Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:32, 20 December 2009

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

I'm quite busy in real life at times. If you have an important message for me and I don't get back to you here, try leaving me an email. PCHS-NJROTC 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Archives

• Archive 1 (newbie)
• Archive 2 (archive of User talk: 71.3.210.131)
• Archive 3 (archive of Mmbabies Abuse Report)
• Archive 4 (01/2008 - 03/2008)
• Archive 5 (03/2008 - 08/2008)
• Archive 6 (08/2008 - 11/2009)

Neutrality tag in Fsck

Hi, you have putted a neutrality tag in the Fsck article that I think is no longer necessary. Please check out this article to see if it is still useful. You can also see the Talk:Fsck to see the reasons why you had put it. Cheers. --Felipebm (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:69.171.160.58

I blocked this "person," and I removed their extremely offensive response to your post there. I read it, blocked the "editor," had some dinner and thought about it, and decided I also had to remove the hate speech. Done. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting user talk pages

Hello and good morning. I just wanted to let you know that this revert is controversial. Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages and the revert tool should only be used for clear vandalism. Please refrain from reverting user talk pages when the user has removed content on their own page. Warnings can be seen in the revision history of their page so it is not neccessary that it be visible. Anyway, good luck with your speedy tagging, see ya around.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, bro...

That little dingaling has been a serious pain for a long time. I went ahead and blocked the IPs for three months, including the school IP. Please let me know how it goes with the IP report. I can think of at least one serial vandal who needs a "come to Jesus" moment from his IP. Good luck and thanks for the kind words. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank's, although the school IP is a district wide IP being used by thousands of users and zero visits to WP since the district has WP blocked in the web filters. That means we can't even read it anymore thanks to the trolls. Yeah, thank's bro for dealing with her; now all that's left is for me to write to her ISP; I already got her banned from CenturyLink (used to be Embarq), I guess she can have fun finding ways to vandalize when she's banned from the two broadband providers and can't get on WP from school. :P PCHS-NJROTC 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• People like her make me glad my high school days are 30 years behind me.  :) You are truly one of the good ones who make this site work so well in the face of boneheads. Thanks for the Barnstar, btw! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; and did you get my message about the troll's new IP? These aren't people I know; they're just people I discovered when I started editing here, and they've been vandalizing longer than I've been editing it appears. PCHS-NJROTC 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you blocked the IP, thanks. Thanks for the compliments btw. :] PCHS-NJROTC 00:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just got your message a few minutes ago. Sadly, our airhead cheerleader has been here for quite awhile. She has her own entry on the long-term abuse page. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know; I wrote it a year ago. She's been sleeping, and now she's got a straw in her... well, and she's vandalizing again. She ought to be locked up; this is unexcusable. What's scary is that Cricket isn't even in Florida, so one must wonder how the heck she's using it. PCHS-NJROTC 00:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I take it back that I don't know these vandals; she once mention the name Sam Lindsay, and if it's her, I'd absolutely love to see her locked up. PCHS-NJROTC 00:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

When guys get crazy, it's one thing. Crazy girls are an entirely different story. If you can bring it up with the principal on Monday, perhaps you should. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Might as well do it now; I don't go to Lemon Bay or Charlotte High, so if I tell them it would be through email. I don't think the Cricket Communications user is a current student though, and perhaps not even an alumni; I'm thinking that it's someone in another state that's just picked up on this whole meatpuppetry thing. It's clearly meatpuppetry as there's a rainbow of IPs and trolling styles I've seen associated with LBHS Cheerleader. It's not just LBHS either; my GF knows all about this as she's forwarded me some bulletons on Myspace posted by some of her friends saying "Misplaced Pages hates us, we need to teach them a lesson" and crap, and I think she's taken them out of her friends list; she did not participate beyond writing a comment "wow, aren't you mature." The district has already told the staff at the different schools about it, and they've also blocked Misplaced Pages district wide. One of them from our arch rival school, Charlotte HS in Punta Gorda, wrote "This is what you get for getting us kicked off the internet yesterday" on the Monopoly article (really wise move isn't it; that's right up there with writing "the IT&S people suck" which is the quickest way to get permabanned from the network). PCHS-NJROTC 02:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That is truly disheartening. This is such a marvelous resource and a bunch of knuckleheaded teens manage to get a district-wide ban imposed on it. Damn. The meatpuppet/copycat thing doesn't surpise me; there are certainly precidents and two particular ones come to mind. If you do decide to bring this latest nonsense to light at the school, I wish you luck. Please keep me posted because there are few things which bug me quite as much as offsite-coordinated vandalism. Thanks again for all your good work. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a solution would be for someone to inform the IT&S about indefinate soft blocks that should keep the vandals from using the school district network for their nonsense without the need to block the site entirely. I had asked the ITS a couple years ago and they indicated that it was because of abuse, and they said it was because of "rules they have to follow" I think what happened is that a bunch of people complained to the local telecom about it thinking they would just forward their complaints, but the company probably said that something had to be done to put a stop to the abuse or they'd cut the service. They didn't specifically say it was because of vandalism, but that part's pretty obvious considering that we're the only district in the state blocking the site; not even Hospital Corporation of America with all of their IT&S web filters and monitoring required by HIPAA blocks out Misplaced Pages. I'd personally rather see it be a soft block than a hard block (even though if and when I get through an RfA I'd still be able to edit through a hard block as an admin), but I guess that's the district's decision; anything would be better than a total block on the site. PCHS-NJROTC 03:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this particular IP is out of New Jersey...wrong end of I-95.  :) I for one strongly believe you'd make a fine administrator and it's been eons since I've nominated anyone. I just may do so next week since I still don't have internet access at my new house. Hope to have it then. I'm editing here at work between lulls in the action, which makes it really difficult to sit down and write some new content. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great since next week we're only in school for two days due to Thanksgiving. PCHS-NJROTC 03:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Banned user edits

I tend to delete any and all edits from banned users, even if they're good. To me, banned is banned. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Seconded; it's coming off. I'm in the process of filing an abuse report on User:68.52.42.38 PCHS-NJROTC 01:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry; I already reverted to the last edit prior to the meatpuppet's.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You missed some that she posted as an IP (tricky vandal). PCHS-NJROTC 01:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports/208.66.198.220

Not sure if there is still anything going on here, but they've been blocked again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Realistically, nothings happening with it being a month ago unless they've already been caught without us having to bring it to their attention. PCHS-NJROTC 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

I have been looking at some of the abuse reports and it seems that rarely, if ever, does an ISP actually do something about Misplaced Pages vandals. And personally, I don't blame them. If I were running a company, the last thing I would want to do is alienate a paying customer who also might have influence over friends/relatives (especially for something as silly as vandalizing Misplaced Pages). I would just tell you guys to block him and be done with it. My question is, then, why do you keep filing these reports? Maybe you get results by contacting schools, but contacting personal ISPs like Comcast or Time Warner is probably just a big waste of time. Don't you agree? Thanks. Keegscee (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

They do all the time, but if someone that doesn't know what they're doing goes off and sends it incorrectly, they're not going to waste their time trying to figure out what they're talking about. Most ISPs are corporations with numerous departments; the people working the abuse desks don't care about losing a paying customer, they care about their jobs. Customers are numbers to them, and Misplaced Pages vandals increase the number of people that are being kicked off, therefore increasing the need for them. Centurylink, for example, absolutely cares; I'm pretty sure the an abuse report to the company (then Embarq) was probably the reason this site is blocked at Charlotte County Public Schools, although it wasn't an official report through WP:ABUSE. User:LBHS Cheerleader was also dealt with through abuse reports, and she disappeared for an entire year after being reported. BT took action against someone I reported related to Grawp. User:Mmbabies was taken down through an uncommon abuse report; complaining to the Better Business Bureau took care of him/her even though AT&T wouldn't do anything. Someone once asked me help them dealing with Comcast when they received a personal response because their abuse report was not submitted properly, and I did. Once I sent an abuse report to Road Runner, but although it was processed, they responded that they couldn't do anything because it was too stale (the abuse had not occured for a month as the IP was then blocked), but the dedicated vandal who had previously returned 6 month blocks stopped after that, so I have to wonder if they took action anyway. Furthermore, I've independantly notified abuse desks about "cheerleader vandals" and I think they've taken action. So far, I think I've found Centurylink, Comcast, Road Runner, Cox (I think Cox usually issues warnings though instead of suspensions), Verizon, Level 3 Communications, Shasta Communications, and even AT&T despite their notorious lack of response. ISPs don't want their name to be tarnished due to their lack of response to abuse reports in favor of a hand full of pinheads either. ISPs are usually show more mercy to schools and businesses because they usually have much more expensive plans (once again, corporations don't really care anyway), and they understand that there will always be that ten percent using the shared IPs for malicious purposes, and that explains why sometimes it appears that they didn't take action; in reality the ISPs will usually pass the complaints on to the orgs and inform them that the actions violate their Acceptable Use Policy, and don't think ISPs haven't ever suspended schools or businesses who have been repeat sources of trouble. Such orgs are required to have an abuse plan. It's not because corps care, it's because the people who create their policies care. Households, however, are a dime a dozen and they are shown much less mercy. If ISPs didn't want to do anything about abuse, why would they pay people specifically to get rid of abusers? In addition, why do people always talk about schools but never employers? Schools are not the only organizations who care about abuse. PCHS-NJROTC 23:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for launching that investigation into my user page. I really appreciate it. May I suggest that next time you mind your own business? Thanks. Keegscee (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just being bold which is encouraged to every user as soon as someone notices them and leaves them a welcome. I usually don't mess with people's user pages, but before I even saw what wiki you suggested people vandalize, the first thought that crossed my mind when reading your user page was "you've got to be kidding me, and this guy is asking me about abuse reports." For what it's worth, the site could have been a bunch of liberals making fun of conservatives and I still would have brought it to the attention of the admins; we are not 4chan, and we do not ask people to perform malicious actions. PCHS-NJROTC 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You weren't being bold, you were being a dick. You brought this issue up here, here, here, here, and here. And these are only the instances that I know of. Fortunately, I don't need to express my opinions of Conservapedia for people to realize what nut jobs they are. Simply providing the link will suffice, and people will come to the same conclusion I did. Keegscee (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you confessing to sockpuppetry? My comments at Marek69's talk page had to do with an IP editor posting comments quite similar to your's at Talk:Main Page, although I was not assuming it to be you at the time. You're cruising on a fast track for a block my friend; I now have to wonder if you're engaging in sockpuppetry to avoid scrutiny, and at any rate, calling fellow Wikipedians a "dick" is uncivil and will not help you while admins argue whether or not you deserve to remain unblocked. PCHS-NJROTC 00:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. I didn't realize someone else promoted vandalizing Conservapedia. Maybe they saw some of my warnings and are now joining the cause. Let's be honest: a website like Conservapedia lends itself to vandalism. And if people are vandalizing there instead of Misplaced Pages, better for us. So get over yourself and get a sense of humor. Stop acting like such a.....such a conservative. Keegscee (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not funny, nor would it be funny to promote vandalism at Liberalpedia if such a thing exists. This isn't about politics, this is about Network Abuse. PCHS-NJROTC 01:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your claims of sockpuppetry at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Keegscee. I want to emphasize the part about assuming good faith. I know you deal primarily with vandalism and probably get very frustrated, but that is no reason to abandon a key value of Misplaced Pages. No matter how good your work is here, it does not entitle you to bypass any of the rules. Please do not think that because you file abuse reports and do some of the dirty work that you can pick and choose what rules you want to follow. I am guilty of this as well and will do my best to improve. Keegscee (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I do assume good faith, which is why I insisted on a checkuser before anyone jumped to conclusions. Sometimes I feel I assume good faith too much. sockpuppetry crossed my mind the minute I saw that comment in that "who created wiki" thread since it appeared very similar to your commentary, but I assumed good faith and did not want to alienate you unless there was more proof. I started setting up the report for possible sockpuppetry before I received your message stating you were not the IP user who posted at Talk:Main Page. I'm glad to see that you're trying to improve. PCHS-NJROTC 03:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:AbActioned

A tag has been placed on Template:AbActioned requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. GrooveDog FOREVER 23:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's so old I didn't even remember creating it. PCHS-NJROTC 23:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi PCHS-NJROTC, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, I've left you another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 03:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 04:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello PCHS-NJROTC, Marek69 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marek.69 04:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! PCHS-NJROTC 04:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Netalarmtalk 02:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the new message? PCHS-NJROTC 02:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

On the future of the project, and I'm personally getting tired of this project now that nothing has happened in a long time. Netalarmtalk 02:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been tired of it because it seems more and more of the reports would be incompatible with the criteria. It seems it's getting better though. PCHS-NJROTC 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Keegscee

We need some more information if you'd like a checkuser done here - your comments seem to imply that you think Howard isn't a sockpuppet, in which case there's no reason for a check, or even an investigation, to be done. Thank you. Hersfold 02:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the IP is probably a sockpuppet. PCHS-NJROTC 02:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Grand Theft Jimbo

Thanks for editing that, dude. I bet if we could at least ask some help from the modding community to make a TC should this project of ours turnn into a reality. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cooooooool!! PCHS-NJROTC 03:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Immature edits by immature people

Your proposed "cheerleader editnotice" is a strong, not-very-friendly solution to a problem that historically has been solved with honey. The historical way of dealing with editors who are immature is to watchlist articles likely to attract them, revert them, kindly explain why they were reverted using a welcome template or an individualized note, and point them to the right way of doing this.

Misplaced Pages is largely edited by adults, for adults, using social constructs familiar to adults. It's not MySpace or cartoon-pedia, or AllThingsDisneyWiki.com, and it's not a teen hang-out or kid's playground. The social rules that junior high and elementary school students use day-in-day-out are quite different from those of Misplaced Pages, and WP:BITE says we have to be understanding of this and use a velvet glove approach.

I don't run across very many editors who "seem" young by their edits, but most of those I do don't last long. I can understand why - socially, it's just not a good fit. A my-school-pedia about their school and town, edited by them for them, would be a much better fit and much more enjoyable for them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

One's that seem young often seem young because they act young. It's become known that there's been several admins and such that were young. My idea was to but the warning there to let "test editors" know that adding randomness into articles is disruptive to make it easier to identify blatant trolls and reduce the risk of assuming bad faith when a test editor just so happens to come along when regular trolls are hitting articles hot and heavy. The proposed template was based off of the Romeo template and may have been a little on the harsh side. In case it's your assumption, I'm not here just for the purpose of improving the "my school article" and such, I'm here because of an interest in computers and information technology; there's IPs from around the world of all shapes and sizes, including broadband IPs (but you see those everywhere), dialup IPs (ditto), school IPs (this is where is starts to get interesting), public access IPs, corporate/business IPs (ranging from Pizza Hut to Boeing), governement IPs... If one looks hard enough, you'll find editing from pretty much any significant organization with internet access. It's a facinating thing; it's even kind of interesting to look at vandalism despite my zero-tolerance appearance. Who would guess that some of the United States House of Representatives IPs have longer block logs and abuse histories than an average school district? Who would guess that the Department of Homeland Security would be faced with an abuse report for school-like vandalism to a wiki project (that actually went through WP:ABUSE)? My doubt isn't with them over age; it's with them over maturity, and there's just as many adults in fact with the same maturity issues that we see from schools. Don't believe it? Go look at User talk:199.91.37.33. That IP is only used by HCA employees; I used to use it now and then behind the scenes, but not anymore because that's how strict they are. Volunteers do not use it either; it's strictly health care workers and office workers, all of whom are adults, and wiki abuse doesn't get past IT&S there; 99% of the vandals are probably caught before a block is needed on our end, and considering the IP seems to represent hundreds of facilities (based on edits), that's pretty impressive if you ask me. In short, it's not that I can't stand cheerleaders or even cheerleader vandals, it's that I assume that any cheerleader who would vandalize a wiki is probably a snob, and I can't stand snobs. On the wiki end, all we can do is treat them like any other blatant vandal: warn them, block them, ignore them, and I take care to give them undue attention. However, warning them four times each time they go on a vandalism spree is in itself feeding the trolls, but because it is difficult to a assume good faith without going through a series of warnings, we pretty much don't have a choice but to be mellow and go through the usual series of warnings. PCHS-NJROTC 19:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Advice

If you're serious about oversighting, you first need to stop repeating the info all over the place. I've removed your comments and DC's comments at WP:VILLAGE and at DC's talk page. It's going to be nearly impossible to oversight it now, because that would remove edits by half a dozen uninvolved ditors, but if you plan to do so, you should use Special:EmailUser/Oversight ASAP, with a list of edits you'd like oversighted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll email you in a second with some privacy information. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did my best to avoid reposting it, but I had to in order to point out what the user was doing wrong. As I am not an oversighter, I do not know exactly what is involved in oversighting, but I do know that I had an oversight remove over 50% of a particular school IP's total edits from view at request of the school's administration. This is the internet, **it happens. I do seriously suspect sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry here, but I'm trying really hard to assume good faith with an established user. However, based on the block log, I see this isn't the first time he's ever acted out. I don't know that it's really a big issue with it just being the first name, but it's still unacceptable. PCHS-NJROTC 01:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Only you can decide if it's a big deal or not. If you decide it isn't, no harm done by removing the comments. If you decide it is, at least it's somewhat more likely now that they can be oversighted. But like I said, if that's what you want to do, sooner is better than later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it's only the first name, I'll let it drop this time. I see why it would be difficult to oversight now; it's because it wasn't reverted immediately. Actually, they could probably just copy-paste the source code minus the details in question, oversight everything, then paste the clean version back into the page. PCHS-NJROTC 01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably; but the attribution would be lost. I've seen something like that done for "serious" oversighting (well, I assume serious; I obviously couldn't see what was oversighted to judge for myself); not sure what they would have done in this case. Probably still wise for you and DC not to restore the edits (you were talking to each other, no need for others to see it), but I'll leave that to you and DC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, let me make this as clear as I possibly can - I do not know your name. I choose a name at random for an example of simple vandalism in our discussion. I gather the name happens to be your actual first name. It is a very common male name in North America and the UK. You didn't comment on whether or not you also EAT POOP, so I'll assume that part wasn't as coincidentally accurate. Frankly, your reaction to this makes you seem a little unhinged, but feel free to ask for oversight and start an SPI case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir

I saw your discussion about the term myth on the creationism discussion article, & I admired your warmth for God...of course you may delete or not reply to this, since it doesn't really concern Misplaced Pages...but I'm just interested in your view. How is it please that you believe in God and evolution at the same time, I wonder? You said that the Bible didn't say "God piled up everything" but I believe God did do something a bit like it. If you take the Bible literally, I mean, the world would be much younger than evolutionists claim; and theories such as the "Big Bang theory" is not exactly biblical. I was just wondering, because the two views seem so incompatible with each other...If you would be so kind as to write back to me, please write on my talk page! Yours truly, Classical Esther (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban discussion for User:LBHS Cheerleader

I added User:LBHS Cheerleader to my watchlist after our discussion the other day and I see that you have added a template to their page saying that they are banned. It seems odd that a user who has made only 11 edits would be banned. Can you point me to where this ban was discussed? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a sockmaster who is banned by consensus. This account is banned with only 11 edits because it rarely even attempts to appear a legitimate contributer. Pretty much every account that the user(s) have ever made have been blocked regardless of the intent of the edits from the accounts. See User:Jessica The Antivandalism Cheerleader and User:Barnstargurl for example. Those accounts appear to have been blocked for the exclusive reason that they were related to User:LBHS Cheerleader. Whenever anyone even resembles LBHS Cheerleader, they are blocked on sight. Her/their unblock requests have repeatedly been denied. Based on the fact that she begs, insists that she's on a shared IP, and goes by the name "Jessica," I tagged her as a possible sockpuppet of User:Bobabobabo. Quite possible, but there's no way to say for sure, and since I've become more aware of the policies here, I've decided to just pull the Bobabobabo tag and throw in an independant ban on LBHS Cheerleader; we shouldn't be rejecting unblock requests or taking any other course of action based on something that is possible, yet impossible to prove. There was a discussion on this at AN/I, but in the middle of the discussion, I threw the Bobabobabo possibility into play, and consenus was to jump to conclusions and cover her under Bobabobabo's ban, but if you notice that the modus operandi is quite different, I boldly decided that we can't jump to conclusions like that. If you disagree, that's fine, but the girl(s) are considered banned one way or another, and had I not brought the Bobabobabo hypothesis into play, LBHS Cheerleader would probably have it's own ban. We could take this to AN/I again, but I don't see the need to give these trolls anymore attention than need be. This scandal has been through pretty much everything bad on WP, including AIV, blocking, sockpuppet investigation, checkuser, long term abuse, open proxies, abuse reports (and it was effective for a year), banning, and probably more. If you're wondering, this group of meatpuppets (I have reason to believe it's more than one actual person) is indeed the reason why I "hate" cheerleader vandals. If one is a cheerleader, that's fine, I have many real life friends that are such, but there's absolutely no excuse for some of the immaturity they have demonstrated. My honest opinion is that these people need to seriously get a life. We all try to assume good faith, keep our cool, give second chances, and hope that even some of the worst trolls will see the light and choose to give up their ways and be constructive, but we've got to show common sense here; these kind of people will never be an asset to this encyclopedia project. Of course, not every "cheerleader vandal" is going to be related to this nonsense, assume good faith when dealing with them, but when people blatantly write nonsense like "I AM THE BEST CHEERLEADER IN THE WHOLE WORLD!!!!!!" after being warned by the abuse filter, is there honestly any chance they'll ever be helpful? Is there any reason why they don't deserve to have a strike against them with their ISP, school, or workplace? Do they deserve a second chance? Obviously it's a bit different in less blatant situations, but IMHO it's pure network abuse when someone completely ignores an automated warning and posts such spam in serious article, and they deserve no mercy. Now obviously there's exceptions; if someone's first edit was adding "I love cheerleading" to an article, and they followed the rules in following edits, obviously being harsh would be rather inappropriate, but I've never seen that happen actually. PCHS-NJROTC 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)