Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 7 March 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

David Shankbone

This is a request that the IP ranges found here User:David Shankbone/76.72 be blocked. The first IP range has been engaged in libel on Misplaced Pages against me, and I supply the diffs that show that. Additionally, they continue to edit-war, disrupt and troll the project as it deals with me and my work. Since this has been going on for a few weeks, and since the activity is illegal, I'm asking for a project-wide ban on the first IP range. The second IP range is an accomplice (they at times edit simultaneously) who engages in edit-warring, but not the crime of libel as the first IP range has. The things they are writing are illegal, I will be filing an abuse report with Bell Atlantic, and I have already contacted an attorney to look into criminal prosecution for smearing my reputation, the evidence of which is more than provided on User:David Shankbone/76.72. We will first see what Bell Atlantic can do in terms of providing help in finding out who is behind the libel. --David Shankbone 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And the evidence, IP ranges, etc. I supplied are by no means exhaustive. --David Shankbone 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you possibly in violation of WP:NLT here? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I will let other editors decide after looking at the evidence, but regardless it's time to say enough. --David Shankbone 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

David - relax, lay off the legalisms, and the admins handle it.

Checkuser shows that range is pretty active, so blocking the whole /16 block is probably not a good idea. When I have more time later tonight, I'll do the back of the envelope calculations to find the minimum CIDR to block. Raul654 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I will heed your advice. --David Shankbone 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime the campaign continues, see diff. . .R. Baley (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How is a content disagreement over image inclusion an illegal smear? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh the content disagreement is just one tiny related matter. . .there's the smears + the content removal. Two prongs on the same fork. R. Baley (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The image removals aren't illegal smears; they are edit-wars against multiple editors, completely rejecting consensus. R. Baley is right - there are several prongs to this person's hate: First, illegal smears; Second, edit wars against consensus; Third, multi-forum disruption. I thought the evidence page fleshed that out clearly. --David Shankbone 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove or strike the legal threats/rhetoric. Viridae 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stating someone has done something illegal, calling a spade a spade, is not the same as threatening to take action against them, which is a legal threat. I have struck out the legal threat, but if you would like to play with the wording to hide what is clear then you are welcome to do so, but I feel I have already complied with policy. --David Shankbone 01:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Our policies on legal threats are designed to apply to interaction between good-faith users. In the past, the community has held discussion on potential legal action against banned vandals and trolls. See this discussion about Willy on Wheels (scroll down to where it says " Willy on Wheels legal action?"), and this discussion about The Communism Vandal which also discussed the potential of taking legal action. *** Crotalus *** 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The minimum CIDR to block all the currently listed IPs in the 76.72 is /17. Raul654 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, a large block. But it may be that a brief exemplary block will suffice to show that we mean business and we can, should we choose, stop this festival of stupid. It is a large range to block to stop one abuser, but they are pretty determined. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a brief block is a good first step, although I think Guy has been on the money in his observations. This person clearly shows some sort of obsession disorder that I think will prove any brief block futile, but I don't like the idea of blocking such a huge range for a long time. Does anyone know how they are tag-teaming with the other IP range? I have alerted Verizon/Bell Atlantic; I've always been curious how that system works. This would not be a big deal if we didn't have good-faith editors on the talk page questioning the legitimacy of this IP's harassment, which is what makes it defamatory. If nobody was listening and taking up the IP's arguments (say, by researching over-exposed, over-photoshopped PR shots of people to say 'Wow, they look nothing like these other photos'). --David Shankbone 18:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As I point out on my Talk page, the IP's obsession has been self-defeating, since when this IP started trolling in February he doubled the traffic to 800 hits a day on Lucas' article. So if the goal was to get people to not learn and think about Michael Lucas, they clearly have failed; if the goal is to say he has views that some people may find distasteful or even offensive, I don't think that comes as a surprise for anyone when they find out his career. --David Shankbone 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(trolling removed) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the comment above was posted by the harasser in question. It's a shame if David's "retirement" was hastened by admins' technical inability to block this person.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. The anon is only one of many who have been in dispute with David, and David has in the past been somewhat abrasive in his dealings with people who don't like his pictures. Range blocking is never done lightly, and WP:RBI can be applied uncontroversially to this particular anon, so the contribution of one obsessive idiot is not IMO that much of a big deal in the overall scheme of things. David's certainly shown himself more than capable of holding his own before now. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

More people should take breaks from wikipedia. It is emotionally healthy. When it is right for David to unretire, he will. Meanwhile, I'm sure we all wish him well. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The harassment continues, even after David's latest retirement. I'm going to request protection.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected his userpage. Woody (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We really do need some sort of rangeblock here, or this IP is quite obviously going to keep it up. Playing whack-a-mole is going to get tiring after a while. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the ANI thread that was discussing a ban on the IP vandal? I can't find it on the board or in the archives. The IP has been posting absurd claims such as this. Enough is enough. Let's choose a nickname for this person and file it under long term vandalism. Suggest Gay pornography vandal. Durova 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the thread here. I'm going to let someone else bring it back up (not sure if it should be a sub section here or brought back to ANI). R. Baley (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The ban discussion is unanimous, but nobody closed it before it got bot-archived. Would an uninvolved administrator please review R. Baley's link and make this formal? Durova 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User was already blocked, but I added a notice, and put 'em on the list. Considering that David Shankbone seems to believe I'm his sworn enemy, I think this troll got the most favorable review he could ask for. This behavior is simply intolerable. Cool Hand Luke 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke. R. Baley (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Support for rangeblock

The IP came back and vandalized the section again a bit ago. While that specific address is now blocked for a bit... Is there any interest in blocking the ranges? Seen as too severe? Possibly acceptable? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Keep in mind, these are big ranges we're talking about, we don't do /16-ish blocks for giggles. If it's felt to be appropriate I'll do one, but I want input first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support a rangeblock if possible. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to measure how great non-vandal traffic has historically been within that range?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If s/he edits again, I would support a soft range block on anons only for about 2 hours. Maybe repeat as needed? No guarantee a /16 will work though. . .seems like when I ran the range calculator on the IPs used a few days ago, it came back with a /12. . . R. Baley (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple /20 range blocks that seemed to slow things down a bit. If it makes the banned user have to reboot the modem three or four times to find an unblocked range, it's probably worth it.71.127.224.0/2072.68.112.0/20 —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to have worked, and with minimal collateral damage, thanks Wknight. R. Baley (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanking or deleting userpages for indef blocked users

Why is it that we blank or delete the userpages for all indef blocked users? Some are trolls or whatever, and shouldn't be worth even a mention, but some are different. Some users have been around for years, and for one unfortunate reason or another, are unable to productively work with the rest of the community (for a lack of better words). These users often have a great deal of valuable contributions, and at one time where considered users in good standing. Blocking is not punishment, and blanking or deleting a userpage is not some way to embarrass or ridicule those who are blocked.

People seem to have confused the reasons behind blanking/deleting userpages, in that those reasons don't apply to every situation of an indef block. It's very unfortunate that whatever situation came to an indef block, but allowing that to taint that user's entire history on Misplaced Pages isn't right. We don't delete userpages for users that are no longer active, and that's how we should treat these users. Unless they're a troll or a vandal, or the content of the userpage is related to why they were blocked, leave it alone. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Simple vandals and trolls who only make half-dozen edits? Delete. Established contributors with decent, notable edits who unfortunately are indefinitely blocked should stay, especially when they relate to sockpuppetry, as that further documentation could be useful down the track. This is of course excepting rare circumstances where either right to vanish or real-life names are involved. Daniel (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too, Daniel summed it up well and....I agreed with Ned...(gosh I've gone all dizzy....) ] (] · ]) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: Is there a specific incident we're referring to here? ] (] · ]) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, User:EliasAlucard. It was blanked and the indef template applied, Carcharoth removed the temp category, Tourskin posted a note to the userpage, Boodlesthecat removed it, Tourskin posted it again, IronDuke removed it... Ned restored the page, I blanked it again saying why I thought it was done, and Ned restored it, and Valtoras removed it again. Avruch 14:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Ned. As part of SSP it's mandatory to post the sock notice on the userpage (and these shouldn't be deleted). Only when userpages contain promotional material; contain only indef-block notices or otherwise vandal notices should they be deleted. Rudget. 14:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Any user or usertalk page with a non-trivial history should not be deleted. It's only really the throwaway vandal-only accounts and usernameblocks where it's appropriate. The pages can be blanked or replaced on occasions, but should not be deleted. I think we are talking here about replacing the page with a banned template? That is quite consistent with policy. The other way to deal with it is to subst the indefblock template to remove the temp category. -- zzuuzz 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we're talking about blanking. Carcharoth removed the temporary page category already, using some new magic word I think. Avruch 14:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a magic word. I used "category=" which avoids all categories called by templates with the right coding unless you specify them manually. This template also has a "historical" parameter that can be used. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) For the record: I'm the one who blanked User talk:EliasAlucard's talk page - it contained very offensive racial attacks, including in the unblock requests he had posted. I'd be all in favor of not deleting them (I'd rather that record was left alone), but I don't think the contents should be restored to plain view. — Coren  15:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. Keeping the talk page up makes it quite clear why he's banned. --jpgordon 16:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The history serves that purpose adequately (especially when combined with the block message), IMO. I don't see any reasons to leave the bile in plain view. *shrug*, I don't feel strongly about it either way, though. — Coren  20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you could argue either way. Hiding it by blanking will pique the curiosity of some. I only scanned through the bottom half and it seemed more silly than anything else. Leaving it there highlights the problem and leaves no doubt to any who pass by why he was indefblocked. OTOH it may serve as some form of graffitti, so maybe that is a reason for blanking the invective...interesting. ] (] · ]) 04:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The talk page blanking was fine, because of the racial remarks. My concern was more to do with the userpage itself, which didn't seem to have a similar issue. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I re-blanked it until--and unless--there is consensus here to let the content stay up. Bellwether _C 06:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see the point to leaving his user page up, and from what I've seen, it's standard to blank it, then leave a box indicating an indef ban. I see no reason to make an exception for this person, and I would ask that Ned Scott get a clear consensus before altering the page again. IronDuke 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus to blank it in the first place, and this is nothing more than a content dispute at this point. Do we need to do a little history lesson here? This practice was for trolls and vandals, not users who at one time were editors in good standing, but unfortunately are no longer able to work with the community. To help clarify this I started this thread, which has other users agreeing with the logic. On the other hand we have users saying "we blank because that's what someone else did". That's not a very convincing argument to reblank. -- Ned Scott 18:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know there was no consensus to blank it was not discussed when people decided a ban was appropriate? For the record I don't see the problem with the blanking why is this such a big issue? If you think this should not be blanked then get a consensus but edit warring is not the way to go. David D. (Talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was not discussed then that is even more proof that there is no consensus. Asking that I find consensus to unblank is ass-backwards and totally not how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. So far, in this discussion, the arguments to unblank are far stronger than the ones to blank, which consist entirely of "we did it for other users" rather than having any explanation. After 24 hours I will restore the userpage, per consensus, unless anyone beats me to it. -- Ned Scott 19:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. An edit was made to add the template and blank the user page. It is not unprecedented, so no big deal. You are now edit warring to revert that edit, which is a big deal. If you're so worried about it get a communitiy consensus that backs up your idea, but do not edit war with several other editors. This is exactly the wrong way to try and achieve your goal. David D. (Talk) 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting users who don't have a valid rationale for blanking is rather logical. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to you they don't have a valid rationale. Personally, i see no reason for a banned indef-blocked user to have a trophy user page, what is the argument against blanking it? And how does a user get a tainted history by having a blanked user page as opposed to a prominent "Indef BannedBlocked" template? The blanked page seem to be the least of such a users problems. I have no problem with the talk page being left if you wish to do that. David D. (Talk) 06:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked, not indefbanned. What is your opinion on such pages being deleted? Deletion seems to me to be an extra signal on top of everything else, saying "go away and never come back". Where is the option for reform and return given in this "delete" and "temporary pages" languge? The point about indefinite blocking as opposed to an actual formal banning process (and yes, I know about the "if no-one is prepared to unblock they are de facto banned" clause, but opinions change with time), is that it can be appealed at any time and lifted or reduced. In that case, those who had a history of good contributions, who do something wrong that earns an indefinite block, and who then apologise and/or reform, shouldn't have to go through an extra, unnecessary step of asking for their pages to be undeleted. Deletion of throwaway account pages should be routine. Deletion of the user pages of those who are part of the history of the project, shouldn't be routine. Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake, i mean indefblocked. I don't think the user page should be deleted, i don't think I ever mentioned it should be deleted. And the current edit war is not over whether it should be deleted. I think blanking the user page is acceptable, that is what Ned disagrees with and is reverting. David D. (Talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The only rationale given so far is that "we did it for someone else". Userpages aren't trophies. The idea that they could be used as such comes from vandals and trolls, not from users who were formally editors in good standing. Your own assertions on this thread are a prime example of people losing sight of why we did something in the first place: it was for trolls and vandals, it wasn't for every situation. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by editor in good standing. This user has been editing in a similar way for a long time. The only reason he was in good standing was because AGF was extended for a long time. This is an example of the last straw that finally breaks the camel's back. So technically he was in good standing, but he was rapidly building his history that led to the indefblock. This is not some sudden explosion of undesirable activity that led to community action. If that were the case I could understand your argument. David D. (Talk) 08:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The instructions on Template:Indefblockeduser do point people to a "historical" parameter that can be used, but I fear many admins don't bother to use this when putting the template on the pages of established contributors that get blocked. One way to address this is to make the "historical" option the default, and to make "delete" the option that has to be typed or pasted in. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is so that long term trolls don't have trophy pages... I can think of one user who's username started with T that has a circus for a talk page after being blanked and was advertising it on his blog. That was eventually deleted, good. _(1 == 2) 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so it would make sense to force people to think about whether user pages of indef blocked users should be deleted or not, and then add a "delete" parameter accordingly. It would be a simple change in the template coding, but the problem is actually drawing this to the attention of the people that use the indefblocked template. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm also making an argument over blanking, in the very least I completely agree with Carcharoth's comments here regarding full deletion. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP problem

See John McCain lobbyist controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Vicky Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (latter at WP:DRV). The lobbyist controversy article is absolutely crammed with weasel phrases, half the headings are alleged this and alleged that, but I don't know enough about US politics at the moment to begin to pick it apart. As far as I can tell, the story itself is essentially a fabrication used to attack McCain, but that might be as unreliable as everything else printed about politics during an election campaign. Whatever, I'd encourage any admins with a solid understanding of policy (and firm resolve) to pass by these articles and work on them, because to me an an outsider in anytign to do with US politics the former looks like a hatchet job and the latter like a coatrack (and I'm a card-carrying liberal at that). Guy (Help!) 12:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPUNDEL it. Will 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This story was reported in the New York Times, who have insisted that their (unnamed) sources are true. Whether this incident is notable or not is disputable, but it is definitely not just an attack piece. - Revolving Bugbear 12:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that redirect got changed - I mean, get rid of the article. It's violated BLP since day one. I've redirected for the same reason. We can't have allegations in an article. Will 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, WP:BLPUNDEL (which, it should probably be noted, at least in passing, is not infrequently misused as editors misunderstand the Bdj RfAr and, more significantly, BLP and the community's construction thereof ) provides that an article summarily deleted per BLP should not be restored in the absence of a consensus for restoration. Here, we had a discussion, and the community, having considered all relevant issues, determined the article to be consistent with BLP. The consensus of insular discussions—which are presumed, open as they are, to reflect the judgments of the community about policy—is not to be overturned except where that consensus is plainly contrary to policy (which reflects generally a consensus of the community writ large), and here there is no plain error, and we need go no further down the road of the substitution of the application of policy of some group of editors, acting as individuals and without reference to a centralized, consensus-basedd discussion, for the deliberative application of policy by the community. Joe 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Wikipedians may not be aware that the New York Times' own Public Editor or ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, has severely criticised the Executive Editor, Bill Keller, for running the story: "The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics - sex - it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance...The article was notable for what it did not say. It did not say what convinced the (McCain) advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what Mr McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately - an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad.". --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nail in the coffin, much? Will 13:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First, it's Clark Hoyt's job to criticise NYT editors. But second, I didn't say that the NYT article meant it was true, just that it meant it was more than a wiki-fabrication. - Revolving Bugbear 13:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Guy's point is that the Times may not be a reliable source in this instance. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, um, no, of course The Times is a reliable source. That its reporting in this issue has been criticized is not in question. But the fact is, The Times reported it, has not retracted it and continues to stand behind its reporting. The Times is not a trash tabloid - it is the very farthest thing from that, in fact. It's essentially the newspaper of record for the United States. FCYTravis (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually all that misses the point - whether or not the Times is right does not change the fact that this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. But there is still a huge problem with weasellery and other such naughtiness. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP1E? I missed the part where that applies to a major political question surrounding an American presidential candidate and undisputed public figure. When BLP1E is being used to erase mention and discussion of a still-smoldering political controversy that has gained wide attention and will surely continue to be an issue into the general election campaign, it's being misused. We BLP1E articles on <insert random Interwebs meme here>, not on national political scandals. I forked this article out of the Vicki Iseman biography specifically to prevent her biography from becoming a coatrack article about the scandal/controversy/whatever. FCYTravis (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is a good justification for redirecting Vicki Iseman, but it doesn't apply to John McCain lobbyist controversy. In fact, the latter kind of article is precisely what we're supposed to do. We are supposed to have an article on the event, so we don't have to pretend that our description of the event is actually a "biography" of one of the participants. Whether or not the scandal has any substance in the opinions of various commentators here or elsewhere, the fact remains that it was published in major newspapers that are considered reliable sources in almost every other context, and the reporting itself was further discussed in secondary sources. That's more than enough basis for a valid Misplaced Pages article on the controversy. *** Crotalus *** 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. WP:BLP1E is a problem with the Iseman article, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V (no sources other than one newspaper reporter) and WP:WEASEL are, I think, issues in the controversy article. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not one newspaper reporter, four (Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick, and Stephen Labaton), plus two other people credited for help, all of whom work for America's "newspaper of record", and whose story, according to reports, was heavily vetted and sat on for months. No disrespect, Guy, but weasel-wording cuts both ways, and your making it sound as if this is the work of one hack journalist with some implied axe to grind is not on. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just how it looks to an outsider with no real interest in US politics. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article yet, but the story itself is not limited to the New York Times. The Washington Post, Newsweek and many other major mainstream news outlets have confirmed part or all of the story. One of McCain's top lieutenants for many years, John Weaver, is publicly on the record confirming part of the story. I'll go take a look, but there is not a problem with reliable sources being available here. The key point is, the NYT never said they had an affair, just that staff was worried about it enough to tell her to stay away. The real core of the allegation is closeness to lobbyists. Msalt (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WIKIFASCISM: new word; definition page deleted by wikifascist editor as contentless

I tried to add an important entry: sub-Planck Of course, some stupid editor administrator deleted it instantly; refused to reinstant an underconstruction project; I am not against him personally; he is simply ignorant of the physics. Afterwards he deleted my WIKIFASICM entry (about the general fascism behavior of editors that is killing off this encyclopedia turning into an encyclo-ego-ia on their part.

I know the editors and administrators don't want to admit it but there is an enormous amount of WIKIFASCISM going on these days; it is a problem wikipedia must consciously face and solve although it is sadly in denial.

See sub-Planck See wikifascism Wiki fascism: (noun) The tendency of editors and administrators (or those with Misplaced Pages power) to instantly assume all contributions, new pages, and other modifications are wrong, invalid, misguided, don't follow procedure, no wanted, and to delete them -- instead of letting these new pages grow by the user community's edits and additions. Killing the baby pages at birth; not letting them mature. This tendency was not prevalent in years before 2007 but is perhaps inevitable now that Misplaced Pages has grown. Also involves killing common knowledge additions to articles before the contributor has tracked down the exact reference on the assumption that the contributor is wrong or that the contributor has no clue what he is talking about. Also involves petty empowered Misplaced Pages experts playing “God” with the content and direction of the Wiki project contrary to its original sprit of a community and its replacement by a new orthodox order of privileged editors and censors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicman123 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I wonder if anyone's ever taught you that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. It's also true that you persuade more people with logic than with vituperation. Justin Eiler (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes they did and they were wrong...I put in a valid physics entry with logic, math, etc. content; it gets deleted by a wikifascist; I meantion a real problem WIKIFASCISM and I get silly coments back instead of dealing with the issues; There is a lot of vinegar on wikipedia now; there didn'tuse to be. It is poisoning the honey; when I point this out; people criticize ME for being direct which is fine as I can take it instead of dealing with the real issues. A friend of mine told me not to bother with wikipedia entry addition any more because she had a similar experience; I didn't listen; she was right. It is not worth it...wikipedia has become an orthody of feel good types or perfectionists strangling the information additions people are trying to make... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicman123 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at sub-Planck, I'd say that it was extremely borderline as an A1 deletion. However, Physicman, it did read like an essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. I'd suggest taking another crack at writing it, only keeping it more encyclopaedic in tone and making sure it's referenced to reliable sources. I can provide you with the text of the deleted article if you need it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, if you can find ONE good reliable third party source for "WIKIFASCISM" (or even in lowercase) I will personally undelete the article and protect it from deletion... Or do you think that going by the rules is too constrictive? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I agree that the deletion of WIKIFASCISM was clearly appropriate. My comments above are only about sub-Planck, which was somewhat dubiously deleted as an A1, in my view. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Was still speedable. The subject (under-construction for months to come, we are told) is clearly the author's own original theory. El_C 18:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mm, not quite. . It seems to be a novel branch of physics, but gets ~5,700 Ghits, so presumably could be written about. Whether it survives WP:FRINGE, however, would remain to be seen. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think that's the case; I didn't see sources cited in the article, but I don't think it was clear OR. He should have been given the chance to provide sources before the article was deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course people write about what's beyond the visible universe, what happened before the big bang, and what is sub any given planck unit — that is not the point. It was clearly original research, with the main topic(!) being "under construction." El_C 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OR isn't speediable, though. Those criteria are quite narrow on purpose. Natalie (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't get stuck on the legalism of it; use common sense. El_C 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, since it seems like it would be easy for an admin unfamiliar with a topic to assume it's OR when it's not. But whatever, it's not terribly important. Natalie (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, though it's common sense for an admin unfamiliar with the topic not to make these assumptions. El_C 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is further to Physicman's concerns just above. Suppose someone creates a draft of a new article and wants to display it for the purpose of getting comments, edits, references, etc that may improve the article. How can they do this without posting the draft article in the mainspace? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to this manual. El_C 18:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of the Sandbox project pages with a note to the relevant interest group participants that an article is being crafted seems to work well. I have used this method on occasion when there is a topic that is not fully developed yet is in a working stage, and therefore, eliciting comments and edits to the sandbox project is appreciated. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

For those unfamiliar with high-energy physics, Planck units refer to the smallest measurements in physics (length, mass, time, charge, and temperature). Beyond those units, elementary-particle physicists generally do not go (similarly to cosmology and pre-Hot Big Bang era or what if any is beyond the visible universe). What the author did was write an informal piece about the Planck scale, then left the "sub-planck" bit (yes, the actual subject!) "under construction." I would have speedied it in a breath, as Natalie Nawlin did, too. El_C 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? I don't think I did that deletion... I am confused. Natalie (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am of course referring to your deletion of sub-Planck. Oops, wrong person! El_C 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Troo Fact: I Googled "sub-Planck" and found links to "Bogdanoff" - and yes, those Bogdanovs, see http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=20423563. Makes you think, doesn't it? About 4,000 Ghits, starting wiht some incredibly unreliable sources, so it's a likely valid A1, and a possible Bogdanov sock. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Somehow, it just does not strike me as being on that level of fringe-sophistication, but it is possible, I suppose. El_C 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

still not happy. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Article's back up as well: Sub-Planck, no doubt to the chagrin of "grossly Physics-ignorant Administrator Delete-jockies" everywhere. It appears to have one reference now - a letter to Nature which at least uses the words "Sub-Planck". I'm inclined to issue a pretty stern civility/NPA-type warning to the contributor and let the article go for a few days - it needs massive cleanup, at the very least, but nerves seem a bit raw at present. Thoughts? MastCell  23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on it. If experienced people believe in good faith that it isn't a speedy candidate, it can't hurt anything much to send it to AfD and let it stand or fall on its own merits, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If a page is wrongly deleted, just point out it was wrongly deleted, by discussing the matter with the deleting admin or taking things to deletion review. Running around screaming about FASCISM, FASCISM, FASCISM is entirely ridiculous, inappropriate based on a single incident with a single person, and does nothing but turn people off listening to any legitimate points you might have actually had. If there's a problem, state it simply and calmly. On the internet and on Misplaced Pages in particular, it is very much in your interest to appear reasonable and worth listening to whenever possible, lest people make the obvious conclusion. Perhaps this comes across a bit strongly, but good golly, if you plan on getting anywhere in a social enterprise, you'll need to develop some social finesse. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have heard of the word WIKIFASCISM on the Internet, and it is problamatic that the outside community percieves Misplaced Pages to be as such. I have a paralel article essay that I have created WP:SEI which is about social engineering on Misplaced Pages and it is being POV to deletion because the topic is unpopular, more like Taboo for discussion. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Social engineering Internet. Because I created the essay and have linked to it to show its relevency, now all my past good faith edits are being scrutinized and examined under a microscope. My references from my Websites are being scrutinized as WP:COI in an ANI thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Serious_Conflict_of_Interest_-_User:Igorberger. Is this type of behavior and action not resemble Fashism hence the terminaligy wikifascism. It is a real shame and a big problem for Misplaced Pages if the outside community percieves us as such and we do not even want tto identify that it is a problem and WP:STEAM and stonewall the issue to mute its apparent WP:notability Igor Berger (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As Luna Santin said. Applying the term "fascist" to an admin who speedy-deletes your pet page betrays both an extremely superficial and ignorant understanding of fascism and a tendency to hyperbolic vitriol at the least provocation. The second, in particular, plays badly on Misplaced Pages. MastCell  19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Applying the term fascism to any editor is derogative and should not be done same as any insulting label. And we all know tones of them. But the consept WIKIFASCISM does exist and it is seen from outside at Misplaced Pages. So how do we all deal with it? Do we just censor it out, or aknowledge it as an article or an essay? Igor Berger (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to advice to the editor as much as there is notability for WIKIFASCISM the term itself is inflamatory and even harmful to the project. Why not use Misplaced Pages:WikiCommonSense and add the description of WIKIFASCISM in the article from an unbiased POV. You can also add Misplaced Pages Social Engineering content to the article, because I feel WP:SEI maybe deleted soon per MfD and no userified version will be around because of the controversy it brings. Also adding other information relevent to all POVs will make the overall article Misplaced Pages:WikiCommonSense fairly balanced to respect the notability of the topic. By doing this we will apply WP:DUE and preserve WP:NPOV Igor Berger (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. 51 ghits. NN. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) or, for those who don't have a clue about XFD ("deletion") jargon (WP:WOTTA): "I have only found 51 references to this term in google. Therefore it is unlikely to be notable, and we can safely delete it"

  Try 359,000 of WIKI+FASCISM And please read the titles and snipet descriptions when you search. Igor Berger (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First squillion pages is wikipedia hits. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read what social networking industry blog TechCrunch has to say here Also Try Google WIKIPEDIA+FASCISM While this might be somewhat WP:FTN We should not dismiss it as irrelevent. Igor Berger (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Those searches search for all words that contain both "wiki" and "fascism" but not "wikifacism". And as demonstrated by several of the results, any Misplaced Pages fork with the word "fascism" seems to appear. x42bn6 Talk Mess 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism

As part of the above dispute that I'm currently mediating, the parties have agreed to having some neutral administrators to act as mentors for the Pro-pedophile activism page and other pages within the scope of the topic. They would be the "go-to" guys and would act to keep the decorum of editing on the page. Of particular concern is the role of new users, SPAs and potential socks editing the page and also the general neutrality of the whole topic. An enforcement page would be created to cover the topic, where all editors would be welcome to report concerns, and the appointed administrators would be expected to look over these in a neutral manner. I'm looking for 5/6 administrators to take this role. If you are interested, could you email me either by using the interface, or directly to ryanpostlethwaitehotmailcom. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This formula is based on what, exactly? I note that nearly fifty percent of those who agreed to this mediation have been indefinitely blocked. El_C 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The good faith editors who have been participating in the mediation - they want some neutral admins to go to should they get into any further disputes or problems with the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do those (four) editors point to problems with non-neutral admins; not sure I'm following this, still. El_C 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No it was nothing like that - they just want a small group of people who will actively look over the article so will understand the context of disputes that arise there. One of the concerns was that they weren't sure where to go if they have problems. A small mentorship page would allow all discussion to stick to one page. It's almost like continuing the mediation, if further problems arise then there's a structure in place to allow a better resolution. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is a separate enforcement page for this mediation necessary, vs. this page, AN/I or some element of MedCom? I ask because I think the reason there are no admins working in PAW is that its a black hole of craziness, and why would we want to stick a number of admins permanently with the job instead of directing problems here with a link to the resolution and advice on how to react? Is this analogous to article probation, and amenable to the solution being used on homeopathy pages? Avruch 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason we need a seperate page is because it's not really an enforcement page it's more of a continuing mentorship/mediation page. All disputes don't belong on AN/I and this small page will allow administrators who all the parties have agreed upon to help point things in the right direction. If a resolution is required, the admins can help with that before it need to go to AN/I. Obviously, if one party isn't happy with the arrangement, then they are free to get a second opinion at a noticeboard. The idea is to keep the decorum of editing without having to go running between noticeboards. Having a set few admins will help keep things on the right track and the participants will learn to trust them. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Extreme caution is required here. Pro-paedophile activists have been summarily banned for bringing the project into disrepute, and in such cases it is normal that the only avenue of appeal is through ArbCom. Having such people editing articles on paedophilia and related subjects is about as welcome as having holocaust deniers editing articles on concentration camps, and for pretty much the same reason: theirs might be a documented minority POV which can be discussed on Misplaced Pages, but it is a POV which is roundly rejected by a consensus amounting to very close to 100% of reliable independent sources - an extreme fringe minority. There is a significant difference between the pro- and anti-paedophile activist positions, in that the anti position is mainstream, and editing with a mainstream bias is inherently less problematic than editing with an extreme fringe bias. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get reinvolved now, but I have waded in on this in the past. I would have to say that there is both some extremism on the anti-pedophilia front that we need to avoid taking over the articles (stay NPOV / mainstream) and a significant danger of previously banned pro-pedophilia activists trying to edit again and reslant thing to their side. It's hard to engage here, both because the topic tends to be personally offensive to a lot of people, and because it's often hard to find the neutral wedge between pro and anti extremists. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The major problem in such disputes, though, is the fallacy of the false middle. The NPOV position is not the average between the extreme pro and extreme anti positions, it's only slightly softer than the extreme anti position. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editor

Since creating his account under a week ago, User:ParnellCharlesStewart has been involved in nonstop conflict on several articles. He created an attack article and removed the CSD tag several times, and is making interesting comments like this and POINTy comments like this and this. He was blocked for 24 hours on the 29th for edit warring on Youth rights, but it seems to me that this user is contributing nothing constructive here. Could be a sock of someone, as I thought I'd seen that deleted article before, but either way, I'm suggesting an indef block. GlassCobra 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

check out his userpage. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I blocked him for creating the attack article, not for edit warring. When I blocked him, I was very close to blocking him indefinitely, but I didn't the case was that serious yet. Well, now I'm convinced that an indefinite block is necessary, since he's apparently Wikistalking SchuminWeb (talk · contribs). --Elkman 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. I'm a bit surprised he was given another shot after that attack page, which was pretty bad, but I suppose it's good to see WP:DBTN in action. Basically everything he's contributed has been unconstructive and obnoxious, and I think we've seen enough. MastCell  20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur with indef block. He seemed to have nothing positive to offer and seemed only to be here to make one or more points. It did not hurt to give him a second chance to contribute constructively. Now we know. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, he's a Markanthony sockpuppet, as confirmed by CheckUser. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

New essay

hmmm.... thoughts? - Mtmelendez 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this to User:Halo/How to force through policy without consensus. One person's bitterness is best kept out of projectspace. – Steel 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:AlisonW

User:AlisonW is an admin who has recently had her biography deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler (2nd nomination). She is now using her userpage to label those who led to it's deletion as "trolls, homophobes, sockpuppets and deletionists", which I believe violates WP:USERPAGE and WP:NPA. I removed it, and after my removal was reverted, asked for it to be removed, but Alison believes it is not a personal attack because it is not aimed at a specific editor. I'm seeking a second opinion. --Stephen 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the full quote is "though thanks to trolls, homophobes, sockpuppets and deletionists (and then others joining in) it was recently replaced ..." and, so far as I am concerned, refers to both nominations on AfD. I see nothing in my statement that is directed against any identifiable individual and should someone consider that they fall into the first four groups (and I've no definitive list of who might and who might not) then that is for them to clarify, but my opinion is quite straight-forward and open. --AlisonW (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison! Most of those who voted delete looks to me like respectable users and admins, and as one of them I find this a bit ridiculous. What happened to AGF? Please reconsider.--Doc 23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be a silly question, but why is Alison a sysop? I don't think being chair of Wikimedia UK gives you automatic sysop rights on en.wiki, and I don't see an RfA. 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing she was promoted under a different user name. You should ask User:Danny as the promoting 'crat. See . Ronnotel (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison, just remove it. Its definitely an attack, its definitely uncivil and frankly it smacks of sour grapes. Viridae 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in that AFD - I'm astonished by that comment - virtually everyone on that AFD was a long-term editor, yes there were a couple of IP socks but they were easy for any closing admin to spot. I would ask you to remove the comment due to the bad feeling it will cause in the community. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I participated in this AfD, as well, and I don't appreciate being looped into the categories she listed (also, how is deletionist on par with the others?). My only knowledge of AlisonW from the past is when she threatened to delete all of Cuyler's subpages if he didn't do it himself. Avruch 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's inappropriate use of user space. It surprises me that an admin (who is presumably an experienced editor) would do such a thing. Friday (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad form (yes), sour grapes (yes) Took the deletion personaly (yes), obviously she's upset over a processes and its outcome and probably shouldent have added it, but lets not pile on this user and make the feelings worse. She's got to remove it herself, and I trust she will. --Hu12 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:: Hu - this is not like we are talking about Joe Blow who has wandered in off the streets and is now wondering what has gone on, this is an experienced editor,administrator chair of a wikipedia off-shot and long-term contributor - I think in light of that, the reaction has been rather mild. If this was Joe Blow, an admin would have gone in by now, warned and then would be removing if polite requests were not acted upon. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think removing it will ultimately lead to less stress/controversy in the long run. Tiptoety 23:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is AlisonW's RfA? Bstone (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think RfAs sometimes aren't necessary/needed/used, for example in the case of WikiMedia employees —αlεx•mullεr 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But she isn't a wikimedia employee is she? She is chair of a chapter, which anyone can create. (m:Wikimedia chapters) Prodego 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems a little wrong to me. But that's just me. Bstone (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly true Prodego, I'm not sure of the technicalities there. In any case, it could even be something like an RTV, where previous administrators can contact a crat in private to regain +sysop. I know I've read that somewhere. This could be construed as searching for a reason for her not to be an administrator, which doesn't strike me as important here —αlεx•mullεr 23:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that perhaps Alison was not entirely experienced, which means she might not understand completely the myriad of rules we have. Unfortunately, as per below, this was not the case. Prodego 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alisons RfA can be found here - after looking at logs on meta, up until recently it looks like she had two admin accounts, but these rights were cut down to the main AlisonW account a few weeks back. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Any hint as to why she was running two admin accounts? Viridae 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she had her normal account (VampWillow) but also had a seperate role account for percieved official wikimedia business. I think the reason for the change was most probably because it was made clear that she didn't have the authority to make official actions on behalf of the foundation. There was obviously a mix up at the time of sysopping the AlisonW account. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am dubious that VampWillow is Alison simply as VampWillow exercised a right to vanish. Bstone (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like (a) the RtV deletion of the VampWillow pages is not precisely in order given the person didn't actually vanish and (b) linking to the RfA, and thus the prior identity, of a vanished user sort of defeats the purpose. Avruch 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise there was a RtV - but that said, when you excercise your right to vanish, you're supposed to leave. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why that page has been protected for over a year and a half now? It's not a big deal as it's pretty rare that editors should edit others' User pages but it seems a bit odd and out of line with the protection policy. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming up on two years, even. Avruch 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this not seem like an interesting use of admin power? Bstone (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Alison that fully-protected Vampwillow's userpage was me, not AlisonW - Alison 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me the conversation has now deviated sufficiently from the first post in this section. :) —αlεx•mullεr 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is AlisonW, and whatever else about her that is brought up is relevant, assuming it is about her behavior. Prodego 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the log entry from meta anyway - this isn't a legit Rtv request. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the AfD-related incivility, the user also snapped at a wikignome who was going about his business. AlisonW wrote, while deleting a request from her talk page, "rm unneccessary comment - you've succeeded in killing the article; stop pushing". This despite the fact that user:PC78 apparently had nothing to do with the AfD and was just fixing links that had gone to the deleted article. I understand that having a biography on Misplaced Pages (or having it deleted) can be emotionally involving, but this user needs to chill out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See - this edit summary of reinstate - do not edit this page if you aren't me, thank you) is a bit problematic, generally your user pages are your own but they are actually the property of the community and I don't see a reason why the community has not had the technical ability to edit that page for two years, unless we are all getting the ability to protect our user pages for as long as we like? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, generally speaking you can protect your userspace for as long as you like - it's in WP:PROTECT. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I checked but I thought that was indefinite semi-protect not full? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's actually any protection that the user wants - not what I'd personally do as I like to keep my userspace open to anyone because I don't own it, but hey, I'm just one voice. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that being the case from the policy page - can you point me to what I'm missing? Thanks, Avruch 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right actually guys - it's only s-protection. I took it as read that you could request full protection as many admins have their userpage fully protected. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats because User:Alison (not User:AlisonW) just changed it to semi. Tiptoety 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He was referring to the policy (see above) and not the page. Avruch 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nono - it was fully protected when Ryan made that comment. I think he's referring to WP:PROT, which does only specify semi-prot on demand for a userpage - Alison 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with an admin exercising a right to vanish and then having a 'crat move the admin abilities to another account. Anyone else? Bstone (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple - she had two admin accounts (a normal one and an "official" account) - they simply removed the admin bit from one account meaning she no longer could make official actions on behalf of the foundation. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh ok. Bstone (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Right to vanish "Like ENWP, most other Wikimedia projects tolerate the "vanishing" of users who wish to leave permanently." (emphasis added). The permanently seems to me to mean that someone leaves the project in all their incarnations. This seems not to have happened but rather one account vanished and Alison stayed. Does this confuse anyone else? Bstone (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Back onto the logs, and I am of the understanding that AlisonW had the developers remove a handful of log entries related to these two accounts and their access levels. At least, there's no other logical explanation for a log entry for the promotion of an account locally suddenly disappearing, as I observed recently to my shock and horror. Gentle probes to the relevant people have shown a tenderness when I suggested this possibility, so this is my best guess. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I've boldly reduced her userpage prot. to semi-protection, per policy, so we can move on from that point now - Alison 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's an obvious lack of transparency if an administrator vanishes then reappears under another name. The RfA process is meant to be visible to the entire Misplaced Pages community. If you exercise the Right to Vanish, then any administrator privileges should vanish along with you, and by creating a new account you are in effect going "back to the beginning" and should have to re-earn those privileges. Unfortunately, policy currently allows you to keep your admin priviliges, which is something which ought to be addressed. (That said, this case is rather complicated, and her position within the Wikimedia Foundation (whatever that position is) complicates things further.)

Regarding AlisonW's behaviour, from what I've experienced it hasn't always been becoming of what I would expect of an administrator. (See this, this, this, and this for instance.) As for the AfD discussion, I can't see anything that could be described as trolling, and certainly not homophobic. (If someone had argued "delete because it's about a lesbian", then that would be homophobic, but such a complaint would be shot out of the water.) Consequently the remarks on the userpage seem totally unjustified, but even if the AfD had been full of homophobic trolling it would still be a personal attack. (As for there being someone with the same name as her, well, the Misplaced Pages article about someone with my name is about someone who allegedly spontaneously combusted, so beat that.)

I would advocate the de-sysopping of AlisonW and suggest that she have a new RfA to get the admin privileges back again. Then the community's views on her could be discussed in full. I don't know if policy allows for this, though, and also I wouldn't want it to turn into a witch-hunt. --RFBailey (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AlisonW was entrusted with admin access by the Misplaced Pages community. She holds that right under the same terms as anybody else. If you feel she needs to modify her conduct as an admin or resign that status, the usual means of redress apply. You can create a user conduct RfC provided that two or more editors have tried and failed to resolve a dispute with her. Alternatively, you can ask ArbCom to review her conduct. She has not to my knowledge made herself open to recall. WjBscribe 01:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as far as the community was concerned, it wasn't AlisonW that was entrusted with admin priviliges, it was VampWillow that was. Until someone in this thread revealed that fact by accident, the community (as far as I am aware) did not know that they were the same person. That's a serious problem. --RFBailey (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins have in the past been allowed to cease using one account and have their admin flag transfered to another account. In some cases where there has been felt to be a good reason for this, the community as a whole has not been informed of the link between the accounts. I cannot really comment further on that. My thoughts as to the avenues of redress available to you if you feel she has misconducted herself as an admin remain valid. WjBscribe 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm - I'm not seeing a serious and ongoing abuse of admin tools here (a page prot doesn't count) so why does she warrant de-sysopping? - Alison 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people are concerned at her misleading the community more than anything. Does she even have a role where she can make official edits? I think he user page is a little misleading because being the chair of a Wikimedia chapter does not give you a right to make edits on behalf of the foundation. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The role edit comment, if no longer true, is a bit misleading. Someone should politely ask her to revise it. Avruch 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that would require a desysop at all. Reconfirmation RfA's based on this sort of situation typically get pretty heated, mostly because generally all RfA voters see them as useless. It is the human being that is trusted, not the username. Avruch 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no abuse, no mis usual of the tools, and defiantly no grounds for de-syoping. While the message she left on her userpage was not the best judgment that is not grounds for de-syop. Tiptoety 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, she hasn't abused the admin tools. But that's not the main point. The problem is that she gained admin priviliges "via the back door", or so it seems. I appreciate that it's the person that has the priviliges, not the username, but as far as the community is concerned, how are we supposed to know the difference? Rhetorical question: if a user with AlisonW's record filed an RfA today, would it pass?

In response to "Admins have in the past been allowed to cease using one account and have their admin flag transfered to another account.", that's fine if they request a change of username. While this can be done discreetly and doesn't need to be advertised, it can be discovered by the community without needing to look up logs on meta. If, on the other hand, an administrator exercises the Right to Vanish, then that's what we expect them to do--vanish. --RFBailey (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

She invoked a Right to Vanish which by policy means she leaves WP. Not close one account and open another. There is surely a conflict of interest and the community to some extent feels mislead. A reconfirming RfA is the most appropriate thing to do. Bstone (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bstone, that's a really bad idea. I went through that a couple of months ago after discussion like this, and it was unproductive for everyone. Unless you've got a proper complaint (not just "she's got no RfA") then don't put her through it again. Keilana| 02:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Little evidence of improper behavior, no evidence of tool misuse. WP will not suffer unduly by choosing the course of least drama. Ronnotel (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I stand by it. Someone who invoked an RTV leaves the project. If they have another account which they being to use (besides from misleading the community about actually permanently leaving the project) then they have to go through an RfA again, just like everyone else. You don't get the admin flag transfered as you permanently left the project. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Issues as I see it: Attacks on the user page - everyone who commented seemed to agree that they were inappropriate and should be removed. RTV - whether RTV applies when you don't actually vanish. Role account - whether the user page should claim any kind of authority of the wikimedia foundation as it currently appears to indicate. Viridae 01:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The way I see RtV is that if you enact this - you go unless there's very serious privacy concerns involved. This isn't the case here given she's chosen the identifiable username as her account. With respect to the role edits, I've asked her on her talk page about this because I feel she has no official role. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's against policy to have role accounts. "On the English Misplaced Pages, the one role account currently permitted is en:User:Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working closely with the Foundation. Any other accounts with multiple users are likely to be blocked." So anything purporting to be a "role account" should be blocked. --John Nagle (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a role account — only one person had access to it. The problem was that it claimed some authority which it didn't have (per what the Wikimedia Foundation have recently told Alison via private correspondance). This confusion apparently led to the dual-sysop accounts as well, which was since remedied. Daniel (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to cut AlisonW some slack about the Alison Wheeler article. It's got to hurt to endure an AfD dscussion about yourself and I'd probably react similarly, even if inappropriately. I find the template controversy last month to be more troubling; see:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive125#Template:Wikia is not Misplaced Pages
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5#Template:Wikia is not Misplaced Pages

--A. B. 19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Content removed

I have removed both the personal attack and the claim to official editing status from User:AlisonW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I would normally not do this, but Alison has shown disregard for the opinions of others individually, and is not likely to honour what has been said above.

I am of the belief that a consensus, seen above, supports this action. To this end, I ask that in the event of the removals being reverted for the third time by AlisonW (and the first against a consensus rather than a unilateral action), that appropriate action (including strong warnings/page protection, whereby if Alison is to edit it to restore the content she will likely be desysopped for doing so for violating the protection policy, and scaling into blocks should she do this) be taken.

Daniel (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal. If AlisonW does not have authority to enforce "role" edits on behalf of the Wikimedia foundation then it is a blatant lie to claim so or a quite misleading choice of words. More concerning however is the personal attacks she refused to allow to be removed. No administrator possesses special privileges when it comes to adhering to Misplaced Pages policies.¤~Persian Poet Gal 08:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of the content from her user page, but oppose any other action taken as a result of this thread —αlεx•mullεr 08:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am merely throwing the hypothetical that, should Alison choose to ignore the explicit consensus in this thread, it is ingrained in our policies that action must be taken to prevent the further disruption caused by such removals. I sincerely hope it does not come to that, and I commented to that effect on her talk page. Daniel (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of content but don't see any need for any further action at this moment - if she gets into an edit war about this or (going off what has been said here) tries to re-add claims to a official foundation role account, then we revisit the situation. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was saying in my last three comments to this thread. Daniel (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Support the removal, I just came past to check if it had been removed yet and would have done so myself had Daniel not got in first. Viridae 11:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I support Daniel's removal of that material as well, just for the record. I find the claim about making "role" edits as chair of the UK chapter rather concerning. Sarah 12:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also support - while chapters are very important to Misplaced Pages's growth and development, they relate to WM and not to en.wikipedia, and there should be no need for role editing. If someone is the head of a chapter making edits to chapter-related pages, noone would deny them the ability to do that themselves under their own account with their normal access level. Orderinchaos 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Support removal of comment that originated this thread. No opinion on any other matter raised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply from AlisonW

I see people have been busy while I was sleeping and the trolls have been busy stirring away. Anyway, to the first point regarding the original claim against me of writing "though thanks to trolls, homophobes, sockpuppets and deletionists (and then others joining in)" I would note that (a) I did not identify any specific individuals, but (b) I can justify *each* and *every* one of those elements with diffs (or links to now-deleted content). The truth may be difficult to accept, but truth is a valid defence. I chose not to list the diffs on my original statement precisely because they could be misunderstood. On the second point, that of 'role edits', perhaps it was slightly the wrong phrase, but it is the case that I made edits in the past at the request of and on behalf of the Foundation. These are all in the past (some distant past) and none had anything to do with my WMUK activities - that was just a juxtaposition of the items. --AlisonW (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison, if you know that sockpuppets participated abusively in an AfD you should identify the accounts so that they can be blocked. 02:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe her sockpuppet addition was in response to Stephen's removal of the quote from her userpage; see User talk:Stephen. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's right, we are all trolls - yep that must be it. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please retract your statement that I'm a troll, immediately. I find it another grossly inappropriate edit which further compounds the issue. Daniel (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of being a troll, so I cannot retract it! Nor, in response to User:Fredrick day, have I said that everyone is a troll. Some people are clearly too touchy about the possibility, but please do not read into what I say things I most clearly have not. --AlisonW (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"I see people have been busy while I was sleeping and the trolls have been busy stirring away" — please clearly name who you were directing that comment out, or it can only be taken to refer to everyone involved. If you do not wish to name people publically, please email me and do so. But unless you specify, then your generalised attack is a personal attack, and no amount of semantics or rules-lawyering will do you any good. Apparently your semantics got a developer to remove the entry to your local user rights log after your removal of access on Meta, presumably to remove the attention it would have caused (and is enveloping now), but such course of action won't divert the issue here. Daniel (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison, the article was validly deleted under policy and procedure. Your attacking other editors, for the deletion of an article about yourself, is not acceptable. You may or may not be able to cite those personal attacks you made with diffs and "evidence". That doesn't matter. Saying "User:Bobbyjones333 is an asshole" is as equally unacceptable as "User:Bobbyjones333 is an asshole". You are no more entitled to make such statements without facing sanction (warnings, blocks, probation, RFAR) than anyone else. Please stop before this escalates. The matter of the article is over for now; lets move on. Lawrence § t/e 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on adminship and system logs

I looked into this some time ago at a third party request. VampWillow was given sysophood via the usual RFA process. An alt account, AlisonW, was (a long time later) sysopped by Foundation agreement, likely related somehow to separating edits and actions in her usual editing from those she might do in any kind of formal capacity. That adminship was enacted by OFFICE, and the common identity of the two users known to and identified to Arbcom at the time the AlisonW account began being used in that capacity. An early user/talk page version posted by AlisonW at the time, disclosed to the community that AlisonW edits under a second account which at that time, was chosen to not be linked. Non-disclosure that the second account was an RFA, seems reasonable, given that the matter was arbcom-disclosed, office approved and intended to allow her to "go about her business" without speculation on it.

Like various other account matters, it is generally the user that's relevant. I don't think this would count as "deception" in having two admin accesses --she did not for example go through RFA twice pretending to be two people or anything. The matter was agreed and enacted by the WMF office, likely by agreement of board or Brad Patrick, disclosed and known to Arbcom, and she was given by independent others, the approval and right to use a second admin account, this being at a time the community had already expressed confidence in her by giving her one admin account used to that time for personal editing.

Over time evidently the VampWillow account has fallen into disuse, but we do not remove the bit from dormant admins as a rule. However I suggested to her a while back, that she didn't need two admin accounts at this time, and evidently judging by the fact VampWillow is no longer listed as an admin as of mid-February, the comment was taken. The adminship itself seems reasonable.

Links: AlisonW current rights, AlisonW enwp rights log; VampWillow current rights, VampWillow meta rights log.

It's also worth noting that whilst a person's granting of +sysophood shows up in the local project log, its removal does not. This is well known, and there's an active bugzilla request for sysop removal to show up under local project logs. (Feel free to support it!) We had the same confusion with recent desysoppings such as Archtransit, where some people weren't sure if the desysopping had been processed since it didn't show up in local logs. It doesn't, and that's how it is for everyone, no developer deletion is implied. It's an easy error since you'd expect to work that way but doesn't; I fell into it my first time of looking up a desysopping too. It may be worth assuming good faith here both by, and of, Daniel, who obviously wasn't aware (as most people aren't), but to clarify, no desysoppings presently show up in any local logs. You have to check Special:Listusers for their current rights, or the user rights log on Meta for it. It's a known issue. FT2  13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"who obviously wasn't aware" — what? I'm very aware of the fact that a log entry on enwp went missing, and I know that desysoppings are only in Meta logs. That's how I confirmed my suspicions - that fact that AlisonW was desysopped but never resysopped, according to the logs. There's no confusion here. Daniel (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any concerns about VampWillow on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler? She's there attacking the nominator the same way that she attacked the nominator of the latest RFA and also voting "Keep" as if a third person. Lawrence § t/e 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

She's had my comments on this, though only as a comment. If it was current, or a current issue, I'd say take action (discuss, try to resolve, etc), but this is historic stuff that's dead and put to bed, long ago (2005), and a year before the AlisonW account was actively on the scene; it's long ancient failure to disclose COI on one bio-article and its related AFD. However things change and at that time additionally, there was in fact no communal COI policy. What is now WP:COI was still at that time simply a page covering "vanity articles" only, and its main policy was basically that clear vanity articles get sent to AFD and Misplaced Pages isn't a vanity press. (I was new in July 2004; I only have written policy to go by for it.) But yes, I had not overlooked to check that aspect also. This is not to excuse or downplay COI or condone the past action, it's an assessment of a users actions way back in 2005, looked back at from 2008. Evidence of current issues is usually the issue. As a rule when examining conduct of active users with a view to criticism, we rarely go even one year back in their active editing history, in checking for evidence of behavioral concerns. FT2  14:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: First off, let me say that you should never attribute to malice what can be blamed on negligence. I received a request from an English bureaucrat that they had questioned Alison Wheeler's "role account" and it was decided, with her consent, that she would have only one sysop account from now on, and that the sysop bit would be transferred to the User:AlisonW account. This is common practice. Unaware of the RTV status on the userpage, I foolishly made the assumption that it was common knowledge that her original account was well known to be her, and suggested that we ensure that things come up in the edit summary. After a distraught phone call from her regarding her privacy, I apologized and asked the developers that the log entries be removed. This is also acceptable practice (see Misplaced Pages:OVERSIGHT#Policy, no. 1 for rationale). While I'm not certain why the Meta log entries regarding the AlisonW account was not removed as well, or at the very least the summary which tied the two accounts together, I will state that there was no "Foundation cover-up" involved in anyway, and more a lack of ample communication between the parties (Ms. Wheeler and myself).

Ultimately, AlisonW should no longer be considered a role account, just another administrator. This, I hope addresses the issues with the log entries. Cary Bass 17:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RtV doesn't work in using a real name account and hiding an non-real name account, so I find the "RtV" defence of Alison's to be faulty in the extreme. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Daniel. This is blatantly not a right to vanish, and a poor reason to remove a log entry, as it is common knowledge. You only vanish when you actually go. Alison hasn't vanished. She's still here. How was right to vanish allowed here, and why was the log oversighted? I saw the original log myself. No personal information was there whatsoever, just a link to the two accounts which isn't identifiable information. This is plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorly (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"I find myself agreeing with Daniel" — *inward smile* Daniel (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In certain circumstances, very rarely, there's justification for vanishing from an account with a real life link, to an account without that link (I won't name names because that defeats the purpose, email me if you like), especially where the person was harassed in real life due to the use of the account with a link to their real life persona. Generally, situations like this are discussed at length with the bureaucrats (who have to resysop) and occasionally the Office (for record-keeping reasons), and the decision isn't made lightly. In this case, however, the transfer is from a non-linked-to-real life-indentity account to an account which is linked to a real life person, which struck me as absured back in mid-February (to which I expressed my opinion privately), and still does now. Unless a user is quitting the project or there are extenuating circumstances related to revoking real-life identities due to harassment, the events here under the guise of "RtV" strike me as improper. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Staeckerbot Error

Staeckerbot (Contribs) seems to be making an error when notifying users, appending '(page does not exist)' to the end of username talk pages. For example: User talk:Jessr6544 (page does not exist) and User talk:InvaderZimm77 (page does not exist).

I notified the bot operator by email about 5 minutes ago. Brianga (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot operator has stopped the bot's operations and is in the process of cleaning up. Brianga (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and start deleting all of those non-existent userpages. Looks like there is quite a few. Tiptoety 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All erroneously-created user talk pages have been deleted. —Kurykh 04:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

More still exist created by other users (search) Jackaranga (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometime around the 22nd, the "title" attribute of links to non-existant pages was changed. This has been a bloody annoyance to all of us bot operators -- ImageTaggingBot has been offline for a while, and I haven't had a chance to fix it. --Carnildo (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped to clean up after me, and I'm sorry that it went so long without being noticed. Staecker (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No Block log available for a user ?

Hello is it normal the block log of User:69.I38.73.I58 appears blank even though I reported him at WP:UAA, and the helper bot removed him and said he was blocked ? If one is to look at the deletion log of User talk:69.I38.73.I58 it appears he was blocked previously, yet all his logs are blank, it is a real user though, he has contributions. Note: this is not an IP user, it's a trick the '1's are capital 'i's Jackaranga (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

IP adresses can not be blocked for having inappropriate usernames, and as such the IP was never blocked. It appears someone (non-admin) left a block message on the IP's talk which could have made the helper bot say he was blocked, then the talk page was deleted. Tiptoety 06:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Username is blocked (see Ipblocklist entry); the block log sometimes glitches and misses an entry. Can be confusing, but this case seems to be resolved. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And now i see why it was blocked, I even fell for it :P Tiptoety 06:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, took me a second, too. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Modification to Template:BirdTalk

Could someone please make the edit I requested on the talk page? Richard001 (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wish admins wouldn't fully protect project templates like this one unless they have been vandalised before. If a group of users started a project and went to the trouble of creating the assessment box, it seems unkind to stop them editing it, when it has never been vandalised. It is supposedly high risk, yet it has never been vandalised in 4 years! The same goes for many other project templates. you might as well protect all articles, most articles 4 years old have been vandalised at least once, some hundreds of times. And we don't protect articles featured on the main page, even though they are high risk also. Yes these templates have a high usage, but no they are not high risk because they are only used on talk pages, and are not substituted, so fixing vandalism would be very easy if it were to occur. Something like {{Uw-vandalism1}} (only semi protected) is much higher risk, especially as it is substituted and vandalism might go unnoticed for a few minutes and be inserted all over the place at random. Jackaranga (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with templates, is that if they are vandalized, the damage is greater. See how many currently blue-linked user pages there are here (a list of pages in CAT:CSD) left from vandalism reverted about an hour and a half earlier on a "template" which was transcluded on these pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Took care of the request.¤~Persian Poet Gal 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

USER Himhifi

USER Himhifi has placed continued attacks on the Talk:British Raj talk page. Latest comment was made 09:51, 5 March 2008. Indian nationalism being expressed continually, and last comment highly offensive. Part of the rant included `Did you want to bring Indians on the verge of extinction like Australian Aborignees who are suffering death, disease and poverty in their own country at the hands of descendants of British.``

Please help. Surely these comment should not be on a Encloypedia. Rockybiggs (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be better off contacting the user in question on their talk page first, and see what they say. To be honest, I don't see why the comment is highly offensive, but I have no idea about the subject matter so it's perfectly possible I don't understand. If you ask the user to clarify or remove their comment politely (or try and engage them in discussion) and they are overtly rude then, do come and reply here —αlεx•mullεr 11:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Some dubious goings-on at Central Communications Command

Could someone uninvolved take a look at the recent history of Central Communications Command? C.C.C. is an information & communications agency within London's Metropolitan Police; an anon IP, clearly either a member of the organisation or someone posing as such (note the "us all") has totally gutted the article, removing more than half the references along with any comment critical of the agency (I wrote the original version, and was very careful to make sure all comments were sourced, given the potentially sensitive nature of the subject) and adding a number of "we are great" puff-pieces about their work. While normally I'd never bring what's basically a content dispute to AN, I'd like someone completely uninvolved to take a look at what's going on here and try to resolve it - previous edits by security agencies to Misplaced Pages have resulted in some undesirable media attention, and I'm really not sure what the best way to go here is, quite aside from any WP:OWN issues were I to revert changes to an article I wrote the bulk of. (The anon may well be far better placed than I to describe the workings of the agency, but all their additions are uncited and they're removing anything critical.) — iridescent 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The first couple of edits from the IP were certainly good faith. After that, things clearly slid downhill fast and the IP began to whitewash the article, removing sourced criticism and adding puff pieces (as you say above). This may or may not be a Metplod IP, but either way, the removal of sourced material and the insertion of puff won't do, so I've reverted with an edit summary that assumes they did it by mistake. I don't see any WP:OWN problems for you to do the same in future, Iridescent, for the good of the article. I'll also watchlist it - can't harm to have more eyes. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WHOIS reports the IP to be an NTL/Tesco IP address. So that's probably tesco.net. The person at the other end may be Metplod him/herself, but isn't editing the page from a Metplod-registered address. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that... I look forward to reading WR's explanation of how I'm collaborating to stifle The Truth... — iridescent 12:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• This bears more than a passing resemblence to this; another British Police agency being zealously "maintained". LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of The UPN Vandal.

The UPN Vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be back (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 that I've blocked so far). Most are in the 172.x.x.x range, and add large amounts of questionable, uncited text to articles (usually film/television articles). I've been blocking on sight for a year, is that an appropriate amount of time? · AndonicO 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it would seem to me that if he's going through that big a range (mostly 172.128.0.0-172.191.255.255), then the IP addresses are highly dynamic - and shouldn't be blocked for any significant length of time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Does one month sound okay? · AndonicO 14:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is clearly several edits from any given IP at one time, I would block for a few hours, more than that would be unlikely to do any good. If there is no such pattern, it's unclear that any block will stop him - a range block is out of the question. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The major range is 172.128.0.0/10 and the range belongs to American Online. Blocking that range will block most of AOL. These are likely dial-up dynamic IPs and any single IP block more than a few hours is pointless. He just logs out, reconnects and continues as if nothing has happened. If people could report and block immediately we could limit the damage but he is still getting the full 4 warnings before the blocks. I block on sight without bothering with any pointless warnings - I wish others would too. I have been going over some of the targets and there is a lot of uncaught and un-reversed corruption. I have also semi-protected some of the most common targets. I propose we block the range for anon only, account creation allowed for about a month. I don't want to do that myself for this large a range without consensus. --NrDg 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thought, reporting this abuse to AOL might result in his AOL account being blocked but I doubt AOL would do anything. Also kind of pointless as he will just create another AOL account and continue. He also uses AT&T and UUNET. I think all we can realistically do is block immediately and rollback everything before the damage gets hidden by subsequent edits.--NrDg 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Lir

User:Lir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), having come off a 33-month block (originally 1 year, but reset frequently) in December, has decided that his -- and his IP's -- contributions to Misplaced Pages will solely be his user page complaining about the Evil That is Misplaced Pages and the Great Wrong That Was Done Him. I blanked it on grounds that it was pure soapboxing, especially for someone explicitly stating that he's not here to edit. He objects, calling it "vandalizing" and "censorship" . Any opinions? --Calton | Talk 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See also: WP:ANI#Purging of user page. --Onorem♠Dil 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If Misplaced Pages does not allow criticism, then Misplaced Pages has serious problems. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir, thank you so much for your repetitive vandalisms of my user space in the last couple years. How good to see you back. I have a suggestion if you want to edit here: behave like an adult. Don't attack other users. Observe the civility and no-personal-attacks policies. I won't wikilink them because I think you know them without me having to point them out. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make unfounded accusations; if you have evidence of me vandalizing your user page, then please wikilink them because I have no idea what you are talking about. It's amazing how many inflated, trumped-up, exaggerated, and obviously false accusations you people come up with. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just took a look at his previous page. Is it childish? Yep. Does it meet the criteria of WP:NPA. Nope. Meets none of the guidlines (homophobic, racial, ethnic....) I don't belive the

blanking was right. However I'll defer to group wisdom on this and leave it be. We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Can we just reblock this user? They don't appear to be of any use to the project. In fact, they are wasting the time of useful editors thus detracting from the project. John Reaves 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd agree that filing a MedComm request to change your userpage the first day back from a block probably won't endear one. But rules are rules so I'd say to give a couple more days, with the implicit understanding that so soon after a 33 month block, further nonsense will probably result in an indef community ban. MBisanz 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, we're talking about someone who's come back from a ban set three years ago and done nothing but troll and complain over his userpage. We should not be wasting our time over this. I've reblocked him, please discuss it here. Grandmasterka 04:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I'm unsure to what extent my input is welcome on this page (I know regular users may bring complaints and notifications here, which I have in the past). I may be part of the cause we are all spending (some would say wasting, I wouldn't) all this time over this user and his grievances as well as the grievances of others about him. I reverted Calton's blanking of Lir's user page, which, sure enough, consisted of Lir's complaint about how he has been treated here in the past, and I notified Lir by email of this. Then Lir exploded onto en.Misplaced Pages.

I don't think Calton had any business deleting that page. Indeed, I question what motivates someone to go about searching for pages to get upset about. Calton has stated that he had no previous relations to Lir. Had he not done so, in time, Lir might have returned to the project and continued editing constructively, as he has obviously done in the past with about 10,000 edits to his user as well as several times that number from other accounts, according to himself. Some people need to blow a fuse or two before they calm down. The greater the contributions a user has made to the project, the greater should our tolerance and capacity for disregarding a momentary outburst be. Having his user page reflect his hurt over the way he felt he had been treated should have been left, or at most, the most incendiary portions thereof being moderated.

I question the wisdom of this block. But more than that, I question its mandate. I'm rarely in contact with blocking issues here, however, I would be surprised, and disappointed, if blocking a user can be done without clearly citing WP:BLOCK. __meco (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton's involvement in this was somewhat unnecessary and only served to inflame things, I agree with you on that. But Lir's actions prior to that, including his extensive block history, make it clear to me that he wasn't here to help. I even advocated his block be made indefinite a long time ago, I can find and link to that discussion if you want me to. Grandmasterka 10:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I shall be reading this section until it becomes archived. As for Lir's actions prior to Calton's involvement, are you referring to his pre-3 year-ban history? I don't think it is right to invoke that here since the only thing he had done after the ban was lifted was to edit his user page. For that same reason, very few people would have any reason to go to Lir's user page unless someone was actively scanning for areas to become upset about, Therefore, my argument is that, had Calton not intervened, this page would have made an eyesore for nobody, and in time, perhaps Lir would decide to make a fresh start as a main namespace contributor. After all, it's not been that long since he was unbanned, and it was a very long ban indeed. I have not acquainted myself with the old ban process, so I am not going to give an opinion on whether a permanent ban then would have been justified. That ban and the current ban have been set on different grounds, and a motion to ban permanently then, which was not acceded, ought not weigh in as to the length of a ban this time around, at least not without refreshing the matters from the previous round. __meco (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon from US - warning

Hi, I'm Darkbirds fom hungary. Check this IP, please: 208.20.123.28. He is wrote to huwiki:

Will kill everyone in my school then myself. Because you guys don't speak English I can tell you. So haha to you fucktarts..watch the news and see what happens. 208.20.123.28 (vita) 2008. március 5., 16:19 (CET) (,)

I see on enwiki this page: , the anon from Charles H. McCann Technical High School. Mybe just a joke, but many "school-massacres" in the news. Sorry for my very bad english. Darkbirds (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the principal and assistant principal with a link to the post and an explanation of what's apparently going on. I'll let everyone know if they reply. Alternatively, if somebody wants to do something more direct like phoning, they're more than welcome —αlεx•mullεr 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They've replied to my email, so they're aware of the situation. We're in touch —αlεx•mullεr 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! What did he answer? Darkbirds (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He wanted to know whether there was any way to track who posted the message from in their school, and I told him to probably get in touch with their IT or computing department or technicians. And since there's been nothing in the news, I assume it was all fine —αlεx•mullεr 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect move technique in lots of places; potentially incorrectly renamed as well

User:Stevvvv4444 has moved some of the articles on Pakistani British around using the incorrect, cut & paste, method. I have no problem with what he's done (in principal), and left him a note on his talk page to come and talk to me if he wants any help. I've flagged the articles as recommended on there, but the problem is I think he's incorrectly renamed them: instead of Pakistani British it should probably be Pakistani Briton(s). Unfortunately following my G6 notices on the page would get them put in, what I believe to be, the wrong place; could an admin perhaps:

1. Delete the articles this user has created
2. Revert the changes to redirects on the affected articles
3. Move them to the correct place

Please? The articles involved are:

1. Pakistani British/British Pakistanis (should be Pakistani Briton I think, as per Pakistani American)
2. List of British Pakistani people/List of Pakistani Britons (I believe the second one is right, and is currently tagged with G6, and with it being deleted then correctly moved would be 100% ok).

NB, he's also attempted to move a category over, but I'll take that to CFD. Any help would be much appreciated. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done You can list these at Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen where someone will deal with them. I have restored the history to Pakistani British and List of Pakistani Britons. I suggest a WP:RM for the Pakistani British article. Woody (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ban for persistent sock puppetry

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Neutralhomer, the user has repeatedly been creating sock puppets for block evasion. I think we should upgrade to a community ban. Jehochman 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support.LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support for now. May change if evidence is presented the other way, which seems unlikely at this time. Rudget. 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Scarian 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Exit stage Left (or Right). --Hu12 (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - nothing controversial here. Hu12 put it quite fittingly.¤~Persian Poet Gal 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am adding them to Misplaced Pages:List of banned users. Any administrator is welcome to remove them from the list and post a rationale here if they disagree. Jehochman 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• User is banned, user evades ban, community washes hands of user. SOP. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• (First I should note that I have engaged Neutralhomer by e-mail in the past - I, however, intentionally do not disclose such information because, as I recall, I did not get permission from him to do so.) I would prefer that Neutralhomer not be banned. It is clear to me that he desires to help improve Misplaced Pages - unfortunately, it seems, inadvertent disruption follows. Has anyone considered first trying to contact Neutralhomer, then (if he wants to come back under one account and agrees to the following) (1) limiting him to one account and (2) doing a twinkle/popups/etc. ban? His and JPG-GR's interactions tend to be problematic, but I'm not certain if restrictions would be possible or productive, seeing as how they often work in the same areas of the encyclopedia. Perhaps we could think of something more creative than a ban? Thanks for your consideration, Iamunknown 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm all for assuming good faith and could've agreed with this after the first time he created a new account to evade a block. But, then he created another account to evade the block - and has a third one "waiting in the wings." JPG-GR (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Creating socks, and using them while blocked on the main account, is not "inadvertent disruption". Being blunt, having NH community banned also solves the JPG-GR interaction problem. Harsh position? Perhaps, but it is only NH's actions that have lead to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree with you on your last point - I don't think that only NH's actions have lead to it - and I don't think that a community ban is the only option. As long as Misplaced Pages is a relatively open project (with exception given to banned and blocked editors), I would prefer (in general) that we not ban editors who can constructively edit articles. That said, we seem to agree that there is a problem here (I just tend to mince my words). Hence my call for options more creative than a community ban. --Iamunknown 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • How about leaving the editor banned and then, if they have not engaged in further socking for a reasonable period of time, they can request to be unbanned. Jehochman 23:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Um... the proposed community ban is in response to NH socking (persistently) while blocked - I don't see any cause other than the editors own actions in that matter. Okay, Jehochman's suggestion is the only alternative; banned - in being indef blocked while no sysop will unblock. Through the use of appeals and the provision of abiding by the communities sanction in not creating/operating of socks NH may be allowed to resume editing at some future date. I would support that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
        • We may be talking about different events. I am considering the ban of Neutralhomer in the context of NH's past history and interactions with other users (including some not named here). In my opinion, some of the previous blocks on his accounts were neither fair nor justified in terms of preventing disruption. A ban usually follows a series of blocks - if others held my same opinion (I don't necessarily expect them to), then the conclusion that a ban is (currently) unjustified might be reasonable. Hence my opinion that events and actions external to NH have lead to this ban - not just NH's actions. --Iamunknown 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I think I see what you're saying - you believe that the original reason for NH's month-long block is invalid. That can certainly be up for discussion, but his persistent use of socks instead of arguing for his unblock or taking a month off isn't. Whatever past infractions he's had, he's engaged in sockpuppetry actively twice (Flatsky, Tehunknown) with an additional account seemingly ready-to-go. JPG-GR (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Used up his chances. Sorry. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban--reluctantly, but firmly. We had shared interests in TV history, and most of my interactions with him were positive. But the fact that he used a sleeper account TWICE after being blocked decided it for me. Blueboy96 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I also slapped a block on one of his former accounts, Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs), to prevent it from being used as a sleeper. Blueboy96 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TenOfAllTrades yelling to make a point on reference desk, using admin status to intimidate and threaten

user:TenOfAllTrades was yelling to make a point on the reference desk seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=193960865

While his intention was good, he broke http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:POINT He yelled himself to make a point, which I warned him about here, http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:TenOfAllTrades#Yelling

Him agreeing or disagreeing with my request for him not to yell to make a point, would have been acceptable, but then threatened to use his administrator status to ban me. Seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196056175&oldid=194745828

He was using his status as an administrator to intimidate, and threaten me, which I feel is unacceptable. Please note, administrator User:Friday was also involved in this issue which can be seen on Ten's talk page, and has a history of being biased and harrassing me. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a POINT violation. Capitalizing ALL CAPS is common. I'd suggest that you take note of the comments left to you here. Nakon 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That may or may not be the case, but the issue of him using his admin status to intimidate me for advising him was uncalled for. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a little far-fetched. It is common for people (not just administrators) to capitalise lettters. It can either get the point across clearer or try reasoning with other parties - both of which have been done in the past. Rudget. 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He never threatened to use his admin status. He threatened that you would be blocked, so not necessarily by him. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Not a WP:POINT violation. 2) The matter had dropped for 6 days until you (IP) decided to have another dig 3) Ten could perhaps have been marginally more diplomatic in his original comment but he was only speaking the truth - CAPS LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING. 4) Ten and Friday are respected editors - where is this history of "bias" and "harrasment"? 5)Please show why Ten is "using admin status to intimidate" - any editor could have given you a warning like that, admin or not. (ecx5) Pedro :  Chat  16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec ad nauseam)I can't see that he used his admin status in any way to threaten you - he simply said that if you didn't stop trolling (and I offer no view as to whether or not you were) then you may be blocked from editing. Any user may warn any other user in the same terms. How exactly do you believe this constitutes abuse of his admin status? _{The public face of GB} 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He using his status as an administrator to threaten and intimidate me. By doing that, he is not allowing free communication. He is using fear to control me. He has now threatened to ban me for advising him on his talk page, and now he has threatened to ban me for reporting him to Administrator's Noticeboard. I feel this is an abuse of his power. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For any admins who are curious, the user posting this complaint is editing from a static IP , so a block would be effective. I might just go rouge and do it myself, but I'll wait for comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my point. He is threatening to block me for reporting him to Administrator's noticeboard now. He is using his status as an administrator to harrass me. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is most definitely a WP:POINT violation here, but not by TenOfAllTrades. I suggest dropping this matter and moving on. MastCell  16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wanted categories

This isn't so much administrative stuff as it is general scut work (though some amount of page deletion and undeletion will probably become necessary), but - I thought I would mention User:Random832/WantedCats here. There are a total of 26,684 to deal with, so it's going to be a while - whenever you feel like doing some mind-numbingly boring work, drop by —Random832 16:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to ask what I am sure is a really stupid question, but taking :

• Category:Wikipedian_cellists-2 (37 members)

as an example, since the category's been deleted, you want someone to help out by going and removing the category tag from the 37 members' pages, then deleting it off your list? _{The public face of GB} 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • if someone compiles a list of deleted cats that need emptied I can have BCBot empty them, or if they need moved into a new category I can do that also. β 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hold off on the instruments user categories for now, I asked on WT:UCFD and there's some reorganization taking place (and they're mostly populated by templates anyway). In general, for deleted ones it depends on the reason for the deletion - the problem is that the _vast_ majority of categories in the list have only one page in them, and were created by mistake or are part of some kind of structured system and need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the plus side, though, is that there being only one page means there's only one page to edit usually. I'll go through and figure out what needs to be done for the high-population categories though. —Random832 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • It would be useful to run a spell-checker or capitalisation normaliser over the list to catch the ones that are mis-spellings or mis-capitalisations of existing categories. Can someone do that and confirm that they have done that (to avoid others doing the same thing). There should also be an easy way of detecting which ones are due to deleted categories as opposed to never-created categories. Someone should do that and confirm they have done that. And user categories could be separated out as well. Lots of ways to make this easier, but let's not all duplicate our efforts. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If I'd thought to do it, I would have asked in the query - I'll see if I can't get it run again with more information (presence of deletion, last delete reason - name of page for single-member categories maybe - can you think of anything else?) —Random832 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• You should check the deletion log for each of these before creation. In the case of the instrument categories, I have restored many of them, as they were originally deleted as empty, so recreation is fine. For others, however, the category has been deleted at WP:UCFD and users simply re-added themselves to the category. These categories should not be re-created. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that there are a few categories that should not be removed from the user pages either due to drama that has historically (or, in the case of Category:Rouge admins, recently) surrounded them. A lot of the categories are probably ones that have been renamed or merged and one or two pages didn't get fixed, though. —Random832 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox archive?

Just came across this Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Archive. Is the sandbox supposed to have an archive? --Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

At that time the sandbox had nearly half a million edits in its history, making it impossible to delete - it was moved there in hopes that this would become a regular practice to keep the main sandbox page at under 5000 edits. —Random832 18:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps should be indicated as comment or archive tag on page. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP addresses 99.235.43.93 and 24.36.9.241 continuing to make personal attacks

After vandalizing Misplaced Pages pages and my userpage, User talk:99.235.43.93 is on his third block, this time for a week. Despite being warned about removing notices from talk pages, he continues to do so, and he also adds strange notices to his talk page like "Starbucks has bad coffee". Now he is resorting to personal attacks on his talk page, and after denying that he did any vandalism, now is saying that I deserved it when he vandalized my userpage. Because of the complex edits he makes to templates, it is obvious that he is actually an experienced user. Maybe we can file for Checkuser? Another IP address, User talk:24.36.9.241, which is also been associated with vandalism on the same pages at the same time, is now also making personal attacks on User talk:99.235.43.93. The IP address User talk:24.36.9.241 is most likely a friend that User talk:99.235.43.93 recruited to help him out with the vandalism, and make the personal attakcs. Please extend block for both users and protect talk pages. Thank you. (If you have to respond to me for anything, please do so on my talk page. Thanks!) DiligentTerrier 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – warned

Resolved – Closed by Luna Santin —αlεx•mullεr 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This article and its editors are subject to general sanctions by decree of the Misplaced Pages Community (see relevant discussion). Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working on this article if that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

Resolved

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards