Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:37, 28 March 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Appropriateness of images of children posted by Dr harlwo

New user Dr harlwo yesterday posted several images of nude children. I do not follow closely the rules and practices on images, but I am concerned about the appropriateness of these, as listed at .(updated link) Edison (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No licensing information, so that gave me an excuse to delete the images (faintly out-of-process, but, hey, desysop me, see if I care). This has been his entire contributions that I can see - some almost-kiddie porn. Trolling or WP:POINT. I suspect the latter, due to the hamfisted attempt to add it to the article. On that basis, I call WP:SPA and we'll see if he ever edits again. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That guy just violated US LAW. Someone call the FBI NOW. --Rio de oro (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're being satirical, which is unclear, nudity is not pornography. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And if you're so terribly concerned, realize that even the admins are just volunteers, and your tone sounds like you're commanding everyone, instead of being polite. If you're so concerned, you can call the FBI yourself, or much more advisably, email Mike Godwin and ask him if contacting the FBI is the right course of action in this situation. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, this "crap" is against the LAW because this site is in the USA soil whic follows USA law. Doing this type of activity is a FEDERAL OFFENCE. If this crap is still here this web site might either get shut down or Jimbo or other guys on the Foundation Board might get a lawsuit or arrest for pedophilliaRio de oro (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to report this to INTERPOL , the FBI, the SECRET SERVICE, the US MARSHALLS.Rio de oro (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Team America. They could use a change of scene. HalfShadow (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest you, er, don't. Not every image of a naked child constitutes child pornography, and I'd advise you to chill a little, and take a look at Miller v California for guidance. A potted, although incomplete and out of date analysis is here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• No evidence, no luck, Rio. Calm down; if you keep at it the way you're going you're going to have arrhythmia before the year is out. ;) I'll echo RHE: just because it's a nude picture of a child does not automatically make it child pornography, but as I have not looked at the pics in question I cannot say whether or not they should be on Misplaced Pages. All the same, it is good that admins erred on the side of caution and deleted them; now people need to get out of Pulling Mode. -Jéské 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nudity isnt porn as stated above. Btw wtf would the secret service do? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Protect the president from seeing it, of course. Deli nk (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nude pictures of minors, whether pornographic or not, can of course always be summarily deleted from Misplaced Pages. Bringing the site into disrepute, you see. And no I am not talking about renaissance paintings of nude cherubs and whatnot. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, nudity isn't pornography. I can think of four album covers that depict nude children. Not saying that Harlwo's images belong here or anything or that a case couldn't be made against their legality. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick comment replying to the editors above: WP readers in the UK could find themselves in serious legal trouble if they have images of nude children on their machines. The UK law is much stricter that the US law - people have been sentenced for compiling collections of images of children that were broadcast on uk television. (The images were unaltered, apart from being collected.) This isn't something that WP should deal with, but it's something that editors in the UK might want to think about. Especially if admins are being asked to look at an image before deciding to delete it. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, nudity <> pornography, but is a pretty clear red flag. I have shown the good doctor the door. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were to phone the FBI about the doctor they would agree with me on this that this guy possessed pedophillia items. Rio de oro (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks guy. -- Naerii 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Good block. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the block. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Latecomer - Support the block based on Guy's evidence. That... just ain't right. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:41, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late but I have to say - I don't know about the picture but the mention of the child's genitalia gives pretty direct evidence of what the editor wanted the focus of the picture to be. I support this ban and I back the summary delete. Padillah (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a bit late, but I must agree: good block. Yes, the mention of genitlia in the filename (or is it in the description) is a dead ringer. That having been said, still, a nude image of a child does not necessarily equal child pornogrpahy. Take, for instance, the cover image of the Nirvana album, Nevermind. As DeadEyeArrow mentioned, that image (as well as many other album cover images) is not child pornography. Of course, that says nothing about the image in question though.

As far as calling the authorities goes, rio de oro, you're jumping a little ahead of yourself. Not that it matters, but you don't come across to me as a U.S. citizen (based on your use of British spelling and lack of knowledge of U.S. law). So just for your knowledge, the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Secret Service would probably not be hunting down child pornographers and/or pedophiles. That is the job of local law enforcement and, in the case of large illegal rings, the FBI. Regardless, though, Jimbo and the executives and directors of Wikimedia are not responsible if a user posts illegal material. Wikimedia cannot possibly know what's on every page of the site at every moment. Of course, if one of them does see something illegal on a Wiki page, s/he must take action -- and I'm sure s/he would. But there is not a legal expectation that they (or the operators of any other large sites -- e.g. Yahoo, Google, Microsoft message board sites) be psychic! So don't overdo it, Rio! Your tone is way out of line. You're not against anyone here. We're all on the same side, and I'm pretty sure there aren't any child porno or pedophile supporters here. So please pipe down a bit, and I'm sure we can all get along. ask123 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the point was more to do with past problems of inappropriate pro-pedophile activism. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So if someone uploads images of minor children which depict their genitals, there is a policy which allows summararily deleting the images and warning the poster, with repeat postings leading to an indefinite block? The captions Harlwo used made the point that the genitals of prepubescent children were shown. Does that trigger specific legal rules in some jurisdiction where Misplaced Pages's offices or servers are, or does location matter? They were deleted on a licensing issue. Supposing there were no such licensing issue, could they still be summarily deleted? Edison (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy has been a staunch opposer of what he calls pro-pedophile activism, but he doesn't speak for most editors on this matter. His actions regarding such things might be supported, but this is due to the presence of activism in general, which is never appropriate on Misplaced Pages. We call that POV-pushing, and it wouldn't matter of the POV was pro- or anti-pedophilia. In response to Edison, no, the photo probably wouldn't have been deleted based on its title or description, assuming this wasn't sexually explicit (ie. depicting a sexual act or an emphasis on the genitalia, which is the difference between pornography and plain nudity). The user would have been warned or blocked for the context the photo was used in and/or for the associated text, however, as was done in this case. The deletion of the image, while motivated by its perceived pedophilia aspect, was separate and justified due to the license issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:25, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Edison, I don't think we have a single written policy that covers the situation, but it's what we do. We aren't a hidebound institution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy schmolicy, as you say. Actually Foundation and ArbCom are pretty firm on this, though. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD disruption by MickMacNee

Merged to section below (WP:ANI#Opinion on an Afd re disruption).–08:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor working for CAMERA’s ongoing POV pushing on that article

Editor Gni has been documented to have edited the CAMERA article, and related articles from a computer in the CAMERA offices. See the WP:COIN report here On a WP:ANI complaint that was filed here, Gni was advised to avoid to "avoid editing the CAMERA article, or any articles related to that one," and it was noted "his protestations about not promoting Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America don't appear convincing." Following a a 3RR block and an additional block for Gni's use of an IP registered to CAMERA to dodge a block, Gni returned to the CAMERA article and related articles to continue to press the CAMERA POV. He is currently pushing contentious, pro-CAMERA edits on the CAMERA article (poorly sourced "praise" of the organization) as well as deleting without explanation sourced criticism of the organization. See this edit where Gni attempts to sneak a additional removal of criticism under the guise of reverting back his version.

I do not wish to provoked into edit warring with an editor with a clear and serious WP:COIN issue. although there is an open case on WP:COIN, Gni's behavior is warranting this WP:ANI posting as well. Boodlesthecat 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the content issues, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with the number of forums in which this complaint is currently open. That said, when an employee of an organization is editing aggressively and racking up 3RR and sockpuppetry blocks for promoting said organization, it's a COI problem. I would suggest that Gni (talk · contribs) be warned of the terms of the Palestine-Israeli articles Arbitration case, which was intended to empower the community to help deal with this sort of thing, and placed on 1RR with free access to the talk page to advance their case and try to achieve consensus without edit-warring. Thoughts? MastCell  21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds eminently reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. And yes, it has COI in spades. You might also want to point out to the editor that it's also the kind of thing which can attract bad media publicity to his apparent employers (recall the controversial corporate edits unearthed by Wikiscanner). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no one's shown up yet to accuse me of being biased, I'll leave this open a bit longer before acting. :) MastCell  03:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This is NOT a new issue. Gni has been warned repeatedly of this, and should be given NO MORE leeway on this issue. See:

• Where he is blocked for 3RR on the article in question, and several different users and admins try to counsel him, rather gently, on how to properly resolve disputes
• Where he has tried to dodge the above block by editing anonymously:
• Where he was warned about mischaractizing the edits of others as harrassing or vandalising:

That softer measures have been tried, and apparently failed, shows me that we need to get more stringent on this one. Gni knows that what he is doing is tendentious and against consensus, and yet he persists in doing so beyond the patience of the community. He's been the subject of half-a-dozen ANI threads over the past month or so as well. We need to move on sanctions, perhaps a topic ban, on this one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, an alternative would be a complete ban from editing the article on CAMERA, though freedom to post and discuss on the talk page. This remedy could be rapidly expanded to a wider topic ban, under the provisions of the Palestine-Israel ArbCom case, if problematic editing continues on other non-CAMERA articles. MastCell  19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really stunned by this exchange. I don't understand Jayron32's aggressive attitude toward me. There was one day -- one day -- when I was blocked, initially for 3RR and then again because, before I realized I was blocked, I made an edits after forgetting to log in (which explains why I didn't immediately realize I was blocked). When I tried to explain this to Jayron32, his response was: "Eh..." That's all. Perhaps it's funny, but is that the way an admin is supposed to behave? Another time I put a rejoinder on Jayron32's talk page after being attacked by Boodlesthecat, Jayron32 replied: "This is the sound of me not caring..." But he certain seems responsive to Boodlesthecat's complaints, as his talk page makes clear. If an admin, to borrow his phrase, 'doesn't care' about one side of a dispute, is he really one to weigh in on the dispute? I would think absolutely not.

So again, there was one day and one day only when I had been blocked. ("Racking up blocks," MastCell? Yes, I think that description is extremely problematic.) Boodlesthecat can't say the same. I don't think, then, that my blocking history is at all the germane issue.

The germane issues are: The very title of this thread (chosen by Boodlesthecat) is prejudicial and misleading. Even after his attempt to prove COI on the COIN noticeboard amounted to very little (there was, I would note, a suggestion on that noticeboard that both Boodlesthecat and myself avoid editing this article for 30 days), he still titles this post as if his accusation was vindicated, and says as fact that I am "working for CAMERA." According to my reading of the COI page, it's content, and not mere allegations, that determine COI.

More importantly, though, what about the content of my edits? What of the fact that I've relied heavily on the discussion page when making those edits? And what of the content of my arguments on the discussion page? These all show that I'm editing with good faith, and within the guidelines of Misplaced Pages, but that I'm involved in a content dispute with an editor whose behavior in this dispute seems no better (and IMHO much more disruptive and aggressive) than my own. He rejected my request for mediation by the mediation cabal. He admitted to not reading my carefully laid out case for an edit before reverting it. He made numerous other reverts of my contributions without discussion. He ignored the few precious moments of consensus between certain other editors, who tend to agree with him, and myself, and reverted changes based on that consensus. (e.g., of the top of my head, an anon with ip address starting with 68 agreeing that Koch's quote was praise and reliable, but Boodlesthecat continuing to revert as if it wasn't.) Almost every singe attempt to add to this article is reverted (and currently stands reverted) by Boodlesthecat, even though these were by all measures reasonable edits. Which of my edits suggest that I am subjugating Misplaced Pages guidelines to some alleged COI? Remember that putting up cited and notable material that might reflect positively on CAMERA is not the same as showing a conflict of interest. It is the same as editing according to Misplaced Pages guidelines, and keeping the article from being a hatchet job based on edits by someone who clearly harbors animus toward CAMERA. But to go back to my main point, which of my edits can one point to that show disregard for Misplaced Pages guidelines? If there is no critical mass of such edits (and I know that there is no such critical mass, if any at all), than why should I be banned at all? Why is the history of edits and discussion (or lack thereof) and resistance to mediation by my chief accuser, Boodlesthecat, ignored? Gni (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If the content of your edits is solid, then you should be able to persuade other editors of that on the talk page. I'm proposing that you no longer directly edit the article, and instead confine yourself to using the talk page and potentially pursuing dispute resolution. There is sufficient documentation that a) you have a relevant conflict of interest, and b) you are editing the article in a problematic fashion. I'm going to impose this unless there are objections from uninvolved admins. MastCell  21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you, then, to point out which edits of mine were problematic, since the relevant policy pages make clear that this is relevant to both points a and b above. I don't get the impression that anyone has actually looked at the history of my edits and discussion on this page, which seems to be a bare minimum necessity before ruling on COI or disruption and barring me from editing. And, regarding your first sentence above: from what I can tell by my attempts to learn Misplaced Pages's policies, it's not about whether I can "persuade" the few other editors, including one who has been extremely disruptive and unwilling to agree with my request for mediation, to like my content. It's about whether my edits violate Misplaced Pages policy. (And by the way, people should take note that some editors have agreed with my edits, just as some have not agreed with my edits; again, even editors who tend to strongly disagree have agreed with some of my edits, which were reverted anyway by Boodlesthecat.)

Please also explain whether this is a 'proposal,' or a formal decision, as an administrator suggested , and if so, please let me know according to which policy this decision can be and is being made. I'm a relatively new editor here, so forgive me for not understanding all the complexities of the Misplaced Pages power hierarchy. I also ask that if there is a binding decision made on anything, that somebody mention this on my talk page. It is difficult to keep track of all the forums, and I would imagine that a user should be made directly aware a decision via email or talk. If the content of my edits and discussion are not considered -- both of which seem to be the main issue when ruling on COI and whether I edited "in a problematic fashion," it would seem that Arbitration is a reasonable next step here. Thanks for your help. Gni (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that self-described "relatively new editor here" Gni has been editing Misplaced Pages under the user name Gni since January 2006. Within 33 minutes of his first edit under that user name, he was already using savvy edit summaries like " Removed partisan POV reference"; within his first hour of editing under that user name, he was making his own partisan edits that were reverted by an admin. "Relatively new," I suppose, is relative. Boodlesthecat 15:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a surprise that Boodles is continuing with what certainly feels to me like an uncivil, innuendo-laden obsession with me. So I'll clarify my above point: I'm extremely new to this world of sanctions and noticeboards and administrators and interactions with extremely hostile editors. I urge, once again, for all to follow Boodlesthecat's links just above, and to judge the merits of my edits.Gni (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

← I have left a note at User Talk:Gni indicating that the editing restriction is now in place; Gni may not edit the article CAMERA, though he may post freely on the associated talk page. I'll leave this open for review; as I think the positions of Gni and Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs) are fairly clear, I would be most interested in uninvolved input. I will additionally log this editing restriction on the Israeli-Palestinian articles arbitration case page. MastCell  16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving the notice on my talk page. I will appeal this decision. I will also be relaying my offer for a détente that was passed on to MastCell, but apparently rejected. Gni (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Gni was willing to join me in an email discussion. MastCell's editing restriction on Gni does address the concerns that I have that the edit-warring cease and that we respond vigorously to the perceived COI. I note that the diff is here for MastCell's entry on the case page for Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination)

Okay, this AFD has gotten crazy and I'm at a loss as to what to do or who to talk to, but I know something needs doing. The deletion discussion has gotten massively off-topic, with what can only really be described as rants, and arguments that essentially are about policies and guidelines, or the researchers involved in the eponymous equations, rather than the article in question. The two main editors who are possibly doing something wrong as R physicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cheeser1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), although it's possible that only one of them is doing anything wrong; if that's the case, then it's debatable which. It's a bit too complex to summarise with diffs, but essentially Cheeser1 has been telling R physicist that he's not behaving correctly for an AfD, and either collapsing or moving to the talk page his less appropriate contributions, as well as one or two by other editors. Personally, I agree with those moves. R physicist has been making these rants in the first place, and moving things back from talk to the main AFD page. In so doing, he's been referring to Cheeser1 as a vandal and other less-than-complementary things.

I'm bothered by the degeneration both in terms of civility, and the difficulty any admin will have in closing it. My view is that Cheeser1 was, at least at first, perfectly reasonable in his acts; R physicist was behaving unreasonably for an AfD, including a very uncivil and inappropriate original submission to AfD. The more important part is that the AfD discussion itself is now basically useless in terms of allowing an administrator to determine consensus. SamBC(talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a nomination for a close of USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE as seen here? Or do you think this debate is salvageable? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's basically what I suggested in my entry in the (slightly strange) "preparing to sum up" section... I worded it differently, though. SamBC(talk) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I note for the record that, despite the length of the debate (80kb and growing) (!), the article was nominated on 22 March; In theory, two days remain for discussion. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That discussion makes me want to ask, “Where are we going? And, what are we doing in a handbasket?” —Travis 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was involved toward the beginning and saw R physicist kind of running rampant with endless bad faith comments and, in fairness, they may have been trying to keep up with the author who does not seem to have English as their native language and also seems to be somewhat of a newby posting in various forms and also confusing the AfD. Meanwhile (as is noted above in this section) there was some canvassing of sorts on the Russia wiki to delete the article. I suggest that Cheeser1's solution of collapsing R physicist's lengthy posts is acceptable since R physicist seemed unwilling to leave them on the talk page. I would also favor cleaning off the distracting formatting and removing duplicate votes (R physicist started some sort of summary section thus encouraging all to revote). If R physicist hasn't been warned and maybe shown what an AfD usually looks like that would also be helpful regardless if they R a physicist or not they are screwing up a process. A simpler alternative may be to close as a no consensus when appropriate and tell R physicist they can re-nom in six months and tell the author the clock is ticking so fix whatever problems the article still has. Banjiboi 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I should probably point out that R physicist has also rejected the collapsing of his comments as, variously, "vandalism", "unauthorised", and probably some other things. It probably would be good for someone (uninvolved) to sit down with R physicist and talk about the whole thing, if they can persuade him to keep calm and not decide that he disagrees with the way we run the process and therefore will run it his own way. He's also completely refactored the page and is talking about having himself and the article author do "summing up". I'm about agreeing with the handbasket comment... SamBC(talk) 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To me the issue seems to rest with R physicist as the author seems cooperative enough. This isn't grad class or symposium roundtable it's an AfD. I'm now sensing that the AfD might be overly compromised if its wonkiness was offputting to creating concensus and dialog. In any case I too ask if an uninvolved editor could intuit a way to reach R physicist. Banjiboi 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In simple raw vote counting, here's what I see right now:

• Valid Keep votes: 9
• Valid Delete votes: 5
• Invalid Keep votes: 0 (note that Ngn 92.46.72.14 was moved up to valid after he made an effort to clarify things further down)
• Invalid Delete votes: 5 (2 SPA accounts, 3 SPA IPs)
• Other votes:

• Possibly rename: 1
• Possible move (destination unknown): 2
• Close as a train wreck and renominate with closer mediation: 1

• Other side discussions: Long, mostly illogical discussion on bad faith; slightly more logical discussion on notability and how it relates to expertise; discussions about single-purpose accounts; a long tirade about how admins are abusing their power, blah blah, didn't bother to read it all; more attacks by the nominator against editors; a bonafide attempt to re-rail the discussion; back to rants from the nominator and resulting shouting matches; a confusing section where everyone's apparently supposed to repeat themselves?!?!

Yeah, that's a mess. Right now, I'd have to say that if there is any consensus, it would be to keep, however there's more random babble in there than actual discussion, so I am all in favor of the speeding train wreck close as soon as possible. Don't really care one way or another when this gets renominated, but the bottom line is this is an incomprehensible mess. Hersfold 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that I came here for help when this started to look bad, didn't get any, and tried my best to handle the situation, leading to endless frustration, even more gigantic rants (check Hans Adler's talkpage for even more fun!) and me looking a bit like a prick even though all I'd ever been doing was to keep things in order (hell, I voted delete just like the nom wanted). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Closure

Should the AfD discussion be closed early, as suggested above, as No Consensus / Trainwreck?

• Support —Travis 16:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support and volunteer as someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion. Hersfold 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the creation date for the discussion and noticed that it was done on March 20, not March 22 as signed by the nominator. Therefore, according to this discussion, I went ahead and closed it. —Travis 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Last word?

I left a long comment on the talk page after User:TravisTX closed the AfD. I'd just like to say here that I don't think either User:R_Physicist or the JSC Kazakhtelecom anon identifiable with G. N. Nugmanova (a collaborator of Ratbay Myrzakulov) was nominating or editing in bad faith. I don't know either of these parties, but I do have a friendly interest in expositioning related mathsci topics, and as my comment shows, despite long experience (in 2006) with AfDs, this was an unusually difficult case. One of the enduring problems with Misplaced Pages is that thoughtful comments in such AfDs, which often have much wider applicability, are lost to the community as soon as the discussion closes. ---CH (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will say that good faith contributions can still quite easily be disruptive ones. Simply, R physicist may have been trying really hard to get across his expert opinion, but when he starts dropping longwinded essays about the nature of Misplaced Pages, especially when they stoop so low as to take pot-shots at Jimbo Wales, his behavior has crossed the line into "really not appropriate" territory. But yeah, so maybe he meant to do that all in good faith, but refusing to stop disrupting the AfD is the real problem. As an expert, he is entitled to alot in his career, in real life, etc. But on Misplaced Pages, experts do not get special privileges based on merit. This has been sacrificed to allow true consensus-based encyclopedia-building. Yes, experts are sometimes bogged down with nonsense from uninformed people. But sometimes "experts" aren't really experts, or they don't really have a good sense of what they're really supposed to be doing here, or (worst of all) they're completely disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. I granted R physicist as much good faith and generosity as possible, and was completely willing to do so. But he refused to work within the guidelines of how we build our encyclopedia, and that just doesn't work (clearly). No amount of merit or expertise gives someone a free pass to disrupt AfDs or otherwise impede others' efforts to properly build Misplaced Pages. It's unfortunate that R physicist came at this one head-first and got so heated, but he was told repeatedly not to disrupt Misplaced Pages, and he outright refused. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While I was leaving some comments, User:R_Physicist joined myself in the ranks of the Departed. To repeat, I don't know any of the parties in this matter, I simply thought some of the comments in the 2nd AfD were worthy of comment as a contribution to much needed wikireform. Cheeser1, one point you might be missing here is that one argument for reforming the ruleset is that otherwise good users are less likely to wind up giving the appearance of misbehavior. (Admittedly, I didn't look very hard at R_Physicist's edits due to lack of time, so you may have seen something I didn't--- I was struck by his/her departure just after I added a brief comment to his former talk page, which I presume was a coincidence.)

It is a sad and telling comment that my arguments from 2006 (a few tiny traces of which can be seen in this old page) have been lost to the community. Why? See step one in my advice here. Is it really any wonder that when people ask me about Misplaced Pages I send them here? I wish I thought there was a better place, I really do.---CH (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The AfD process is not the place to stage disruptive "wikireform" - especially when others ask you to stop and you make it 10 times worse instead. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(I think the "you" in the above comment did not refer to CH.) And I'm not sure the inappropriate comments in the discussion were all from one party; consider remarks such as . DGG (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's compare Mt. Everest to an ant pile. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

if we want analogies, I'd compare it to provoking an avalanche. Each justified though angry reply from established editors here was followed by another very long defense. Experienced people should know better than that. They at least should know to confine the discussions to the merits of the article. DGG (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you're confusing my posts with R physicist's. I attempted to keep the AfD on topic, related to the merits of the article, by repeatedly moving (not even removing, just moving) polemical and irrelevant essays, rants, etc. to the talk page, where they are at least slightly more appropriate. Outside editors repeatedly complained of the horribly convoluted state of the AfD, and I attempted in good faith to clean it up, and like I said above, apparently it makes me look like the bad guy. Fine. I'm evil. At least I tried to stave off what has been thoroughly determined to be an extraordinarily muddled, disruptived, messed-up AfD. God forbid I ever step in to try to clean anything up ever again. Next time a flock of what are now admitted meatpuppets steps in to gravely disrupt an AfD, I'll just ask you to step in and make sure nobody cleans it up. And you're the one with a mop. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, you did snap somewhat, and it's not out of line to point that out. I think it was understandable that you snapped and were rude, but that doesn't make it right.

On a secondary point, admitted meatpuppets? Where's the admission? I don't doubt you, I just want to see it, maybe feel some closure to all this mess. SamBC(talk) 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Cheeser1, when you wrote "others ask you to stop and you make it ten times worse instead", I hope you were talking about R_Physicist and not me! In hindsight, I probably was wasting time--- at last my time--- by attempting to comment yesterday "from beyond the wikigrave". I think any "disruption" my comments may have caused was very minor, but I have removed them. ---CH (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about your comments, rather, the comments you were defending. That should have been (but apparently was not) clear. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Obuibo Mbstpo back again, I think

See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Abuv the law. I initially accused him of being a User:Fredrick day sock (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, to which the user responded thusly. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:58, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(rv by Abuv the law, restored by Eq) So you decided to shoot from the hip again, eh? Abuv the law (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Aww, don't blank that most telling response. To answer it, yes. The great thing about that is, if you're right, you look real good in the end. Based on your tone, I'm fairly confident. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:06, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Man, you really get a kick out of trying to piss me off, don't you? Abuv the law (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So Fredrick day was as sock all along? How disappointing. Anyone know why? ThuranX (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a sock of Obuibo Mbstpo, if that's what you mean. At least I don't think... He just socked from a bunch of IPs as far as we know. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:20, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, that'a LITTLE better, but still a shame. he was helpful on a feww articles I worked on. ah well. ThuranX (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked as an obvious not-here-to-improve-the-encyclopedia sock. Quack. Black Kite 15:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Would a checkuser be willing to check Obuibo Mbstpo, et al. (I have a list of about a dozen socks) and if their all from the same ip address/range, hardblock it? MBisanz 15:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree that should probably be done. This user has clearly stated his intention to continue creating socks. A hard block would be appropriate here. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:49, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
• Checkuser verified sock of Sarsparilla et al. --jpgordon 15:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Does that mean the IP(s) are now blocked? Equazcion •✗/C • 16:01, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)Good that it CU'd, but if all (most) of these socksUser:Obuibo Mbstpo, User:Abuv the law, User:Candi Marisa, User:David Janssen, User:Emily Stevens Gardner, User:Jesse R. Binnall, CPP-T, PRP, User:Larry E. Jordan, User:Refactory, User:SpiritWorldWiki, User:Sarsaparilla, User:Ron Duvall, User:Absidy, User:71.63.91.68, User:ReplyToSM, User:Captain Zyrain, User:Thespian Seagull, User:Take You There are from the same, IP, can you hardblock it? MBisanz 16:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, could someone please consolidate all the SSPs and SSP cats, I think User:Sarsaparilla is the oldest provable account. MBisanz 16:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Problem is, the main one is a university; the /16 has a number of annoying socks, but also a lot of perfectly good users. --jpgordon 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright, I understand, I was really hoping it was a static IP or something blockable. But its not like this guy is hard to miss. MBisanz 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Things are really getting very weird here (Air Fortress is an OM sock, and I presume the IP is a Fredrick Day sock, although it also looks like it might be an OM sock pretending to be a Fredrick Day sock in order to further OM's point, whatever it is). I'm not sure admin action is required (I don't actually know what kind of admin action would be required) but it bears watching. Or ignoring. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(Oh, and if anybody's wondering after reading that, there is a section31 (talk · contribs), but he appears completely unrelated to this nonsense. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

OM is (officially?) banned, so... I kinda assumed any further known socks from him are blocked on sight. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:13, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes. All socks have been blocked on sight. That wasn't my point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm blocked and all that - but would some admins like to pop across to here, so that one way or the other things can be sorted out with User:Sarsaparilla. Either some way is worked out to 1) lift his ban, 1) he heads off to arbcom or 3) he's talked down and convinced to give up his socking. That has to be a better outcome than chasing his socks from day to day right? --87.112.87.215 (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He had his chance (the latest one, that is) here. He's exhausted my patience, and I daresay that I started off with a good deal more of it than did most. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OM is not "officially banned." No serious effort has been made to restore his access, and he can't even ask without creating a new account, because his Talk page (last open account he had access to, User:Larry E. Jordan), is protected. He is a blocked user. His block *could* be appealed to ArbComm or possibly resolved at some lower level, but the latter looks pretty grim at this point. I would estimate the probability of success for him with ArbComm at better than 50%, though. He only started socking, of course, this time, well after his Talk page was protected. It's predictable, folks. Take away legitimate means of communicating with the community, he will find illegitimate ones, thus creating more fuss and work. I tried to convince him to do otherwise, to be patient, but I was trying to swim upstream. He is not Section 31, you can tell from the IP in England. That's a name being used by User:Fredrick day for his IP edits, originally for bad hand edits while User:Fredrick day was still also being used. He forgot to log out with one edit and so his signature as Section 31 showed in an edit from Fd. Oops! He recognized it right away (as did I), so he abandoned the User:Fredrick day account, and has expressed an intention to continue as an IP editor. And he was being incredibly disruptive. Much of the fuss over Larry E. Jordan was fomented by him, including false, inflammatory descriptions of the message on the Easter Bunny hotline article or whatever it's name was. (Contrary to what has been said about it, that message could be broadcast over the radio without FCC sanction in the U.S. It's not legally obscene.) Given that, the rapprochement apparent at User talk:Air Fortress is startling, I don't know what to make of it. --Abd (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your latest bit of verbose, vague, and pointless wikilawyering aside, OM is banned in the sense that no one is willing to unblock him -- again -- to cause more problems. Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 08:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:45, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I've discovered Equazcion cheering at a number of these "events." I will guarantee this: this user will cause a hundred times as much trouble blocked as he did unblocked. See below. But am I trying to get him unblocked? Look for evidence, I'd like to see it, perhaps I'm schizophrenic. I've simply pointed out the truth. "wikilawyering" is an offensive term, used by real wikilawyers to discount arguments from others based on truth and policy. Yes, he is banned in the sense described. However, such a ban cannot be used as an argument for any particular action, it was never formally decided; instead there was a riot and the police broke it up by hauling off the perceived agitator. Happens all the time. Occasionally it actually works, just as often, though, they get the wrong guy, or they merely get one of those fighting. Here is what I say about Sarsaparilla: he died and went to meta. May he rest in peace. Occasionally he may toss a thunderbolt down here. Rail at him and he may toss more. Your move.--Abd (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss whether or not he should be banned? It looks like this has been mishandled at several levels, and that he's been framed for things it is now clear that he was not involved in. Going forward, has he actually done anything - prior to his block - that deserves being banned? —Random832 (contribs) 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

'Framed' is awfully stiff language. Could you be a bit more specific about what Sarsaparilla has been accused of doing that he was not involved in, and who has misrepresented evidence so as to 'frame' him? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I considered OM's blocks mostly unjustified (I'm not going to go into great detail as to which ones I thought we unjustified and why; suffice it to say that I'm reasonably certain that I'm the last admin who showed any interest in unblocking him). However, his conduct since the ban took effect has, in my view, been bad enough to retroactively justify that ban. It's like he was wrongly incarcerated for something and, while awaiting trial, broke out and shivved three guards. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to be a tad dramatic as a description, I think. Was he "awaiting trial"? Let's suppose he was, though he wasn't actually under any sort of official parole or undergoing any complaint process against him. The real analogy would be that he had been falsely accused of numerous crimes, a judge found no cause to confine him, and even befriended him, but as he was leaving the courtroom, he made an offensive joke. And so the judge tossed him in jail and threw away the key. His "crimes" as a block evader are entirely related to evasion itself. He made a series of very legitimate edits to Parli Pro articles. None of these edits, were he not blocked, would have been disruptive. Should he be unblocked? By what standard would we judge? If I seriously wanted him unblocked, I'd be pursuing the process. If he asked me to, I would. He has not asked. What has happened on Misplaced Pages is that very dysfunctional responses to controversy and disruption have become routine. As I've mentioned, Sarsaparilla has died and gone to meta. I've visited him there and looked around. The phenomena we are seeing here are well known and described there, as they are in other places that are "about" Misplaced Pages. Sarsaparilla made all this clear to me, in a very short time. I'm grateful for it, and it may be that some day it will be appreciated. Yes, he's frustrating. So was Mozart. Fart jokes, in really inappropriate places.

(I will also note that Sarcasticidealist offered to help this user to go to ArbComm, which was quite proper. I can understand this administrator's frustration over the unenthusiastic response he got. At that point (yesterday?), Sarsaparilla had become really, really pessimistic about this community and the possibility that he would be able to continue to work here. It's a reasonably sane judgment. For him, the atmosphere has become entirely too poisonous. I know him fairly well, I understand him because I am like him, and, at 27, I don't think I could have pulled it off, walking the straight and narrow, never making any fart jokes. Or whatever. Even now, I can slip, just not nearly as often. I am really intensely resisting representing a very rude noise. After all, this is Serious Misplaced Pages Process here. Quick. Hit Save Page! --Abd (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

--Abd (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarsaparilla is getting packed up and ready to go. 129.174.91.116 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of that can be speedied, I would imagine, as db-author. No need for MfD drama over it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy away! (Whoever has admin privileges) 129.174.90.122 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help me in keeping up with all the IP socks appearing over this thread? I just blocked 129.174.91.121 who I'm confident that is Sarsaparilla. Yesterday I blocked 87.112.87.215 who is most likely Obuibo Mbstpo, in any case if both of these users admited to being socks, how come nobody blocked them inmediately after doing so? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to lessen, hopefully, a little confusion, there were a series of accounts used, one after another (not simultaneously) by Sarsaparilla. They were explicitly linked and acknowledged; this would be Ron Duvall, Absidy, Obuibo Mbstpo, and Larry E. Jordan. For a user to abandon one account and create another is not grounds for a block, in itself. However, the accounts created to evade blocks, essentially throw-aways, are another matter. With the creation of the Jordan account, this user agreed to not use other accounts. However, having been blocked for what would ordinarily be a trivial offense not even resulting in a warning, he may, apparently, consider that agreement to be void, since the community did not keep up its side of the bargain. There is far, far more disruption here caused by the block and responses to it than by any original offenses, and I don't think this is rare. It will usually fade with time, though.--Abd (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

87.112.87.215 is most emphatically NOT OM; it is almost certainly Fredrick Day--who, incidentally, has caused way more in the scope of actual problems than OM/Larry Jordan/whatever he's going by now has ever caused. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fredrick_day

Incidentally, I must ask again: have any of OM's socks ever actually caused any trouble? Because really, blocking someone for evading an illegitimate block is itself an illegitimate act; the proper course of action is to remove the initial block, or at least leave the socks he has to create to get around it alone. Fredrick Day's socks were harassing users (mostly myself), vandalizing users' comments (mostly my own), and generally causing trouble. All OM ever did was put forth a bunch of good ideas that ruffled the feathers of some people who have a vested interest in the seriously corrupt status quo.

And so yes, I will come right out and say it: Any action taken to evade an illegitimate block is perfectly legitimate, and any action taken to enforce an illegitimate block is itself illegitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't always WHOIS all IP addresses that come my way, regardless the 87.112. account traces back to England, thus it is very likely that Fredick Day is behind it, as far all the ammount of disruption, just today a bunch of these socks broke 3, 4 and 5 RR by edit warring just for the sake of pestering Equiazcion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidently a range block is in order, regardless I'm dropping out for now, not in the mood to play Whac-A-Mole. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently rangeblock isnt an option because these are shared IPs of a university. Perhaps an abuse report. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:13, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Just do a whois on those IPs, and you'll see the problem; 129.174.0.0/16 is George Mason University. We've got a lot of good contributors from there, and one person who really seems to want us to have to inconvenience his classmates. The others are dynamic IPs, which doesn't help much either. --jpgordon 01:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've worked with both Sarsaparilla and OM in the past, and wasn't aware they're the same person. I was about to ask about the proof that OM was Sarsaparilla. Then I saw this. WTF. This guy is seriously abusive with sockpuppets. I hope somebody does play whack-a-mole to make sure all of these sockpuppets are gone. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How so? As long as the sockpuppets aren't actually used for any nefarious purposes (which they weren't), why does it matter how many he has or the circumstances under which he creates them? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It'll be difficult to whack-a-mole due to the shared IPs. I think an abuse report would be more useful. Let the institution deal with him. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:11, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(dedent insertion)Continuation accounts are not really sock puppets in the traditional sense. I don't know if he did it this time, but in the past, Sarsaparilla would spike an account when he created a new one, so he couldn't have two active accounts simultaneously. Zenwhat fell for the propaganda. Sarsaparilla was a user who, having made voluminous contributions to this encyclopedia (he had prior accounts, one of which is not difficult to find), decided to work on policy and process, and he discovered just how unrewarding this can be, to say the least. He made a (small) mistake -- he wasn't even warned about it, if I'm correct, it was a joke, in fact -- and that may have motivated him to change his account. An SSP report was filed, though it was utterly and blindly obvious what was going on, all one had to do was glance over the contributions, it wasn't concealed, that User:Ron Duvall was the next account. For reasons I won't explain, there are privacy issues, he then changed his account again, this time explicitly acknowledging the connection in the account creation summary for User:Absidy. This is not what true sock puppets do. Frustrated over the rather amazing response he received to WP:PRX he did some odd things: he dropped a notice on the Talk page for every member of ArbComm and a couple of administrators. He was warned to stop canvassing. He said he was done, and put an image of a finger on the Talk page of the warning admin, who blocked him. First block. No prior blocks, in over two years of intense editing. So ... that admin relented, let him come back (with some outrage expressed by others about allowing this abuser of sock puppets to return (even though there was not, until the block, any sock puppet abuse, and not even after the block, the new accounts were not for simultaneous or alternating use). But there was now a body of users really out to get this guy. He edited as User:Obuibo Mbstpo, 1600 edits in about three weeks. At the end of this, he created a hoax article, as a jape, Obuibo Mbstpo. Speedied. And promptly blocked. This time, more legitimately, though normally such an action would result in a warning, not a block. He lied about having a source. Eventually, he admitted having lied and was allowed to return. Now editing as User:Larry E. Jordan, he was once again active with parliamentary procedure articles. But apparently, I'm going to guess, having a bit of fun, he created the Easter Bunny Hotline article. This was not a hoax, it really existed. And then User:Fredrick day took it to WP:AN/I, using a bad-hand IP account. And lots of, shall we say, disinformation and misinformation was supplied. For what would ordinarily result in a simple speedy, probably no warning at all, he was blocked again. If we look back over it, a huge amount of disruption was resulting from his participation here. Who or what was the cause of all this? If we think the answer is "Sarsaparilla," we may have a piece of an answer, but, quite clearly, not the whole answer. Whatever his crime was, it was not "sock puppetry." The only arguable socks would be accounts used while blocked. Like many his age, he has a "you can't make me" attitude toward authority. This is one reason why using indef blocks to maintain order is a classic Bad Idea. It creates far more disruption than it prevents. This was not a user who attacked people, he was not ordinarily uncivil (with one exception mentioned, which was not a personal attack.)

As someone who came to appreciate his contributions, which go deeper than a few articles, and who came to consider him a friend, I regret the troubles his presence has caused some administrators, who are faced with enforcing blocks. But he never harassed users, he never made personal attacks (the finger on Jehochman's Talk page was the worst thing he did, and that is a classic message of defiance of authority, which most societies have learned to not treat as actually violating law but only decorum). I know for a fact that he was here to benefit the project and not to disrupt it. Now, he has died and gone to meta. Mostly. He's trying to get his files deleted. I'll address that with the MfD.--Abd (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

While what I've seen (not to mention the sheer drama on here for our entertainment on a daily basis) seems to merit the ban, I would like somebody to actually make a (concise) case for his being banned that doesn't simply relate to the drama on here. My understanding is that his main disruption was creating a series of rolling non-concurrent accounts which may have been used to stack a vote which wasn't going to change anything anyway, since it was a completely new idea he had raised - I'm thinking back to delegable proxy or whatever it was called. I'm not sure of the exact events after that, except that he ended up blocked. He then sockpuppeted around the block until we finally agreed to let him have the Jordan account. Then he created hoax articles and got banned on that. Is my interpretation correct, or is there bits that need to be added? Are the arguments against his being banned simply that there is no meaningful "for" case in their opinion? As a relative bystander I am guessing I'm asking these questions for more than a few people. Perhaps it's up to us bystanders to actually help in resolving it now. Orderinchaos 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that your summary is pretty close to correct, Orderinchaos. Abd's statement above is mostly accurate, though incomplete and rather slanted. My summary of accounts used up to March 15 is in this diff: . Briefly, in the course of discussing his and Abd's delegable proxy proposal, he used at least six different accounts. While we generally are flexible about allowing editors to change their usernames on Misplaced Pages, doing so on a twice-weekly basis while actively participating in discussions is confusing and disruptive—particularly when talking about a proposal to allow editors to delegate authority from one account to another.

As to the use of the term 'sockpuppet', in at least one case, two of his accounts (User:Thespian Seagull and User:Take You There) overlap their editing. Somewhat more gravely, I can locate no discussion page where Sarsaparilla/OM was the first editor to identify one of his new accounts as a continuation account; another editor always had to point it out first. In some cases he openly identified himself on his user or user talk page, but certainly not always. (Abd has often argued that the new accounts – even when not explicitly identified as continuation accounts – were 'obvious' and therefore not deceptive. Such obviousness depends on the reader being familiar with Sarsaparilla's style and interests; there's no protection there for the naive new visitor to a talk page, where half a dozen Sarsaparilla accounts have engaged in debate.) A quick sifting through Sarsaparilla's contributions finds instances where he refers to himself in the third person (Thespian Seagull talking about Absidy's use of multiple accounts: ; Take You There talking about Sarsaparilla: ). I freely admit I can't bring myself to dig through all of this editor's numerous talk page edits, so I doubt that's an exhaustive list.

As Obuibo Mbstpo, he created a mainspace hoax article (Obuibo Mbstpo) which was a fake biography of a Nigerian engineer and government official. The article was speedied as a likely hoax, and he reinserted the content in his userspace, at the same time fabricating a book source for the material and repeatedly lying about the existence of his imagined Nigerian (see User talk:Obuibo Mbstpo). Abd's 'assistance' there probably didn't help Sarsaparilla. Anyway, Sarsaparilla's insistence on clinging to an obvious fabrication led to serious concerns about his trustworthiness to contribute mainspace content in general. Based on his poor judgement with this hoax, his disruptive and deceptive use of multiple accounts during his policy proposals, and his general tendency to waste the community's time, he was blocked again. (There may be additional reasons I'm not aware of.)

I wasn't involved in the Larry E. Jordan stuff, so if someone better-acquainted wants to expand on it then dive in. Frankly I think that an editor eventually runs out of second chances. Creating an article about a non-notable and borderline-obscene phone number – the Easter Bunny Hotline – just in time for Easter was decidedly tacky and in poor taste, especially given that the article contained no real warning as to the nature of the content. By itself it might have drawn only a warning or a short block, but this was an editor who had already had ample warning that he was on his last last chance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the above is, I am sure, sincere, but it is also inaccurate. Instead of six accounts being used while WP:PRX was being discussed, as stated by TenOfAllTrades, there were three: User:Sarsaparilla, User:Ron Duvall, and User:Absidy, up until the block of Absidy, the first block ever for this user. (In fact, I don't think he was every warned for a serious offense until a couple of hours before the block, and he did not violate the warning. All other accounts after that and until User:Obuibo Mbstpo were block-evading accounts, temporary. There is a discussion of the history on the Talk page for Absidy, which is tricky to get to because it has been redirected. Yes, I think there is some overlap, with the temporary accounts, the kind possibly explained by persistence of cookies, though I have not examined this in detail (I actually did not find overlap when I reviewed this before, but Sarsaparilla did say it happened). (Note that the TOAT description of overlap is only with those evading accounts, all of which were quickly blocked.) When you look at the first three accounts, what you will see is that there was one improper shift of account, with no sock puppetry involved. Improper because not directly acknowledged without being asked. When he was asked, he acknowledged the connection, not that it wasn't totally obvious. If you look at the first edits of User:Absidy, you will see that the connection was explicitly acknowledged, contrary to what TOAT states above. Absidy was blocked, and then User:Obuibo Mbstpo was created as a negotiated return (he could not return to Absidy because he had munged the passwords, so it would have taken more admin fuss to deal with it than setting up a new account. Mbstpo was, thus, known to be Sarsaparilla from the very beginning, also. Then Mbstpo was blocked, the occasion being the marriage proposal joke and the hoax article. There were then, again, a series of block-evading socks, until Sarcasticidealist kindly recognized that the earlier blocks had been a tad excessive. So then there was, again, User:Larry E. Jordan, who likewise represented a negotiated return, openly acknowledged from the beginning. Here, Sarsaparilla promised to not shift accounts again; but that was on condition he was unblocked. Now, if we look at this history of accounts, it certainly looks terrible. I can understand the immediate rejection of most to this as "abusive sock puppetry." None of it was intentional sock puppetry except in the block-evading sense. (It is possible that he has kept the password for Larry E. Jordan, he was asked not to munge it as he had done with prior accounts, so ... as that might technically be considered an active account, he might technically be creating sock puppets. But he has no history of true abusive sock puppetry, and he was not actually blocked for sock puppetry, at any point, and if I look at the vast majority of the "evading sock" accounts, they seem to have been made in good faith. Some seem to think that I am "defending" Sarsaparilla. Actually, no. I'm trying to prevent the community from forming a warped understanding of what happened, based on many, many false statements that have appeared, otherwise unchallenged, and they are legion. What I've said here in contradiction to what TenOfAllTrades' history is easily verifiable. And please don't consider this any kind of complaint against TenOfAllTrades. He's done his job. Not perfectly. But generally well. If we were paying him, perhaps we could expect him to be perfect. Nah! Nobody's perfect. --Abd (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Sarsaparilla openly acknowledging (some of) his 'continuation' accounts, I'm afraid that Abd has misinterpreted what I have written. To be clear, what I meant was that Sarsaparilla – on many, many occasions – has participated in the same discussion under multiple user names. In none of those cases am I aware of any attempt by Sarsaparilla to explicitly identify himself as a new name for an account on the page where the discussion was taking place prior to another editor noting the change for him. While it might not be necessary to do so for a normal editor who makes a single name change, an editor who runs through a half-dozen accounts in three weeks and participates in discussions under multiple names absolutely must make his identity clear. Instead, Sarsaparilla made little effort to make clear his current and past identities, going so far as to remove links to them from his user page () and (as linked above) referring to his other accounts in the third person during discussion.

If Abd believes that any of the statements I have made here are false, I would urge him to explicitly identify them to clarify any other misunderstandings that might exist. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just gonna step in here and say what everyone on the other side of that debate wants to say -- no disclaimers on wp and wp is not censored. However as Ten points out, the timing of this creation was tacky and I'll even say troll-y. As in, it's a move likely designed to stir up controversy -- a move in a game, as OM has called Misplaced Pages a number of times. Also as Ten points out, the creation alone would not have gotten a block for most users, but as nearly everyone involved saw it, myself included, this user simply used up his chances. He was even given further chances following this block, if I remember correctly, but he blew those as well. Sarcasticidealist along with a bunch of other admins have been much more lenient with this user than I was comfortable with, and even they support the ban now.

PS, this is pretty much a moot point. OM has stated that he has no interest in getting unbanned. He has even said that "there's no point in being good now". He doesn't wish to be unbanned yet he still comes back via IP socks to make a retort here and there. There's no reason to consider a de-ban, or even to solidify the case against him, IMO. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:23, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It's true, there's not much point in unbanning. TenOfAllTrades has a pretty good account of it, above. With the Obuibo Mbstpo article, I was kinda doing a test similar to what TBSDY did when he vandalized the Daleks article. And then when I was unexpectedly blocked (I thought people would be more lenient than that), I thought I could bluff my way out of trouble by making up a source. That was, actually, my crucial mistake – as Nixon and Clinton also learned, it's not so much the actual offense, but the cover-up that gets you in trouble. The Easter Bunny thing was kind of a joke in the same vein as the marriage proposal edit (and not the kind of thing that's typically blockable in itself), but I guess it should have been saved for Uncyclopedia. If I were to be unbanned, I probably wouldn't engage in that kind of stuff, (although I might joke around on talk pages a bit) but an unban is unlikely to happen at this point, nor is it really necessary. I'm not too upset about it, as I can continue making constructive edits anonymously, and the political stuff I can do at meta, which may be a more receptive community anyway. New ideas may be better able to germinate there, and be discussed thoughtfully, without interference, ad hominem attacks, premature attempts to shut them down, etc. It's a slower-paced place with more constructive and open-minded dialog. All in all, this might be the best thing for everyone, because some people aren't going to be satisfied without an ban at this point. 129.174.73.27 (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs)

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) has gotten into a debate with Prester John (talk · contribs), Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs) and CormHamster (talk · contribs) over whether the Jihad Watch article should have Islamophobia as a "See also" and be included in the Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. In response to their objections that these inclusions are neither well-sourced nor NPOV, Sennen goroshi is now removing the terms "white supremacist", "hate site", and "neo-Nazi" from the Don Black (white nationalist) and Stormfront (website) articles (e.g. ), claiming they are not NPOV, despite rather copious reliable sourcing attesting to these designations. It is unclear to me whether this is simple WP:POINT, or whether Sennen truly supports these individuals and websites. Most recently Sennen has stated that Yahel is "well known" for his "delight in gaming wikipedia and making changes purely to antagonise people", and has suggested that Yahel should get a "perm block" in order to "make wikipedia a little easier for the legit editors" I'm guessing that Sennen fails to see the irony in his words, and wondering if some sort of remedy might, in fact, be more appropriately applied to Sennen goroshi himself. Jayjg 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this user is only editing Jihad Watch because he/she was in an earlier dispute with Prester John, and was stalked him here. See for example: It seems this users methods of resolving disputes is to stalk others. With CornHamster, this user attempted to harass this new user by tagging his userpage with the single purpose account tag, unalbe to stalk him because he is a new editor who hasn't edited other pages yet.

I think it is also important to mention that this user originally insulted me by refering to me as a " With all due respect, is there any reason for your dislike of Muslims and Pro-Whites?" thus implying in her comment that he/she thinks I am prejudice against muslims, and that I am somehow anti-white, and has made similar controversial edits to Jew watch. Yahel Guhan 06:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that there are very few sources for Jihad Watch in the first place. It's a fringe website that has appeared in a handful of news stories. There are issues here with WP:PARITY; most sources simply ignore this website completely. I think it should be merged back into the Robert Spencer article. None of this is to defend the particular user's actions, just to comment upon the underlying issue. *** Crotalus *** 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry if my edits have caused problems for people, I am just finding it hard to understand why certain terms which could be considered to be NPOV are constantly removed from Islam related articles, but constantly placed on articles refering to other races. I have editors with more experience than myself telling me that these terms are not acceptable, but the same editors are telling me they are acceptable in other articles. I am not trying to prove a point, I am merely trying to make the standards in wikipedia consistant no matter what the article is refering to. I do however take offence to people saying I am trying to "harrass" an editor by placing a tag on his page, I placed a single purpose tag on his account, because the user spent all his time editing two articles, both closely related to eachother, to me that is a single purpose account. It is not a new user, it is merely a user who has decided to make a new account, so I am hardly picking on someone new. On the Jew-watch article, I removed the term "hate site" because I assumed it was not quite NPOV. I don't think my actions are any different from those of any other users, apart from the fact that I have no agenda, no affiliation with any of the groups refered to, and that I am only looking for consistency, not some form of bias to reflect my personal beliefs. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the more it stinks. I was unaware of Jayjg and who he was until this report was made. I was dumbstruck when I realised that this report was made by an admin. I happened to stumble upon it, well considering an admin made this report, it would have been nice if they had actually informed me of its existence, or perhaps left a simple message on my talk page to give me a warning about my actions - but no, for some reason it was not considered a good idea by the admin who made this report, to inform me of the report or their opinion regarding my actions..nice. real nice.

To assume good faith in this is getting a little hard, the admin who makes this report about my interactions with user: Yahel Guhan, happens to have awards from guess who?...well Yahel Guhan of course, am I supposed to think this is just a coincedence? or is it a coincedence that this admin has numerous edits on Jewish related articles (just like Yahel Guhan) and is kicking my ass for using terms such as "Islamophobic" from an article about an anti-islamic website, while also kicking my ass for removing terms such as "hate site" and "neo-nazi" from a white-pride site? These are content disputes, but some editors/admins seem to have personal agendas when dealing with these articles. As an admin jayjg could have blocked me straight away if he thought there was the need, but I guess people would have seen the obvious bias in an action like that, so it is easier for him to make the report, and have someone else do the blocking...

Until today, I had no issues with wikipedia and the admins, editors like myself all have different opinions and attitudes, and I had total faith in the admins of wikipedia to keep check on everything/everyone, I have been blocked twice, 12 hours and 24 hours, and in both cases I emailed the blocking admin to say that I did not hold it against them, this report however is bullshit(sorry, I cant think of a more suitable term) and is not what I expected from an admin. Block me for 12 hours, 12 months or take no action against me, I will stand by these comments whatever the result of this report is.Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets be honest. You saw this report because you saw my contribs, and noticed I commented here. Now you continue to stalk me, in spite of seeing the report about you doing so: Yahel Guhan 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be honest, you clicked on my contribs and followed me to the Jew-watch article, and reverted my edit, so I decided to have a look at what other articles you had followed me to, and there staring me in the face was an ANI report with my name on it. Please dont accuse me of stalking you, when you have followed me to that article just to revert me. pot/kettle/black. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jew_Watch&action=history Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Um no. I had the article on my watchlist ever since this Kirbytime sock edited it. (and I have edited it before ) Yahel Guhan 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This user now resorts to canvassing other editors who share his/her view on the issue (claiming they are unbias) Yahel Guhan 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

← It looks distinctly like Sennen goroshi, having gotten in a dispute at Jihad Watch, then followed the opposing editors to articles on white-supremacist topics and made edits designed as tit-for-tat. Whether this is a bigger violation of WP:POINT or WP:STALK is debatable, but either way it's not appropriate and I agree with Jayjg's formulation at the top of the page. The canvassing doesn't look too good either - if Sennen wants outside input in an editing dispute, he needs to use RfC or WP:3O, not friendly editors' talk pages. I'd consider this a warning to Sennen goroshi; if this behavior (following other editors, WP:POINTy editing, and canvassing) doesn't stop right away, then a block would be appropriate. As far as specific content disputes, dispute resolution is thataway. MastCell  16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Now what were you saying about me stalking you? How do you happen to see that edit? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have had content disputes with that user before (I opposed her RFA ). Yahel Guhan 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I see, so who were you stalking? me? her? both of us? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on. It's not "stalking" to click on user contributions and notice canvassing. It's stalking to follow someone to articles they edit in order to expand a dispute with them. Sennen, I would strongly suggest you drop this. MastCell  16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Drop this? I didn't make the report in the first place. I didn't canvas an editor, I left a message on the talk page of an admin who is a member of WikiProject Islam, because of the bias on an Islam related article, I certainly didn't leave a message on some troll's talk page, asking for help in an edit-war. I don't really mind people checking my contribs. however if as you say stalking is following someone to articles they edit, then http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jew_Watch&action=history is most certainly stalking..which I also don't really mind, I just find it ironic that the editor who is complaining about stalking, is doing exactly the same to me. The editor who complained about me looking at his contribs, in order to locate this ANI report, is doing exactly the same to me. But thanks for the advice, I appreciate people advising me, I however am highly annoyed by this report and the holier than thou attitude of some of the people in it. It might be in my best interest to drop it, I realise that, however apart from reducing the likelyhood of me being blocked, it wont change the way these people are making their agenda driven biased edits. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You did canvass, picking an editor whom you probably knew would take your side in the dispute. My edit to Jew Watch is not stalking. Thanks. I guess everyone you get into a dispute with is somehow bias and agenda driven (based on your last comment). I also await your acceptance of the mediation request (though considering this comment, I doubt you will agree to mediate the issue. Yahel Guhan 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I picked an editor who I probably knew would take my side? Are you not only an editor, but also a mind-reader? How can you possibly know why I decided to message that particular user? I have never talked to them before, I have never seen any of their edits - they are an admin, with an interest in islam related articles, that was the only reason. I really am interested why you do not consider your edit to Jew Watch to be stalking - an explanation would be nice. To be honest, I am rather sceptical regarding the mediation request, as far as I am concerned the Jihad Watch issue should not require mediation, it is cited with reliable sources, what is there to mediate? It seems a little like gaming wikipedia to me, mediation to push for a compromise, when no compromise should be required.Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Sennen goroshi's last comment is very honest about his/her intentions. I highly doubt this editor didn't know I had a previous dispute with User:AA (especially since he studied my edits all the way back to July) (as evident by his last comment). He/she also mentions his/her refusal to mediate, meaning he/she is unwilling to compromise on this issue, instead stating that editors who oppose him/her are somehow here to "game wikipedia". Yahel Guhan 19:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care what you do or do not doubt, you are not here to make assumptions about my intentions and motives, I have explained why I contacted that admin, so either accept my explanation or quit complaining about it. I did not refuse to mediate, I said I was sceptical, please dont try to put words into my mouth. I dont think that editors who oppose me are trying to game wikipedia, I think you are trying to game wikipedia, based on your previous comments, I have had disputes in the past, entered into mediation and compromised on many occasions. btw, who is your friend with the anon IP - he is running remote desktop isnt he? Dont misunderstand me, I dont for a moment think it is your PC sitting there with remote access, however I could probably make a pretty good guess as to who it is. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

anyway, perhaps I have been a little hasty with my edits, and perhaps I have been trying to balance articles, by dragging them all down to the same level, rather than dragging them up to the same level. I am willing to agree with you on the Stormfront and Jew-Watch articles, infact I am willing to agree with you on all articles we have clashed over, apart from Jihad Watch, the Jyllands-Posten cartoons article is debatable, however I will leave that for whoever can be bothered. I am still sceptical about mediation, and I do think you were trying to game wikipedia, however most editors have at some time paid close attention to the rules and used them to their advantage. I dont think for one moment think that the jihad watch article is a closed issue, however perhaps with a little 3rd party help it might get sorted out sooner, rather than later. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What I find surprising in this incident report is that while Sennen goroshi seems to complain about how people are reading motives into his actions, he seems to have little problems doing so himself.

The reason I am late-arriving to this complaint is that, until recently, I didn't know who sg was, and didn't much care. Then he made unbidden, impolite remarks on User;Abstract's page and this comment:

...just to annoy you, I will personally volunteer to take any block for incivility on Abtract's behalf, especially if that block is related to insulting you in an amusing manner(1).

Because this occurred in a completely unrelated page, subject and involved editors he hadn't interacted with before, I must presume that his behavioral failings are not specific to any one article (or group of articles) but instead part of his personality. A civility/personal attack block might be in order, if for no other reason that to protect the other editors from this user for a time. With any luck, this user will return to the project properly chastened. - Arcayne () 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it ironic, that an editor who was threatening to "bitch-slap"] another editor is commenting on my behaviour and suggesting that I am blocked for civility/personal attacks. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, you might want to re-read the post in its proper context. Neither did any "(editorial) bitch-slap" take place before or after the post, but spoke to the same need that otehrs had made to keep things cool in the discussion. If you are going to stalk my edits for ammo, have a car to actually read them more closely, wouldja? I should also point out that the comment didn't prompt an AN/I complaint, mainly because the others who were present knew the context in which the comment was used.

Secondly, I know when someone realizes that they screwed up: they try to make the argument about something else - anything else - anything other than their own behavior. I have been uncivil in the past, and have been blocked for it. Therefore, I know the methods. Commenting that you "don't care if (you) are blocked", if only to "make fun" of someone else, clearly indicated that civility isn't as important to you as it needs to be to contribute to the Project. Perhaps a block will impress that upon you. If you cannot play well with others, you cannot play here. - Arcayne () 19:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Determined trolling of Refdesks

There have been a number of trolling posts made lately by a user and an IP that are obviously the same person. I have been removing the posts, and the troll has been putting them back. Can he be stopped? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Milkbreath is trying to inappropriately eliminate an opposing perspective by labeling me a troll and then harassing me through vandalism by acting on that label. It is Milkbreath's inappropriate labeling and wrongful vandalism which needs to be stopped rather than the opportunity for others to offer comment and to provide references for the research I am doing. Thanks. Multimillionaire (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The user Multimillionaire really does seem to be trolling, with irrelevant flame-starters like "I know White women who have provided compensation in the form of bearing Black children as Barack Obama's grandmother did.". It's lame. --Sean 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for the claimed trolling. Do not leave it to every reader of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to individually research all the edits by the user you are complaining about. I looked at some of Multimillionaire's edits and saw probable violations of the Ref Desk's rule "Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox" in the form of discussion of white women "compensating" for past oppression of black men by bearing their children. But this is clearly far from a vandalism only account, since many posts were fine such as . . A caution against inflammatory soapboxing might be in order, if there are additional such posts. Edison (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversial topics with very loaded questions recently started by Multimilionier or someone in the ip range 71.100.*.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=201045940&oldid=201045659

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=200832624&oldid=200831282

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=200000256

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=200421664&oldid=200415415

These are usually followed by a number of minor edits fixing style punctuation, etc.

Reinstatement of deleted question : (Edit tagged as "minor")

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=200996573&oldid=200994795

Recreation of a deleted question : (Notice how the political catch-phrase he's trying to push has been moved to the title, probably in the hopes that only the question text would be deleted.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=201171693&oldid=201171673

I'm pretty sure that this is not all of them. They are a pain to locate with all the traffic the ref desks get and his dynamic IP.

Note that he appears to fully acknowledge that (some or all) of the 71.100.*.* posts are him, as he responds to criticism as though he were the original poster. APL (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

:::FWIW, along with the IPs, User:Millionaire now redirects to User:Pedist There was a name change in October, 2006, but not many edits, if any, since then, at User:Pedist. User came back to WP as User:Millionaire several days ago, and now has moved Millionaire's User and Talk pages to User:Pedist. It doesn't appear that Millionaire's conrtibutions have been moved however, as I can't find any of the awkward Ref Desk questions in User:Pedist's contributions. Is this the norm? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC) OOOPs~ Apologies to User:Millionaire and User:Pedist, and thanks to User:FiggyBee. It's very reassuring to know that I can count on at least one Wikipedian who can read. Once again, apologies for the disruption. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bielle, the user at issue is User:Multimillionaire, not User:Millionaire, who appears to be completely unrelated. FiggyBee (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See also his bizarre answers in this question. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Changing_fortunes_of_the_Nazi_Party APL (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For another diff, now there is this. This is also user:Barringa and user:Leasing Agent. The history goes back over a year, see 1), 2), and 3), and see also threads 7, 15, 17, and 18 at the reference desk's current talk page version. I don't know what can be done. It's a tedious nuisance, is all. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is an edit which makes it clear that User:Multimillionaire is also User:71.100.164.179. If (as has been alleged several times) 71.100.*.* is in fact banned user Barringa, I'd say it makes sense to block User:Multimillionaire, and as many of the 71.100.*.* IP's as we care to. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Mimus polyglottos appears to be a new sock of the same user, posting "questions" about interracial marriage and editing posts signed 71.100.*.* FiggyBee (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Determined registered user vandalism

I don't know if anyone wants to do anything about this, but there was a flurry of RfA vandalism from a single user. Accounts:

• User_talk:Howudd - temp block
• User talk:Lu Kewen - indef block
• User talk:Circ=Barbaric - temp block
• User talk:BongsAway - reported to ARV, block apparently declined - blocked indef
• User talk:The RfA Inquisitioner - same, reported but block declined - blocked indef
• User:BeshtWent - user that threatened more of the same

If you think this report is just feeding the troll, feel free to delete it. I thought perhaps someone could run some checkusers and get an IP range, or at least indef block the accounts that aren't already. And what just happened to Wiki for fifteen minutes there? Tan | 39 15:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

They are all part of some wiki-mafia, see my talk page history :) They all belong to one user and they've been at it for a while. They appear to be stemming from here, and not to mention all these. The IP seems to change every day aswell, so each account is from a different range, I think. Rudget. 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Also up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_vandals. See also: User:SQL/RfASocks. SQL 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say best course of action, as I see it, is a combination of WP:RBI, and WP:DNFT. The funny thing about announcing that you are in a mafia, is that anyone that is really in a mafia would never annouce it. Prime example of violating WP:TINC, and a prime example of a really bored individual. Revert, block, ignore. They'll go away. (they all do eventually) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Littleteddy (talk · contribs), I'm afraid. Rangeblock for 24 hours anon-only ACB, but its a big range. Thatcher 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there's an other range to block. Zubey1 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). -- lucasbfr 09:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

blacklised wikimafians.org --Hu12 (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

C4455471 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ubibok3 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Thethirdrealm (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Routeeggs911 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Plkyphn (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Opajfj (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ya'akov1234 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
JWPurvis13 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Whoops, this editor is completely unrelated. Thatcher 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Aoijgjokltg (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
more--Hu12 (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the other range. Thatcher 11:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ihfgoihg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
uggh--Hu12 (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• User the {{checkuser}} template instead of {{vandal}}, it saves me a step. Now he's moved to open proxies. Ugg indeed. Thatcher 11:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a bunch of attention-seeking school children so RBI and DENY really apply here, I think. Thatcher 12:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by User:L.djinevski

User:L.djinevski let an unsigned impolite and uncivilized comment here... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you get the correct comment? The statement there looks civil to me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You’ve got to be kidding, right? In case you didn't notice, that's the comment: "The people of the former turkish republic of greece al also not descendant from the antient Macedonians.". Let's wait and see the opinion of others. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding, right? Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the comment is insulting but most important the user moves around reverting almost everything. He should be warned of how to participate and behave. Seleukosa (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats racist.Megistias (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing racist or incivil about that comment. ⇒SWATJester 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is if you are in the other end.???Megistias (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Philippine FM radio stations

This section was originally entitled "User:Orangemike" but upon further discretion I changed it to a new title. --Howard the Duck 10:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Orangemike fully-protected all Metro Manila FM stations citing WP:OWN violations, despite no one "owning" or claiming to "own" articles. He moved all Metro Manila FM stations (see DWRT-FM) to their four-letter codes instead of the brand name, citing Misplaced Pages:NAME#Broadcasting.

I have two problems with this:

1. It is absolutely inappropriate to protect articles without any benefit of discussion. As much as I understand protection policy, it is not like the Iraq War where the article is preemptively.
2. It is absolutely inappropriate to move articles without any benefit of discussion. Orangemike may cite Misplaced Pages:NAME#Broadcasting but I can cite a rule that'll override it: WP:NAME: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I can certify that no one in Metro Manila calls an FM station by their callsigns but by their brand names. See a prior discussion on this issue.

Therefore, I request that an admin unprotect all of these station articles. Reversion will be done later if there's consensus either to move it back, or the moves were unilateral. --Howard the Duck 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin should unprotect all of these station articles quickly. Pinoybandwagon (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I went by the clear wording of the appropriate portion of WP:NAME, which says nothing about any exception for Philippine stations. (I believe the WP:NAME system makes much more sense. At least one of these stations has changed its slogan/brand/motto three times within the past two years, and I think it would be silly to keep creating a new article every time they rebrand themselves!) I explained what I was doing, on the talk page of the first couple of articles involved, and on the talk page of the editor User:Pinoybandwagon. I brought up the issue of WP:OWN because an editor had shown editorship tendencies; I believe he is either a current or former employee of one of the networks there. I also brought the issue here to WP:AN, and nobody criticized my actions! Instead of discussing the matter, Pinoybandwagon just reverted without edit summary, and later left a nasty note on my talk page ordering me not to interfere with his "FINAL" solution to the issue. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but why protect all of them? You could've just blocked/asked another admin to block him/her for disruption.

Also, I'm not asking for an exception; I'm saying once a child rule/guideline is in conflict with his parent rule/guideline, the parent rule/guideline should prevail, and in this case, the callsigns are not "greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". I'd accept that for dead stations but not for current ones.

As for rebranding, they always go to the original articles, maybe except for when a station is sold to a new owner and the new owner reformats it. Like for example, when 99.5 RT (just look at the history, I'm betting it's redirected somewhere) was bought, it still stayed as RT until it was reformatted a year ago to Hit FM. Then this Sunday, Hit FM became Campus FM. I'd argue that RT should have a separate article but both Campus and Hit should remain in one article since they had one owner. In fact, that's what I did until the new user sprang up, and I would've dealt it on some other time. --Howard the Duck 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, normally, the specific overrides the general, so that if a child rule/guideline is in apparent conflict with the parent guideline, then the child guideline remains in effect. But that's neither here nor there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the general rule prevails over the specific rule? Since more than likely, the general rule has a green check mark while the specific rule has the blue one, and in Misplaced Pages, green check mark > blue check mark. --Howard the Duck 03:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reasons whythe Radio Station Info should be put in its name (Ex: 95.9 Big FM info under the name 95.9 Big FM):

1. The real name of the Radio Station is more understanding than the Radio Station callsign.
2. People new or old to wikipedia will realize the real title of the Radio Station.
3. In the templates area (such as Template:Metro Manila Radio), the Radio Station callsign and the Radio Station frequency highlighted in black show the Radio Station Name (Ex: the callsign DWBG and the frequency 95.9 shows 95.9 Big FM).

Pinoybandwagon (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what I've been advocating; only a very few people know a callsign of an FM station unless it is a part of the brandname. I have no qualms on dead FM and AM stations since they're known by their callsigns but on-air FM stations are rarely called by their callsigns alone. At least on the introductory line the brand name should be named first, that's why I'm advocating for the removal of full protection. --Howard the Duck 03:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin should unprotect all of these station articles by March 27. Pinoybandwagon (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pinoybandwagon, I now see why Orangemike did protect all of these articles. Please don't demand anything with a timeline (look at my statements above, no deadlines or anything). --Howard the Duck 10:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Next time, don't call me Pinoybandwagon. Just call me DARYL MARTINEZ or simply DM.Pinoybandwagon (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall we had the same problem in Australia a month or two ago when User:New World Man moved a heap of articles to their callsigns and one of our admins fixed them back. WP:NC#Broadcasting says: "In places with a mix of call signs and station names ... the station name should normally be used, except when the call sign is well-known". I am inclined to unprotect but would prefer to see more sources. If those are presented to demonstrate local use of the names rather than the callsigns, I'll do it this evening - there does seem to have been an abuse of the protection policy. Orderinchaos 07:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly not up on policies but, can't a compromise be reached by including both names and callsigns in the article titles. An "made up" example would be something like "99.5FM_WDXE_The_Hounddog" so it includes freq, callsign/letters, and nickname. Just an idea feel free to ignore it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Several brand names do include a part of the callsigns, such as Monster Radio RX 93.1 (I'm surprised this wasn't affected by the protect-moves). Here's one proof the callsign is rarely used: Magic 89.9 vs. DWTM-FM. In fact, several FM radio stations totally omit their callsigns in station IDs.

As for reformats, I'd say to put them under one article, if a station had two different owners, they should have 2 different articles. --Howard the Duck 10:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RADIO STATIONS ARE MOSTLY KNOWN FOR THE RADIO STATION NAME.Retired username (talk)19:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) This message is actually left by User:Pinoybandwagon. --Howard the Duck 13:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not everywhere. That's why I'm invoking the more general rule instead of the specific American-centric naming convention for radio stations. --Howard the Duck 12:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Howard. If you wanna tell me something about Radio Stations (I focus sometimes at US Radio Stations, but I often focus on Philippine Radio Stations), just give me a comment! Radiosmasher (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Something's telling me this is a sock. Newbies don't ever come here, unless they're notified. Can an admin check this out? --Howard the Duck 16:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard that is why I thought reformating the names to include both/all options was a decent compromise. By using the nicknames, callsigns, and frequency people could find the stuff no matter which version of names they were looking for. I'm in no way an expert on anything but, thought maybe someone that was neutral may be able to help with a decent suggestion about compromise. Sorry if I did not come across that way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We could always use redirects, right? Although you could argue the same for the brand names, the article name must the name the most number of people know. --Howard the Duck 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Philippine FM Radio Stations
If the official call sign has a prefix (DW- and DZ- in Luzon, DY- in Visayas, DX- in Mindanao), a redirect or disambiguation should be added for the call sign without the prefix. For stations which do not have a prefix, place the broadcast years in parentheses; for example, "DWRT (1976-2006)". See Radiosmasher for more information on assignment practices.

Brand names such as "Net 25", "UNTV" or "99.5 Campus FM" are very often unique. Even though "Campus Radio Baguio" or "Wild FM Davao" are not appropriate article titles, a brand name may, however, be created as Radio Station and its Dial (Ex. 92.7 "Campus Radio" or "Dream 106.7") page where appropriate.

Radiosmasher (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Which you had recently added just like minutes ago. I don't think we'd need another rule/guideline for this when we have a rule/guideline already. --Howard the Duck 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Complete rudeness from User:Abtract

I'm getting very upset from seeing improper comments of this editor, such as here, here, and here, and can not tell if they are plain lack of civility or harassment, but are looking more like personal attacks. Can an admin. step in and tell the user to stop? I have issued an {{npa3}} but I feel this may not have helped. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Now (s)he appears to be testing other contributors. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could be seen that you are baiting this user, now aided by others, and you might like to consider disengaging. Then, after a period for everybody to be a bit cooler, consider dispute resolution rather than telling tales here. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I only plan to seek WP:DISPUTE if his/her behaviour doesn't change. Just would like for someone of higher authority to immediately let Abtract knowing that treating others by assuming good faith is crucial. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anybody of higher authority (save for Jimbo, perhaps) here. Administrators are not magistrates and are not going to involve themselves in petty disputes... unless you're happy for your own conduct to be equally examined? As I say, it could easily be seen that you are baiting the user you are telling tales on. And that's not good either. And the problem would go away to some degree if you left them alone. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What am I baiting them into? I am not intentionally bothering anyone. Example, as you can see here, the editor chose to make a nasty remark, which I didn't trigger in any way, shape or form. This type of irritating behaviour is what pisses me off. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

<-Well, first you swept in and templated a regular. When they got annoyed, your response was to template them again. Then, having pushed someone already annoyed pretty far, you came here and told tales. So I repeat: disengage. Step back. Walk away. Give it up. Now, please. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies gentlefolk and User:Sesshomaru. Thank you for your comments and, be assured, such unsubtle insults will not recur. Abtract (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Alsharptonsbuddy on a vandal tear

On (what else) the Al Sharpton article. Making the same text replacement other redlinked names have made eg, Pioneervalleywoman, 'cept this guy is more prolific. Seven in a row at last count for today. Boodlesthecat 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged, 24 hour block at this point, and encouraged the editor to discuss instead of blind revert. If it starts again, drop a note in AIV. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, a look at the article history suggests a return vandal, and probably socks. More watchers on the article would be a good thing at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

that username seems problematic. Corvus cornix_talk 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the name should get an indef. As fo the article, a new account has started editing there as well. I left what I hoep was a blunt and clear message about using talk pages, but I doubt much will come of it. ThuranX (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also affecting the Dunbar Village Housing Projects article. Boodlesthecat 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:David Shankbone/72.76

David's stalker is still going at it. He's moved to my user and talk page yesterday (both now semi-protected) and is leaving messages like this on the LGBT project talk page. Note the implied threat of physical violence, much like this towards Michael Lucas and this towards David. Is there a way a block can be placed on the range this guy is using or is it too broad of an area? This has gone way past stalking and harassment on this site and the police have been contacted by David. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, that's disturbing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added so many frickin IP's to that list. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please protect Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies ASAP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, but please check me to make sure I did it properly. I set the protection for 10 days. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The guy's editing from Newark, New Jersey. Time for an abuse report at the very least ... I'll see about doing an anon-only range block. Blueboy96 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboy, wow that is down-right frightening. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is probably for David and Michael — but have they called the police? I probably would. --Haemo (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

David has and I think Michael has as well. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

<-Will someone in the US please contact Mike Godwin, preferably by phone? The level of detail is Not Good. If a CheckUser is about, can they gather the appropriate detail on this for him? This has just stepped beyond stalking and into the level of real-world threat. If we can act over every bloody anonymous suicide "threat" and use of the word "bomb" on a school talk page, we can certainly act immediately over this, at a Foundation level. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, I had an Edit Conflict, and was going to ask the same thing. This is way beyond a troll looking to get a laugh out of making people clean up their mis-deeds, this is terroristic threats and needs to be handled by the proper authorities. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He started harassing me because I've been adding the IP's to the list and placing sock templates on the accounts. The messages he left me were just trying to play with my head, but if there's even a hint of a physical threat I have no qualms with contacting the Washington, D.C. Police Department (where I live) or the Newark Police Department. I'm not going to put up with that and David certainly has not done anything to deserve this kind of psychotic harassment. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been following this for a while, trying to help where I can. I agree with the above: real action is called for in this case. WP/the foundation needs to do whatever it can to protect its editors from this kind of abhorrent behavior. R. Baley (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ranges are 72.76.0.0/17, 71.127.224.0/20, and 72.68.112.0/20. These are dynamic Verizon addresses. Blocking them would cause some, but not an immense amount of, collateral damage. Black Kite 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We can take the hit, in the circumstances. Anybody good at range blocks want to apply one to those ranges (anon only? ACB?) for a week or two? Just to give us some space. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Another one. He's quick with the IP's. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see many productive anon edits on 72.68.112.0/20, so I've blocked it for 72 hours. Mr.Z-man 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More of the same started at User talk:Moni3, so I went ahead and semi-protected for 5 days. Aleta 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

All ranges blocked for two weeks, anon-only. Hopefully this will stem the tide. Blueboy96 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboy. Much appreciated. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboy. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem ... I noticed a few admins had hardblocked the ranges, but there's no reason to lock out constructive editors under the circumstances--especially considering that it's coming from the biggest city in New Jersey. Blueboy96 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Those ranges have very few constructive editors. A long-term anon/account creation block should pose no real problems. Thatcher 23:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely a case for Mike Godwin. Newark to the address referenced would take about 45 minutes by NJT, far less than the time needed for most meds to really kick in, or a temper flareup to cool down. Get Mike on it, let him and the cops work together to prosecute the guy for assault (stating that a bullet hole will look nice in his head, then 'confirming' the address constitutes assault by Newark standards) and let him find out about 'fire island loving' in prison. ThuranX (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we know if anyone notified Godwin? Aleta 01:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation is aware of the situation. I've exchanged emails with Cary about it. - Philippe | Talk 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Philippe! Aleta 02:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, we've used huge range blocks in the past to deal with this individual. It seemed to keep him at bay for a day or two. See this one, for reference: .--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• First, thank you all for helping. I can assure everyone that this person is just another random, troll who attacks people who actually do things while they sit in Newark, New Jersey and do nothing. People like all of us who contribute to Misplaced Pages. I've never been to Fire Island - indeed, people who know I am more of an adventure traveler who has no use for gay resorts. All the innuendo, references to knowing me, "sweet, sweet revenge" for some unnamed crime against them--note they never say what that is, I'm sure to spare me embarrassment, yeah, right--are all just typical troll ploys. What's so sad is this person has been doing it for at least a year, He's really obsessed with gays. He's vandalized a gay Jewish rapper since November 2007 and is now trying to vandalize a Jewish article with a Gay Jew's photo. He's been obsessing over a gay porn star since April 2007. He hangs out on the Misplaced Pages LGBT project. He's gone after gay Wikipedians like WJBscribe, AgnosticPreachersKid and, of course, me. Whatever his personal issues and internal conflicts might be, he clearly wants attention ("Look at me! Look at me!") and thinks about gay people a lot by expressing his sexuality conflict on Misplaced Pages, Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons. --David Shankbone 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

hahaha. Applause for the sarcasm. ThuranX (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we get those edits oversighted ASAP? Several of them contain real addresses and contact info. Even if the contact info is not accurate, someone could use it to show up at said addresses and... (shudder to think). Seriously, we need those edits removed from the history ASAP. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My bad; I actually mailed Lar for oversight on the diff on WJBscribe's talk page (the one with the address) about an hour ago but had to step away from the computer shortly after so I didn't get a chance to post here. Commons only has two oversight users; should we take it to a Steward instead? --jonny-mt 05:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a copy of the post with the address on the page whose name is the title of the thread. If we are oversighting, that should probably go too. Aleta 11:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I emailed Verizon to let them know what was going on, and also stressed that we have contacted law enforcement. For whatever reason, it seems the big ISPs haven't been proactive in dealing with this sort of thing on Misplaced Pages (see Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Mmbabies for an example--we had to rangeblock a bunck of Houston-area IPs because AT&T didn't seem to want to do a damn thing), but mentioning that the police are involved will certainly get them moving. A pat on the back to everyone who was involved in handling this ... hopefully we can get this (looks at WP:NPA and disregards several sections) moron off the streets for a long, long time. Blueboy96 11:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support this relatively brief softblock. The dispute has escalated tot he point of serious privacy violations and has gone on way too long. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for moving on this. --David Shankbone 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In related news most likely, a valuable newer editor, AgnosticPreachersKid, has retired. Tis a shame really. Hope he comes back. See User:AgnosticPreachersKid. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats from Bmjmureithi (talk · contribs)

Bmjmureithi (talk · contribs) left a legal threat (and also unexplained accusations of racism) here on my user page. Likely relates to this AfD. That's two legal threats against me in less than a month. I must be doing something wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They actually repeated themselves on Delicious carbuncle's talk page and on the AfD. They were warned by User:Stephan Schulz, but so far they've made no move to retract the comments. --jonny-mt 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops; looks like I spoke too soon. --jonny-mt 00:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe not. The comments have not been removed or retracted on my talk page, and now the editor is deleting more comments at the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Now signing themselves as "Kenyan lobby group". Shall I let the threats on my page stand or blank them since similar threats were retracted (and then unretracted and restored by someone else) elsewhere? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We are a Kenyan Lobby group and have retracted the threat as advised. We did not know it was against the Misplaced Pages rules. This , however, does not mean that we agree with the proposed deletion of Ben Muriithi. The references given should serve as proof of notability as a journalist if not anything else. We do take exception with Delicious Carbuncle's use of language though.She should be careful when using words like 'ridiculous'. They are disrespectiful yet respect should be both ways. Thankyou. (Bmjmureithi (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

I offered this group of people the opportunity to create individual accounts, and informed them that we don't permit role accounts, but they said they didn't see why they shouldn't have a role account. I have blocked the account for now as a role account, but if any of them want to create separate accounts with which to refrain from making legal threats and disruptive edits, I'm sure we can find a way to help them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying something with my Brit friends...

A "pork scratching" is the UK version of "pork rind", yes? Crunchy little greasy snacky-thing, horribly bad for you? I ask because I want to make sure that saying someone has "the same (body-fat) percentage as a pork scratching" is, in fact, the gross BLP-vio I suspect it is. Gladys J Cortez 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct (and indeed pork scratching redirects to pork rind). FiggyBee (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm .... pork scratchings. But ... Rik Waller is a very large chap, so if his body fat ratio was actually 60%, the comparison would be technically valid (though completely unnecessary, unkind and deletable on the spot).Black Kite 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I thought. (The percentage was unsourced, incidentally; I hung a fact tag on that, but deleted the pork-scratching.) Thanks for the info!Gladys J Cortez 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be a BLP vio - but its a great insult! Viridae 08:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree it's not needed. Apropos of nothing, the line about Rik Waller having the same fat percentage as a pork scratching comes from a Ricky Gervais stand up show. Gladys, you missed the line in the article that said "Waller also once shamefully admitted that he used to use whipped cream instead of shaving foam." (I've removed that, too). Poor old Rik Waller, people do pick on him. I've watchlisted the article. Neıl ☎ 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

snertch I most certainly DID miss that one...hee! (Actually, having not the faintest foggy blue idea of who Rik Weller is, nor how he found his way onto my watchlist, I wasn't reading closely. I gathered, though, that he was a big guy.) Thanks for the help!Gladys J Cortez 15:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring and edit-warring by User:JHunterJ

In the HP (disambiguation) page, user (and admin) JHunterj has been repeatedly altering (1, 2 3) the section titles of the recent archive to titles that were not being used prior to the archival, to titles that reflect JHunterj's personal, original feelings on the subject.

Furthermore, JHunterj has been altering the titles of these sections in the Discussion page's summary links (3, 4 5) to that archive, to reflect his/her personal point of view.

Repeated requests (6) for explanation as to why JHunterj was making these inappropriate changes to the archive went unanswered, except to say that he was making corrections to alterations made to his statements - which never, ever occurred during the archival or linking process. When finally, the user was warned that further actions (placing them beyond the threshold of a 3RR violation) would prompt action, user JHunterj made the same edits again and curtly stated that I should take further action as necessary, with the edit summary of "good luck".

I feel uncomfortable posting a complaint about any admin's behavior, as I am concerned about reprisals from his fellow admins, but no one gets to refactor existing section headers after they have been archived, personal feelings or not, possessing The Mop or not. Clearly, the admin isn't anting/needing to listen to me; perhaps some of his colleagues may have more of an impact. I am not sure de-sysopping is called for here, but an admin needs to follow the rules even more closely than the regular editors, as they set the example. If this admin chooses not to, then perhaps the yoke of adminship is too heavy to bear. - Arcayne () 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It also bears pointing out that JHunterj has (as of this filing) violated 3RR in both archive 2 of the HP dab page (1, 2, 3) and the discussion page (4, 5).

As 3RR covers cumulative edits of a disruptive nature within the same article, I think the violation is somewhat clear. I don't mind filing the 3RR, but it might be easier to address it here, as the violations are part of the same problem. - Arcayne () 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A section header was inserted in front of a comment I made after the fact, and once I became aware of it, I edited it to restate what I was saying in the comment. No comments were refactored, and no "closed" discussions were reopened. I answered all comments on my talk page prior to this ANI being opened. Enough time has been wasted; perhaps another editor can address the Talk:HP (disambiguation) and its archive if i'm not supposed to, or give me the all-clear to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I also ignored the patently false claims of 3RR violations: 24-hour window? No. Same edit? No. More than 3 reverts even outside of the 24-hours window? No. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the noting of the 3RR claim isn't false, as the multiple reverts occurred in the same article (repeatedly altering discussions and archves- which are still a part of the article - count towards that total).

I think that to simplify matters, allow me to demonstrate why they weren't "maintenance edits." With respect:

1. You did not add the section header into the article;

2. An amount of time passed between the insertion of that header and the archiving of the older information; and

3. You altered the archive to reflect your point of view in all three archived sections, including removing completely one of the archived sections and their links.

4. The alteration you performed retitled sections as "anti-cruft blinders", a term you (and only you) had used in discussion.

Ergo, not maintenance edits. I am unsure how I am misinterpreting your actions here, J. - Arcayne () 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review my block

Please review my block of 71.202.161.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He was repeatedly labeling Polish mathematicians as Ukrainians, put anti-Polish rants in the articles, etc. He was repeatedly asked not to do it by many users (me included). The reason I am asking the reivew of the block is that while I have no interest in the articles I have been marginally involved in the editing of Stefan Banach and Mark Kac‎ - I was trying to accommodate grievances of the anonim into the articles and undid the disruptive edits a few time. If found that my block is baseless - please unblock the IP Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Good block. There is too much edit warring and POV pushing here to keep around. If they return to the same behavior, I would block longer... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, ditto. Bearian (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible Twinkle Abuse by User:Diligent Terrier

Diligent Terrier (talk · contribs) appears to be misusing the script. Ive left several messages on his talk page, which he somewhat avoided, and eventually archived, i was not satisfied with his response, so ive brought the issue here. My issues are as follows;

• According to WP:TWINKLE, the script is to be used to assist them in common Misplaced Pages maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism, I fail to see how this, this, or this falls into maintenance or vandalism. He was reverting a long-standing administrator, without prior discussion. The edit is not any form of maintenance. For further clarification of the revert by Orderinchaos, see here and here.

• He also reverted an IP (User:76.98.204.203) for his edit to the Goldfish article (diff), in his edit summary, he claimed the edit was Blaitant vandalism. It was not vandalism, the edit certainly didnt add anything to the article, but it was a good faith edit, trying to add content to the article. After his revert, he placed not one, but two user-warning templates on their talk page (see here), the IP has only ever made [one edit to wikipedia.

• Hes moved on to reverting a user who removed a warning by another user and added content to his user talk page (see here). According to WP:TALK, this user is free to delete comments from his talk page. After reverting this user, he slapped a user warning template for his edit (see here). It may be worth noting that after his warning on his talk page, the good-faith IP never returned.

Diligent Terrier is hardly a new editor, having been on wikipedia since October 2006, but seriously editing Since July 2007. see here for earliest contributions. Thanks. Twenty Years 05:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've only looked at the first bullet point, but they were valid reverts (although should have been done with a proper edit summary). WP: redirects are not considered cross-namespace, and even then CSD:R2 only proscribes redirects to Talk:, User talk:, and User: namespaces. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Twenty Years has had it in for me ever since our disagreements regarding a WikiProject. After that, he has been closely monitoring my edits (which he has admitted), and looking for something wrong with them. I use Twinkle to revert vandalism very often, and if people decide to disable my use of it, I will not participate in serious vandalism reversion ever again. Twenty Years has also lied, saying that I didn't respond to his comments and archived him. Instead, I did respond to those comments, and they are not archived (you can see them on my talk). Furthermore, I have notified Twenty Years about his own habit of being uncivil and not assuming good faith. For someone who lies in order to say that people don't respond to his comments, you would think Twenty Years would respond to my comments. Instead, Twenty Years has ignored my comments, and said that he will not respond. Twenty Years originally posted this here, and he never even let me know after reporting me to both of these venues (WP:ANI and the page I just linked to). As you can see at that page, several people have noticed that if this is Twinkle abuse, then half of the Misplaced Pages comminity that uses Twinkle will also have to be blocked. Also, CSD R2 does say that the redirect must go from the article space, so it was wrong of Orderinchaos to speedy delete them without any valid speedy deletion criteria. After I notified Orderinchaos of what he was doing, he was somewhat speechless, as he was probably hoping I wouldn't notice. In the past Orderinchaos has called the cabals childish, which leads me to believe there is a possible conflict of interest which makes him want to delete the shortcuts. - DiligentTerrier 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think this misuse is worthy of removal yet, doing this after the person complains on your talk page about your use of Twinkle is, at the least, a pretty stupid idea. Mr.Z-man 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We had a discussion on my talk page, in which I cited some valid examples of uncivilness and not assuming good faith. I can find more if people still don't think those are good enough examples. - DiligentTerrier 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the problem was that a fairly established user accuses you of misusing Twinkle, so you go to his talk page and drop a "Welcome to Misplaced Pages ..." template warning using Twinkle! Giving a patronizing template warning like that to an established user is almost always considered rude, but doing it with Twinkle after they complained about your use of Twinkle?? If you really don't understand the problem with reverting non-vandalism with no explanation (and Orderinchaos did reply to your comment, so I don't see how he could be considered speechless) and why the template warning I mentioned was a tremendously bad idea, I might reconsider my initial comment. Mr.Z-man 16:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Twenty Years has recently quit WikiProject homeschooling (a project which Diligent Terrier founded) because of a rift between the two of them. From my perspective, TY has, had it in, if you will, for DT and quite frankly the rest of the members in the WikiProject. But that's just from my point of view. Also, that WP:DTTR you linked to is an essay, not a guideline. Kimu 16:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Its called common sense and common courtesy. Someone who's been on Misplaced Pages for more than a year certainly doesn't need a "Welcome to Misplaced Pages..." message with a link to a welcome page. Was that (especially as it was done with Twinkle) supposed to help the situation? If I had to guess, I would say it probably had the opposite effect. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it also common courtesy to be civil on another user's talk page and to not speak ill of a WikiProject? Also, I believe that DT didn't do anything wrong, and that TY is just trying to get him trouble. Anyway, that's my opinion and I'm sharing it and if people don't like it, then they can Put a helmet on. Kimu 18:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that Twenty Years has had it in for me all along even before I sent him the message about assuming good faith. I was actually at first thinking about dropping him a custom message asking him to assume good faith, but I figured the template message would say the same almost the same thing, so that is why I did that. By the time I noticed the "Welcome to Misplaced Pages" bit, and went to remove it, Twenty Years was already at my talk page asking for citations. - DiligentTerrier 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved – There seems to be consensus for an indefinite block. MastCell  21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – Pages deleted by me, account blocked by Theresa Knott. -Jéské 01:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – marked by JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Looks like User:Jayron32 took care of it. - Philippe | Talk 05:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Restored at a previous non-BLP version.LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

       Coincidentally, Hu12‎ chose this interregnum of completely delete (archive) his user talk. This is after he was unmaking history and deleting my accusations of misconduct, which I put back on his page This is a Watergate style cover up. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan

           I would just like to make a stand with 7&6=thirteen. I can't believe these "admins" treated him this way. He is a dedicated and prolific Misplaced Pages editor, and has done tremendous work on many articles. Trying to add a link which provides valuable information, he is labeled a spammer. Trying to defend his actions, he is blocked. What are we doing here if this is how the good guys are treated?----Asher196 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

               Hi, I'm sorry about the situation. If you'd like to file a complaint about Hu12, the place to do that is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Hu12's block of you was precipitous and the blind reverts unwarranted. However you did accuse him of being a sock puppet and make what could be interpreted as a vague threat. I might note that Hu12 consistently archives talk page messages -- although this is an annoying practice, it is not prohibited and it is not necessarily evidence that the user was trying to cover up anything. Misplaced Pages can be edited by anyone, including editors with limited social skills. Unless their behavior clearly crosses the line and becomes disruptive, it is best to simply avoid engaging with such persons. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards