think that the editors who have experience with this editor have a lot more to say than someone who has no experience with them. I also believe that if one takes enough time to closely examine ProfG's edits, they too would agree with the large number of involved editors, that ProfG is quite disruptive. I find it quite odd that for obvious vandals, we give them a few warnings and then block them (at increasing durations after each offense), and with less obvious problematic editors than obvious vandals we generally give them attempts to change in the forms of requests for comment, mediations and then finally arbitrations. However what do we do for the editors who fall in between obvious vandals and the not so obvious problematic editors? Obviously an arbitration lasting for months isn't the way to go, nor are RFC's which are frequently ignored or disregarded by such editors. I think that community blocks are the answer and that this block was well justified. Perhaps the best way to go is to put limitations on this user, such as 1rr and a civility watch, however as has been mentioned above, many of this editors problems arise neither from 3rr or obvious incivility but stalking and harassment. Obviously stalking is the worst problem with this user, who has caused a lot of problems at the Homeopathy article, an article which apparently he was uninterested in until following another user there. Perhaps another limitation can be placed on this editor which would prevent him from stalking and harassing other editors, however I can think of no such limitation that can be put in places that would have any such effect as it's quite subjective to judge whether a user innocently came to an article with a user he is in dispute with or came there to further the dispute and/or harass the other user in question. Wikidudeman 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1RR isn't just about 3RR. It ensures that someone pushing a POV can't continually revert to their POV. --B 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

But, How do we stop stalking and harassment? How do we stop him from going into a users contribs and finding some dispute that the user is involved in and then involving himself into it just to instigate further disputes? Wikidudeman 17:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Profg has shown no ability to do so, and he has worn out good faith. B supports profg for some mysterious (and to me, not mysterious at all) reasons which are reprehensible. B should immediately recuse himself and put himself up for recall. OrangeMarlin 17:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of conflict of interest by B. He should reinstate the block, recuse himself from further involvement, and if some other admin, of which there are 0 so far, gets involved then so be it. B's actions implicitly supports the behavior and attitudes of profg, which are unacceptable to the community. This was a bad decision.OrangeMarlin 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really getting old. There's no basis whatsoever to claim that there is a conflict of interest. I had never heard of him, his website, or his employer prior to someone emailing me and telling me who they were. Your targeting me because of my religion is unacceptable. I unblocked a user because the alleged "ban discussion", with no input outside of the editors of a single topic area, was inadequate to demonstrate the will of the community and because the evidence given above did not support a ban. --B 19:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, if he does that, leave a message on my talk page. --B 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict of interest from User:B. Even if there was a conflict of interest, ProfG is severely limited in his capability to do any further disruptions at this point it's not even relevant. If he reverts more than once, he's blocked. If he violates civility, he's blocked. If he attempts to harass or stalk other editors, he's blocked. I think that this should be sufficient to prevent him from being disruptive any longer. Wikidudeman 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I do see it. B should recuse himself, reblock profg, and allow a truly independent and uninvolved administrator to unblock the edit-warrior, if they want. B should be subject to a recall for his reprehensible actions herein. And it is vile to accuse me of giving a shit about your religion (which I don't, but that's for philosophical reasons which are irrelevant to a COI). Your support of profg makes NO sense whatsoever--since I am a rational human being, and profg has done everything to deserve the block, I cannot understand what might possess someone to unblock profg. B's explanation of doing so is rather weak. OrangeMarlin 12:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures

Moved to: Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea

Main Page image incident

Oops. The main page image seems to have been vandalised. Some handwritten c-upload notice! Carcharoth 07:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The image can be seen here. Looking at the history of Commons:Image:Templarsign.jpg, we see an edit summary of "I am sooo sorry", followed by a revert a minute later. Do we have to make points about c-upload in front of all our readers? Carcharoth 07:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been done. Comment left at User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, I kind of violated WP:POINT there. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#PROTECTING_MAIN_PAGE_IMAGES which I posted before I saw this thrad. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I grovel - I changed the image to try and settle a disagreement over what should be the best image. I had intended to then full protect it on Commons but was distracted. Someone decided to make a point and upload a vandalised image on Commons to the same title. The point (though it could have been made more kindly) is well taken - be careful in updating templates transcluded onto the mainpage. Either upload a local copy or protect the Commons one... WjBscribe 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WJB, I don't suppose this incident might prompt you to become the first admin bot operator on Commons, as well? We already have the necessary code.--chaser - t 07:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did make the initial report (without checking WP:AN), and I don't normally defend this sort of thing, but for a one-minute thing it was pretty harmless. As we have seen, it did make WjBScribe (our new admin bot overlord) sit up and take notice! Now, who wants to write an admin bot program to make sure this never happens again? :-) Carcharoth 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I wonder whether a creative WP:POINT violation could be thought up to drive the point home to Jeffrey O. Gustafson that some readers will have seen this? Or would that thought end up drowning in its own irony. Carcharoth 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd, your pen is running out of ink... :-) Carcharoth 08:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a pencil, actually... Titoxd 08:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What did I tell all of you about deleting the main page? I'm tentatively against it. El_C 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, WTF?

I discovered that the TFA image for today (Battleship) was not uploaded locally. Again. Honestly, its not that hard, people. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That one is protected on commons. Was it not when you wrote this? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I discovered it, mentioned it on IRC, and a commons admin protected it after the fact. The fact still remains: An Image Was On The Main Page Unprotected, And People Don't Get It. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It was fucking transcluded on to commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page which is fucking cascade protected and it was transcluded there for quite some fucking time so it was been fucking protected on commons long before your fucking message here. Shall I also start inserting fuck into every fucking edit summary too? Is that some new fucking trend you're starting? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... yes... now I remember why I stopped checking whether images on the Main Page are unprotected. Zzyzx11 told me about that page awhile ago. Thanks for reminding me that I wasn't imagining that. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Jeffrey O. Gustafson has so gently pointed out, Zzyzx11's methodology isn't fool-proof. In the Templar's case, the main page image was switched out for another so Zzyzx11 was left with the wrong image commons protected. It doesn't appear DYK images are ever added to Zzyzx11's cascade protection so those always need to be checked as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's semi-protected on Commons; is it supposed to be fully protected? However, to be fair, the image for TOFA basically just appears on the Main Page automagically. I suppose you could ask Raul to protect images he puts in the TOFA templates, but beyond that, the fact that images go on the Main Page (under TOFA) unprotected is as much your fault as it any admin's. Images that are actually put on the Main Page by people – in ITN and DYK – are a different story. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is fully protected by way of being transcluded on to a cascade fully protected page as I mentioned above. The additional semi-protection was unnecessary (which neither Jeffrey O. Gustafson nor the semi-protecting commons admin seem to have noticed). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest (unless this is some form of joke on his part that I just don't 'get') Jeffery may wish to take a Wikibreak? While I understand Misplaced Pages is uncensored, I find swearing for the sake of it moderately distasteful. HalfShadow 02:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How hard would it be to have a bot that would check every 2 minutes the images displayed on the main page, make sure they are protected (even going so far as to attempt to edit the commons image description page), and if they aren't, post a warning in some suitable location? --B 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a bot to do this? Wasn't cascading protection created so that the bot would not be needed? --Carnildo 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot was more aimed at templates, I think. The problem was that templates were staying unprotected and getting pictures of male anatomy added to them. But cascading protection doesn't help with images still on Commons. Only admins can overwrite a Commons image with a local one, so we would either need an adminbot to upload all of the images locally (in which case cascading protection would take over), protect the images on Commons if they are not protected (needs to be a commons adminbot), or make a list and yell+scream loudly when something isn't protected. --B 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in seeing how we did this before, Shadowbot2 was the bot that checked protection on the Main Page. It originally just listed problems on-wiki, until we realized that at least one vandal was watching it and was racing to beat the admins to the unprotected item. So interested admins simply opted into email notices, before cascading protection rendered the bot obsolete. - BanyanTree 10:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that it didn't render the bot obsolete. QED (see above). ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 19:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC) edit ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 19:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You can always ask Shadow1 if he wants to retask the bot to watch Commons. Most of the admins who already signed up probably wouldn't mind. - BanyanTree 23:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of username-change redirects

Hi, in September I changed my username from Rambutan. At the time, I requested that no redirects be created, and was told that this was fine, but the change would still be in the log. I agreed to this, but then later decided not to have them deleted.

However, today I changed my mind and tried to get them deleted. After trying to get attention on IRC where I was abused by ST47, Wimt, NotASpy and Daniel-Bryant, the User: and User_talk: pages were deleted. ST47 then undeleted the User_talk: page. I re-requested speedy deletion, it was turned down by the rude Wimt, and I re-requested specifying more accurately my rationale. The page was protected by ST47.

My point is, suppose I hadn't changed my mind at the time of the rename, and they had been deleted then? Or supposed I'd had my User: and User_talk: pages deleted when I was Rambutan - no redirects would ever have been created. So why am I being denied this now? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to be at all rude, but the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion. I'm not sure what you were told on WP:CHU, but renames are not made without redirects to the new username except in extremely mitigating circumstances (which, unless I'm missing something, I cannot see here). It causes unnecessary confusion to many people. Will (aka Wimt) 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a CSD because you deleted the CSD. I replaced it and the page was protected. As I explained, I had a rename on the basis that the redirects were deletable. Also, what's your comments on the second sentence of my last paragraph above? And why did NotASpy just boot me on IRC for notifying him/her that s/he's on ANI? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In relation to that point, we don't delete user talk pages unless a user is invoking m:right to vanish (i.e. leaving the project altogether) so that request would also have been turned down. Will (aka Wimt) 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What's {{db-userreq}} for, then? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what it says. User subpages. This does not include your talk page. Will (aka Wimt) 16:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not deleted because of the history that must be preserved within them. In this case, the talk page was moved to the new name's location, and that is not a valid reason for declining this deletion. Just delete the thing; it isn't the end of the world. - auburnpilot talk 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for these pages to be deleted, the user in question will have left a link to his userpage or talk page through his signature any time he has signed a page, should anybody then wish to contact the user in question, it is made much easier through the retention of these redirects. Not every user is aware of the user rename log or how to use it. Nick 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You were booted from irc for trolling. Also, I cannot see how the other users specified have broken any policy, unless I am missing something. :-) Stwalkerster talk 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I said the following, and that's ALL: "Just to let those of you who know who you are... you're on ANI". Where's this trolling, then? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm I (as NotASpy on IRC) did not boot you the first time, you rejoined with a different nick 4 seconds later, and I kicked you for rejoining in violation of a boot, as I have explained to you. Nick 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to have the redirect deleted so desperately? Melsaran (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It matters? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Can you please explain why you no longer want people who click on your old signature to be forwarded to your present userpage and talkpage, thanks. Nick 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the greater privacy that it would offer. It cloaks me from the cr*p people who plagued me when I was Rambutan. The non-cr*p people who know their way round WP will use the rename log. I see some support for the deletion here - please go ahead and do it. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, lets not get wrapped around the axle here, delete it. Mercury 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, can you articulate a good reason? Mercury 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I kind of have done. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't see this, but I have already contacted ST47 about this. This is what I said:

The user that used to be Rambutan has contacted me about your overturning the deletion of User talk:Rambutan. As I understand it, if this user does not want any connection between their two accounts, then he is entitled to remove the links. As the page was moved, anyone who had edited the user talk page would now see that in their history as an edit of the moved page. If anyone gets curious then they can search the user rename log; there is also an entry in the block log which notes the connection, so the user is not able to hide their block history. I often see user talk pages put up for speedy deletion, and I remove the speedy tag from them; however this one is an exception. Do you object to my deleting the page?

In my view the user's preference to delete the page is reasonable. Sam Blacketer 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is only one account, not two, and contributions found attributed under the name "Porcupine" have been signed Rambutan, the signature contains links to these pages we're discussing now. Users deserve to be able to visit a user or talk page when clicking on an old signature. Nick 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I just spent 15 minutes reading the entire WP:CHU and related pages, and could not find any rule/guideline allowing/prohibiting/creating/deleting a redirect to the new user pages. {{db-user}} (CSD U1) is fair game here and should not have been declined. That's my interpretation. — Edokter • Talk • 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If Rambutan was behaving in the exact same manner, but using two accounts, per WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors he would likely be blocked, circumventing this policy using an account that has been usurped should not be possible, and I suggest deference to the aforementioned policy when considering removing links between an old and a new username for the same account. Nick 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If I run AWB over all incoming links to User:Rambutan and User talk:Rambutan and make them point to the new account, would that solve the problem? Sam Blacketer 19:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If the user is annoyed that people who quarrelled with him on the old account will pursue him to the new one, he is surely free to start a new account from scratch and then tell no-one that there is a connection between the accounts. My discomfort with his proposal above is that he wants to both keep and lose his old history on Misplaced Pages. Since I don't think he was blocked under the old account, him starting from scratch without comment on a new account would probably not be criticized. EdJohnston 19:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

His account, prior to being renamed, had a fairly extensive block log, some of these blocks were overturned, however. The block log which was orphaned upon being renamed can be found here Special:Blockip/User:Rambutan. Nick 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the actions taken and, absent significant and cogent objection, intend to re-delete these pages based on the precedent established in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat and the ensuing unholding of my close there on DRV. The user's desire to avoid the redirects may seem quixotic, but edit-warring to insist on keeping userspace redirects of this nature is counter-productive and should not be encouraged. I caution Porcupine, however, that the title he gave some of the talkpage notifications regarding this dispute was unnecessarily confrontational and that he should avoid that in the future. Newyorkbrad 21:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sam Blacketer 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that we take these redirects to a suitable MfD/RfD, given the fact several administrators don't agree with their deletion. Nick 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That should not be necessary. Unless someone feels very strongly that these userspace redirects are essential, they should be deleted summarily per the request of the user in question. A five-day community discussion of this issue would be, in my humble opinion, overkill. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the redirects has been deleted and undeleted already, and I feel, given this has happened, a discussion would more appropriate than further administrative action at this time. Nick 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is a discussion not what has happened here? Sam Blacketer 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess ST47 will have to state his case here, as the undeletion has no basis in policy or guideline. — Edokter • Talk • 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the deletion has no basis in policy or guidelines either, so in this case, I strongly suggest deference to the sockpuppetry policy, which states that multiple accounts shall not be used to avoid scrutiny of other editors, in the case of users having been renamed, I would suggest multiple usernames should be treated as "multiple accounts". Nick 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD U1 is a policy. Sock policy really doensn't apply here; the username change would have been denied if the intention was to evade scrutiny. — Edokter • Talk • 22:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if CSD U1 can apply here, because after a rename, the user and talk page redirects left behind are no longer the user and talk pages attached to an account, and aren't the work of the user requesting deletion, so I believe they would need to be considered under any suitable redirect speedy deletion criteria. There's also the question, what happens if another user registers the old username, so something we need to decide, is at what point does the user loose rights on their old username and it's associated user and talk pages, and the like. Nick 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything you've just mentioned are all the more reason to just delete any old redirect; like you said, it's no longer attached to the new account. And a new user creating the old username may find the old redirect going "WTF, who stole my userpage!". — Edokter • Talk • 00:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was present on IRC at the time that Rambutan started requesting that his user page be deleted, and proceed to threaten me with the disclosure of logs. I full agree with the undeletion. There has to be some accountability on this project. It is not a free-for-all - it is not a video game which you can go back to a previous save with. The fact is that Rambutan has secured himself what appears to be a clean slate to anything but the most studious of observers, who actually know how to operate the user rename log (I don't - it will never work for me, whatever deatils I put in to whichever text box - and anyone who thinks I'm going to look through the rename logs of all the crats or of the whole wiki needs a brain bypass).

He has no right to vanish, by virtue of the fact that he is not vanishing. This is (if you'll bear with me) effectively sockpuppetry, of the ilk we see around Qst (I am not inferring that Rambutan is a sock of anyone..). Qst, when he got a stain on his account, would leave it and set up a new one. A few weeks/months later, around the time of the next RfA, a link would appear proclaiming that he "used to be User:X", and this would be used as a supporting statement in an RfA. With a rename like this, there is that little bit less transparency, because the user doesn't proclaim what they were previously known as. If I were to see Porcupine up at RfA now, I might have leaned much further towards suport than I would with him being Rambutan. This is because I, and countless others, have an opinion related to Rambutan, but haven't had any experience with Porcupine.

It works the same for normal interactions - not just RfA. There needs to be this accountability of name-recognition. A user rename can't be used as an excuse to actually bypass the opinions that others may hold. As far as I know, renames are there for aesthetic reasons, not to give users a "right-to-partially-vanish-but-return-with-a-massive-edit-count-and-no-negative-connotations-associated-with-my-name". Policy needs clarifying to this extent, or user renames, useless wastes of server cycles as they are, should be stopped. Martinp23 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if the block log was transferred to the new account, it might help. It might reduce the number of renaming requests from troublesome users. Sam Blacketer 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine is making no secret that he was Rambutan. 2nd, when his user/talk page were moved, the full history, including all block messages are retained. He is still fully accountable for his past actions. — Edokter • Talk • 22:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere on his user page did it (earlier today) say "I am the user formerly known as Rambutan". Therefore he has no accountability, because when I see suspicious behaviour, I'm not going to go rooting through a user's archives to see if it has happened before (though I may use the block log). I'm going to work on name recognition, which is, in this case, being denied to me. Similarly, if a newish user sees a personal attackmade by a user who has since been renamed and deleted, they have no easy way of associating that action with the new username, as it should be. Martinp23 22:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. comment by NYB above, best one on this thread. Absolutely correct. 86.29.39.5 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a load of bull. The Cool Cat MfD was incorrectly closed, and the issue was only left alone because other users were "tired" of hearing about it, and decided to force the closure. "Precedent established" couldn't be more wrong. The fact that this issue has come up again in a completely unrelated matter shows that, 1) the CSD in question was not made for these types of situations, but for mild, uncontroversial situations, 2) unless there is an issue of privacy or some other reasonable excuse, such redirects are not owned by the user, but rather are being used by the community to keep track of such name changes, and 3) there is clearly some disagreement on these issues, so either side saying "I'm right, drop it" is out of line, and we need to actually address this. -- Ned Scott 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This is perhaps relevant. —Cryptic 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am still going to stand by my original position here in declining the speedy deletion and endorse Martinp23's comments above. I don't see this as the same as the Cool Cat situation, the MfD of which NYB pointed to, on two counts. Firstly, you will note that the MfD deleted Cool Cat's userpage which I have no problem with Rambutan having deleted. However, as you will note, User talk:Cool Cat is indeed a redirect and has always been one. Secondly, White Cat wanted to remove the record of his former name (regardless of what you think of his reasoning behind this) not to try to distance himself from all talk page comments that he had previously placed, which is in effect what Rambutan is attempting to do here. In fact, White Cat went as far as trying to alter all his signatures to point to his new name (though this may not have been a sensible action). Therefore, I don't believe the two situations are at all comparable. I strongly believe that renaming should not be used as some kind of method to partially hide someone's previous actions, whilst keeping a background of contributions. I have seen no appreciable reason why Rambutan's old talk page can not redirect to his new one for ease of everyone. It seems rather ridiculous in my opinion that people should have to root around rename logs to find the user that a particular comment is attributed to, when a redirect would suffice perfectly well. Many new users will have no clue how to root around said log, and so be at a complete loss as to who made these comments. I don't believe that is what the rename process is for at all. By all means it can be used to change your name to something new that you prefer, and by all means it can be used to help you vanish if you are leaving, but what is achieved from this other than causing a great deal of confusion? So that's my position, and I stand by it. Will (aka Wimt) 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I stopped reading at the point where he accused a number of established users, myself included, of "abuse". If he can't get his first sentence factually correct, I have little confidence in believing the rest of what Rambutan proclaims. Daniel 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to make another point as to why I believe this doesn't have any precedent from the White Cat MfD. In that debate, nigh on all of the people that said that they were happy for the page to be deleted noted that White Cat was not hiding his previous identity at all (his user page clearly stated his previous username). When I look at User:Porcupine at the moment, I see no mention at all of the fact he used to be Rambutan. In fact, quite the opposite. The statement "Hi, welcome to the userpage of Porcupine. They're just my favourite animals!! So cute... I've been using Misplaced Pages for a very long time now, but this is the first time I've been tempted to get a user account." seems completely misleading to me. Will (aka Wimt) 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The contents of Rambutan's old block log are sobering. Though some blocks were reversed, at least two blocks were served out in full, the longer of which was for one week. The comment was Repeated disruption, personal attacks, incivility, misuse of Twinkle, etc. The contents of User talk:Porcupine/Archives/2007/Sep suggest that the behavioral issues commented on in the block log have not gone away. It was noted above that this editor was booted off of IRC for his behavior while requesting this very deletion. Given the complexity of his current situation, I suggest that his request to delete the links not be granted at this time. EdJohnston 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as blocks go, Secretlondon did a 1 second block to draw attention to the old block log, so they aren't hiding from admins. Viridae 05:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So what's the upshot of all this, then? What's going to happen? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Personally, I don't mind if redirects are deleted after a name change. The only concern that comes to mind for me is the possibility of someone attempting to expunge their prior block record. But as long as the block log is linked to the new names, as in this case, I think we should be more accommodating and a little less bureaucratic. I must admit that I have a bias here in that I deleted the redirects on my previous username, though that was a slightly different case as my previous username was my real name and my reasons for wanting to cut the redirects were that I was being stalked and harassed in real life by a former partner. I deleted the redirects originally but they were subsequently re-deleted by other admins and eventually protected. I don't know why Porcupine has been so adamant and persistent about his request, but the fact that he is being so insistent gives me the impression that he likely has a valid reason but doesn't want to share it for priacy reasons. Fine by me. He isn't under any ArbCom or community sanctions or anything else that would make me feel forced maintenance of these redirects is necessary. So if no one else has deleted them by the time I mosey on over there, I intend to delete them myself....All that said, Porcupine, when you come to an administrative noticeboard to request assistance and support for your position, please try to formulate your message in a way that does not seem like you are attacking other users. I understand that you are frustrated by the bureaucracy and I personally find your frustration understandable, but launching into an attack of established and well thought of editors in your opening post only serves to get people off-side. Sarah 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC) And I might add that there are others with block logs who have had their redirects deleted after a name change.User:Tbeatty is one who comes to mind. His case was discussed here and on AN and. as I recall, no one raised any objections and the redirects remain deleted and the page protected. Sarah 11:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the deletion. This seems to be turning more and more into "we don't like him so let's decline his request". I don't like him either, but his request was valid and no-one has convinced me that declining his request is based on policy. — Edokter • Talk • 14:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There are users on this Wiki who I trust about as far as I can throw them, who have sparklingly clean block logs. I recognise them by name, but wouldn't be able to do so if they were renamed. I am sure that nearly every observer can appreciate this - themselves knowing of such users. Martinp23 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I support Sarah's deletion on the basis that the user is not under Community or ArbCom sanction and that his old block log is linked to. If people disagree with Sarah's decision, I hope they will take the matter to DRV rather than recreating the redirects. That said, I would not have done it myself- no admin has to delete anything and this is totally the wrong way to ask someone to do you a favour. The attitude shown by the way this request was made is totally unacceptable. WjBscribe 18:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

One comment here. Edokter said "Everything you've just mentioned are all the more reason to just delete any old redirect; like you said, it's no longer attached to the new account. And a new user creating the old username may find the old redirect going "WTF, who stole my userpage!"." - I'd just like to point out that under this scenario (a new user creating the old username) that old signatures will point to the new user. I would hope that the old names of renamed accounts are account-salted in some way to prevent this. Carcharoth 20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

the user "Rambutan" has been created at 22:06, 13 October 2007 (there is no indication that this creation was made by User:Porcupine, though). -- lucasbfr 14:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

LART request

Any chance of an admin having a word with Jozzage for this little fit of pique. These sort of things make New Page Patrol so worthwhile and enjoyable. He's so wound up he even thinks I'm American. :) ---- WebHamster 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, an account which has done little more than repeatedly submitted the same article for an unnotable band, then repeatedly (again) drops the f-bomb because he doesn't like the response deserves more than a simple "don't do this again or else" message. Based on this clear evidence, I blocked him for a month; review welcome. (And some people say above that I mollicoddle the troublemakers...) -- llywrch 01:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, strong support. He's been nowhere near civil and he's not even attempting to learn why he article got deleted. Hopefully, he acts a little more contrite when he returns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. These little outbursts don't actually bother me, in truth the mental images they instigate have me chuckling, but I wouldn't want my thick skin allowing them to think they can get away with it. ---- WebHamster 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed Mr.Z-man has extended this user's block to indefinite. I guess it is safe to conclude from this incident that "You suck" is not a reason for being unblocked. (No points if you can't tell my tone of voice here.) -- llywrch 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SugerMagnoliaBOT

Someone may want to look at User:SugerMagnoliaBOT, it looks like it nom'ed Philadelphia for AfD on it's own Yngvarr 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

He/she/it has been indef blocked. --Haemo 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how it possibly could have seen Philadelphia as an Article For Deletion . . . -WarthogDemon 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing some experienced vandal created a vandal-only account that impersonates a bot to try to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Its probably not an actual bot... --Hdt83 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems to be the case. -WarthogDemon 00:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It didn't have a bot flag; it was simply a misleading username per Misplaced Pages:Username policy. — madman bum and angel 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

I severely wonder about this admin's sanity. He has just deleted images from my user page without prior notice. This is not the first time he's done this, and there is a history here. I'll accept policy if it's explained, but not if it's done maliciously. Caution is OK, malice and bad faith are not. If this is not the appropriate forum, please advise, and I'll take it to where it belongs. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot place non-free use images in userspace. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I severely wonder about MY OWN sanity! MessedRocker (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't think Rodhullandemu posted here looking for an explanation as to why the images were deleted (it's already been explained to him). I think he's complaining aboutwhat he sees as a lack of communication/courtesy on the admin's part.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the user seems to think the removal of the images was in retaliation for an odd message he left me. See this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, discussion can never hurt, as evidenced here. ^_^;; --Iamunknown 05:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nods, fair use for full copyrighted images doesn't cover userspace. Durova 05:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, clearly. Fair use galleries in userspace is a speedy deletion criterion, so no discussion or assent is needed. Daniel 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse but note that posting a note up-front can be useful to reassure and explain in a number of cases; non-communication is a common source of resentment, suspicion, and bad faith and as can be seen it ended up taking an explanation anyhow. FT2 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would advise you to read this for more information about the use of fair use images in userspace. Melsaran (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:J.R. Hercules

I have warned the editor about this edit. However, I think it needs to be expunged from Misplaced Pages, as it is outright libel about a solid contributer here. I asked Until(1 == 2) to do this, but he seemed to feel it was not within his scope of duties as administrator, and . I have warned the offending editor myself, but as I said to Until(1==2), I think it might carry more weight if an admin added his or her voice to the issue. Jeffpw 06:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the edit meets the requirements for oversight. Regarding Until, xe hasn't really done anything wrong; xe's not required to intervene. J.R. Hercules isn't actively editing and hasn't for about a month, so there's not much that could be done by an administrator about that user's behavior right now. WODUP 07:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WODUP, thank you for taking the time to look at this. My personal feeling is that calling someone a Nambla member is tantamount to calling them a pedophile. However, perhaps the editor who has been libeled should be the one to request oversight, in line with oversight protocol. In any event, I appreciate your taking the time to check into this. Jeffpw 07:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I will thank you not to misrepresent me like that, I never said anything about this not being within the scope of my duties. I said I was busy, in fact I told you that more than once because you kept posting about this while I was trying to research a project. I cannot imagine why an edit from early Sept. would be so urgent that you needed me to deal with it after I told you to take it to a noticeboard. 1 != 2 14:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Seemed to feel" would indicate that it was my interpretation of your comment, so I do not feel I was misrepresenting you. Further, I provided difs, so anyone curious could read for themselves precisely what it was you said. In any event, your reply here indicates to me that you acknowledge that it was well within your scope of duties, but you did not consider libel a matter of enough concern to even check into. That seems odd, given your posts on articles about WP:BLP and libel concerns, but I won't press the matter. But to be perfectly clear here, since I now feel it is you mischaracterizing me here, I messaged you about this matter a grand total of 2 times this morning. I don't see that as too much. Jeffpw 15:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the need for oversight. A simple insult "I, an editor of no reputation, called you a nasty name/accusation such as Nambla" is not exactly earth shattering. It is a "potentially libellous accusation" so it does fall within oversight, but my feeling is not every nasty accusation without evidence is important. If I said "User:123 is a pedophile (murderer, has a small penis, is smelly)" would you really expect the big guns out to remove the statement? I'd like to think "ignore it" is more powerful, and I've ignored similar personal attacks before.... in that case, by a problem user I helped remove from the project. Perhaps if you could point to people of repute and sanity who will reassess the target's integrity and personality based upon this childish comment, it would carry more weight. Oversight is a serious act, and the disruption to the page when used is also non-zero; it's really not there for every "X person called person Y a nasty name", no matter if its slightly nasty, medium nasty, or very nasty. It's main role is (credible) libellous statements, personal identification, and the like - basically in principle, things that are likely to carry weight and possible impact. FT2 15:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So Jeff has gone from accusing me of "not thinking it is within my scope" to "not thinking libel something to get concerned over". I ask you a second time not to misrepresent me. I was busy at the time, and now it has plenty of admin attention. Frankly I wonder why you seem more interested in my response to the matter than the matter itself. 1 != 2 15:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What more would you have me do, Until? I investigated the complaint, warned the user with diffs, brought the matter to your attention, again with diffs, and after I got the brush off from you I brought the matter to ANI, again providing diffs. You did...well, jack shit, actually, except for complaining I was bothering you. So please don't say I am not interested in the matter itself, because that would be a bald faced lie. Jeffpw 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I take responsibility for this minor dust-up. I was the one who originally went to Until for help in dealing with Hercules' unprofessional comments, in light of Until's previously engaged attitude in another pederasty-article-related disparaging remark affair. I had come away with the impression that he was interested in monitoring such incidents. I apologize for the misunderstanding, as far as I am concerned the matter is closed, at least as far as Until is concerned.

As for Hercules, and others of his ilk who in the future may take advantage of street zeitgeist to get in a kick at the underdog, perhaps it would be well for all of us to arouse in our minds the consciousness that attacks on the topic of historical pederasty, and on the editors who curate the related suite of articles, are pure homophobia and need to be dealt with accordingly.

Finally, as far as the accusations that I am a member of this or that organization, as long as proper action is taken to indicate that such comments are not condoned by Misplaced Pages authorities and that users cannot engage in that type of behavior with impunity, I will be content. What constitutes proper action will be for others, more versed in protocol, to decide. Haiduc 16:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I can only see this incident in the light of the persistent ongoing POV-pushing on the topic of pederasty, one of the greatest frustrations of editing on LGBT issues on Misplaced Pages. Dybryd 18:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I reverted the statement, per the no personal attacks policy. Had I seen the statement when it was made, I'd prolly have blocked the editor. Blocks being not punitive, I don't think we can block now since the dispute is 1 month old. -- lucasbfr 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Lucasbfr, for your reversion of the offending edit. I was hesitant to do that while there was a possibility it might be oversighted. Thanks, too, for the acknowledgment that the comment was serious enough to warrant a block. I was frankly amazed by the reaction of several admins about this incident. While it may be that they simply did not look closely enough at the situation to see the total picture and context, I also had the feeling that personal bias and distaste for the subject of the articles led to a "blame the victim" mentality. I could be wrong about that, and apologize if I am, but that is how it appeared to me. In any event, I agree about blocks not being punitive, so I suppose we can just let the matter rest. Jeffpw 22:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A user's insulting and confrontational behavior

The background
Bamadude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a problematic and tendentious editor whose behavior needs the attention of the wider community. He is currently the subject of a complaint at Wikiquette alerts (I'm not involved) and has exhibited "bullying" behavior at both Talk:Larry_Seidlin and Talk:Taxi_(TV_series) (his first response to the complaint at wikiquette was this comment).
My involvement and BD at Larry Seidlin talkpage
(Disclaimer, fyi, my involvement, etc.) I first ran across BD at village pump and noticed his confrontational and slightly hostile comments there (everybody's 'stupid' plus Z-man doesn't read and BD cites international law, sort of). Due to his comments, I added one of the pages he edits to my watchlist (Larry_Seidlin). I discovered that he really wants that article deleted, I don't know why, but it is a crusade of his (If you think I exaggerate, see the talk page).

Feeling bad about the way User:Prgrmr@wrk was being treated (and, so far, typical for how Bamadude interacts with just about everyone), I finally made a comment and it went thusly:

• Bamadude calls R. Baley's comment "smart-ass" and encourages him/her to follow "the bouncing ball," he also encourages Baley to "make sense next time" (Both comments in diff).
• Next 2 comments, R. Baley's reply is somewhat short, but indicates wish to drop until real AfD discussion. Bamadude's response. . .well just click. This response was something about 1st Ammendment rights and how R. Baley is almost "cool" beyond belief.
• Next, Bamadude, re-factors his response in the discussion between R. Baley and himself. Bamadude "apologizes" for being "pissed" at R. Baley's "ignorance" (Or ignorance in general -presumably RB's- diff). and. . .
• No longer "cool," R. Baley is now a "dolt" (Response to RB's note on the talk page that discussion had been re-factored (RB's refactor comment and BD's dolt comment both both here). Also noted: R. Baley might be a Republican!?

Summary Since the complaint at Wikiquette alerts (nothing to do with above diffs, those problems have to do with the Taxi talkpage), Cheeser1, has been handling almost everything (so far) him/herself. This situation is a time sink and shouldn't be shouldered by just one editor. I would have intervened more myself, but thought that my interaction would just inflame the situation (full disclosure: I did remove 1 section as inappropriate to the Taxi talk page here because I thought CF had had enough). I believe this situation should receive wider attention, so I'm bringing it here to ANI. I know it's long, but thanks for any consideration, R. Baley 09:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The diffs given here are from last month and aren't really actionable. In theory the current conflict (over on Wikiquette alerts and the Taxi talk page) should be resolved now with the image deleted as a copyvio, Bamadude willing to concede that content dispute, and the personal attacks removed from User:Bamadude. – Steel 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steel, thanks for looking in to the current situation. I should have been more clear that my interaction was from the end of September, but I thought that it was significant in that it demonstrated a recurring problem. Btw, I agree with your declining to protect the page as premature (though I have some reservations about deleting the user page on principle due to the non-specific nature of the complaints/attacks). I thought his last gesture, wherein everybody accepts blame and drops all issues, was inadequate, and that the situation would be ongoing. My only request is that if the situation wrt the civility issues are not resolved, is that C1 and CF receive some community support. R. Baley 19:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides being extraordinarily confrontational, I think Bamadude has a problem understanding WP:V. He has repeatedly attacked other editors for removing or changing sources, asserting that WP:V requires the source to somehow be "easy" to verify (ie an online source or image, instead of a published secondary source like a book). He went so far as to upload a copyrighted source to Misplaced Pages for the purposes of proving himself right in a content dispute. When I was draw into the dispute, due to his uncivil behavior being reported on the WQA, I took immediate note of this fact and went about removing the images - blatant copyvio. And then he starts directing his inappropriate behavior at me. He also misunderstands WP:NPOV - he attacked me for not being "neutral" and "taking sides" in the WQA dispute - I don't know what that even means! It was a valid complaint against him. So I told him to be more civil. All in all, this user is seriously unpleasant, but alot of it seems to be a result of his poor understanding of policies. --Cheeser1 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also note that his ability to use a talk page is poor. He interrupts himself days later to add more stuff, and shoves it between older comments, jumps up and down the sections instead of presenting reasoned responses, and seems unable to let any part of a conversation die. It's not conducive to actually getting consensus, but reads (with diffculty) like he's desperate to continually fend off all comers. It made reading that talk page, as linked above, blinding, and I have to bounce up and down and after about 15 minutes, I just stopped trying. ThuranX 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) I notice that he hasn't edited since I posted the ANI notice, which is atypical for him. I just wanted to say that it was not my intention to start a "pile-on" until he gives up editing altogether (if that is indeed the final outcome, hard to see the future is. . .). I really just wanted the condescending tone of his remarks to stop. The ideal outcome here is an acknowledgement/apology of the insulting nature of his past comments, and future editing where such comments aren't made (and BD being more receptive to collaboration and community feedback). I'm not sure how to make that happen, or if it's worth it. I am pretty sure that any appeal to BD made by me are likely to 'fall on deaf ears'. Thoughts? R. Baley 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How to proceed will depend entirely on what happens when Bamadude arrives. – Steel 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued violations of WP:CIVIL

User:Neutralhomer was banned for 24 hours on September 3 by User:JzG for this uncivil edit summary. He continues to violate this policy, including calling myself a "confused" quitter as well as another editor a "nutjob." Additionally, based on the time frame, it appears as if he's counting the users that he has run off from various projects at the talk of his userpages.

I have tried many times in the past to bring numerous policies to User:Neutralhomer's attention, but have consistently had trouble getting through to him. I don't deny that I have lost my temper more than once with him, but I have always strived to stay within WP guidelines. Any assistance would be appreciated, as when he's editing in article space, he's usually fine. It's his actions in user space that tend to go off the deep end. Thanks for your time. JPG-GR 09:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As previous discussion on this board showed, that block by User:JzG should have never stood as that user had previously stated that he would block me as soon as he got the chance. He did, big deal, that was in September. As for the above, I have done my best to be very patient (something of which I am not normally) with JPG-GR. Especially when I had to to explain, over and over and over about the call signs on the templates. This was a tad annoying. If I lost my patience, it's probably because when you have explained something more times than I wish to count, and the user still doesn't get it, you get a tad annoyed. But if you notice from JPG-GR's archived talk page, I never lost my temper.

As for my calling of JPG-GR a "confused quitter", the "confused" part was part of what he wrote on my talk page, the "quitter" part was because he was "quitting" WP:WPRS at that moment. Personally seemed like a temper tantrum to me. But if JPG-GR is considering "confused quitter" as a violation of WP:CIVIL, then I apologize.

Finally, this isn't how many people I have run off, it is how many annoying and rude editors I have come in contact with have quit or been blocked from Misplaced Pages (both not by my own doing, contrary to what JPG-GR thinks.) Those two editors were JzG (quit) and Calton (blocked). But, I give no names in that line, so that is not "incivil"...I like to call it a reminder. - NeutralHomer 09:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen such an instance of an editor throwing themselves at the noose... Neutralhomer, might I suggest that you take some time to read WP:COOL, and not dwell on the identities of those editors whose edits you have found to be rude and/or annoying. Concentrate on the encyclopedia and treat everyone as you would prefer to be treated. LessHeard vanU 12:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard, I do my best to treat others the way I would like to be treated myself, having Aspergers kinda forces you to do that. But sadly, when talking to someone becomes something I hate to do, and I actually considered quitting because of two members (changed usernames because of one), the person seriously could care less about treating you the same way, then I have done all I can to try and be nice to that person.

Honestly, though, JPG-GR was never a person that caused me a migraine when I talked to him (the other mentioned users did). JPG-GR and I just had out disagreements and obviously with internet, talk pages sometimes aren't the best to convey ideas or opinions sometimes. - NeutralHomer 22:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, how these two members made you feel is exactly how you've made me feel repeatedly this year. Apparently it's different when you're on the other side of the coin. JPG-GR 05:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with LHvU. Neutralhomer, I have already warned you about using your userspace for attack purposes, so there really no excuse. El_C 11:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine. It's no attack (take it as one, if you wish) but it is not. - NeutralHomer 22:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to be getting their drawers in a bunch of this comment, I returned it to the previous "Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!", which no one cared about. - NeutralHomer 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Bingodile

Keeps adding massive trivial information to The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (video game)‎, and completely ignores WP:TRIVIA. Has also broken the 3RR rule. The Prince of Darkness 18:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted their edit again, per WP:GAMEGUIDE, and they haven't re-added, they may have gone for now--Jac16888 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a run-of-the-mill content dispute (and not even a good one). Not even close to a 3RR violation, and no attempts to discuss the changes on the talk page by either party. This does not involve administrators in any way. Take it to the talk page and read WP:3RR before making frivolous claims. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What to do about user:Kreepy krawly ??

This user is... I'm not even sure how to explain it. He's marking users who he doesn't like, including me, as "Institutionalized vandalizers" or somesuch, and seems to have some agenda or something. See he recent contribs and the conversation on his and my talk page: here. Not sure what to do about this, please advise. Gscshoyru 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm the other Institutionalized Vandal in the matter. I moved a debate that Kreepy Krawly had initiated at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) to a subpage (Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Trivia is what Misplaced Pages does best‎) and marked it as an essay. I believe KK has the right to expound their view(s) but thought that the pump was not the appropriate venue (although what exactly is I do not know). As an admin I realise that abuse is part of the job description, but I do not find the term IV at all vexing. I feel that if KK were to accept the new forum, or it were moved to a mutually agreeable area, then it is a perfectly reasonable for them to discuss their vision of the future of Misplaced Pages. LessHeard vanU 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You could not be privy to the future policies of Misplaced Pages as described in the "X" manual. That strikes me as a bit... odd. Raymond Arritt 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone remind KK that this is an encyclopedia; they have not made any article contributions since January and have done almost nothing but debate the role of trivia in Misplaced Pages on WP:VPP for the last month. Mr.Z-man 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

He (I'm assuming) made a bizarre, stalkerish (and in that way vaguely threatening) accusation on my talk page here, after I gave a civility warning. Let's face it - the huge extent of obsessively flowery prose at subpage at (Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Trivia is what Misplaced Pages does best‎) is beyond strange. It's fine if we can confine it to that playpen rather than letting it disrupt our functional meta-pages. But when he gets mad, tries to reinsert it, goes after anyone who's trying to deal with him with made-up policies and terminology so oblique it's obsessive, it suggests some serious problems with trolling or comprehension of reality that are way beyond our ability to cope. I cannot imagine any education, mentorship, warnings, mediation, or anything else we have in our toolbox that can deal with such behavior. Either we block it or we live with it. We'd be within the letter of policy to block him now for contentious recent editing after multiple warnings. That's certainly in the best interest of the project.Wikidemo 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just that bit? I found their debating structure so florid that I am not even certain that there is a point that I am missing; their thoughts also resolve to some conclusion that I cannot fathom. Since it appeared that they were not promoting a new policy or a change to an existing one I thought it best to move it from the Pump. Apart from their (they tend to speak in the third party - sometimes removed - at my talkpage) allusion to outside influences I see nothing that should concern anyone. If it is trolling it is pretty good, and fairly amusing. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)I commented in it a few times around the very beginning of the discussion; then he was suggesting that we not only allow, but encourage trivia in articles (I think) because we have not done a good enough job keeping it out of articles(?). As this amounts to a fundamental change in what Misplaced Pages is, its not going to happen (especially not with just a Village Pump thread) and AFAIK has just been a discussion (if one can call it that) of theoretical policy (anti-policy?) since it began. Mr.Z-man 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what to do, what to do. I'm glad all this is amusing, but not to us. We don't have emotions; we don't get "mad." We think. Our comprehension of reality is perfectly reified. Just ask anything, as any topic of actuality can be discussed on any scale of human or machine cognition, any level of information theory, any scale of the physical universe, any scale or direction of pure theory. We think. We suggest joining into a discussion regarding our metacognitions in a postitive, constructive manner rather than attempting to obfuscate the honest intentions of Kreepy krawly, as has been the only accomplishment of these recent distracting recriminations. While the subject matter and tone may be difficult to accept, there was not, is not, and will never be any ill-intended acts by Kreepy krawly. Once significant institutional issues are identified and discussed, then amended, there are over 5000 people who intend on joining Misplaced Pages with actual accounts. This group, which has a unified identity, "X," which is not the actual name, but merely a database tag, intends on amplifying and extending over 100,000 articles, to be used for reasearch and such. But these enormous efforts will not be undertaken unless certain glaring institutional deficiencies are first addressed, as our work will not be deleted by overzealous editors, nontrivialists, and what we call "Institutional Vandals." Not vandals in the denotation of the term, but in a subtle connotative meaning. Don't take it too hard. The above users are justifiably lacking crucial information to make good decisions upon their appreciated observations. Kreepy krawly is currently engaged in a long-planned analysis of Misplaced Pages with the intent of putting an end to various forms of vandalism, which many users and many administrators have struggled with at length since the inception of this Human Knowledge Metarepository -- which other users still call an "encyclopedia" (encyclopedias are published as books, not as hyperlinked HTML documents; this is a horizon of human nomenclature, and confusion on the nomenclature is a side issue). The lack of efficiency and efficacy in stopping vandalism from a technical and policy standpoint is preventing many, many intelligent and dedicated experts in many fields from improving Misplaced Pages's glaring faults. This can begin to change once our process matures. Odd ? Perhaps. Deviant ? Not a chance. I thank my above esteemed colleagues for their patience and dedication to true and good values and principles as this discussion proceeds. Kreepy krawly 22:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that all 5,000 of your "X" will go away? Good. I don't find trolling amusing at all. Sooner or later there is always a meltdown. Please stop. Otherwise, blocking seems to be the recourse. Wikidemo 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

All 5000 "X's" will begin systematically reinforcing the superstructure of Misplaced Pages, and making way for more than mere "facts." Trolling ? Again, that is intended as obfuscation, as trolls try to harm Misplaced Pages, while we aim to improve it. Attempting to paint us as detriments to the Human Knowledge Metarepository will result in immediate correction in any forum. We will not tolerate our esteemed colleagues smearing our good name. I suggest an attempt be made to reread the writings of Kreepy krawly with an open mind, with an eye on the spirit of the message rather than the diction. We do not comprehend "always a meltdown." Blocking would confirm one of our central theories, and provide martyrship, that will accellerate the accumulation of pro-Misplaced Pages "X's." Thanks to User: Wikidemo for the continued dedication to honest and constructive political principles as these issues are resolved. Kreepy krawly 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you refer to yourselves in the plural, current Misplaced Pages policy specifies that "we" block "you" as a role account. Raymond Arritt 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say that... see here for the policy. And also, we're not about to change our policies to make a specific group happy, no matter what they'll do. Policy changes of this magnitude (I think, I can't actually understand what you're proposing) would require widespread consensus, something that is unlikely in this case. Sorry, but we may have to do without whatever benefits your mysterious shadow people would provide. Gscshoyru 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Whether or not this is trolling, "discussions" like these are not really helpful. I would suggest everyone disengage from this discussion and go about more productive business. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The user has made a threat, if not an outright admission, of sockpuppetry, as well as threats of vandalism. In my experience there are two things one does with trolls - block or ignore. Engaging in debate or taking the role playing seriously only encourages it. Wikidemo 23:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In my experience in life, I have learned to look twice and thrice at every appearance. Appearances can be deceiving. For the record, I am one person, but I have over 5000 zealous followers on the internet regarding my teachings, so when I say we, I say that I am the combined intellectual power of several thousand people. I direct a "hive mind." Sorry if that offends you, but you can't keep Misplaced Pages an exclusive club it if is to evolve, because it's the that anyone can edit. I don't fit neatly into any current identity catagories, and I'm not here to be disruptive. I don't need to reiterate that again. And if my esteemed colleagues think I am disruptive, then I can assist with a realignment of observation powers, question-forming abilities, and epistomological methods. That's the sort of thing I am well known for in my circles, and I'm always available to teach and assist. It's why I came to Misplaced Pages in the first place: to analyze, criticize, teach, and assist. Don't make me drink hemlock like Socrates, because that is an obvious indictment of the indicters and not the indictee. And it does not serve Misplaced Pages in a positive manner, because the future of Misplaced Pages depends on generalist philosophers and systems theorists such as myself being dedicated and able to convene open forums on broad topics. I hope you understand. There have been many misunderstandings so far and I can only hope with the best intentions that my esteemed colleagues can focus on the real, and not the illusion, so I can get back to work on meaningful solutions to vexing problems, and for the sake of the project. Kreepy krawly 01:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

W/ all due respect to your person but this is an encyclopedia and not a forum as per WP:FORUM. There's one comment above which summarizes all and it was said by User: Mr.Z-Man --> I would suggest that someone remind KK that this is an encyclopedia; they have not made any article contributions since January and have done almost nothing but debate the role of trivia in Misplaced Pages on WP:VPP for the last month. -- FayssalF - 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that is an interesting point. I have made no major edits, as I have been composing 32 complete unique entries offline. But nobody but myself would know that. I have been tirelessly researching Misplaced Pages article standards as well as the facts of the articles, but when I began to be messaged by the members of my collective that there are disruptive, subtle, tolerated, institutionalized editing practices that destroy usefull information, and that my 32 articles are obscure to say the least, I became concerned that my efforts may be in vain. So I stopped forging my excellent articles, and began to debate the trivia issue with thousands and thousands of people who actually respect my intents and intelligence, in contrast to this forum and the previous. And then the larger issues started to coalesce, which you can find in tatters in the Trivia is what Misplaced Pages does best ... "essay." I mean, there's extensive pages for My Little Pony !!! I reference that all the time. It's a great example of institutionalized hypocracy !!! What could be more trivial than My Little Pony ? The Butt plug article ? There are literally tens of thousands of incredibly obscure Misplaced Pages pages (that's what Misplaced Pages does best; it's why people value it). When some editors began incorporating "trivia" sections into articles, some other editors began vandalizing them under the guise of official policies, some smart people took pause. People who spent precious time adding valuable, if obscure and seemingly useless yet factual and linkable, information. What Wikipedian does not know this ? I think the issue has been broached enough in recent metapages that it is a known issue. Who can fake a lack of awareness about this phenomenon ? And non-Wikipedians are taking notice and spending much time discussing this in chat, IM, and email outside of Misplaced Pages, and because of my systems theory, information theory, and philosophy background, I was dragged into the debate and nominated by thousands of perfectly sane and well-meaning individuals to express a consensus opinion regarding concern for the identity and function of Misplaced Pages. So we convened, I was advised, and I made decisions about how to approach the topic, and that has led us here. Let me know what else you need to know, because I'm dedicated enough to this to discuss it forever, partly because thousands of people expect me to speak for them, and because I think it is the right thing to do. I just read the article on sockpuppets and trolls, and neither my writings nor my intentions match the definitions of those disruptive identities AT ALL. Do you have any idea how many people are watching this discussion ? Perhaps ten thousand now. I'm serious. They are copying and pasting from these discussions and discussing not just the users involved, but the higher significations of the acrimony of this discussion, on top of the content itself. Misplaced Pages has been put to shame by my treatment here. I hope, they hope, this is corrected and my esteem and value is returned to me. Soon. Kreepy krawly 02:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We have thousands of confirmed expert editors (journalists, scientists, researchers and even Royal family members) editing wikipedia. Remember. I say editing and not preaching. The important is not who they are but what they bring here. You are not the only so-called expert or "net prophet" as you think. So, keeping it brief, i'd again remind you of WP:FORUM#FORUM because if you won't read and abide by its rules, i'll block you for good. Hope you stop it. -- FayssalF - 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking time

Hasn't this user exhausted the community's patience? Not only are his posts hardly understandable, he is calling respected editors "institutional vandals", threatening a user for removing a comment from that user's talk page,, and in general seems only to be trolling. I see no benefit for Misplaced Pages in keeping this account active, and so I suggest an inef block for Kreepy krawly. Fram 10:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am here to defend Kreepy krawly, and I will continue to do that until the above entities involved begin and finish an objective discussion about the details of issues, and achieve consensus. It is suggested that this community's patience is insufficient to effectively deal with these issues, as has been demonstrated thus far, but that need not be the case. In a court of law, or Lincoln-Douglas debate, the accusers have the burden of proof. That burden has not been carried thus far. If Kreepy krawly is blocked, it will create real anger in the real world. Many, many concerned citizens of Earth are watching this debate. I fear for their actions if this community cannot suddenly begin to view this issue objectively. Kreepy krawly has been speaking exclusively about policies related to trivia inclusion. That is a valid and entirely constructive practice. As described above, many people with important contributions to make are holding back and waiting for certain institutional changes to be made. It is not this person speaking now that created the label "institutional vandal." Anybody can come here and criticize Misplaced Pages if they wish. That, given the structure of this project, can never change. But well-intentioned editors and administrators can make CHOICES related to the treatment of individuals. So for the sake of justice, please speak in detail. This message intentionally truncated for brevity. And contact me directly at: @gmail.com Using that email is an effective way to vent peronal grievances with my tone and style, rather than distract from the issues of higher importance in this venue. Thank you. Kreepy krawly 12:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are still telling us that you got a mission here. It happens to be that this mission is not about editing but preaching indeed and threating us w/ "millions are watching", etc... To be fair w/ you and the rest of wikipedians i'm blocking you for 48h to see if you would come back editing. Remember, no preaching and trolling once you are back please. -- FayssalF - 12:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of becoming another 'institutional vandal', I support the block. Those delusions of grandeur (and the third-person style) are really annoying. KrakatoaKatie 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

vandalism in Turkish people article

Some people insert pseudo-scientific and nationalist statements into the article, without any reliable sources: The problem was already discussed in Talk:Turkish people. I have once again removed the wrong and nationalist claims and restored the original version: An admin should take a look at it and maybe protrect the page for a while. --82.83.156.11 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism should be reported on WP:AIV. One instance of vandalism a day is not reason for protection. EconomicsGuy 21:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not only vandalism a day. This has been going on for months: --82.83.151.191 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it seems more like a content dispute to me, especially after reading the talk page as well. I will, however, admit that it seems like you guys are edit/revert warring and frankly it also seems like you are the one doing most of the reverting. Maybe it should be protected at the wrong version until a consensus is reached on the talk page. EconomicsGuy 00:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What is Paste doing?

Paste (talk · contribs) is in the process of adding notability tags dated a month ago and afd templates to random articles about schools. I know this because I watch the article for St Winifred's Roman Catholic Primary School (those of British Christmas number 1 fame) and was about to comment to them that an afd for this article was unlikely to be successful, given the school's notability. However I think there may be something much bigger going on here, seeing as the same user appears to have taken offence at a school article they have created being nominated for deletion, and decided to alert the admins instead. I hope this was the right place to come. -- Roleplayer 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If the St Winifred's one is anything to go by then all he's been doing is inserting the afd tag at the top of the page, but not completing the process. Of the long list of article's he's done it to none of them have shown up on the Oct 14th AfD log. I've deleted the St Winifred's tag as bad faith and uncompleted so the AfD discussion never started., but it looks like an admin will need to intervene for the other 41 school articles he's done it to. It looks like he's just gone through a template listing and tagged all of them. It looks like WP:POINT is getting a workout in this case. ---- WebHamster 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The number of articles he or she has tagged without any discussion whatsoever is alarming. He or she is also tagging them incorrectly saying that they have been tagged since September when they were added today.

I also dropped him or her a line asking him or her to come here and explain what's going on. --ElKevbo 00:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Netmonger re-creating deleted box from MfD

I am reporting user Netmonger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for having re-created this userbox which was deleted on the recent MfD here. Previously, he has been blocked here for sending me harassing messages to my talk page and e-mail and was blocked again here for harassing me again and on similar charges. Twice his block was shortened on good faith under the conditions that he does not engage in such behavior again. However, it seems that he has not taken the blocking admins seriously. Therefore, I humbly request for this matter to be looked into. Thank you. Wiki Raja 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It maybe of importance to note User Netmonger has a sockpuppet case opened here . Sinhala freedom 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting looks obvious and the disruption looks obvious. Should be blocked as such.--Crossmr 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Refer to this thread below. -- FayssalF - 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Polygamy4

I have found a new sockpuppet. User:203.192.91.4 is obviously a sockpuppet of User:Polygamy4 and I am guessing that User:Big5Hunter is also a sock. His contributions, IP style, and writing style are evidence enough. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Polygamy4 for information about him. His main accounts are currently blocked, as should these new socks. Dtm142 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

He was told he needed a different username. He's switched from polygamy to hunting. The IP is probably just him forgetting to login. The fellow seems a bit disoriented, but he isn't doing anything particularly horrible or disruptive, is he? If he is, diffs please. - Jehochman 01:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See the block logs of User:Polygamistx4 and a former IP. He also flamed Wikipedians and the ability to block here. He's been indefinitely blocked, so these new sockpuppets fall under block evasion. Dtm142 02:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've indefed Big5Hunter because I agree that they are almost certainly the same person. Big5Hunter has been POV pushing and made at least one horrific BLP violation. That IP address is in Australia. I am wondering if it might be an open proxy. Reported to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on open proxies for investigation. - Jehochman 04:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

anonymous user making hostile edits to Celia Green

Anonymous user 86.139.76.130 (who also uses 86.160.229.161) is disputing the content of Celia Green. His edits (e.g. this one) seem like vandalism in the sense they are clearly intended to be insulting rather than improving the quality of the article. I have pointed this out to him when removing his edits but he has simply reinstated them. I would be grateful for advice.FWadel 21:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if those edits are clearly intending to be insulting per se, but in any case, you may find the information at Misplaced Pages: Vandalism helpful, including the various steps that can be followed. I think, though, that this is a content dispute, and not an uncommon one at that. Natalie 19:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by User:Taprobanus

Sumoeagle179 (talk · contribs), who I have never had any contact with on Misplaced Pages in the past, has filed a sock puppet case accusing practically everyone who edits Sri Lanka related articles as been a sockpuppet of Lahiru k, including me. He has demonstrated an extensive knowledge of happenings related Sri Lankan articles, referencing edits that happened last year, even though he has never edited any of the articles he mentions. This led me to doubt the authenticity of this account.

Reading the SSP case he filed, it becomes pretty obvious as to whom the actual owner of the account is. In one place of the case he says,

"User:Iwazaki began to follow me around in my edits ] and these are couple of examples only."

He directly says Iwazaki followed him (i.e. Sumoeagle179) around, and linked to two past versions of two articles as proof. What he linked to were

• The 12:19, January 6, 2007 revision of the Padahuthurai bombing article, after Iwazaki made his first edit to the page. Up to that time the only other editor of the article was Taprobanus, who had created the article a few hours before. If Iwazaki did following someone's edits to find the article, it could only have been Taprobanus.
• The 01:16, January 7, 2007 revision of the Mylanthanai massacre, after Iwazaki's second edit to the article. Upto then, the only other editors to the article were Lahiru k, who Sumoeagle179 is accusing Iwazaki of being a sockpuppet of, and, Taprobanus, who created the article a few days before.

In both instances, the only editor who Iwazaki could have been accused of stalking was Taprobanus, and the account Sumoeagle179 has zero contributions to any of those articles, so when he says "User:Iwazaki began to follow me around in my edits" it seems obvious he actually meant Iwazaki was following his other account Taprobanus (talk · contribs) around. --snowolfD4 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is accused of sock puppetry, has chosen to delete the tag placed on his page , without any recent checkuser evidence for or against the case. Just looking at what snowolfd4 is talking about, Sumoefagle merely appended his comment to an existing report that was launched by Taprobanus a long while ago, hence the mix up. This seems to be the original case filed . If you look carefully at the report , sumofeagle has added a label to indicate it was text from the previous report. Sinhala freedom 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see at first sight, the passage picked out by Snowolfd4 as incriminating is not really something Sumoeagle is saying about himself; he is quoting an earlier SSP report that was indeed filed by Taprobanus, and in whose context those sentences make sense. So, forget about that part. I haven't looked into the rest of this affair yet, but I'm getting the impression that we need bans all round, for several people on both sides of this conflict, and sooner rather than later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere has he said he was pasting Taprobanus's comments to the case. It also doesn't not explain how an account which has been completely uninvolved in the articles mentioned (in the rest of his case) suddenly got such extensive knowledge about them. Becuase I can't emphasize this enough, Sumoeagle179 has never edited any of the articles he mentioned, and has never been involved with the editors he has filed the case against. --snowolfD4 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like yet another chapter in the machinations of Sri Lankan civil war conflict. I support topic bans for a number of the involved users, since they've turned this encyclopedia into an all out battlefield. The report Snowolf discusses here might have merit, but I don't think the posited quotes show that he's a sockpuppet of the user who is being accused. However, he definitely looks suspicious. Look at the other reports on this board for yet more examples of the kind of tit-for-tat reportism that goes on over this topic. It's way, way too complicated for anyone to cleanly sort out, and short of blocking and banning users from Sri Lanka related topics we're not going to get any closure here. Most users are simply not interested in cooling off the conflict, and instead are engaged in a kind of editorial brinksmanship to see if they can goad, cajole, canvassing, and accuse each other into getting blocked. --Haemo 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, absolutely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. It is really tiresome and harsh measures should be taken. There's no other way to deal w/ this mess. I have to add that Snowolfd4 can refer to WP:RFCU using the "G" code as this is not the appropriate place for us to verify sockpuppetry. -- FayssalF - 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd send them all straight to Arbcom, if it wasn't for the fact that Arbcom is currently bogged down to the point of having become completely dysfunctional. We'd probably get a resolution only in two or three months time, if at all. I guess we'd better sort this out at the community level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

True. Usually, most sockpuppets are created and more disruption and edit warring happen during ArbCom hearings. Here you get the third admin to suggest topic bans for the few edit warriors. -- FayssalF - 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to start taking action, I think this is clear-cut enough to be definitive. Is a checkuser necessary, or do we have enough information to move? --Haemo 23:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So User:Lahiru_k is User:Mystìc is User:222.165.157.129 is User:Netmonger. And allllllllllllllllll of those accounts relate to User:Snsudharsan, User:Psivapalan, User:Sri119, User:Mama007 and User:Ajgoonewardene.

Ok, Lahiru K has just left wikipedia for abusing editing privileges by using multiple accounts for more than a year now. Whose next? -- FayssalF - 23:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And netmonger ? Watchdogb 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He's also left this place. -- FayssalF - 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf4 and Iwazaki have removed their sock tags here and here. I can see where Snowolf4 may not be a sockpuppett of Lahiru_k, but he could still be a meatpuppett. I still think Kaushini is a sockpupptt of Lahiru-u. See the SSP case for details. And yes, the quote was a paste from the first SSP case earlier this year, I wasn't talking to Snowolf4 or anyone else. I agree this whole Sri lankan civil war case should go to the community board for review. Sumoeagle179 00:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It also looks definitive that User:Kaushini is a sockpuppet of User:Lahiru k, based on the evidence gathered, and these two diffs. I'm indef blocking User:Kaushini as well. --Haemo 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the abuse of administrative privileges at it's most ridiculous. So much for your promise earlier to keep neutral in these matters, Haemo. I'm already discussing with FayssalF about his antics.

About User:Kaushini, do you know what Gateway, the ISP is? It's an education institution in Sri Lanka. The two edits are you use as proof are edits by the IP from September 1, 2006 (by Kaushini) and May 21, 2007 (by Lahiru). That is the ONLY proof you have that the two users are the same. Further, that IP has made tons of edits before either Lahiru and Kaushini started editing Misplaced Pages. Do you think you are going to get away with blocking everyone who edits Misplaced Pages from Gateway as a sockpuppet?

So I suggest you unblock User:Kaushini and seriously consider your biases in editing Misplaced Pages before this goes any further, where the fact that you are admins has little relevance. --snowolfD4 02:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So, it's just a whopping coincidence that all three share IP? I don't think so. This is 100% coincident with a single user having a "home IP" and a "school IP", which he uses to sockpuppet with. --Haemo 02:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now put your money where your mouth is and prove Netmonger used the IP 203.115.31.180. --snowolfD4 02:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I'm asserting that the circumstances are that Netmonger, Mystic, and Laihru all edited from the same personal IP. Laihru and Kaushini edited from the same school IP address. The story this is telling me is that Laihru, a known sockpuppeteer, used his home address to run one set of sockpuppets, and a school IP to run the other sets. We've seen it before, and we'll see it again. --Haemo 02:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can add to this that said school IP address has fewer than 50 edits total, of which many relate to Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan topics. --Haemo 02:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

An IP from a Sri Lankan school edited articles about Sri Lanka? How surprising? --snowolfD4 02:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your assumptions of bad faith in this case are astounding. Are you saying that only one person could have ever edited Misplaced Pages from the Gateway school? What other proof do you have that Lahiru is the same as Kaushini? --snowolfD4 02:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that a duck is a duck. This IP address has a handful of contributions — in fact, fewer than 40. In four of them (10%) the IP is acting as Kaushini around September 2006. In an earlier the same year the IP works on an article Laihru created only 3 hours ago. In early 2007, the IP acts as Laihru, this time signing for him. In the meantime, it occasionally edits Misplaced Pages showing a pro-Sri Lankan opinion, familiarity with many "advanced" user abilities. The concept that this IP, with only a handful of edits just-so happened to be used by a known sockpuppeteer and then another unrelated user in exactly the same topic area, with similar opinions is beyond coincidence. Sri Lanka is not that small. --Haemo 02:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

All you are doing is admitting that all you have is your speculation on your part. Two editors go to the same school, and they are sockpuppets? That's ridiculous. So answer this. Why has he not used it since November last year?

Sri Lanka is not that small? EXACTLY. There could be more that one person in the same school editing Misplaced Pages. How hard is it for you to get that into your mind? --snowolfD4 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing the evidence as you just did is disingenuous and incorrect. In the anonymous world of internet communication, this is the most solid evidence we can get. Even a positive checkuser could only confirm that they used the same IP addresses; something we have already confirmed. The standard here is beyond a reasonable doubt; I think that is clearly established in this case. The odds that from a purportedly public terminal there would be only 30-odd edits, of which a good third are from two supposedly different users, who edit in identical subject areas, with similar points of view are very, very low — especially when one of those users has already been determined to use sockpuppets to support his point of view. --Haemo 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me why then there is a 5 month break in this IP? If this is used by a school and people usually edit wikipedia from there, then why is there a 5 month break in this IP adress. What happened there ? Watchdogb 03:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To further add to Haemo take a look here where Lahir created the article and then the IP edits it. To make thinks more clear, lahiru also does the same edit as the IP did, namely adding the Inter wiki link. Lahiru adds the inter wiki link just like the IP does Watchdogb 03:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also take a look at this. Again the same IP makes an edit in between Lahiru's edits but not at the same time (days in difference). Taking a closer look at the IP edit it amazingly knows what Lahiru meant when he talked about American MOH. It's a clear cut case of sock puppet usage. Watchdogb 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks guys for doing the sock blocks. This leaves us with the rest of the Sri Lankan problem: two factions of editors who seem to be doing little else but fighting each other. Who's left? User:Wiki Raja, User:Iwazaki, User:Taprobanus, User:Snowolfd4, User:Watchdogb, anybody else? I don't doubt some or all of these may be good-faith and potentially productive contributors, but with all their fighting, their net effect on the project is negative. Should we consider topic bans? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The blocks of those couple sock accounts may have an effect on how the rest of editors would behave starting today. I suggest we would keep an eye and any further violation of any kind would result in a topic ban. -- FayssalF - 09:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Insulting and funny comment made about my account. However, I will assume good faith. Anyways, since fut and Fay are inclined to make the editors cease edit war I sure hope you will find some time giving third opinions. Specially because RFC is another slow process that might not help until edit war is over via a locked article. Watchdogb 13:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I woke up today in Sunny Canada to find out that I have been accused of being a sock puppet. Well now that things have cooled down and unfortunately my good net friend who ever operated Lahiru_K account is banned, I want to make it clear that I have shown my good faith to cease edit warring by being one of original founders of Sri Lankan reconciliation project. Our intention was to find compromise using wiki rules instead of fighting it out. Alas like all attempts at reconciliation, this attempt too seems to have failed in this case. I hope more Sri Lanka centric editors would become members of it and discuss differences of opinion and resolve them without distracting the entire community. Just a few admins seems to have resolved this problem with bold action. Kudos to them. I just hope someone like this will resolve the real Sri Lankan civil war in Sri Lanka.:))) Thanks Taprobanus 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Whig

Whig is involved in a NPOV dispute at Homeopathy. Some of his actions led people to create an Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Whig_2 RfC on him. However (as seen on the talk page), instead of discussing the concerns brought up, he's made unsubstantiated claims that he is in the right, and now accuses people who are against him of deliberately ignoring the evidence. Help please. -Amarkov moo! 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you like for an administrator to do? Mercury 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Block him? -Amarkov moo! 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also not object to a nice long block, possibly on community patience grounds if nothing else. It is apparent from the RfC that a) many editors with a variety of different views find him to be disruptive and b) he has no intention of changing his behavior at all or even of trying to constructively participate in the RfC. JoshuaZ 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to object but it would be better to let the RfC goes on. It was just started yesterday. -- FayssalF - 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to take that attitude if not for the fact that multiple editors including myself tried to explain to help him in regard to how to respond or benefit from the RfC and we were essentially ignored. See for example . See also his comments about both his prior RfC and this one here where he explicitly says that he thinks that the editors who are involved in the first RfC are acting under "bad faith". JoshuaZ 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors having acted in similar ways have been found outside the project. It is just a matter of time and my point was just about following the process until he'd get tired or more persistent if he'd choose that way. He is free to not participate at the RfC but he is not free to keep being disruptive after its closure as he should abide by the outcome (opinions of the community). -- FayssalF - 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this edit summary just 3.5 hours ago is downright unimpressive. There's plenty of bad behavior all around in this topic area, but he is obviously creating a disruption. I think a topic ban and civility probation is an appropriate remedy. --B 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's appropriate. It would be good to get User:Mercury's reaction to this proposal, as he has been in the thick of it. Raymond Arritt 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a short block will have any effect here, Whig simply does not understand our policies and refuses to engage with other editors in a constructive manner. I and several other editors have tried to coax him into discussions in the RfC, his responses - "I have made my response" and "Am I your monkey?". I agree with B, topic ban and civility probation. Tim Vickers 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (outdent) I've had the opportunity to review everything, and having seen, I'll support a topic ban, and civility parole. Mercury 00:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -- FayssalF - 00:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, per he doesn't seem to be interested in taking part in this discussion. So the question now becomes how broad a topic ban is necessary. I would suggest pseudoscience and fringe science topics. JoshuaZ 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) What about the same for User:Sm565? Though it looks like civility isn't quite as much a concern in his case. Raymond Arritt 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. A SPA which was blocked twice. Sm565 appears to be no less disruptive than Whig. -- FayssalF - 00:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that a block for Whig would give him time to cool down. This kind of comment (diff) is completely unacceptable. As a comment, please bear in mind that Sm565's first language is not English, at least some of his comments are genuine misunderstandings. Tim Vickers 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tim - Sm565, while being disruptive, does not display the bad faith that Whig does. Sm has an obnoxious habit of forum shopping and reiterating the same argument over, and over, and over again (ask for diffs, or read his edit history), but he hasn't been calling people names, for example. I'm not uninvolved - I certified the basis for Whig's RFC and have been engaged in a lengthy attempt to get him to enumerate the reasons for his objections to Homeopathy. I would support any sanction against Whig, especially a topic ban, but Sm I think we can deal with without such measures at this time. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cool down" blocks do nothing but cause problems - "cool down" should NEVER be used as a justification for a block because invariably it cools nothing down. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Either there is something to prevent or there isn't. In this case, I believe there is something to prevent, based on the conversation at User talk:Whig. --B 01:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My refusal to provide a detailed defense to an abusive and improper RfC is not grounds for any kind of ban. Whig 00:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what you should have said at the RfC. -- FayssalF - 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave a formal response to the RfC. Please read it if you like. Whig 00:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no proper grounds for an RfC. This is an entirely abusive process. Whig 00:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The RFC on Whig did NOT start yesterday but started on October 10th, 4 days ago. This editor has shown a total disregard for the RFC and any consensus existing against him. This user has clearly said that he refuses to acknowledge any consensus against him and that he refuses to change any of his behavior per the RFC. Let me post some Diff's. Aside from the vast amount of evidence presented at the RFC, Here is his behavior since the RFC:

here is Whig's official response to the RFC

Here Whig says that he refuses to acknowledge any consensus against him at the RFC and refuses to change his editing habits

here Whig attempts to bait me into starting an arbitration by adding the POV tag again

here Whig calls the RFC "Garbage"

here Whig calls the RFC "abusive"

here Whig accuses me of "abusing" processes in my request for a comment concerning him

I think that some sort of action is needed in this case. I would not be opposed to a topical ban, or perhaps specific limitations placed on this users editing such as a 6 month 1 revert rule and civility watch, as well as a temporary 2 week ban from the Homeopathy article. I think that this is being VERY lenient towards this user. Although I wouldn't object to a total temporary ban of several weeks. Wikidudeman 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the RfC as being as much on Wikidudeman as upon me. He has brought a meritless RfC, which is not backed by the links he provided. Whig 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure people would, if you gave any reason to contradict our analysis that the RfC is backed by the provided links. -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wanderer57's comment. And I do not think it appropriate for me to discuss the RfC further here. Whig 04:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban him. Why are we wasting this much time on this "editor?" OrangeMarlin 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's beginning to look that way. I had come into this thinking that it could be sorted out and not require major sanctions, but Whig's behavior in this thread has convinced me otherwise. Raymond Arritt 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the banning of someone who has been an editor in good standing for three years without trying something else first. --B 04:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI. OrangeMarlin 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? --B 05:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Three years? You neglect to mention that of the 42 months he has been on Wiki he has 0 edits for 14 of those months (33%), and less than 25 edits per months for 22 months (52%), and another 2 months of less than 50 edits (4.8%) meaning that he has made numerically significant edits in 5 of the 42 months, or 12% of the time. Really, "editor in good standing" is a misnomer -- he's popped up occassionally, and mostly on talk pages. Really, he's added very little value to WP. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My patience is running thin with this editor, and I have a lot of patience. I have been attempting to resolve disputes with this editor for weeks now and all I get in return are threats, insults, or simply having the user ignore me. This editor has been extremely problematic since I first encountered him and I believe that administrative action is in order. I propose the following administrative action be taken:

• 6 months of 1 revert rule, where if the editor reverts content in an article more than once per week, he is blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• The editor is placed on civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• The editor is prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 1 month, but can still comment on the talk page(1rr and civility apply there though).

I think that the following remedies could deal with most of the problems associated with this editor, and I think that they are very lenient considering this editors actions. Please add input. Wikidudeman 04:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would make the article ban the same length as the other two remedies and add an exception for reverting simple vandalism, but otherwise support. Before anyone considers closing this, please make sure that multiple people with no experience with this editor look at it and agree to it - that is the only way a community action is legitimate. --B 04:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The 1rr rule should apply only to non-vandalism and non-self reverts. I also think that perhaps the article ban for Homeopathy could also extend to be 6 months, though I don't have a problem with 1 month or somewhere in between. Wikidudeman 04:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support this remedy. By way of disclosure, I had no experience with this editor (or with the Homeopathy article) before looking yesterday to check out concerns expressed by other admins. Raymond Arritt 04:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Block (User:Whig)

I am posting to gauge consensus for an action I am considering. I have been asked on my talk, to block Whig (talk · contribs · logs). Based on the last 1,000 or so contributions (pattern), other editors concerns, and the RFC, I am able to conclude, this user is disruptive and unlikely to stop. I am considering a long term block. Thoughts? Mercury 12:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor has some good edits in other topics so I wouldn't object to a simple topic ban of all fringe and pseudoscience topics. If that isn't an option I think a ban based on exhausting community patience may be in order. JoshuaZ 13:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that even as Whig has refused to participate significantly in either this discussion or his RfC he has continued to POV push at Homeopathy. This editor is quickly looking unredeemable. JoshuaZ 13:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Block for a significant period of time, say one month. Then topic ban (I'd say anything in alternative quackery...errrr...medicine) for a year. Get him out of here, please. OrangeMarlin 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the user's numerous good edits, I too suggest a topic ban on pseudoscience and fringe science with the caveat that breaking those conditions will lead to a long block. ELIMINATORJR 14:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A ban/arbitrarily long block is the last resort, not the first resort to a good faith editor. If he will abide by civility probation and a topic ban, that's a more appropriate remedy. --B 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, if that was a reply to me, then that's what I just said. ELIMINATORJR 14:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We are in perfect agreement that any block on a good faith editor is inappropriate and not a goal of Misplaced Pages. Since Whig does not qualify as a good faith anything, just a shit-disturber in Homeopathy, then we should all be in agreement that a long block or ban is appropriate. It's good that we were able to reach consensus on this issue so quickly. I look forward to his month-long block on Whig. OrangeMarlin 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A topic ban on pseudoscience and fringe topics would be my preferred option. A block for civility problems and POV-pushing would be justified, but shouldn't be longer then a month. Tim Vickers 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with topic ban, and civility block per Tim Vickers. I havn't been directily involved, but have been exposed to the disruption a bit on homeopathy and some other fringe stuff from the fringe theories noticeboard. --Rocksanddirt 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible QST Sock

Previous case . Just noticed this user and did a bit of digging and noticed the following about this user Coolspanner (talk · contribs). A lot of his contributions to talk pages and his edit summaries are fairly belligerent so I dug in to his history. He was created the same month as another QST sock Tellyaddict (talk · contribs) who "adopted" him prior to being found out. . Interestingly Tellyaddict acts like coolspanner was asking for adoption, but I can't actually find anything in his edit history indicating a request. Regardless of whether or not there is a connection here the user is throwing around a lot of hostility for the few edits he's made. , , , etc.--Crossmr 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it. Coolspanner doesn't appear to use TW or revert vandalism, and the username would have showed up in a checkuser when they checked QST or Rlest. Carbon Monoxide 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do all user accounts using an IP show up when a check is done on it? I'm unfamiliar with the full details on how that tool works.--Crossmr 02:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe so, or at least all accounts within some given window of time. Natalie 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

70.48.32.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He continues to vandalize the article Frank de Jong. J 23:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:AIV for prompt actions next time. -- FayssalF - 23:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked IP 24 hours for egregious vandalism. - Jehochman 23:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Pornography in the sandbox

82.165.183.169 (talk · contribs) has been posting porography in the sandbox quite a bit latley. See contribs. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by FayssalF. —Cryptic 00:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:AGNPH

See AGNPH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user was only blocked for one day, however I don't think that is appropriate given his violations. This user violated the 3RR on AGNPH by re-adding a link to Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED).

Two problems there: 1: Violating WP:3RR 2:Should be noted, that I've explained the following to the user on his talk page: As an ArbCom ruling (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Remedies), you can be blocked for re-adding the link to ED after you have been notified of this ruling. I thoroughly explained this to the user on his talk page, yet he still added the link. Is this block appropriate given the two serious problems? - Rjd0060 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you asked the blocking admin? I would probably have done an indef as a disruption-only account, but have no extreme feelings either way. --B 01:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I toyed with an indef block for disruption, but I really wanted to try a short block first to see if the creep user would see the error of his ways. If not, then I'll be happy to turn it into an indef block. I wasn't about to block indef for a first violation of 3RR, and an ArbCom block seemed to be opening a can of worms that, frankly, I'd prefer to keep closed. - Philippe | Talk 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for explaining it to me. I was just thrown by the ruling that said "Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica ... may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users." I tried very hard to explain to this user, as evident from his talk page. To me, it seemed like a clear cut long term block would have happened there. - Rjd0060 01:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I suspect I'm going to be sorry I didn't indef block this one, but I tend to want to err toward discretion. Then, if he steps out of line, I'll swat him a little extra-hard - that way he can't come back and say "THEY INDEF BLOCKED ME RIGHT OFF! ZOMG!" - because we can prove that we gave a warning block. - Philippe | Talk 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I understand. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I was quite confused about the short block, but I suppose I get it. - Rjd0060 01:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The article looks like it was C&P'd from WikiFur's article on the same. -Jéské 02:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, but my understanding is they're GFDL. - Philippe | Talk 03:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I already noted that on the AfD. -Jéské 03:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he's been indefblocked for sockpuppetry ... good riddance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lustful anon with a dynamic IP

As you can see a few cases above, an anon was posting porn in the sandbox. He has come back to vandalize my userpage and post more porn. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the user has been blocked. See 88.198.5.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --B 01:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Martial arts and administration

It has been suggested that I need a nice roundhouse kick to the skull for some of the administration tasks I've done lately. Apparently, I was supposed to block someone indefinitely for a faulty sockpuppet report. Since I didn't do so, and since I decided to call the reporting user's edits into question, I'm supposed to receive a roundhouse kick to the head, and I'm supposed to apologize afterwards.

Here's my question: If I've been knocked to the floor by a roundhouse kick, how long would it take me to recover from the injuries before I could apologize to Tyler Warren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Does a roundhouse kick often cause a concussion? Are there any other admins who have been the unfortunate recipient of a roundhouse kick and who have apologized as a result? --Elkman 03:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that User:Tyler Warren retract the statement. And I will indef block him until such time as the statement is retracted. I suggest he be given a short amount of time to comply (say 12 hours) until the expiry of his current block to comply. -- Flyguy649 04:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that he is already blocked until October 18. But of course if he doesn't retract the comment by then, an indef would be appropriate. --B 04:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism fad on GameFAQs

It appears as though GameFAQs' Super Smash Bros. Brawl board has taken vandalizing Misplaced Pages to be a fad. Look, for instance, at these edits to Charizard which correspond to this GameFAQs thread. Also have a look at these edits to List of EarthBound characters#Ness, which correspond to this GameFAQs topic. I'm not sure where else they have stricken, but the Ness thread refers to it as a fad. Is there anything that can be done about this? You Can't See Me! 04:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I can keep an eye on the SSB:B board, but not much else. If there were a GameFAQs moderator who was a user here that would make things easier. Wizardman 04:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:HawkofPrey which appears to be a vandal-only account which is part of this effort. Will continue to monitor as well. CitiCat 05:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Urgent Need for Oversight on Paul McCartney

I have to go to work and don't have any time to deal but if you check the history of Paul McCartney you will see a couple of revisions that need deleting quickly. I tried deleting them myself but the server kept timing out. May be something we need oversight on. Can someone pick this up for me please? Also, don't follow the link in the second edit summary - it will crash your browser and its trying to install something. Spartaz 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Meh, who needs to go to work anyway Spartaz 08:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Done? Daniel 08:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It needs oversight. I can't do anything about the move logs. I have already sent an e-mail to the oversight list but it may take a dev to sort out the page log. Any ideas? Spartaz 08:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, oversight can't be used on page logs, but this is very likely one of the rare instances in which a developer may be willing to purge an entry from logs. — madman bum and angel 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is something that could be repeated over and over. Probably something we need to learn to live with. Who ever looks at page move logs anyway? I don't think we should even bother with WP:OVERSIGHT/developers or it will become a full-time job. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That was precisely my thought. Joe 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rubbersoul20 - Persistent harassment/uncivility, OR, POV, {fact} removal

For three months, Rubbersoul20 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on Latin American literature for adding unsourced/OR/POV/weasel, then when it was reluctantly accepted but tagged {fact} or {refimprove}, he just kept on deleting the tags. It's not content dispute since he just doesn't follow basic policy and guidelines.

His talk page shows he's blanked his talk page after a block for harassment and a vandalism warning, and has been moving AFD tags too, so that's a habit. Another user tried to discuss with him on his talk page and the article's talk page, but he just got told he was a penis with a piped link to the graphic picture.

• Sample of tags removal from August to today: (POV/weasel list he's untagged ever since)

Self-involvement: I am actually a recent contributor to this article, and after today's new revert war I noticed with horror how this had been going on for months in the article history. Except for one resistant, the other contributors that could been seen in the history before August 2007 have all left the building... — Komusou  @ 08:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I warned him about the user talk conduct (which he followed by blanking) but I'll leave the article edits for another day someone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection for review

I've IAR'd semiprotecting Turkic peoples against the persistent attacks of an anonymous IP user who insists on introducing an image propagating the nationalist organisation Grey Wolves, against clear consensus of several other users. The IP never discusses, never gives reasons in edit summaries, just reverts blindly. His only talk contributions have been nationalist insults. I've protected even though I was previously involved in the reverting; therefore bringing it here for review. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's a tough one as this wasn't vandalism, it was a content dispute and by semi protecting the article, you have allowed autoconfirmed users to win the edit war. I would have preferred to see more discussion with the IP's in question as there's seems to be very little so far. Perhaps a report to WP:AN/3RR would have been better (I know it hasn't really broken 3RR, but it had over a number of days). I just don't like the idea of semi protecting to win an edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept your point in principle, but in this case it had become abundantly clear the anon was not a legitimate contributor. This was going on for over three weeks, and the only contribution of the anon to the talk page was this: , (besides , ], just today), plus abusive summaries like these , ('go f**k your mother'), ('you idiot, you don't have the power to remove the Grey Wolves, give it up') Of course an AN3 report could have resulted in a block, but since he's a dynamic IP and almost certainly willing to dodge our rules, that wouldn't have stopped him and semiprotection would again have been the only solution. -- In the meantime, another admin has replaced my "involved" protection with his "uninvolved" one, I see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have just warned the IP for using innapropriate edit summaries thus reminding them to be civil and asking them to use the talk page before blocking if they don't listen. -- FayssalF - 10:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There had in fact been ample warnings of that kind, to which the only response, as I now see, was this. I feel my only mistake here has been that I tried to engage this guy as a good-faith editor yesterday, entering into a dispute with him in the belief that this might be possible. If I'd been fully aware of the previous history, I'd have simply intervened as an uninvolved admin from the outset (because that's what I was until that moment), and I could have legitimately blocked/protected in whatever way necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohh! and the warning (i'd say the requests) to use the talk page resulted in incivility. Well, then i totally support the semi-protection especially that the IP is dynamic. -- FayssalF - 10:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Over-zealous vandal-fighter

We have acquired an energetic new vandal-fighter in the form of User:TheUNOFFICIALvandalpolice (formerly User:TheVandalPolice). However, their edit comments and comments to reverted editors are over-zealous in the extreme. Several other editors have asked them to moderate their comments, to no avail. I'm beginning to think that if they continue like this, they may become more part of the problem (particularly relating to WP:BITE) than part of the solution. -- Karada 10:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let the cop stay in the office for a while before getting out to the streets. -- FayssalF - 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's a username violation personally, but I also agree his vandal fighting skills aren't really on. I've just warned him about it and if he continues as he has been, it is unfortunate that I may have to block him to stop this. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

His/her contribution is helpful, but the way (s)he is doing is like engaging the war. Per WP:INSULT, I think (s)he needs to cool down for a few hours until (s)he can manage to unlock the CAPS-LOCK button and reading through WP:VANDAL policies. — Indon (reply) — 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes and that's why i showed them how our Can't sleep, clown will eat me works. -- FayssalF - 11:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the user's opposition to vandalism is admirable but their methods leave much to be desired. Most vandalism on Misplaced Pages is a juvenile prank and stops when another user drops by to say "Don't do that". Giving an angry and aggressive message (whether in all caps or not) is more likely to encourage a fighting response, and may therefore aggravate the vandalism and not control it. Sam Blacketer 11:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've advised him on a different method he could adopt when reverting vandalism, hopefully he will change his ways and maybe become a valued vandal fighter. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• All I've got to say is, when you think you've seen everything. I hope he calms down because I can't imagine having to stop someone for being too aggressive with vandals. That's a new one for sure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable, we beat bodies go down and get our hands dirty while the top brass sits around twiddling their thumbs thinking up new reasons on why we should be nice to vandals.

With respect to WP:BITE, I try to ensure that any user I warn was clearly vandalising, example posting a chat log over an article, example saying that wind farms operated off “human gas”. These people are not newbies making a simple mistake, they are hardened vandals who want to undermine the integrity of wikipedia.

With respect to WP:Vandal I am well aware of what constitutes vandalism and if anyone can point out where I labelled an edit as being when it wasn’t then I will happily retract any criticism and make a personal apology to the editor.

With respect to WP:Insult, this is an essay filled with original research. The fact that a number of the users I have reverted and/or warned have not continued to vandalise just shows that taking a hard stance against those who wish to disrupt the project.

With respect to people making excusing for vandals in claiming I was “baiting” them, please read above and consider that if I was out to cause harm to the project there are easier ways to do it.

With respect to the templates they remove the personal force that accompanies the messages and often they fail to cut to the chase (saying a person was only testing when it is clear they knew they were vandalising).

With respect to other vandal fighters, I acknowledge that they have their ways of doing things but this is by no means a tried and tested method. The continuing influx of vandals just goes to show that a more authoritative stance is required.

With respect to people who don’t like my caps lock please see that I only use it against the scum vandals in order to make it clear we do not appreciate their edits.

With respect to people who don’t like my username, I make it quite clear (with capital letters) that I am the unofficial vandal police and that I have a disclaimer on my main user page.

I must say I am quite shocked to see some established editors supporting the plight of vandalism. We must not bow down to the beliefs that people vandalise wikipedia because they had a bad childhood or because they couldn’t afford the latest computer game, we must continue to take a hard stance against those who seek to add misinformation and remove valid facts and undermine the integrity of the project.

That said my shift is almost finished, I’ve been editing under IP addresses and two accounts. Hopefully the guys who patrol the next beat will continue to take a hard stance against vandalism without excessive interference from the upper brass.

the UNOFFICIAL vandal police 11:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I really think you need to calm down. You are not a police officer, no administrator is. Even if you were, the job of a police officer is to talk not shout. We don't work in police shifts, wikipedia isn't a beat, and there is no upper brass. Admins are vandal fighters are just volunteers who preen the more unwanted aspects of wikipedia and try to keep it readable and useful to everyone as a resource or information. You might want to adjust your attitude slightly, as you come across as very provocative, attacking and insulting to some people. Calling vandals "scum" isn't acceptable now is it? SGGH 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I do everything in my power to remain civil towards regular editors who wish to make genuine contributions to the encyclopedia. Vandals on the other hand are not deserving of the same respect, as they seek only to disrupt and add vulgar information in the hope of amusing their friends. As far as I’m concerned, and I think many editors will agree with me, editors who knowingly vandalise are scum, and I see no problem with calling it as it is. As for being “insulting” towards these vandals, keeping in mind that I will only call vandalism where it is true vandalism then quite frankly if they find the hard line stance insulting and go somewhere else then the best situation has come about. the UNOFFICIAL vandal police 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Please understand that appreciate your efforts against vandalism, and we're just trying to help you be more effective by denying attention to vandals and not biting the newbies. Please help us by modulating the tone of your remarks to other users, per WP:CIVIL, and you'll find that you will rapidly become a welcome member of the team. It would be a great shame if you got blocked for over-zealousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karada (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, but I believe taking a hard line stance against vandalism is better than worrying about the feelings of the perpetrators. You can be assured that I will only call vandalism where it actually exits, and in my mind WP:CIVIL does not apply in its fullest extent to those who wish to undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia, if they run away because they feel insulted then all the better for us. the UNOFFICIAL vandal police 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can be right but i believe that most admins who approached you and gave you advices have more experience w/ vandalism than you have. So please listen to them as your efforts are positive and needed but not the way you do it. Would it be hard for you to turn off your CAPS, avoid insults and still be more effective w/ your tasks? -- FayssalF - 11:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try another police analogy. If someone is stopped for a traffic infraction, is the officer not resolutely polite, calm, and professional, even in the face of abuse? The goal is de-escalation, not fuelling the fire. A degree of bland detachment almost always works better than rage. Acroterion _(talk) 12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of the tens of thousands of things that annoy me about Misplaced Pages, vandalism probably tops the list. Warning a user and discussing possible blocks for his or her attempts to combat this problem are...well, let's just say it's typical of the Wikipedian mentality and leave it at that. But I will say I am glad that this user is trying to make the encyclopedia easier to edit for constructive users. Until Misplaced Pages changes its policies and restricts editing to only registered users, I think we should support anyone who tries to stop vandals (but that human gas wind farm edit was kind of funny :-D ). Jeffpw 12:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We all support what he is doing but we don't support the way he does it. The outcome could be the same whether he uses CAPS, harsh edit summaries or not. He is a newbie and we are giving him advices but it seems that he is arguing too much about something which he can do better. WP:CIVIL applies also when fighting vandalism. -- FayssalF - 12:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to add to the policeman analogies, as you are not a policeman, those whose edits you revert are not criminals, the admins and other editors here are not "top brass" and you are not a hardworking flatfoot fighting to do your job despite the efforts of PC deskbound jonnies who don't understand your effective yet unorthadox methods of policing.... Instead this is an online encyclopedia created and edited by volunteers...

You say "You can be assured that I will only call vandalism where it actually exits, and in my mind WP:CIVIL does not apply in its fullest extent to those who wish to undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia, if they run away because they feel insulted then all the better for us." However, if you look on your talkpage you have already admitted one of the vandal "scum" you warn was nor actually a vandal. Your incivility there was therefore completely unwarranted even by your own standards. I wouls suggest that you listen to the advice that has been offered to you. •CHILLDOUBT• 12:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Did this editor just admit to sockpuppeting? See comment above, "I’ve been editing under IP addresses and two accounts." The name is a problem. It conveys (correctly in this case) a loose cannon, vigilante attitude. Putting myself in the shoes of a newbie user who needs to learn the ropes, I would resent and not heed anyone who calls themselves "vandal police" and presumes to school me on the rules of Misplaced Pages. The defiant tone adopted towards more experienced editors here troubles me. We ought to be reasonably mature and professional, and not go about things with a chip on the shoulder. This whole things casts us in a bad light.Wikidemo 12:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the IPs they use may possibly be User:58.164.7.68 this IP has very similar edit summaries (all caps, some starting with "BANG BANG". I may be wrong but it certainly looks possible. MorganaFiolett 12:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He's definetely the same. Check the sign "=" in both edit summaries , . However, there's nothing wrong w/ that as the IP stopped editing once the account was created. -- FayssalF - 13:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In which case, User:The_Anome has apparently had some dealings with them under a previous account name (see the comment the IP made on my talk page). MorganaFiolett 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

<-- This is not vandalism, and the edit summary of "BYE BYE VANDALISM BURN IN HELL" is in my opinion, unacceptable. This is also not vandalism, it is commentary, and POV, but it is not vandalism. Furthermore, you do not assume good faith on many of the edits you label "vandalism", even those that are most obviously first time editors probably doing test edits, such as this edit that is clearly not vandalism, and the anonymous editor made a total of two edits, that one and this one. And yet you responded to the first with shouting at the user in all caps, which is most decidedly biting the newcomers as well as not assuming good faith. I'm sorry but your methods are not productive, and go against the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. No matter what you may think of an editor, it is not helpful to shout at other editors, and referencing violence in your edit summaries ("HEADSHOT TO VANDAL") is unacceptable. Your intent may be good, but I honestly think you need to tone it down, learn the policies and guidelines, assume good faith, and be much more tolerant of children and pranksters. Ariel♥Gold 14:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked indef by Eagle unless he accepts to change his username though the main concern was his incivil and harsh edit summaries. We'll see if he agrees to change his username and become more civil. -- FayssalF - 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The main goal of vandal 'fighting' (that's a horrible name, always thought so) is not to actually remove vandalism *gasp* although that is an important part. It is, or was at least, to turn the vandals into productive contributors. This may be a legacy of the CVU's overtly militaristic first year. Some of our best examples of community outreach have been on this topic. WP:TIGERS came out of a welcome back of a chronic edit warrior, Phaedriel took to writing individual poems to a couple vandals, which both chastised in a gentle way and amused, to soften the blow. It worked, if i recall. The framing of the whole damn thing as a war, a fight, us against them is perhaps the root cause of the problem. -M 14:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka (talk · contribs)

PeaceNT (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) recently correctly blocked Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for having a username violation, seen as it appears to be random strings of characters. Unfortunately now Rspeer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unblocked the username in question yet with no valid reason to do so and did so without discussing it with PeaceNT (although he has since entered into disalogue with her) – the name is clearly an infringement of the policy, rather than wheel war over this, I am bringing this to the attention of a wider audience. As of late, Rspeer has been trying hard to change the username policy by dicussion, however this latest move is simply something he doesn't agree with in the policy so has chosen to use the unblock button when he shouldn't have done. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this is a borderline username issue. I have some extended family members of Indian heritage whose real names would rival this user. The syllables are phonetic. It's possible this name has a meaning in some language. My $0.02. Ronnotel 13:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ronnotel, I have to disagree with this one, "Usernames that consist of a confusingly random or lengthy sequence of characters" aren't allowed - I'm sure plenty of users will see this as confusingly random. It's very difficult to tell Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka from Yaptitasdamasrakaaslatakanka. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to the majority of non-Indian English readers I would agree and therefore cede the point. However, I would submit that an Indian user might not be so easily fooled. Ronnotel 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It just isn't practical for our purposes, here. One could always use an abbreviation and cite the full name on the user page. El_C 13:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite and Ryan Postlethwite aren't really that different either, and also quite long. Who is to say whether it's random or not? Apparently it's not just keyboard smattering, as at least one a was inserted between every two consonants. Is this somehow not anonymous? 15:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by the fact that Ryan would disallow this username for being "confusing", but would allow usernames in other character sets. It's very difficult to tell Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka from Yaptitasdamasrakaaslatakanka. - that's a reason to block Yaptitasdamasrakaaslatakanka (names similar to exisiting user) but not Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka. The username block is probably valid though - couldn't the user have Yaptitas with a sig? Dan Beale-Cocks 13:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To me this looks like random letters, and this is the english wikipedia, that's why I believe it should be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to summarize a finding I'm sure we can all endorse: We assume the letters are not random but were chosen in good faith as per the scenario I outlined above. However, as Ryan points out, they are likely to be confusing to the average user and therefore the name should be changed by consulting with the user and explaining the policy. Ronnotel 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The name gets zero g-hits. If this were a real name, wouldn't it likely get a g-hit somewhere? If the user were to ask to be unblocked and say that his name is Yaptitasbama Srakaaslata Kanka, we could assume good faith and unblock, but on the surface, this name looks like random letters and it ought to be kept blocked as a violation of the username policy. --B 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't use the "google test" on people's names. How do you know how to break it up? As an example from here, googling "danbealecocks -wikipedia" also gets you zero hits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 14:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite. And more generally, I will never understand why people even think unsuitable usernames should be blocked immediately. If this is policy, it's one of the most absurdly stupid policies we have and should be changed post-haste. Weigh it up. The risk of losing a positive contributor by scaring them away when they see that terrible template ("your username is rude or inflammatory") is infinitely more serious than the damage done if that contributor makes a few edits under their confusing username and are then told, politely: "hey, some people might find your name confusing, would you consider changing it?". I have not the slightest idea where people think the problem is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, a very quick google search yields this: . Congrats, we've probably just scared away somebody who might have contributed information from the perspective of a native American tribe from Nicaragua. Not as if that's a big loss, because as we all know, the Wiki is full of contributors with knowledge of obscure indigenous population groups from less developed countries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, it doesn't hurt to approach this in good faith as a valid name; but ask the user to shorten it for the typing ease of other contributors nonetheless. If this is what happened here: good. If not: oh well, next time. El_C 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

However, this still apears to be random characters, and will do to most english speaking people in watchlists. It isn't broken up like a name, and would most likely cause problems whenever they edited. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

English is not a requirement for usernames. It can't be. With Meta pushing for unifying usernames across projects, we have to allow anything that would be a reasonable username in any language. This is the same reason we need to allow usernames with non-Latin characters. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) At the risk of sounding preachy, an example of why WP:AGF is so important. Ronnotel 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And {{uw-username}}. — madman bum and angel 15:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at the template. (Oops, sorry, I meant the other one, {{uw-ublock}}). It's terrible. Sad thing is, all through the years people have tried to make the message more friendly, and they were prevented from doing so. As long as we do have the silly policy of blocking apparently good-faith names on sight, we should at least distinguish between two templates: One more sternly worded for those names that are truly offensive or rude, and one much more friendly and welcoming for cases were a name was chosen in good faith but may be deemed inappropriate for some other reason, like here. But really, as I said, we should get rid of the blocking rule altogether. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, edit conflict; I was just about to ask. {{uw-username}} seems rather friendly to me, if boilerplate (as all templated messages are by nature). — madman bum and angel 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps ideally those two templates would be {{UsernameBlocked}} and {{UsernameHardBlocked}}. If the username was soft-blocked, we should demonstrate that we're more than willing to assume good faith and that it's not the end of their editing career. — madman bum and angel 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For most people who get username blocked, it is the end of their editing career. With that startlingly unfriendly welcome (not just the template, but the "you have been blocked" message), very few put forth the effort to come back. "Nicer" block messages won't fix this, because a block is a block no matter how you word it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I think the purpose of this discussion is to come up with ways to lessen that effect. — madman bum and angel 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes we spend our time arguing about things which don't deserve much fuss. The account got 0 contribs till this moment and i really doubt that this account was created in order to edit. I'll go further and assume that it was opened just for the sake of trolling as it seems that creating a longish username account w/ 0 edits is really trolling. Whatever is the case, leave it there and keep an eye. -- FayssalF - 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It likely was not opened just for the sake of trolling, as Future Perfect at Sunrise demonstrated. We have to assume good faith here. — madman bum and angel 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Startling and completely unjustified assumption of bad faith. The account was blocked some three hours after it was created, and it was evidently created by somebody connected with Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Aslatakanka, who might well have made valuable contributions. (Incidentally, it would still qualify for a username block for being the name of an organisation, but the point is, we should do that after we welcome a user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I expected it (AGF) ;) Well, yes and you're totally right and it doesn't bother me to see the account unblocked as much as it bothers me to see it blocked w/o prior warning. The thing is that the account was created 2 days ago and since then there was no edit. Add to that the username controversy. My comment is based on today's situation and not on the 13th one. Anyway, PeaceNT would have waited instead of blocking the account w/ no edit whatsoever. -- FayssalF - 15:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So if you don't start editing immediately, it's ok to block? Honestly, you're not making much sense here. That's certainly no reason to expect he created the account to troll. "it's long and he didn't use - apparent troll." I just don't get the logic. Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So if you don't start editing immediately, it's ok to block? Oh no. Who said that? -- FayssalF - 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"The thing is that the account was created 2 days ago and since then there was no edit. Add to that the username controversy." I'm sorry if this was not meant as a justification for the block, but that's the way I interpreted it. Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

and that explicitly means that it is acceptable for someone to think that the account was created in order to troll but in no way it is a green light to block since you don't know about the owner response. I have explicitly stated that PeaceNT would have waited instead of blocking the account. -- FayssalF - 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hugh shakespeare

User has created List of Hahnian Organizations, which he called "organizations created by or associated with Kurt Hahn. He listed Freemasonry, the YMCA, Round Square. and Outward Bound, and added the link to his list to all of those articles. Hahn founded one of the groups (Outward Bound), had no connection to two of them (YMCA and Freemasonry), and may have philosophically had something to do with Round Square, which was founded by someone else. I changed the list to reflect that, and that change has stayed, but, the user has reverted all removals of his information such as here (where it said "Round Square is allegedly tied to Freemasonry", here (where a link to the page was added to Freemasonry), and here (where the same was done on YMCA). Moreover, "Hahnian organization" is a neologism coined by this user - the only Google hit on it is WP. I'd like an administrator to intervene with the user to inform him of proper behavior on WP, and maybe speedy the Hahnian list while he or she is at it. MSJapan 14:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, this user is a sock of User:Italways, having made the same edits with User:Zpearson, who is a prven sock. SSP report here. I would therefore amend my earlier statement to ask for a block instread of less decisive action. MSJapan 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

3 clear sockpuppets in violation of probation/block on Nrcprm2026

User Nrcprm2026 (James Salsman) was 2-month-blocked 9/19 for sockpuppet LossIsNotMore in violation of ArbCom probation. About 9/28 his 1-year-old puppet BenB4 was blocked. Last night I testified that 1of3 was also a clear 1-year-old sockpuppet, which was used hot and heavy since 9/29. Being relatively new myself to WP policy, I'd be really encouraged to hear that this is ripe for indefinite ban. Thanks! I ask because it's really inconvenient to see a POV tag get added to the Ron Paul article every week or two over basically a single objectionable sentence (which sentence is usually immediately cut and does not appear the majority of the time the POV tag stands). This appears to me as serious article hijacking. Please also alert my talk page, thanks. John J. Bulten 14:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC) BTW, just in researching this, I happened to search on "WP:pov tag" in the main namespace and, would you believe, "Ron Paul" came up third. <rolling eyes> Just to illustrate the seriousness of this issue. John J. Bulten 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

John, you need to provide some diffs in order for admins to verify this issue. -- FayssalF - 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I provided and , which I think supports the other conclusive evidence, but I have added and (same edit summary: "correct"). As Raymond notes below, James doesn't intend to conceal it much. John J. Bulten 16:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC) John J. Bulten 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins have access to a tool that allows one to compare the edits of two authors, organized by articles edited in common. Using that tool to compare User:Nrcprm2026 and User:1of3 it's game, set, and match. Quite obvious. I'd prefer another admin did the block, since I've had past involvement with this user. Raymond Arritt 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Davidcannon admin abuse

I know how everybody hates it when people scream "admin abuse" but this is a very short, very solid case of exactly that from User:Davidcannon.

Summary: Davidcannon, who is an ex-member of a religious movement that has by some been characterized as a sect, reverts an "anonymous" user's (mine) constructive edits to that movement/sect's article, including several reliable sources added, the fact that the movement has been categorized as a "sect" and a few citations/neutrality tags. The admin then choses to block the user.

Evidence/Chronology:

• 1) I ("anonymously", IP) make a bunch of edits to the article on Plymouth Brethren. Here's a diff showing all my edits: . It's important to point out that I provided edit summaries on 3 of 8 occasions:
• 2) User:Davidcannon (admin) reverts my edits, calls it vandalism and says it doesn't match up with what he remembers of the brethren (he has confessed here that he used to attend their meetings).
• 3) I revert back, angrily but not rudely. I reply to a comment made by Cannon on the talk page, where I complain he labeled my edits "vandalism".
• 4) David reverts me, blocks me (with an expiry time of 24 hours. Reason given: Deleting information without adequate explanation.) and posts on the talk page where he quite mistakenly suggests I deleted "whole chunks of text without justification."

A clearcut case of abuse of admin powers, if you ask me.Is this somehow not anonymous? 15:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate a response from Davidcannon. On the surface, the block certainly appears suspect. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Concur, an admin should not implement a block on an editor with which he has recent edit warred. At minimum, I suggest that the block be reversed pending explanation from User:Davidcannon. Ronnotel 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then again, it never really got a chance to become edit warring, he reverted me once, I reverted him once and then he blocked me.Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would, but I don't think anyone should be unblocked until the blocking administrator is contacted, unless there's much more evidence of consensus. Let's not wheel war here. — madman bum and angel 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. The block wasn't extended to account creations, and the user in question is obviously able to edit under this account. I would ask both parties to refrain from editing the page under dispute until this is resolved. —bbatsell

I agree, unblocking or not doesn't really matter. I also agree we should both keep off the article until this is resolved. Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated not-anon's edits on the Plymouth Brethren page, and I would suggest he should consider himself completely unblocked by consensus of admins here and not be under any restrictions not to edit this or that. The block was very clearly unjustified, there can be no serious doubt about that, whether or not David has responded or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Compromised admin account?

Wait a minute. Look at Davidcannon's blocking of anons in that log. There are some really draconian anon blocks there, in fact all his anon blocks since March are draconian. The previous one, 70.184.253.131 on September 24, is for one month for at most two bad edits, (one of them is apparently in good faith). No warning was given, the user talkpage still hasn't even been created. That was a case for creating the talkpage and posting a mild, welcoming "test" template; not a case for blocking for a month out of a clear sky. One week seems otherwise to be David's standard block--including the one for 76.216.98.183, August 30, where I don't see any way of telling whether that IP, most likely a student at the school in question, was vandalising at all. They could just as well have been adding correct information, and again they weren't warned or contacted in any way. And look at it--they only edited for 7 minutes altogether, all the same school article. And so on. These blocks are so strange, to call it by no worse name, that I'm beginning to wonder if this is a compromised admin account. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

I doubt very much the account is compromised, but I agree there are a number of poor blocks there in the logs, might be a good idea to wait for an explanation before we jump on him, there may be a reason behind all of them. I see David hasn't been so active with the tools as of late - maybe he's turned a little more trigger happy than usual or he's forgotten about WP:BLOCK? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is - I think it's rather a case of an admin that's out of calibration with the community. I'm looking at his block log going back for the last couple of years and it appears to be ... well, draconian was used above, and that's a good description I think. I've asked him to comment here. - Philippe | Talk 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

83.233.154.50 (talk · contribs) unblocked. MaxSem 17:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur and I would have done it myself if you had not already done it. I think it's important, though, that we realize this was a good faith mistake on David's part and hardly abuse. --B 17:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think that it was a "good faith mistake"? Could you please explain what part of suddenly blocking somebody who edits an article (relatively) close to your own person is a "good faith mistake"? Maybe all the other previous blocks, where he got away with it, were good faith too? I would say it's extremely bad faith and even if he does apologize, I think he should definitely not be allowed to remain an admin. Is this somehow not anonymous? 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (I'll use this account for the duration of this problem, but thanks for the unblock)

If it were a compromised account, they'd be trying to do as much damage as physically possible before the hammer dropped on them, if I remember the last time such a thing happened. HalfShadow 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the blocked user here. This was nothing more than a content dispute, the user used edit summaries after he was reverted the first time, and engaged with Davidcannon on the article's talk page. Blocking someone to gain an advantage in a content dispute (with a frivolous and untrue block reason, no less) is the very definition of abuse of blocking privileges. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be a good faith mistake in that David Cannon thought (incorrectly) that the IP user was adding fact vandalism to the article. That's all I meant by it. --B 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fact vandalism"? I think that's pretty much NOT vandalism at all, see the "what vandalism is not" at WP:VANDAL. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you are correct. The question is what David Cannon believed - if he incorrectly believed your edits were vandalism, then it's a different situation than if he believed your edits to be legitimate, but blocked you anyway. --B 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see where the "good faith mistake" comes in. "I thought it was OK to throw around my authority when people disagree with me? Oh, it isn't? Well, my bad, I thought it was OK." This person shouldn't be an admin. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Even in a best-case scenario, the admin seems to have exercised some really bad judgment, if not outright abuse. And "fact vandalism" sounds like a euphemism for content dispute. -Chunky Rice 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I would really like to hear User:davidcannon's take on all this. On the surface, his actions violated the admin prime directive - don't abuse the tools. Blocking someone with whom you have edit warred is abuse of the tools unless there is a really compelling reason. Ronnotel 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Davidcannon's response

Now that I've slept on it, I think I did go too far. I admit to an interest in the topic, and have strong personal feelings about it, which clouded my judgement. I apologise for that, and will refrain in future from exercising powers in an article I consider myself involved with. Again, I have seen a lot of anonymous editors that are suspect, and when I see an anon making an edit that I believe is in error, I sometimes take that the wrong way. I believe I was wrong this time, and will be more careful from now on. David Cannon 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I still think there's a second issue here as well - I believe that your blocks may be out of calibration with the rest of the community, sometimes. In my opinion, you're issuing much lengthier blocks than what most of us might. I'd like to encourage you to stop and think about that as well. I applaud you for reconsidering this block in the instance above, and for being open minded about this. - Philippe | Talk 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't wanna be irritating, but what are the odds he would not say he is reconsidering this block when the 10 or so admins that have voiced their concern on this topic ALL said he has been abusive/problematic, and his block has already been undone? To say "I was right" is not really an option. I know I'm violating WP:AGF here but I'm seriously disappointed in Davidcannon's response. I think the right thing for him to do would be to resign from his adminship immediately. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 21:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this response is disappointing. I would like to suggest that a better venue to continue this conversation is at WP:RfC/Use of admin tools. Any seconds? Ronnotel 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better there, far less chance of "ordinary" editors noticing it. DuncanHill 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

isthisanon: I understand that you are upset and quite rightly so. Davecannon has behaved badly and you are entitled to a sense of outrage but we aren't going to see him dysysoped over one block unless there is clear evidence of an ongoing problem and the admin continues to refuse to listen to advice. What I see is an apology and an acknowledgement of error. You should see this as a victory of sorts. I see many worse things done by admins who subsequently do neither. While I appreciate your feeling that something more can be done, that's not really the way we work round here and Davecannon needs to be given time to show that he has learned from his mistakes. Alternatively, consider it as giving him some more rope but there is no way on earth that arbcom will consider further action unless the behaviour is repeated. Spartaz 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Before we go down this route, are we sure that there is a persistent pattern of abusive admin activity that has continued despite warnings from outside parties? I'm not, and I don't see the evidence. Davecannon has acted extremely badly in connection with this block but has acknowledged his mistake and apologised. He has been told that his block lengths are out of kilter with the rest of us and has been asked to think about it. What exactly will we be looking for from the RFC? I'd said about the same things plus modification of their behaviour. RFC is premature at this stage, a stern talking to is not. Should Davecannon fail to mend his ways then by all means go for an RFC but there is nothing to be achieved by one right now. Spartaz 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening an RfC makes no judgment one way or the other. I simply feel that a separate page will provide a more effective venue than the extremely busy WP:AN/I to discuss the matter and reach a conclusion. Ronnotel 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Spartaz here. So far, David Cannon has made one response and it was a positive one. Let's not go on a sysop hunt quite yet - and let's not go from no one complaining directly to "(he should) resign from his adminship immediately". Surely there's some middle ground. As far as his general use of admin tools (i.e., a trend of overly-long blocks), how about just discussing on his talk page? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see things a little differently. I see a clear abuse of admin tools, a history of overly aggressive blocks, and, quite honestly, an 'apology' that sounds more like he's sorry he got caught - this time. Ronnotel 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

{ECx3}RFC is a very blunt weapon that will not achieve anything further then what we already have here. A community consensus that Davecannon fucked up and that he must behave better in future. Plus he has been asked to review his block lengths. Seriously, what else are you expecting to come out of the RFC process except hours and hours of wasted effort. An RFC is pointless anyway as there is only dispute with one party and it takes two affected editors to certify an RFC. Simply put, AN/I is the place to discuss this. We have discussed this and I think we have a consensus - see above. Now its down to Davecannon to behave better otherwise we will be at RFC and he will be dysysopped - but not now. We shouldn't be after vengeance we should be after improvement. Spartaz 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

IP three month blocks requested

I have been keeping an eye on the vandalism that goes on in my userspace, by listing the IP vandal along with the diff, date and time here (notice - some edits have been removed from page history). As I have been doing it since July, I have noticed several IP's recurring. Therefore, I am requesting a three month block for the following IP addresses:

• 86.20.59.0 - vandalised my userpages nine times.
• 86.20.60.100 - vandalised my userpages four times

This kind of vandalism we as users of Misplaced Pages should not have to put up with. I will be very greatful if these two IP's could be blocked - as ther vandalism attempts towards me (in one case 86.20.59.0 revealed my full name). Thanks, Davnel03 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked for one week for vandalism; I was tempted to block for longer for harassment, but I was unsure whether that would be punitive. Any administrator may feel free to review. — madman bum and angel 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason a three-month block would be over the top, in my opinion, is that this is not a constant problem; the IP gets bored then comes back later, and they are shared IPs. A one month block for harassment may or may not be justified. — madman bum and angel 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• What's the point to this? Your user page has been indef semi protected so ip's can't edit it. problem solved. If you have any other userpages that need semiprotecting leave me a note on my talk page. Spartaz 21:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oversight needed

Hi. This article was just deleted (), as an attack page, however the attacks appear in the deletion log . Since it violates BLP policy, can someone oversight it please? Thanks.

Seraphim 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's to show recreators or editors who want to see others previous edits. So, AFAIK this doesn't violate any policy. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Log entries cannot be oversighted. This is a technical impossibility. --Deskana 16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okie doke. Just wanted to make sure :).

Seraphim 17:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno - that one's sufficiently defamatory that I would hope we could come up with a way to delete it. Could a developer help, perhaps? - Philippe | Talk 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This should serve as a nice reminder to not always accept the default comment for a deletion. Especially in the case of a WP:CSD#G10. Perhaps a new section should be created at WP:AN to further drive the point home. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there - Always keep an eye on what your going to be putting in the logs. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I use User:^demon/CSD AutoReason. Nice time saver that creates standard auto-summaries for each CSD. - auburnpilot talk 18:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Neet... another way to make CSD easier. Best thing since tabbed browsing! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a great find! Thanks. Rockpocket 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a major problem. The article is capitalized incorrectly and the deletion log is not indexed by Google. The point about the reason for deletion field is well taken, however. As for expungement, in the past, developers have been asked to remove log entries and have been extremely reluctant to do so . For the record.  :) — madman bum and angel 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This should be left until we get a complaint from subject. It's buried very deep... and like you said, not indexed by google. Also, it would be helpful if someone could comment out the name above? This page is indexed by some search engines. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure log entries can be oversighted. One oversighter did it for me (see the last deleted revision of this page) and another told me it's impossible. In any event, all future requests should be made privately, to the email address at WP:RFO. I will make one now.--chaser - t 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The software and schema changes for MW 1.12 are a bit held up. It will be supported, but is not now. For now, a sysadmin can of course, manually run a query on the DB. Voice-of-All 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Maplefan

Moved from AIV; previous reports here and here, checkuser request here.

Darano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.97.11.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are obvious sockpuppets of banned user Maplefan. Maplefan and sockpuppet Runescapehater were originally blocked after the first ANI report, for POV pushing on MMORPG articles MapleStory and RuneScape. A second wave of sockpuppets, including Gavegave30, were blocked after the checkuser request. Twice, while using Gavegave30, Maplefan forgot to log in, appearing as 68.97.11.185 . Now, Darano has has appeared, doing the same thing as Maplefan (posting about player numbers on MapleStory , something Maplefan's socks have always done, and trying to insert unsourced OR-POV negative criticism into RuneScape ). He makes the same mistake as with the Gavegave30 account; he forgets to log in, so the exact same IP used by Gavegave shows up (note "Tally Ho!" used by both). Can they be dealt with, please? See also Talk:MapleStory#Can I ask one question?, Talk:MapleStory#Let me make a point., and Talk:RuneScape#Not enough negative, too much positive. Cheers! CaptainVindaloo 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon user for the third time

The anon has, for what is now the third time, started personal attacks to back up his editing. ] is a whole section dedicated to my evils (Including how anti-semetic me and the other editors are). This anon user is clearly a single purpose account and this is now becoming rather irksome. Can't we send him to some deep dark hole where we don't have to deal with him? Narson 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User blocked... again. - Philippe | Talk 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Redlinkseeker

This user just goes around deleting redlinks, . Did not repsond to talk page. Is this blockable? Rlevse 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a bot or semi-automated script. I have blocked since they did not respond on their talk page. The edits are unsupported by policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted to check first. Rlevse 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page and I have given up waiting for bbatsell to reply back so I have just created this account. Ok, I am not a bot and it may be unsupported by policy but it is not against policy. Now this account is no longer needed. Redlinkseeker2 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Redlinkseeker2, because you're clearly using it to get around the block of your other account. AKRadecki 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid the autoblock on that one because it was just used to respond here (not for any edits similar to that which I blocked him for) and I don't think it was in bad faith, just a misunderstanding of policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Despite administrator Alkivar being scrutinised by ArbCom, he has once again engaged in some fair poor behaviour. He blocked G2bambino (talk · contribs) for a week earlier today for uploading some images without sources despite no human warnings for it. Then, without giving the user chance to source them, he deleted them after only a couple of hours. Auburnpilot then unblocked G2bambino as this was an extremely poor block and Alkivar has chosen to wheel war and reblock. Firstly, I would like to gain a quick consensus to unblock G2bambino, and a block on Alkivar could well be in order. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan has fairly well summed up the situation, and I'd just like to add that I very much support unblocking G2bambino. The user was not given a chance to respond adequately to the image issues, and I have since explained the requirements to him/her. G2bambino understands the situation, and should be allowed to continue editing. Alkivar....I don't know. I've added a section to the ArbCom case. - auburnpilot talk 19:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that G2bambino should be unblocked; I'm not sure Alkivar should be blocked, but he should be instructed to leave blocks of G2bambino to other admins for the time being. Sam Blacketer 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock I fully endorse any motion to unblock G2Bambino. Wheel warring is unacceptable and inappropriate. nat 19:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely unblock G2bambino. A 1 week block, without previously discussing it with the editor, appears punitive. I don't agree with a block on Alikivar, however incidents of his recklessness with sysop tools are mounting rapidly. I wonder if he could be persuaded to voluntarily refrain from using the tools until this can be sorted out. Rockpocket 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that Alkivar should be blocked. I do, strongly support an unblock on G2bambino. The user clearly understands what they did now, and, how to do it right in the future. A week was overkill, in my opinion. SQL 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to correct/prevent editing problems. Misuse of admin tools should be addressed through ArbCom, or in extreme cases, emergency desysopping by a steward. The Arbitration case against Alkivar will likely open this evening, at which point evidence of concerns can be added to the evidence page. Thatcher131 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in to support an unblock. This good faith user honestly did not know what was wrong with the images he was uploading. No one explained to him the problem, nor was he ever warned that he was about to be blocked — let alone for a week. Support unblocking. I don't support a block of Alkivar, since it's apparent he's not going to wheel war further over this. --Haemo 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have unblocked G2bambino. Sam Blacketer 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The only wheel warring involved was auburnpilot unblocking a user who has repeatedly violated image policy... without waiting for a response from his post to my talk page. If anyone would take the time to read the user's talk page history, you'll see there are numerous warnings for lack of license, lack of source, and lack of fair use rationale. Just today the user uploaded approximately 15 images as PD w/o sources, which triggered bot warnings, and my initial block. If this were G2bambino's first image warning, there would not be a block involved. If this were a second warning, i'd have blocked for 24hrs... this user has several 3rr blocks on his record, numerous image warnings and as such I blocked for 1 week, this is not an unreasonable length, and grounded squarely within policy.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single warning stating that G2bambino was about to be blocked, if there was, he may have stopped, he now understands what he did was wrong (you see he didn't before) and will change how he uploads - see, no need for a block, just some explanation. AP's unblock was because G2bambino accepted what he did was wrong, and 1 week was completely excessive for a good faith user who didn't know what he was doing was wrong. Then you re-blocked!! That is a completely unrequired wheel war, and I'm stunned that someone in your current position would be so stupid to re-block. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Repeatedly violated image policy"? How far back are you going to find this? I think that if you bothered to take the time to research this properly, you'd find that any image I've uploaded in at least the past year now has sufficient tags and/or fair use rationales; other older images I may have done incorrectly before, and didn't later rectify, I simply let be deleted. Today was the first time I'd uploaded 100+ year old images, and thought my two provided copyright-expired tags on each of them was sufficient for such images. I'm obviously no expert with image management, but I'll tell you I'd have learned much more from an explanation than a week-long block. Plus, you're clutching at straws if you're going to bring up previous 3RR blocks; the majority of those (which isn't actually all that many) weren't themselves justified, nor do they have anything to do with this case. --G2bambino 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) After looking through recent blocks, I found that User:Chiangkaishektwnroc was blocked for 1 week for uploading copyrighted material without a human warning. There's a number of bot messages, but I don't see any human attempt to contact the user. I'm not an admin, but I thought this might deserve a look too. The user doesn't have a lot of contribs, so it's harder to tell if it's a genuine good faith editor. Best, --Bfigura 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MDtoBe

User:MDtoBe is an single purpose account who has engaged in repeated blanking vandalism of Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine despite warnings from multiple editors and a final warning. Was referred here from WP:AIV, not sure why, seems pretty clear cut to me. For those unfamiliar, WP:SPA's are banned from making disruptive edits on this article based on this ArbCom decision, and may be indefblocked for disruption. Leuko 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Per User talk:MDToBe, user explicitly rejects warnings about his behavior or attempts to explain why what he's doing isn't appropriate. DMacks 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I archived material. I never engaged in any blanking vandalism. Leuko is using threats of bans and being an SPA against anyone that edits this page and doesn't agree with the POV that he is attempting to push on this talk page and on the main page for this article. If anything Leuko's abuse of warnings and threats of bans should be investigated, he has a very long history of doing this to just about any editor that edits this page except for him. MDToBe 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have every right to blank my user talk page when inappropriate content is left, including inaropraite warnings. MDToBe 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you agree that you are an SPA or not and whether Leuko is correct in his behavior or not isn't relevant here. Based on your behavior, you seem to some as an SPA and SPA is an active area of discussion on the talk page. This even landed you (rightly or wrongly) as a topic of discussion there. Therefore, it is pretty obvious that the SPA discussion is active, and therefore should not be archived, especially by someone who is the topic of that discussion. DMacks 20:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MDtoBe indef blocked as an obvious harassment-only account. Review welcomed. To the other editors who appeared to be on the verge of edit warring on MDtoBe's talk page over blanked warnings, please remember that blanking warnings isn't a crime (they're not the Mark of Cain or designed for punishment) and blanking is a sign that they've been read. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Obviously an article to keep an eye on. Sam Blacketer 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Redvers for the speedy resolution. Just for my own education though, I am still confused on the consensus on editors blanking warnings on their talk page, especially when reports at WP:AN/I or WP:AIV exist... What is the template {{uw-tpv3}} etc used for then? It states that removing legitimate talk page comments (and I assume warnings) is a blockable as vandalism. Leuko 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's for article talk pages. Warnings are meant to be read. If they're deleted by the target, they've been read. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. Just makes it harder to track down chronic vandals if you keep having to search through the page history... Leuko

That's what the block log is for. -- John Reaves 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And now we have WP:CAIN, so we can beat people over the head with a new line in WP:CAPITALISEDGIBBERISH whenever this question comes up :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil edit summaries despite warnings

The user Kscottbailey (talk · contribs · logs) has continued to use uncivil edit summaries, despite being warned that it was a violation of WP:CIVIL in a discussion from Oct. 11-13 (see User_talk:Kscottbailey#Civility in edit summaries and User_talk:HiEv#No thanks.) In a recent edit he included the summary "rv back through moronic, juvenile, childish edits to a clean version". In several other recent edits he also uses the phrase "juvenile vandalism". I've done all I can do by myself on this matter, so I'm hoping someone else can help change his mind about using such terms in edit summaries. Thank you. -- HiEv 20:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... looking at the revert, it does appear to be "moronic, juvenile, childish". --Ali'i 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What she said. Viridae 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether the edit fits that description or not is not the issue, the point is that such a description is a violation of WP:CIVIL, which includes "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ('fixed sloppy spelling', 'snipped rambling crap')". -- HiEv 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I guess I will drop a word on their talk page. However as it is relatively minor, is not directed at you and is actually pretty accurate (if blunt) I'm not sure what you are so worked up about. Viridae 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, and I'm not really "worked up about it", I just don't think it should be brushed off when he's knowingly and repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages policy. -- HiEv 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we all could be a bit more creative if not more civil in our edit summaries dealing with vandalism. Rklawton 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a note, but beyond that there is nothing I can do - admins aren't behaviour police. If you continue to have a problem with it (asuming he continues) then WP:DR is the way to go. Viridae 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This user apparently has fashioned him/herself the edit summary police. I've made it clear that there is a vast difference between insulting a PERSON for making simple mistakes (spelling, POV, etc.) in an edit summary, and identifying the CONTRIBUTION as "juvenile" or "childish." I will not stop doing so, especially now that HIEV has felt it necessary to bring the admin noticeboard this triviality. If I get banned for this--or even suspended--the project will be worse off. I'm just stubborn enough to refuse silly requests like HIEV's, and I will continue to do so, when the vandalism IS, in fact, "juvenile" and "childish." We don't have a "police force" here (as HIEV compared my summaries to police brutality, I felt that analogy appropriate), and I think we would be better served by attempting to make the project better instead of attempting to police a good user's edit summaries.K. Scott Bailey 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As I'm not a WP policy wonk, I'm not sure about this, but isn't there some policy about going around policing everyone to make sure they're following every jot and tittle of WP policy? Wouldn't that be ironic, if HIEV was violating policy by bringing this to the noticeboard?!?K. Scott Bailey 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Wiki-lawyering, which is not policy, just annoying. I agree that this report of your edit summaries was totally unneccessary. He/she could've just as well brought it up with you personally.--Atlan (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore's Nobel Prize

There's plenty of controversy surrounding Gore's Nobel Prize. I've seen it in plenty of news articles. But, for some reason, Wikipedians seem to only be able to add opinion blogs from the web about it, or add them in addition to news sources to get some sort of left/right balance. A blog is a blog, isn't a reliable, credible news source for the sake of a BLP. Can someone deal with this at Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize controversies? I simply don't have the time. KP Botany 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Jimbo's comment on libel on userpages