Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:02, 17 March 2006

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

81.178.78.149

One of this friends completly changed the Clive bull article. Honestly the new changes do not flow well compared to the original version. He has broken the 'in good faith rule' by saying that everyone that disagrees with him ( from at least 4 different ip's in 2 different countries) is the same person.It is not fair to stifle debate on an article like this and I am sure the 'good faith' clause covers this. Could you please ban this fellow for a day or two so that newbies can make comments without being called sickpuppets. DebbieatCNBC 09:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Syrthiss

Hello, I have also been blocked. I work here and me and the other secretaries edit the clive bull article and the Iain lee one. This wiki stuff is getting stupid because they don't understand most companies have one email address. Joanne was blocked by this guy on Wednesday and none of us could edit. She put a comment on a discussion page saying she preferred the old version of clive bull and was banned for being a sockpuppet. Is there an offical place to complain, we work for a tv station so that might make them sort this situation out.160.83.32.14 10:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

this ia an official complaint, please respond to this thread as we have an issue that was not discussed in the link from Syrthiss. We are requesting a remove of the block and a reply to our specific request. it is fair and wiki policy to reply to our comments not just provide a link to tell us we are blocked because he thinks we are one person 84.13.84.22 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)84.13.84.22

3 contributers to Clive Bull and fans of his program work in the same organisation and we like to edit wiki while we are working. Especially Clive Bull as it is close to our hearts. Is that a crime? Two of my work collegues were banned from wiki simply because they said they didn't like the changes at the clive bull site. Apparently because they all inputted their independant comments at the same time they were banned. That is very unfair. So you just block people on a bandwagon??? How do we make an official complaint? Editors should have been more throurough before banning everyone.

We received this reply from Syrthiss " I can say with confidence that if your coworkers registered new accounts and contributed positively to wikipedia (ie don't all edit Clive Bull with a remarkably similar style concurrently) that they would be welcomed." He doesn't listen to Clive Bull's program at all yet bans people. A week ago Clive mentioned that he might be gay on air and had a poll from his listeners. He made the comment as a joke but a lot of listeners took it seriously. We LISTEN to the program everyday and have a right to contribute to wiki. If you actually listened to the program you would understand that out posts were not hoaxed but justified. A similar thing happened with Iain Lee recently too. 160.83.73.14 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude, where are you from? We have been banned too - this guy is just crazy! He is banning everone that disagrees with him!! Can someone please help out all the fans of clive that are getting banned because they are voicing their opinions!!84.13.84.22 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

... --Syrthiss 20:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

==we expect a response to our messages, not a link. Debbie was banned for putting something in a discussion page. there is no explanation. ==160.83.32.14

Help, help, I'm surrounded by sockpuppets!

The Christianity article has been in trouble since January. A new user, Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arrived, and began to make changes that were considered too controversial to be added without consensus. When he was reverted, he reverted back. He took advantage of the fact that we didn't want to report a newcomer for 3RR violations, and kept on reverting, despite pleas and warnings. Once he even reverted 11 times in eighteen and a half hours, even though he was perfectly aware of the rule. His practice was to post a defence of his edit on the talk page, then to reinsert his edit, with "see talk page" in the edit summary, despite the objections of many other editors.

He was joined by a brand new editor, BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who immediately started reverting to his versions, and arguing in favour of his edits on the talk pages. She followed him to other pages, and voted for whatever he voted for. We suspected sockpuppetry. MikaM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kecik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued this practice — brand new editors who reverted to Giovanni's version, and voted for whatever he voted for, following him to lots of different articles. All four editors violated 3RR greatly over and above a possible accidental slip into four reverts. They were not reported at first as they were new. When they continued to revert after repeated warnings, they were reported. All four have been blocked, Giovanni, most frequently.

A checkuser found no evidence of sockpuppetry with MikaM and Kecik, although we still suspect there is a connection, even if they have different IP addresses, as they seem to have no purpose on Misplaced Pages other than to revert to Giovanni's version, and to give an appearance of consensus for his version on talk pages. In particular, MikaM uses the same language style. The checkuser established that Giovanni33 = BelindaGong. They were both blocked for 24 hours, as they had taken more than three reverts betwen them. The block was later increased to 48 hours. Giovanni later claimed that Belinda was his wife, "and therefore not a sockpuppet", even though they had actively pretended (in their messages to each other) not to know each other.

While Giovanni was "serving his block", another "brand new" user, Freethinker99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared. He came straight to the Christianity talk page, said he was new, but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni. He then reverted to Giovanni's version. Then Giovanni answered a question which had been posted to his talk page, forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker. He changed it immediately, but it was too late, as we had already seen it. He then claimed that he just happened to be at Freethinker's house, and was showing him how to edit Misplaced Pages, and that Freethinker had allowed him to answer a question on his talk page, from Freethinker's computer. The "Freethinker99" account was blocked, though not indefinitely. (The "BelindaGong" account was also not blocked indefinitely.)

This evening, yet another "brand new" editor, RTS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared on the Christianity page, and reverted to something which Giovanni had inserted, without consensus, on Tuesday, and which had been reverted by another user. (This was his third edit; his first two were to his user and talk pages.) He then, in Giovanni's style, defended it on the talk page, and reverted back, again, and again, and again. I warned him, before he had gone over the three reverts, although I was convinced he was a sockpuppet and didn't need to be told of the rules. I warned him again, rather than reporting him, after he had violated 3RR. I explained the rules fully, e.g. about partial reverts, etc. He just kept on reverting, in the style of Giovanni/Belinda. When he had reached seven reverts, I made a hasty report to WP:AN/3RR, without diffs, as I was going to dinner. He was blocked by another administrator for 3 hours, just to stop him for the moment; that gave me time to gather the evidence for the diffs, which I did.

Then, just as I was beginning to relax, NPOV77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted to RTS's (Giovanni's) version. I looked at his contributions, and saw that he also started today, and that this revert was his third edit, the first two being to his user and talk pages. I immediately blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. I had refrained from blocking BelindaGong, Freethinker99, and RTS when they arrived, because I was involved in that article, even though there was every indication of sockpuppetry. However, I know that admins do block obvious sockpuppets to pages they edit themselves — I've seen it happening for example with AD/CE wars — and there are just too many "brand new" users who appear, revert to Giovanni's version, argue for his version on the talk page, and otherwise show familiarity with Misplaced Pages. This is the first time I've ever blocked anyone from an article I was involved with, other than pure vandals, and if an admin undoes my block, I will accept that, and will not in anyway consider it to be "wheelwarring". My block was just a quick reaction to the beginning of another war.

I'd like some feedback, advice, and if possible, some active intervention. If I was wrong to block NPOV77, I will accept that meekly! I don't actually approve of IAR, but am not sure to what extent the "don't-block-someone-you're-in-dispute-with" policy applies when, yet again an obvious sockpuppet turns up after another one has been blocked. I think my quick reaction was partly a result of all the trouble I've had simply because I didn't block Belinda, Freethinker, and RTS on sight. If other admins say I was wrong, I promise I won't get belligerent. And I won't wheelwar. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I've semi-protected the page in case any others turn up. I'd say you were right to block given how obvious the sockpuppetry was. I'll keep the page on my watchlist and I'll help you if any more of them arrive. SlimVirgin 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My (non-admin) opinion: Let's suppose for the sake of argument that all of these new users, as well as Giovanni, are telling the truth and are not sockpuppets which is utter bullshit, but bear with me for a second. By their own words, they are nevertheless clearly in the related category of meatpuppets and can thus be treated exactly like socks. Block 'em. PurplePlatypus 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Entertaining situation! I'll help out if I can. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Another (albeit non-admin) opinion: I think you were certainly in the right here. You showed some admirable restraint in not blocking the second (or third, or fourth, or however many sockpuppets there are here) sockpuppet on sight, and there's just a point where enough is enough, especially when they make it so obvious. I've actually seen posts about this situation before and I'm sorry to hear it's still ongoing. Hopefully something can be done to help you (and the Christianity article) out. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also non admin and am often on the "other side" to Ann on debates about this page. I sometimes even agree with Giovanni33. However these "socks" were so blatant (using edit summaries etc like pros) that I think Ann did exactyt the right thing. Chaos is not good for constructive discussion and these constant edit wars are a waste of everyone's time. If someone would teach me how to easily revert to a previous version I will help out if needed. SOPHIA 12:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I am an Admin, and if I weren't late getting out the door this morning I'd go digging for a barnstar for forbearance and patience beyond the norm and put it on your page. You did precisely right; if they feel they have a case they can protest on their talk pages and it can be looked into more thoroughly. Would someone who has time please give this long-suffering Admin a barnstar? or I'll do it later - KillerChihuahua 12:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The way I look at it, the blocks can come from the "involved" admin because, essentially, they are not blocks of new instance. If, let's say, some child were to set up 3 accounts and vote for himself/herself/itself on FAC and get blocked for that, then, when that child set up five new accounts to evade the blocks, they could each be blocked indefinitely. They're not being blocked indefinitely for new offenses, but for not serving out the original offense. Some people never figure it out. As Geogre the Wise says: Misplaced Pages is not the venue for negotiating ultimate truth nor the secret history of the world. They have Usenet for that. Geogre 13:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Modern Persecution of Non-Christians

I am moving this discussion here per the suggestion of Tom harrision. If these personal attacks are not repudiated, then I do want to go through all the formal dispute resolution steps, since obviously it's not stopping on its own, despite my pleading. Also, my wife has stopped contributing to Wikipeadia because she is being deny her existence as a full and separate person with equal rights to myself, not my socketpuppet. I'm willing to prove who she is, but no one is intersted in the truth. Giovanni33 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This user was banned from Wikipedai by MusicalLinguist afte he made a single edit supporting my version after I was blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NPOV77 on the basis of being accussed of being a socketpuppet. When I saw him, I was sure he would be accused of being my socketpuppet, but I was suprised he was blocked right away without a user check (so much for assusming good faith). But what really suprised me was that not only was he accused of being a socketpuppet, not only was he blocked indefinitely, but he was NOT accused of being MY socketpuppet! Guess who got blamed? Giovanni33!! They must really hate Giovanni33 to keep smearing his name like this. I guess they go after him since he has been their biggest ideological threat to the dominated Christian POV. I also noticed that my version that he supported was NOT Giovanni33's version. It's interesting that they can ignore this fact, go way in the past to dig up Giovani's history looking for dirt (repeating their version of events), in order to try to paint Giovanni33 in this negative manner, and using this as a pretext to attack others who do not toe the Christian line. About attacking Giovanni33--it's the repetition propaganda effect: keep repeating something over and over at every chance you get, and sooner or later enough people will start to believe it. Even if they really believed that NPOV77 was Giovanni33 (but not me?), I still don't see how that justified the blocked to say nothing of being banned. Is Giovanni33 currently being blocked for some reason what would mean any socketpuppet of his would likewise be blocked? Or is the problem here just one of Giovanni33 not being a Christian editor, and any editor who agrees with him must be done away with? This seems to me to be a major violation of Wiki rules and a major problem with this article. RTS 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'll check the history, you'll see that Giovanni33 has used sockpuppets relatively recently. I am not an administrator and don't have blocking powers, but if the administrators blocked you and/or NPOV77, they had good reason. It has nothing to do with attacking anyone and everything to do with the fact that Misplaced Pages policy has been violated in the past and has resulted in the complete disruption of this article. Gio's POV has never been an issue...what has been an issue has been his reverts to versions with little or no consensus and the utilization of sockpuppets in attempts to get around WP:3RR. Let's keep focused. To suggest that this is "persecution" shows that you haven't the faintest notion what persecution really is. KHM03 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If they did block, they had good reason? Is this more blind faith? Maybe someone can explain these good reasons since I can't think of any.Giovanni33 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I've been very busy since last week and have not even logged in to check wikipedia. To my surprise, I see some similar nonsense going on in my absense. Well maybe it isn't nonsense given that it looks like my wikibreak/absense was seen as an opportunity to attack me while I was gone. How nice! I have not had enough time to see what has been goin on yet, but what I do see, I don't like. Its rather pathetic really. KMH03, why are you pushing these old lies? I don't have any socketpuppets! That is really old news, too. I won't repeat myself, again, nor should I have to, as this is rather old. Its interesting that no one wants to take me up on my offer to prove that BelindaGong is not me. I guess those who keep pushing these lies prefer to keep up the hoax so as to speculate and continue with the attempts to discredit me. I am sad to see that new users are still being attacked as well. Ill have to do some reading to see what is going on, but I was really hoping these nonsesne personal attacks against me would have stopped by now, as they did seem to calm down. I guess I was hoping for too much. Giovanni33 08:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that Tom harison is involved in the accusations, against me, too, this time. And, ofcourse MusicalLinguist plastered the same socketpuppet allegations against me with all her characterizations as she usually does again. No suprise, there. Now I will have to track all this down and respond, as usual. Will it ever stop? Tom, I don't know if you really believe what you claim to believe, or you are just jumping on the bandwaggon intiated by MusicalLinguist, but you are wrong. I was away and am just now am coming back to read what amounts to more personal attacks against me.

Why do you think this user is connected to me? I looked at the history of the Christianity article and my edits and his are very different. Granted, IMHO his edits are much better than what stands now (which is just back to what it was before any of my changes--all my contributions have been stripped away, it seems--and without consensus), but his edits are missing many things that I incorporated. Also, the language is different, my quotes are removed, etc. It seems to be more refined and trimmed down. Acceptable but not what I wanted. Still, just because an editor happens not to follow a traditional Christian POV, is that reason to block him, bann him, and then accuse him of being connected to me? I'd really like to see an honest explanation for this. What really puzzles me is what did he do to get banned? And by MusicalLinguist, no less? This seems a rather serious violation of standard procedure. I would like to see the theory behind this course of action.Giovanni33 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

They were banned for substantially violating 3RR, not for their POV. As for Belinda, we know that your situation is "complicated". Str1977 08:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that with RTS--3RR vio (funny name, don't you think STR?). But, NPOV77? He appears to be banned outright by your dearest friend MusicalLinguist, and yet, I do not see the reason for that. Certainly no 3RR that I can see. Am I wrong, or do you misspeak? Also, I still don't see what any of this has to do with Belinda or me. Why need our names be continuously dragged through the mud with these (rather old) false accusations and attacks? Giovanni33 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about the name. It makes me suspicious of this user, who despite his only recent arrival does seem to be quite aware of the disputes on this page and also with some tactics used by some editors. RTS certainly violated the 3RR. I have never encountered NPOV77, whose name makes me suspicious too.

Where did I attack you here? Is my allusion to your "complicated situation" really an attack. But you must know best about it. Str1977 10:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not see you attacking me but clearly MusicalLinguist, Tom Harrision, and KM03 have all attacked me. Using someone in the context of a bad example is an attack. If you disagree, think about me going around and picking on something that you did once (maybe gave a wrong fact, something that makes you look bad), and then kept bringing it up as a negative example of what Str1977 did, explaining in detail all about YOU when the issue is something that has no connection to you. This is what others are doing with me still despite my protests. About the name being a partial anagram to yours, I will just assume good faith, but it does make it look fishy to me.Giovanni33 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gio - I mentioned the socks because you were blocked for using sockpuppets to evade WP:3RR. I am not an administrator and have no power to block anyone, so the block was not my doing...I merely used your example to correct the user who initiated this section, who was under the mistaken impression that you were blocked for your religious beliefs, which was not the case...you were blocked because an administrator felt you had violated WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. No lies, there...just truth (see here). KHM03 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so my name is being dragged through the mud once again just because I made a good example? How considerate--even though I have asked that this stop as I consider it a form of a personal attack on my reputation. Also, your excuse that I'm only being used as an example is not quite true. Clearly, I see you and others either allude indirectly or directly that I am connected with the violatating editor. This is not harmless speculation, either. Its an underhanded attack. Lastly, you are stating things as a fact, which I know is not true. You said, "Giovanni33 has used sockpuppets relatively recently." This is a lie. My wife, who shares my IP address used her own account, and she is not a socketpuppet. You may think that I am lying, but I've offered to prove otherwise, and yet no one wants this verified. Why? So you can keep repeating the lies under the cover of ignorance and the appearance of socketpuppetry that you can keep stating as a fact, even if only to use my name as an example? Lastly, you say "recently." Not really. Giovanni33 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By "recently", I meant last month...February 15, according to the block log. That's recent, in my view. I haven't muddied up your name...I simply corrected User:RTS who seemed to misunderstand the reason you were blocked. User:RTS brought up your name...not I. It could very well be that it's simply coincidental that several new users (including some proven socks) share your precise POV. If so, that's really unfortunate. But by using socks (see here to violate WP:3RR, you've honestly made it very difficult to assume good faith. I think that's the problem the administrators are having with the new users. At any rate, this is best discussed elsewhere, as it's doing very little to improve this article. KHM03 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice try to wiggle out of what is happening. RTS is bringing up his suprise that user NPOV77 who favored his version was banned and accused of being me--not him. Then you state as facts your opinion about my past socketpuppets, even though it has nothing to do with this situation. So you are in effect defending the use of my name, these past incidents, and then characterizing it as a fact, instead of saying something to the effect, "yes, its terrible that Giovanni33 is still being blamed for things based on speculation and other users, when he has been a very good editor, making lots of useful contributions, and its not fair to him to keep using his mistakes when he first started as a club to beat him with.' That would have been the right way to respond. What you did was pick up the club to take some swings yourself. Thanks! Also, again, you do not tell the truth: the version that RTS and then NPOV reverted to was NOT my version, not my POV. They are different. But, I know its essential to link me to them in order to justify the attacks against me, but even this connection is not justified. But, also its wrong: any new user who does not adopt a traditional, conservative Christian POV will be essentially driven away. This harms the article and Wikipeaida.Giovanni33 18:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I wake up much too early, and I come across this talk page..... I have to say that I saw a clear abuse of administrator power. First off, NPOV77's first edit was not a revert, it was work on his/her user page. The first page edit was indeed a revert, which is discussed often on pages, and it is possible that the person had read it, having looked at Misplaced Pages for a long time before ever actually contributing. This revert was on March 5th, and the only revert by that person. Str made a revert, then Musical Linguist did, then Str did again (RTS had been adding in information that Str has been trying to remove.....) then Musical Linguist did again, then Tom Harrison made a revert, then RTS made a revert, then Musical Linguist made her third revert (accusing RTS of making 6 reverts, which I shall look into, but it seems that he was putting different text in and not actually reverting to an older copy) then RTS reverts again, then Str reverts for a third time, and then RTS reverts for what I believe to be the third time, and Tom Harrison reverts for the third time in a day, and then NPOV77 comes in and reverts, followed by Latinus reverting...... who seems to be clearly not a sockpuppet, having well over 100 edits.

So we know that if NPOV77 is a sock puppet, it is to RTS, not Giovanni. If it were Giovanni's sock puppet, the revert wouldn't be against the rules at all. Indeed, It was at 15:44, March 5, 2006 that NPOV77 created their user page and at 15:47 that the revert was made, which does look very fishy, but possible innocence. Str reverted last at 13:53, and Tom Harrison reverted at 14:36.... This would be a 1hr8min break between this revert and the last, 1hr5min between when NPOV's account was likely created and this incident. So how fast does RTS respond? He reverted within 2 minutes of Tom, 2 minutes of Musical Linguist, and 4 minutes of Str. Such a long delay all of a sudden makes it hard to place the behavioral pattern on NPOV77, though I can certainly see a possibility with RTS being a pun on Str1977 as with the 77 repeating itself.

But let us look at Sockpuppet policy... "However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Misplaced Pages."

further:

"Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Misplaced Pages for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, such beliefs have been shown not to be well founded."

"If there is doubt, a developer or checkuser user can check to see whether accounts are related. Experience has shown that on article talk pages, including polls, the linkage is usually not supported by the information available to developers, so self-restraint in making such accusations is usually the right course."

To the best of my knowledge, these precautions were not undertaken by MusicalLinguist, which makes it a very bad idea to ban an editor which may or may not be a sockpuppet. As an administrator, it would be very easy to have a checkuser see if the accounts were related. It is not illegal for a new user to have done that, even if they did know a lot. For all you know, it could have been a perfectly legitimate use of a sockpuppet by me, because you didn't check to see if the accounts were related to RTS or to me.

I suggest the utmost care in the future, and don't forget, "Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting". The non-Christians have been pushed into the shadows, while str accuses NPOV to be a relativistic POV. You must incorporate their views in order to be NPOV, even if it's only mentioning that some people feel that this may be the case. There is no reason that anything controversial needs to be states as a fact. I'm still noticing a lack of citations as well, which is the one thing I suggested you get into check. Start with simple in-text citations while you get it hammered out. (Stein p. 78) (not a real citation)

KV 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The place to discuss and review this is the noticeboard. Keeping it brief, NPOV77 (talk · contribs) and RTS (talk · contribs) were the same person. When, using a second account, that same person reverted, that was that person's fourth revert, violating the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison 15:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you, Tom, but assuming that NPOV77 = RTS, it wasn't that person's fourth revert, it was the ninth revert. RTS reverted eight times, and as soon as he was blocked, the brand-new user NPOV77 appeared and reverted to his last revert. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Was there a user check that confirmed they were the same person? My understanding was that no such user check was done as MusicalLinguist simply blocked that person indefinitely solely based on the fact that they supported the same version of the blocked person. Maybe he was a socket of the blocked person, but how can she assume the worst and then take this drastic against against the person based on making one revert? This seems descriminatory. For instance, if any new user reverted to her version after she just reverted 3 times, would she instantly bann the new user who just reverted to her version and then accuse herself of creating a socketpuppet to evade the 3RR rule? Ofcourse not. Also, I'm still not very happy that this is being used to attack ALL editors who do not adhere to the traditional Christian POV. I see that MusicalLinguist has copied and pasted the usual attacks against all editors. At least this time she removed reference to Sophia and TheShriek, but its not fair to all the other editors, including myself.Giovanni33 18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my position, because it may be a bit muddled... I believe that RTS probably did make NPOV77 as a sock puppet, but it is not certain, and at most a very temporary block pending on a checkuser IP check should have been in place. Simply blocking the user with only conjecture (even hearsay is absent) and not immediately taking the proper steps to make sure it isn't a mistake is something that could have the effect of preventing a NPOV view in the article, and perhaps in many other articles the user may have contributed to in the future. Certainly, I have seen a false accusation of RTS reverting, when he was putting up revised versions of new text that others simply reverted, based upon the stated objections of the reverters. It seems that there is a bit of a bias on the part of MusicalLyricist that needs special attention when she uses her administrative power in regards to the article.

KV 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points:

To Giovanni33:

• Would I ban a new user who reverted to my version? I'm not sure what you mean by my version. I don't have a particular version. I have contributed very little new material to the article. Most of my edits have been grammatical, etc. or reverting a new, controversial edit which had been inserted without consensus. I have never inserted a pile of new stuff and insisted that it stay up despite the objections of others. You are the one who has been inserting entire paragraphs of new material, often inaccurate (Galileo was tortured, St Thomas Aquinas's teaching on transubstantiation was based on older, pagan religions with cannibalism), highly POV (despite Cyril's possible involvement in Hypatia's murder, he was later proclaimed a saint by the Catholic Church), and unproven but asserted (by you) as fact (Christianity grew out of "mystery religions"), plus efforts to link the evil deeds of nominal or lapsed Christians with Christianity itself (Hitler, etc.). So, no, I don't have "my own" version. I haven't taken large chunks of pro- or anti-Christian books and inserted their content into the articles. I have collaborated with the other editor, made suggestions, and done relatively little editing.
• There were no newly-created (same month as the dispute) accounts that showed up to agree with Str1977, KHM03, Wesley, Tom harisson, me, and many others, or to revert to what you call "my" version, though, as I've said, I don't have my own version. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The question is hypothetical, and you skirted it. But the point still stands and the answer to the rhetorical question is obvious: no, you would not ban a user who was new and reverted to your version. And, ofcourse you have a version--the one that Str1977 has. You will always revert to what he reverts to, and vote for what he votes for, etc. You even joked before that he and you are meatpuppets on his talk page once. The example you give of taking action against a user who inserts "true faith," constantly is not comparable to this situation because one is obviously a clear case of NPOV violation, which can be treated and vandalism, while the other is a legitimate content dispute that was split among editors, and it was a dispute that you were involved with. Yes, you banned outright, without even a warning indefnitely for making one revert. And he is still banned. Did you even bother to check if the IP you blocked forever is not a public IP address that will also affect others? The action is not one of an "obvious" socketpuppet. At most its a probable one, but that is just speculation, a guess. One must err on the side of caution and assume good faith when there are any room for doubt. In this case there is. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew that the question was hypothetical, and I did not skirt it. I pointed out that it has not happened that a newly-registered user reverted your edits. Str1977 and I do not "always" revert to each other and vote for what the other votes for. He edits many pages that I don't go near. (I know, as I sometimes look at his contributions to see if he's on line, particularly if I've recently sent him a message.) And he votes on those pages, generally to do with history. I vote on lots of Misplaced Pages project pages, and a few article talk pages that he doesn't go near. So despite my little joke on his talk page (which was actually saying that I realized from some of his recent edits that he was not my sockpuppet), nobody who looked at our contributions could say that my purpose on Misplaced Pages is to ensure that he gets what he wants, through helping out with votes and reverts, or that his purpose on Misplaced Pages is to ensure that I get what I want. We share the same POV on Christianity-related articles. We both edit many articles that have nothing to do with Christianity, and we generally don't even meet each other on such articles. A look at BelindaGong's contributions or Freethinker99's, and those of the suspected sockpuppets, show that their purpose on Misplaced Pages was to revert to what you wanted and to vote for what you wanted.

Concerning your point about the public IP address, you don't need to worry. I didn't block the IP address indefinitely. I blocked the account indefinitely (and immediately reported it here so that any administrator who disagreed could review and if necessary undo the block). AnnH ♫ 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The examples you cite about my editing are cherry-picking from all the articles where I've made hundreds of edits and these examples are not representative, nor even relevant here. Also, your characterizations of even these select handful of edits are not even accurate, if if you keep repeating them, and I have to keep correcting you (it does get boring). For examples my clear stance is that Galileo was threatenend with torture, shown the torture intruments that would be used unless he renounced himself and his work. I quoted a scholar who felt that his abuse, humiliation, house arrest, and overall treatment amounted to tourture--this was an attribution, not my own POV. When this wasnt clear I changed it myself. Where I was wrong, I quickly correct myself. Yet, you omit this fact and try to collect examples where I might have made a mistake and repeat that over and over. Clearly you are trying to bias others against me. I don't appreciate that. Similarly, my clear stance is that Christiaity may have been influenced by mystery cults. Regarding the Hitler article, when I arrived it never mentioned his religion at all--yet all other leaders, such as JFK, etc. their religion is mentioned. I found this ommission odd. It's POV to suppress a well established fact, that he was a life-long professed Christian. This is not an example of tryingn to link evil deeds with Christianity. That is your characterization. From my stance its about being honest, even if if it might offend the sensitivities of some Christians. Also, I never take large chunks of any books and put them in articles. The only time I take large chucks of anything is to quote them in arguments on the talk page to provide support for my claims. I use the talk pages more than the main articles because I believe in working with others and in the power of reason and argument, and NPOV. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, Giovanni, that you did insert into the article that Galileo was tortured, not that he was shown the instruments of torture. To say that you corrected it because it was unclear was misleading. You were reverted by another editor, and at least two editors told you that you had got your facts wrong. Regarding Hitler, you have on many occasions tried to insert things about Christian dictators, Christians carrying out massacres, as part of the Criticism of Christianity article, (especially at end of January), even though it was repeatedly pointed out that the article was not called "Criticism of Christians", and the that stuff didn't belong there, especially when it was a question of nominal Christians, lapsed Christians, etc., unless you could show that it was Christianity that made Hitler etc. carry out their atrocities. Regarding the large chunks of books, I don't mean that you insert them verbatim, but you do rely very heavily on anti-Christian literature, take what it says at face value (even inaccuracies about Galileo being tortured), and insert large sections into articles based on what you have found in those books. AnnH ♫ 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am not attacking any editor. I am stating the verified fact that you reverted way over the three-per-day limit when you were new; that we were kind and didn't report you for several of these violations but instead patiently explained the rules and begged you to stop; that we reported you when you continued and continued and continued in full awareness of the rules; that BelindaGong appeared on Misplaced Pages as a new user and immediately reverted to your version, started voting for whatever you voted for, defending your version on talk pages, and going massively over the 3RR despite our initial indulgence, explanations, and pleadings; that you both pretended not to know each other, although you were asked many times; that MikaM and Kecik appeared as new users and started reverting to your version and following you to different pages to revert for you and vote for whatever you wanted; that a checkuser established a link between you and Belinda; that when you were both blocked, Freethinker registered, said he was new but agreed with you, immediately reverted to your version (several times), then accidentally answered a question in your name while logged on as you, then claimed that he did, after all, know you and that you were at his place and he had allowed you to use his computer; that RTS appeared as a brand-new user and reverted (including partial reverts) eight times, most of which reverts were to material that you had inserted last week, even if partially modified; that I sent him some messages explaining the rules rather than reporing him immediately; that as soon as he was blocked, another newly-registered account (NPOV77) appeared and reverted to his last revert. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you don't think it's attacking me but I do, as I've stated many times. To contstantly bring up a negative account of what I may have done when I was new, even though I have stopped, and even when there is no connection to me, has the same effect as a personal attack and is harassing in nature. This is esp. true when its only your characterization of these events, colored by your bias and interpreation of the facts that you know I disagree with. Its really boring me for me have to keep defending myself, stating my version of these events, esp. when they are not relevant to anything that is happening now. I ask that you get over this obsession with my past, my wife, and my friend who I introduced here. I tire of these arguments that I see as petty and uninteresting. I'd much rather spend my time on the bussiness at hand" making the best encylopedia in history. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Giovanni, that your earlier behaviour means that when new users turn up and revert to your version or vote for your preference, they will be suspected of being your sockpuppets or your meatpuppets. We weren't impressed when you said that Belinda was your wife, after the sockcheck results came through, and after you had pretended all along not to know her. Nor were we impressed when your friend (if he is a separate person) showed up and made his first article edit a revert to your version while you were blocked for edit-warring sockpuppetry. It's not an account of what you "may" have done: it's an account of what you did. And you did continue to violate 3RR, after your first block, even without sockpuppets. Str1977 and I very kindly said that we wouldn't report you ( and ). As for my obsession with your past, your wife, and your friend, most of my posting to Wikipeida have absolutely nothing to do with your history of edit warring. I don't bring it up except in response to the arrival of new suspected sockpuppets. AnnH ♫ 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• A negative checkuser does not prove that someone is not a sockpuppet, as a single user can have access to different IP addresses. Other evidence can be used, such as your little slip up in forgetting to log off as Freethinker99, or (as in a case I remember) a user telling another user to look at his personal website, and giving the URL, then doing the same thing with another user under another name several months later, or excessive interest in the same articles combined with similarity of editing style. I don't actually expect that a checkuser would find a link between the two latest sockpuppets and you, as it seems you were away at the weekend (you've even said that), so you could have had access to an IP address that you had never used before. People who start reverting and voting as soon as they sign up are more likely to be accused of sockpuppetry. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are assuming they are sockepuppets as a fact. This has not been established yet you took actions that assumed extreme prejudice. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have never accused SOPHIA of sockpuppetry. It is true that her POV is much closer to yours than to mine, but I do not suspect people of sockpuppetry simply because they don't share the Christian POV. SOPHIA's behaviour has been completely different from yours from the start. Her husband, TheShriek, was checked because he was one of SEVERAL new users who agreed with you and voted with you. Since one of those users was found to be a sockpuppet, the checkuser request was clearly justified, and we had no way of knowing beforehand which ones we should include and which ones we should exclude. I am fully satisfied that TheShriek is not a sockpuppet, and even deleted and partially restored his user page so that the sockpuppet accusation would not appear in the history of it. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that anyone who was not a Christian at the Christianity is given greater scrutiny; a usercheck is only one element, and that is why Sophia's husband was check out--even though he never did any reverting. All he did was stated his POV which clearly identified him as not being a fellow Christian--hence he was also targed with special interest. That is why Sophia was right to be indignant and left in protest. I'm glad she is back. You will also remember that earlier Sophia also stated that she felt ganged up on and bullied. This is also an accurate assessment of the objective atmosphere that exists for those who disagree with the dominant Christian POV. What I see that is that there is a clear tendency to be extra nice and friendly--to become friends--with those who share your POV, and you all work together to defend a certain POV, and view and treat those who don't as the "enemy." I find this type of dichotomy an unhealthy dyanamic that encourages an atmopshere of edit waring as opposed to one of collaboration.Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, since you obviously read my talk page, as well as messages I send people, and paste them on various pages to prove a point, you have no doubt read that SOPHIA later clarified that she had expressed herself badly, and that she had been trying to say that the fact of disagreeing with several editor who could all type faster than she could was scary when she was new. See here if you need to refresh your memory. A sockpuppet tag was put on SOPHIA's husband's user page, though not by any of the Christian editors on the Christianity article, and as far as I know, that was why she was so indignant. I and Str1977 sent her several kind messages, and we both welcomed her back when she returned. I also used my admin powers to remove the sockpuppet allegation from the history of her husband's page, and I asked her to let me know if there was anything else I could do. It's convenient for you that SOPHIA made what she later called "that fateful scary quote", but the facts don't bear out your accusations. It's true that TheShriek didn't revert. But his eleventh edit on Misplaced Pages was a vote for something that you wanted. (Something which BelindaGong also voted for.) It's perfectly acceptable to ask for a checkuser based on a lot of new editors voting for something that a particular editor wants. And that particular editor (yourself) was shown to be using sockpuppets, or, if they really are separate people, meatpuppets.

I agree entirely that non-Christian editors have been given greater scrutiny on the Christianity article. However, that's just because in this particular instance, several non-Christian editors behaved like sockpuppets, and that such suspicions were later confirmed. That meant that on the Christianity article, we now had a main contributor (non-Christian) who was known to have used sockpuppets. That makes us extra suspicious. On the Jesus article, there is an editor User:Kdbuffalo]], who is known to have used sockpuppets, so a request was very quickly made for a check on User:Raisinman, who was editing from athe same pro-Christian POV. (The request was made much quicker than the request for a check on your socks and suspected socks, by the way.) And when the check was positive, he was banned indefinitely. It simply didn't happen on the Christianity article that lots of newly registered accounts appeared and started voting for and reverting to a pro-Christian version, so your statement is highly misleading and unfair. AnnH ♫ 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To King Vegita

• You are incorrect in saying that I falsely accused RTS of reverts. A partial revert also counts, and I did make it clear when I reported him here that some of the reverts were partial ones. I also, in the interest of complete fairness, made sure that he knew that partial reverts and different reverts could also count. Giovanni has often made partial reverts, by inserting large chunks of "mystery cults" stuff, to which other editors object, and then changing a few sentences and reinserting it.
• I and others have in the past blocked obvious sockpuppets without a checkuser. For example, a few months ago, a new user inserted "It's the true faith" several times into the Christianity article. He/she was blocked for 3RR, and then another brand new user inserted "It's the true faith", and then another, and another, and another. I and another admin were blocking as fast as we could, often after – guess what? – 'one revert, and eventually semiprotected the article. This went on for several days. I'd say we blocked dozens of them. And, for the record, I agree that Christianity is the true faith.
• As regards my use of administrative powers in that article, my block of NPOV77 was the first instance, apart from the blocking of dozens of "true faith" sockpuppets.
• As soon as was possible after the block of NPOV77, I reported it here for feedback, and was quite happy to accept criticism, and even the undoing of my block. I've also invited NPOV77 to try to convince me or others that he's not a sockpuppet.
• I have seen other administrators blocking on sight when a brand new users reverts to the version of someone blocked for 3RR or sockpuppetry. I was aware all along that BelindaGong and Freethinker99 were connected to Giovanni, either as sockpuppets or as meatpuppets, and I also felt immediately that RTS was a sockpuppet, but I didn't block any of them on sight (or at all). I wasted large amounts of time patiently explaining the rules to Giovanni's suspected puppets, even though I was convinced they already knew them. I told them politely that they had violated 3RR, but that I wasn't going to report them. I begged them to stop. In fact, my reporting of Giovanni was the first 3RR report I ever made, and I had been on Misplaced Pages for ten months at that stage, and had often seen 3RR violated by people whose POV I opposed. There comes a stage when you just have to say, enough is enough. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I shall reply to something you said to Giovanni, but should have said to me. Sure, a negative checkuser doesn't prove that it wasnt' a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, but it does strongly limit your ability to prove that he was. Certainly, a checkuser should be done in case you could silence everything by proving they're related accounts. To outright declare someone to be a sockpuppet as an official stance, Misplaced Pages (in the part about tagging as specifically being) says : "Note that this should only be done if the account has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a sock puppet of the user by one of the following:

• the user's own admission;
• matching of IP addresses or similar strong technical evidence;
• a ruling on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration."

None of these three have happened.

And even if it is a sockpuppet, it cannot be proven yet that it is RTS's sockpuppet. For example, as I have said, it could have been my sockpuppet for all you know. Should it have been, it would not have been used in violation of Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry. This argument should also answer the blocking "obvious" sockpuppets without a checkuser. This was a slightly probable sockpuppet, not an obvious one.

I could also add in the Misplaced Pages policy "Do not call these users 'meatpuppets'; be civil."

Partial reverts do not seem to me worthy of being counted as full reverts, but I'll certainly accept that if you can show me the Misplaced Pages policy which states that partial reverts are counted as such.

Well, you reported it here, and I am giving you criticism. Call me a bit of a civil libertarian, but I feel that accounts should be treated with the same "innocent until proven guilty" principle available in most democratic nations. Let us be sure that it is a sockpuppet.... certainly it doesn't hurt since you have more revert power anyways.

If you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a sockpuppet, then you shouldn't follow the wrong ways that other administrators act. Administrator status is given rather liberally remember.

KV 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

At WP:3RR, it says, "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Misplaced Pages article within a 24 hour period."

I don't think any uninvolved person thinks that this was a "slightly probable" sockpuppet, but I'm open to correction. AnnH ♫ 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Benapgar disrupting intelligent design again

Benapgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently back from a 1 month "vacation" for serial NPA vios, is disrupting the intelligent design article. Finding little to no support for a content change, he launched a series of endless rebuttals to force the issue and filed an RFC, but tried to limit participation to only outsiders to the article. To avoid the usual pattern of days of talk page disruption again, I've moved the discussion to a subpage. He's taken exception to this and is now on a rampage. Someone may want to have a gentle word with him. FeloniousMonk 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page, but knowing Ben, it'll make no difference (and will probably be deleted in short order). SlimVirgin 04:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

He's been leaving "notes" at the RFC about editors following their comments: Either he's trolling us, as this would imply , or they're meant to discount the comments of those participating in the RFC who also contribute to the article. Either way, they're disruptive. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, some recent edit summaries are dancing around the edge of WP:NPA. He's also started a poll to go with yesterday's RFC: Talk:Intelligent_design/Poll1 If he follows the usual pattern of flouting WP:POINT he'll use the polls results in another attempt to force his POV into the article. FeloniousMonk 16:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as recent disruption goes, this is fairly bizarre:

FeloniousMonk 02:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis

Moved from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#JarlaxleArtemis

• Case was closed after JarlaxleArtemis was banned permanently as a result of actions detailed at User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis. →Raul654 17:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2

This user was banned permanently. I request a clarification as to the terms under which he has been allowed to return. He has recently engaged in uncivil behavior and has stated that he refuses to follow the MoS. User talk:JarlaxleArtemis#Removing "no source" tag, User talk:JarlaxleArtemis#Header capitalization, etc. -Will Beback 03:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not recently engaged in uncivil behavior, and I have not stated that I refuse to follow the MoS. Why William is lying about this is well beyond me—I have no idea why he is. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not state it, but you engaged in edit warring with multiple users at Lord Ao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the matter. You have used uncivil terms like "STFU" to other editors. And you have caused further problems with images, removing tags, and improperly using fair use images. These are all behaviors reminiscent of those which led to your previous ArbCom cases. You were permitted to return, if I recall correctly, because you promised not to engage in such behavior. If I'm wrong, please tell us what the circumstances of your return are. -Will Beback 04:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not engaged in edit warring on Lord Ao. The bot said "RM caps in section headers, minor fixes. using AWB" but didn't mention anything about a Manual of Style stating that as a rule. I said "stfu" to someone because he accused me of vandalism and filled my talk page up with a lot of other garbage. I could have been impolite by saying "shut the fuck up," but I restrained myself. And what is this nonsense about me causing further problems with images? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your previous ArbCom cases have both concerned your professions of ignorance regarding policies and guidelines, plus other issues. "Requirement_to_read_policies". In this instance, you are well aware of the MOS standard of case in headings, because you complained about it on your first day of editing after the unbanning. As for edit warring in an article, . -Will Beback 08:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To refresh aging memories, can someone explain how Jarlaxle found himself unbanned? Phil Sandifer 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider I've two comments:

1. The first sentence of this section claimed that JarlaxleArtemis was being blocked permanently. How could he make the comment above?
2. From my reading of the two arbitration discussions, JarlaxleArtemis doesn't deserve a permanent block. He should be given some more chances to repent. In particular, IMO the faults discussed in the second arb is less serious than that stated in the first arb. This is an evidence showing tht JarlaxleArtemis did try to behave, just not to the expected extent.

--Deryck C. 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is additional info not contained in the ArbCom cases. See User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis. Also he made a series of personal attacks on a member of the Wikimedia board. It was those two incidents which shortcircuited the second ArbCom case and led to his immediate permanent banning. Subsquently he came to an agreement with User:Linuxbeak to stop his bad behavior and to apologize to those he'd offended, and Linuxbeak intervened on his behalf. Whatever agreement they made does not seem to be active, as the complaints are piling up on his talk page again. So I'd like to know what this user's current status is, and if any conditions or paroles are in place. -Will Beback 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The block log says that he is being blocked indefinite from September to November, then was unblocked by RedWolf24, who claimed that a probation is still in action. Then he was intermittently blocked for definite short periods due to further misbehaviour, but all of them has expired already. Deryck C. 06:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is Linuxbeak's review of his offenses: .

Here is Linuxbeak's list of "tasks" that must be performed, which includes an indication that JarlaxleArtemis shall be on parole for a year.

Here is Linuxbeak immediately after the unbanning showing concern over sock puppets: .

Here is a request from Linuxbeak in mid-December to write an apology:

Here is JarlaxleArtemis in mid-January selectively deleting all references to his ban or any requirements:.

Here is user:Psychonaut stating in mid-February that the requirements are still unfufilled that were due by December 15:

So, again, there appears to be a specific agreement between Linuxbeak and JarlaxleArtemis, but the terms are not clear, Linuxbeak has not been active as a mentor, and JarlaxleArtemis hasn't met his part of the bargain. Will Beback 07:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

However, from the block log, I think RedWolf24 is more likely to have an agreement with JarlaxleArtemis, because an admin usually wouldn't lift a permanent block. Deryck C. 07:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2005-11-14/Unbanning and mentorship, and Misplaced Pages:Mentorship Committee#JarlaxleArtemis. The requirements:

• Mediation/Mentorship
• A formal apology given to Linuxbeak, Psychonaut, Anthere, NicholasTurnbull and anyone else who he may have caused harm
• Repair any damage caused by acts of sockpuppetry/impersonation on other Wikis
• A probationary period for as long as his defunct ArbCom case originally had set as the penal period (one year)

Until he has completed these requirements from November, the middle two in particular, perhaps he should not be editing. I appreciate the Linuxbeak has endeavored to mentor, and has done so after a remarkable show of forgiveness on his part. However JarlaxleArtemis appears to have ignored the process. Now that we've unravelled the case, it appears to not require ArbCom clarification. I suggest we move this thread to AN. -Will Beback 07:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Per that agreement, Jarlaxle is on probation, which can be enforced by any uininvolved admin. If this is an enforcement problem, we need to get some admins to look at this. As well, he's put under mentors, who are given free reign to stop his disruption by necessary means; if the mentors have left or resigned, or forgotten him, then we need some new ones. If you think it is beyond that point, then what is probably needed is just some consensus on ANI to reban him without arbcom intervention. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Redwolf24's involvement was as a member of the WP:MENTCOM. The agreements were negotiated by Linuxbeak, and the Mentorship Committee created subsequently to provide oversight; Redwolf24 was one of the principal founders of the MentCom, and involved with most of it's cases. To my knowledge (and I was in the loop on most of what he did), he didn't have any part in Linuxbeak's negotiations. Essjay 07:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC) This post intended to respond to Deryck Chan's comment that "RedWolf24 is more likely to have an agreement with JarlaxleArtemis," not to suggest that the assigned mentors should be the ones to handle the matter and/or that other administrators should not intervene. Essjay 10:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Is user:Redwolf24 active currently? user:Linuxbeak has been on intermittent wikibreaks, and the other two appointed mentors have not been involved noticeably. Unless someone from the Mentcom wants to get involved then I think the admins will have to do it. Personally, I think completing his unbanning requirements should be a pre-condition for editing, but someone else can make that determination. -Will Beback 08:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't, by the way, interpret the terms of the agreement to be that only the mentors can enforce the probation. Rather, any admin can, especially with ANI consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. So our current conclusion is, somebody unblocked him, and he's back. So what's next? I can't see any proposed action here. It looks like a page of evidence more than a request for clarification. Deryck C. 08:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Per my earlier suggestion, I've moved it to AN/I. Any admin (or mediator) may respond. -Will Beback 09:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jarlaxle is not a banned user per se. Linuxbeak took it upon himself to try to rehabilitate Jarlaxle into the Misplaced Pages community, and Jimbo gave it an official "ok, why not, let's see if it works." So treat Jarlaxle like any user for the moment - David Gerard 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, not a banned user, but one whose ban was lifted with certain requirements, who is on parole, and who is engaging in the same behaviors that brought him to the ArbCom twice. -Will Beback 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really followed recent developments concerning Jarlaxle, but I did see some of his harassment of Linuxbeak a few months ago, and I think that it was very good of Linuxbeak to welcome him back, and it's disappointing that it doesn't seem to be working out. AnnH ♫ 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak wrote on December 8, " The written apology that you agreed to as part of your unbanning will be due no later than December 15th at 00:00 UTC. A late submission will be allowed, but you will be banned from editing starting at December 15th with the exception of your user space." We know that the apologies were never written. Is there any reason why the user should not be blocked, pursuant to his agreement? -Will Beback 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked JarlaxleArtemis indefinitely because he has failed to write his written apology before December 15, 2005, as per the unbanning agreement. He may be unblocked as soon as he submits the apology, provided he's still acting reasonably. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 20:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't we frown upon demanding apologies? Phil Sandifer 05:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly, though it was a condition of the unbanning agreement that Linuxbeak brokered. Ral315 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a point to question against Phroziac's act. Did you re-notify Jarlaxle about the previous-made agreement on unbanning and give him another fortnight or so of deadline before you reinstated the block? It would be unfair to Jarlaxle if he wasn't blocked in December for failing to comply with the agreement, did many rational things throughout the months, and suddenly got blocked because he forgot to do something three months ago, without even giving him a prior notice. Consider my comment void if anyone can show that Jarlaxle is given a 14-day period of notification before being blocked. --Deryck C. 12:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you re-read the statement that Linuxbeak wrote on his talk page in December, you can see Jarlaxle was told that if he did not complete the requirement in a week he would be blocked until he did. That is now a three month period of notice. You can also see that he selectively deleted that notice a month later, indicating he was aware of it. Furthermore, in reviewing this case I've seen many examples of harmful behavior, witnessed by the complaints on his talk page and his edit warring on articles like Lord Ao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Drow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Even after he has completed these requirements he may be blocked or banned totally or partially on account of violating parole by edit warring, etc. Lastly, he is now questioning some details about his parole, and disputing some of the allegations about his actions. Taken together, I don't think that this editor has successfully reformed. -Will Beback 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Administrator Jim Duffy (author)

I made a factual edit to Dr. Duffy's article based on information he had posted to his Misplaced Pages User page here. For whatever reason, User:Jtdirl (Dr. Jim Duffy (author) edited his own article and reversed my edit in contravention of Misplaced Pages principles and as recently reiterated by Jimbo Wales. - Ted Wilkes 02:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, the discussion on Talk:Jim Duffy (author)#Protection indicates that it is disputed as to whether or not Jtdirl is in fact Jim Duffy because he has not officially admitted it. Secondly, you should use information from credible third party sources insted of something off of a Misplaced Pages user page anyway. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Other editors at Misplaced Pages rely on User:Jtdirl as he has repeatedly stated he is a historian and made assertions on various topics based on a claim to be an "academic" with a PhD degree from the National University of Ireland and that he is a published author (both history and fiction). He asserted these things as a fact for a long time on his User page as seen here. People need and have a right to know if he has lied about his credentials or not as they in fact have depended on his advice based on his asserted qualifications. As a Misplaced Pages Administrator, I'm certain he will want to state that he is or is not Jim Duffy (author). After all, he created the Duffy article. - Ted Wilkes 03:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, User:Ted Wilkes is frequently gaming the system. He did this several times in the past. Most people may remember his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. There is much evidence that he is identical with multi-hardbanned User:DW. For a summary of facts supporting this view, see . Wilkes was blocked for one week by administrator Jtdirl. This kind of contribution seems to be his personal reaction. Onefortyone 04:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Jim Duffy = jtdirl" is something Skyring was convinced of to the point of obsession, and spread over Misplaced Pages as far as he could - it's not actually documented in the wider world. Jtdirl emails to wikien-l as "Thom Cadden", fwiw - David Gerard 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But he used to sign as Jim Duffy. Jonathunder 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard, thank you for pointing out Jtdirl's use of the alias Thom Cadden because here he calls himself James Duffy and as Jonathunder says, also as Jim Duffy. Jtdirl has a record of edit warring, at times bordering on histrionics to the point where Duffy repeats that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder accused him of "historical revisionism." Here he calls other editors work "nonsense" and "garbage" and adds that: "Sometimes the low standards on Misplaced Pages give me the creeps." - Ted Wilkes 12:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

But that particular bit of editing he was talking about was rather poor, and I don't see how those comments at all relevant here. It's a long way from where you started this thread. Are you going through all of his edits or something? If so, for what purpose? Jonathunder 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Socks of Shran/CantStandYa

• Previous incident reports:
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/01#October 2005 -Ich bin ein Berliner
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive46#155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al.

• Previously identified sock accounts/IPs:

• Current suspected sock accounts/IPs:
• 24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs)="24"
• 155.84.57.253 (talk · contribs)="155"
• Ashton Coochter (talk · contribs)="AC"
• CantStandYa (talk · contribs)="CSY"
• NoBloodForEarl (talk · contribs)="NBFE"
• Ordrestjean (talk · contribs)="O"
• Peckerwood (talk · contribs)="P"
• WolframSiever (talk · contribs)="WS"
• WhiskyWhiskers (talk · contribs)="WW"
• WOOKIEwantMEDAL (talk · contribs)=""WWM"

• Additional suspects ()
• 24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs): Comcast, Texas
• 66.98.130.204 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="204"
• 66.98.131.200 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="200"
• 67.15.76.110 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="110"
• 67.15.76.185 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="185"
• 67.15.76.188 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="188"
• 67.15.76.232 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="232
• 67.15.76.242 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="242"
• 70.84.56.185 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "56.185"
• 70.84.56.172 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "172"
• 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "166""
• 70.85.195.239 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas ="239"
• 70.85.195.138 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "138"
• And:
• 66.98.130.128 ="128"
• 66.98.130.159 ="159"
• 66.98.130.224 ="224"
• 67.15.76.187 ="187"
• 67.15.76.244 = "244"
• 67.15.77.161 ="161"
• 70.84.56.165 ="165"
• 70.85.195.225 ="225"
• 70.85.195.230 ="230"

• Sample of articles which have been edited by more than one current account. *Conspicuous edit warring.

• Some interesting diffs:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rus%27_(people)&diff=39482898&oldid=39476896
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:WhiskyWhiskers&diff=prev&oldid=42226219
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:24.0.91.81&diff=prev&oldid=34567551
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Nikodemos&diff=prev&oldid=33881200
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Peckerwood&diff=23715617&oldid=23715564
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Husnock&diff=prev&oldid=25834522

• Editors who have posted warnings or complaints to the current accounts:

• Proposed action:
• "Shran" could be a more valued contributor if he would stop using sock puppets to edit war. He has been asked repeatedly by editors including myself to stick to one account. The user, through various accounts, has protested that the IPs are either open to many users, or are used by a "little brother" or "brother-in-law". Despite these claims the edits are clearly the work of one person. The previous set of sock puppet accounts was blocked by me and others in the fall of 2005, and a new set has been created since then. As with previous socks, these accounts have been used to abuse consensus and even to pile-on votes in CfDs and an AfD. As we did before, I propose that we block all the current sock accounts indefinitely while leaving one account open for editing, User:CantStandYa. I'd appreciate hearing input from members of the community on this user and on my proposed action. Are there any other known accounts for the user? Have there been any other editing problems? Are there any other measures, beyond blocking the obvious socks, that we should pursue? How can we get this prolific editor to follow community norms? -Will Beback 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

See also User:Stbalbach/anontexan. -Will Beback 22:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Due to Stbalbach's research, it appears that this user has also been using a number of dial-up accounts. Short-term range blocks may also be necessary to manage this sock-puppetry. -Will Beback 00:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that many of these accounts are sockpuppets (I simply haven't checked them all). I recommend dealing with the issue by blocking all by the main account, and then selectively sprotecting the articles in question, if IP editing or sockpuppeting continues, but I welcome other input. Jayjg 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. Hearing no objections, I will block the registered accounts except User:CantStandYa. I will semiprotect articles on which these IPs are seen to edit in the future. -Will Beback 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Text copied to Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse for future reference. -Will Beback 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned user DW

To my mind, multiple hardbanned User:NightCrawler alias User:JillandJack alias User:DW is certainly identical with Ted Wilkes. For facts supporting this view, see also . Here is a debunking edit by NightCrawler:

PLEASE NOTE: I, NightCrawler, have never attacked anybody at Misplaced Pages, the record of contributions will show hard work creating quality non-copyright violated articles to the best of abilities and go about fixing numerous links, inserting full birth/death dates when only a year is listed and then posting that info to the “year” page. Nightcrawler never interferes in others work, ever. However, while NightCrawler never has and never will attack anybody, this User most certainly will respond forcefully to an attack on me through lies, innuendo or other conduct unacceptable to Misplaced Pages policy. Thank you for showing respect to ALL Misplaced Pages users.

See . This is remarkably near to expressions frequently used by Ted Wilkes in defense of his own misbehavior:

1. Note that User:Ted Wilkes never inserted statements from less that unimpeachable sources that in fact contradicted these statements by the Crime Magazine personal website etc. Instead, I put them on the Talk page with detailed rebuttal that was ignored by Onefortyone. See .
2. I am the one who requested this page be protected. For the record, I NEVER removed any link to The Guardian, EVER. Before making such a statement, it is best to check the facts. See .
3. NOTE: "to engage in prostitution" is TENTH in Webster's order of definition but again, Guralnick never once used the word in that context – ever. See

Furthermore, both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes contributed to the List of Canadian musicians and to the List of people who died in road accidents. See and . Both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes are interested in the history of motor racing. See , , , and , etc.

In the past, DW, NightCrawler and JillandJack also contributed to the Bugatti article. See . In addition, DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack and User:Karl Schalike contributed to the List of Quebecers. See . Finally, both Karl Schalike and JillandJack contributed to the List of racing drivers. See .

I think, this is evidence enough that DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack (and probably Karl Schalike) are identical with Ted Wilkes, especially in view of the fact that they are all logging in from Canada.

The case of Karl Schalike is somewhat different and confusing though, as he made edits in support of the view that Adolf Hitler may have been homosexual. Ted Wilkes, on the other hand, is frequently deleting contributions which prove that some celebrity stars may have been gay. However, between 29 March 2005 and 2 February 2006, there were only three Misplaced Pages contributions by Karl Schalike, two of which were significantly made in defense of Ted Wilkes: and . Furthermore, this edit by Karl Schalike is certainly an allusion to, if not a parody of, my own contribution here. If Karl Schalike is indeed identical with Ted Wilkes, then it is quite obvious that this user endeavours to game the system by poking fun at serious topics.

In my opinion, it is high time to hardban Ted Wilkes alias DW for all of his system-disrupting activities. Onefortyone 21:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note: It is WAY TOO LATE for Checkuser at this point, since DW and many of the original sockpuppets lasted edited YEARS ago. --TML1988 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Karl Schalike and Danny B., two other supposed aliases of Ted Wilkes? It is very interesting that a relatively new user has deleted exactly those passages from the Nick Adams article which support the view that Adams had homosexual leanings and reverted the Elvis and Me article to exactly the version preferred by Ted Wilkes. Could it be that User:Danny B. is related to, or identical with, Ted Wilkes? See and . It is certainly no coincidence that both Danny B. and Ted Wilkes contributed to the following Misplaced Pages articles: , , , , , , , , , etc. Their editing interests are very similar, if not identical. Onefortyone 21:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A checkuser may still be practical. Naturally a checkuser on Ted Wilkes will recover his IP. Angelique, Nightcrawler and the other puppets were all identified by manual checks done by developers (essentially ur-checkuser), and I suspect details of that (the names of the specific ISPs involved) will be in the various talk pages regarding each sock (or perhaps user:Tim Starling and user:Angela, who were involved with said checking will remember). Off the top of my head I seem to remember DW being located in the Great Lakes area of Canada (although I could be entirely wrong on that one). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I can also remember that DW is located in the Great Lakes area of Canada. I think this information comes from User:Angela who had much experience with DW in the past. Just a question. Are the IPs 66.186.250.106 and 66.61.69.65, which have deleted some of my contributions and denigrated my sources, also logging in from Canada? See , , , and . It should be noted, too, that administrator Jtdirl also thinks that "there is a widespread rumour that Wilkes is our old pal DW. The edits are the same: find one topic and flog it to death by writing every conceivable article about it. Wilkes's big issue is actors. Like DW sports (horse racing) seems a thing with him. If it is clearly established that he is DW he will be banned permanently instantly like all his other sockpuppets and trolls." See . Onefortyone 21:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It could well be that User:Mayumashu is also identical with Ted Wilkes and DW. He removes what he calls "apparent vandalism of cat links", as Ted Wilkes does. Both have a predilection for starting new Misplaced Pages categories and are interested in sports. Further, Mayumashu is deeply interested in Canadian personalities, for instance, in the "Category:Pre-Confederation Ontario people" or the "Category:Quebecers (city)". Their editing interests are very similar. JillandJack and/or Ted Wilkes and Mayumashu have contributed to the William Lauder (contractor), the John William Dawson, the Roy Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson of Fleet, the Jack Pickford, the Doug Rogers, the Joseph E. Seagram, the Matt Stairs, the Joseph Howe, the Bobby Orr articles and the List of famous duels, etc. See , , , , , , , , , . Onefortyone 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have recently been going through the images uploaded by User:JillandJack, and I do notice a number of similarities between them and those uploaded by User:Ted Wilkes. Both have the (bad) habit of not providing sources for images they deem to be in the public domain, e.g. Image:WilliamCMacDonald.jpg (JillandJack) and Image:LoisWeber.jpg (Ted Wilkes). Both often cite image sources without the http: prefix and with a space in the middle of the URL, e.g. Image:NikideSaintPhalle.jpg (JillandJack) and Image:Noah-beery-jr.jpg. Ted Wilkes also often uploads images with an ellipsis in the middle of the source URL: Image:BFbryant.jpg. This was another habit of JillandJack--I've deleted all of these that I've come across, since they effectively had no source, but I'd be happy to find an example if requested. I find it quite plausible that this is another DW clone. Chick Bowen 22:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO User:Chick Bowen:

Just for the record. Sometimes even very high-volume, quality contributors forget to post the source for images. Misplaced Pages:Civility says we politely ask them for it. However, the tone and content of the above remarks by Chick Bowen makes it appear that he is on a mission to denigrate my contributions. I certainly hope not. Some of his comments show a lack of understanding of both the Internet, Misplaced Pages, and U.S. copyright laws. As an example: Image:WilliamCMacDonald.jpg (JillandJack) – He misled readers on this. The uploader (JillandJack) did not label this image as PD, they labeled it US-PD. A very significant, and I might add, most basic difference. Unless officials pickled the gentleman's body for six years then propped him up for a photo in 1923, then when someone dies prior to 1923, any photo taken of them and published in the U.S. is automatically US-PD. In case Chick Bowen is not aware, the Wiki program automatically links to the article where the image was posted so if one uses their mouse and clicks on it they can see that the 19th century image is of a Canadian/American businessman named MacDonald who departed this earth in 1917. Simply explained, when you are dead prior to 1923, you are dead. Chick Bowen's arbitrary removal of that image demonstrates a lack of knowledge on very basic copyright matters, but worse it shows he takes such action without having studied the issue so as to act based on knowledge, rather than unqualified and unfounded assumptions.

Next, Chick Bowen's stated: "Both often cite image sources without the http: prefix and with a space in the middle of the URL, e.g." I'm not the only thoughtful editor who does this type of valid sourcing. Google deliberately creates this format and copying the Google label avoids excessive linking on Misplaced Pages pages. Excessive linking has been talked about many times, most recently with respect to dates in biographies etc.

Next, Chick Bowen's quote that "Ted Wilkes also often uploads images with an ellipsis in the middle of the source". This reality applies to thousands of Misplaced Pages images as at one time the magic ellipsis was automatically generated in place of all blanks by the Misplaced Pages upload program.

Finally, Chick Bowen stated: "I've deleted all of these that I've come across, since they effectively had no source, but I'd be happy to find an example if requested. " - How does an image effectively have No source? I think we need to follow Misplaced Pages policy, not create it ad hoc.

A brief look at the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page shows Chick Bowen has had a lot to say on a lot of things. It is certainly commendable that he also has made sixty (60) new articles in the 8½ months he has been here. Nonetheless, I'm going to suggest that Chick Bowen might wish to refrain from impugning a fellow Misplaced Pages editor and with no certification in copyright law he should refrain from deleting images based on that demonstrated lack of knowledge. I cannot speak for the Misplaced Pages uploader (JillandJack) that Chick Bowen refers to, but ALL of my image uploads were made in full compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. However, if out of my 18,888 quality edits at Misplaced Pages and my 677 new articles made within the past 12½ months, I occasionally forgot to paste the source, as I said at the start, all one has to do is use Misplaced Pages:Civility and ask for clarification. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all of JillandJack's uploads can be speedily deleted under our policy, since JillandJack is a reincarnation of a hard-banned user--I've kept the ones that had clear sources out of courtesy, but I see no reason to keep ones that don't have clear sources, regardless of the content of the image. As for you--I've stated what I observed and you've stated your response. Ultimately, it's not up to me to determine, which is why, as you've noticed, you're not currently blocked. Chick Bowen 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

DW was apparently from Elliott Lake in Northern Ontario, if that helps. I think we had an understanding with DW that if he came back, stopped uploading copyrighted images, and stopped being a troll (as he was as Angelique and JillandJack), and generally edited in such a way that it was not obviously him, he would be allowed to stay. Whatever the problem is here, it doesn't seem that Ted Wilkes should be banned simply for being DW (if he is). Adam Bishop 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has banned user DW and his many sockpuppets indefinitely. See Misplaced Pages:List of banned users. When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account, according to Misplaced Pages policy, can likewise be blocked. See . It should also be taken into account that Wilkes already made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling and was blocked for one week. See and . He has again been temporarily blocked for breaches of WP:Point including posting deliberate mispresentation of an arbcom ruling, edit warring, accusations of lying against multiple users (including calling one user a "convicted liar" and other misbehaviours). See . This means that he will continue gaming the system if nobody puts a stop to this. Onefortyone 23:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, Ted Wilkes is indeed uploading copyrighted images with incomplete sources, just as DW and JillandJack did. Chick Bowen 23:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, here is an image that was uploaded by JillandJack.

This one and this one were uploaded by Ted Wilkes. Onefortyone 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have extended Ted Wilkes's block for another 48 hours while we work this out. Chick Bowen 03:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Some additional information. Ted Wilkes repeatedly called me an "Arbcom-convicted liar". See , , , , , etc., though he was informed by administrator FCYTravis that "Onefortyone has not been convicted of any crime. An ArbCom ruling is not a finding of fact in a court of law. For someone who has such a fetish for libel laws, you, of all people, should know that. I'd suggest you remove the 'convicted' bit." See . He is still showing a lack of insight and will continue his personal attacks, as he did in the past. It should also be noted that Wilkes repeatedly endeavored to swamp the Misplaced Pages article on Nick Adams with expressions such as "gossip book" or "discredited gossip writer", "not supported by any evidence", "alleged", "all unsubtantiated claims ... possibly repeated one from another" etc. in order to denigrate sources he doesn't like. See , , , , , , . It seems as if he wishes to suppress independent sources which are not in line with his personal view. Therefore, he frequently accuses other users of vandalism, of fabricating texts, etc., if their contributions are not in line with his personal opinion. In fact, he himself is fabricating texts. For example, original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:

She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See , and . I corrected the text but Wilkes repeatedly reverted my version to the fabricated one he has written. See , , , . For direct quotes from the book, see . His kind of misbehavior is very similar to that by DW and his aliases. Significantly, Danny B., who also reverted the Elvis and Me page to the version Ted Wilkes preferred (see ), has now accused me of having vandalized his user page (see below). Is it just mere coincidence that Ted Wilkes is frequently accusing his opponents of being vandals? See, for instance, . See also his Block log. Onefortyone 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take note that User:Onefortyone has vandalized my User page. Danny B. 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Request Permaban of User:Robertjkoenig's sockpuppets - Update; misuse of Talk Page

User:Robertjkoenig was permabanned for his behavior on the USAA page, turning it into a soapbox for his rantings. Several anonymous and non-anonymous users have continued to revert the page to his heavily POV version of it; just tonight with User:Kwai, User:Outofthenoondaysun, User:Interlocutor 1, not to mention harrasing editors who revert his edits.

He has an amusing (and sad) claim that is a conspiracy theory based on the following convo on my talk page:

. Btw, recommend speedily deleting the image but I'm not familiar with the process.

I wonder if permanent protection isn't a better way to stave off his efforts; at least with anon we can block his IP's, but I'm reluctant to block every block of his ISP, as will no doubt happen as he exhausts every avenue available to him. Judging by his claims on my talk page that this is a Civil Rights violation, the man is either trolling or needs help.

I'd requested help on the village pump ].

--Mmx1 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected USAA for the time being. I'll look into the behaviour of the edits. Call back here if the vandalism persists, but I suspect it won't. Stifle 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• It appears to happen every 3-4 weeks, judging by the history; going back to December 2005 when the original user account initiated the torrent. Hopefully he'll lose interest. --Mmx1 21:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Update 15 Wed; He has continued his conversation with another account, User:Philosophenweg. Further, he's stated his intent to continue his ramblings on the talk page in order to use them as a sort of proxy for pitching his views on the main article itself: "But the fact of the matter is that each of the Archive pages as been indexed by Google. That is the way people find things - they stumble across then in the most awkward manner - by Googling. In fact, the 9 archived pages rank higher in Google searches because they elicit more hits then the sanitized main article page. Such is the internet."

Though not in itself a bannable offense, just by the language itself and its ardent defense of the same esoteric claims that RobertjKoenig made, I have reason to believe they are sockpuppets of the permabanned user, and feel the above is reason enough not to let his ramblings slide. --Mmx1 15:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

. The user makes no valuable contributions to wikipedia and is harrasing and slandering users. --Mmx1 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Behaviour of Masonic Editors on Freemasonry Pages

There is a group of approximately a dozen editors who have prominently displayed Masonic membership logos on their user pages who are and have engaged in a pattern of widespread abuse and manipulation of Misplaced Pages Rules, Guidelines, and Spirit. The group refuses to allow information critical of their fraternity to appear on the Freemasonry page and related side pages. I request that Editors who admit to being members of the Freemasonry Fraternity(by their user pages or otherwise) not be permitted to edit Freemasonry related pages. Previously this same group of Editors have made arguements on Admin pages that various non-mason Editors who admitted on their user pages to being opposed to Freemasonary not be permitted to edit Freemasonry pages by blocking simply because their stated opposition to Freemasonry was a POV agenda. I ask for the same rational be applied to Freemason Editors - they have a POV agenda and they should thus be blocked from editing related pages. Thank-you for your time and consideration.40 Days of Lent 10:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

May I ask to sign me up for any community that is going to be censored on the personal grounds. This is dangerous and divisive slippery slope and this logic is aginst the spirit and policies of WP. ←Humus sapiens 10:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Before an admin spends time on this (or more comments come up), please do an RFCU on this user, as this once again appears to be a Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AKA Basil Rathbone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) clone. If so, ArbCom actually banned this user from editing Freemasonry related pages, and one should perhaps take what he has to say with a grain of salt. I will also post a request in the proper place as well. MSJapan 10:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has already posted it. MSJapan 10:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, Humus ... check out LL and LL2. We've already had "communities" "censored on the personal grounds", and quite rightly, too. I don't support what 40 Days of Lent (talk · contribs) has to say, but it's not utterly whacked. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Supplemental: MSJapan who I consider to be the one of the principal 'leaders' of the quasi Wiki Lodge of Freemasons who has 'taken control' of all pages on Misplaced Pages related to Freemasonry and quite ruthlessly deleted material critical of their Fraternity while adding propaganistic material from their fratenrity that is impossible to confirm has once again deleted a series of external links to websites critical of Freemasonry. The 'consensus' he alleges that exists for this is simply half a dozen Masonic Editors supporting their pre-agreed action.40 Days of Lent 07:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing a redirect just to prevent moving its target over it

User:Gateman1997 has edited some redirects, including State Route 15 (California), State Route 99 (California) and State Route 130 (California), for the sole purpose of preventing their targets from being moved over them. This strikes me as extremely dickish. Can anything be done about this? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that if someone cares enough to do that, you'll want to WP:RM the move before doing it anyway. The closing admin can move it over the redirect when that's done. --W(t) 11:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but if there's no consensus either way, this will make the difference between one location and the other. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there appears to be a solid consensus to leave them where they are. However if you'd like to attempt to create a new consensus on those 3 articles you're welcome to do a WP:RM and see what comes of it as was suggested above. And for the record I believe it's called being proactive to support the current consensus position against unilateral moves, not being dickish.Gateman1997 20:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with the redirect editing but disagree with the move idea. In Gateman1997's defense, what is one supposed to do when you're not an admin and you can't stop SPUI's moving of like 200 pages? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User: Dark Jedi

I'd like to report User:Dark Jedi and request that he be blocked for continuing disruption of conflict resolution at Talk:Bionicle; including personal attacks, falsifying posts with forged signatures (fake posts removed, see History page), and harassment on user talk pages. Drakhan 17:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours for being a general nuisance. Stifle 21:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

User Master101

I have indefinitely blocked Master101 (talk · contribs) for this death threat. User:Zoe| 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at this: He just erased the block notice I placed on his talk page. Should it be protected? --TML1988 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reinsertion of copyrighted material

See this history of Southern Pacific 2472. Insomniac186 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) seems to be reinserting (after I left him a message suggesting he not do that) copyrighted material that both User:W.marsh and I have removed. I believe in WP:1RR, and already reverted him today on this article, so I could use a little advice as to what to do next. He has added good content to other articles (or at least it seemed that way to me)... Is reinsertion vandalism, or is this the right place to bring this? Other suggestions? I'll watch here for a while, no need to leave me a message. Thanks and happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

His latest edit to the article doesn't appear at a quick Google to be copyvio. Is it? If it is, I'd reckon that you can remove it without regard to the 3RR rule, even though it isn't specifically listed as Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Ultimately, you'd have to block him, but perhaps he's gotten the message. Yes, I know about RickK, but that's a long time ago and Jimbo has made very clear that he wants us to be pretty merciless at ridding the 'pedia of copyvios. -Splash 23:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is. It's essentially the same text as he put in before except for maybe a line break or two. It is a lift from this page: per Talk:Southern Pacific 2472... I'll try reverting one more time but maybe a warning from an actual admin might be a good idea (I am not an admin, as you may know) if you guys concur it's copyvio ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• While the first one was definently a copyvio, it looks like the later version was substantially rewritten, or at least not a copyvio of . So based on this, it would seem that User:Insomniac186 is editting in good faith. --W.marsh 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I was skimming too fast. I've reverted my revert to put it back. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing user's votes (User:SPUI again)

User:SPUI is removing user's votes from WP:TFD that he does not agree with here.JohnnyBGood 00:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That was wrong of him and that was wrong of you, too. -Splash 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR violator promising to return from another IP

Hey, folks. I blocked a user at 83.221.83.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 3RR at Beastie Boys and Talk:Beastie Boys; he was apparently the same user who had been previously blocked at 83.221.83.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). (There's a link that he objects to on the Beastie Boys page.) I tried to explain the pointlessness of edit warring to him, to no avail. He's now threatening to create a script to "parse your site and erase the unwanted link every 10 mins from a different IP", and has already edited again from 80.67.17.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 72.232.81.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). What do we do? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that Tom harrison semiprotected the Beastie Boys page. Why didn't I think of that? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The same individual is still edit warring and violating 3RR at Talk:Beastie Boys (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), mostly from 72.232.81.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I've blocked that IP, but I fully expect the user to return from another one. The semi-protection policy says that talk pages shouldn't be semiprotected except in extreme cases. Does this qualify? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked 69.57.177.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for violating 3RR on the talk page. Review and undo as appropriate. I'm reluctant to s-protect the talk page, but I can if we have to. Could we archive the page and protect the archive? Tom Harrison 20:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Likewise I've blocked 83.149.72.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Tom Harrison 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I made an archive, which was immediately attacked, so I protected it. I hope this helps, sorry for the inconvenience, review my admin actions, et etcera. Tom Harrison 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User needing a quick blocking

Since I'm a party in a RfAr against User:Licorne, I'm not going to confuse things by blocking him for WP:NPA at the moment. But here's the latest exchange:

If someone wants to take care of that, it would be appreciated. This user has had trouble with this before and knows the rules (see his RFA for details), though the blatant anti-Semitism is a new twist. --Fastfission 00:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• You know -- nevermind. I'll take care of it myself. Nobody is going to object. --Fastfission 01:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And there I was making a week-long block. -Splash 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sports Wiki Spam

Hello, I received this message today, asking me to contribute to an off-site wiki-project related to sports. It reminded me of a similar message I'd received previously. I checked into the poster User:Roblefko and I found that every single edit this user has made has been to recruit users to this other wiki project. That's gotta be against the rules. If it isn't it should be. Possibly we can annul this account on the grounds that their user page is not being used to help build an encyclopedia? What does everyone think? Johntex\ 02:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Could we have someone from meta add the website to our spam blacklist, too?

I'm blocking his account and removing his linkspam from the pages where he placed it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the spamming this fellow is doing, I think it's common courtesy to warn someone before you block them. how else are they to know they are doing anything wrong?--Alhutch 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The only edits the guy made were linking to his own site; he hasn't made a single contribution to the encyclopedia. In his last run, he spammed fifty talk pages in eighteen minutes. I'll unblock (or anyone else can) if he indicates a desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages (and not just use our bandwidth for advertising his project)...or maybe if his site is blacklisted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that he has not contributed to wikipedia or evinced a desire to do so. However, I think it would be nice to give the guy a little warning before he gets blocked, since he seems to be acting in good faith. I don't entirely disagree with your course of action, though.--Alhutch 03:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Update—I've blocked his account and rolled back all of the linkspam (about a hundred talk pages total). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Further update. He actually has at least one sock. This looks like a deliberate linkspamming operation. Have a look at the contributions of Awrigh01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); it's the same message, to hundreds of pages. I've blocked, and am rolling back. Perhaps a sock check, to find out if there are any others? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

it's not a sock, it's a different person. In the interest of full disclosure, I have an account on the website they are spamming for. Those are definitely two different people.--Alhutch 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want, I could try to contact them on the other website and tell them to cool it with the spam on Misplaced Pages.--Alhutch 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Website added to the Meta Spam list. User:Zscout370 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to the m:Spam blacklist. Essjay 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

...and see also Dan121377 (talk · contribs). UninvitedCompany has already blocked and reverted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany has not responded to my inquiry into having the ban and reversions lifted. Both were inappropriate. My comments to user talk pages did not provide the URL to the outside site unless the user in question requested it, with one minor exception (person provided NPOV edit to page; when reverted, asked where it would be appropriate). Similarly, I have made substantive edits to the wiki. I was banned without warning and, as my user talk notes were not spam, without justification. Now, the power-tripping admin (see his talk page for complaints by others) does not reply to me? Absurd. --DansGhost 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"my user talk notes were not spam" – They most certainly were spam, whether or not they contained an external link. See Misplaced Pages:Spam. android79 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I was doing does not fall into the categories on the page you cite to. I checked that page before doing what I did for that specific purpose. Indeed, I'm just doing what is otherwise accepted in regard to Wikicities, save for the fact that my site is not in any way affiliated with Misplaced Pages's founders. In the very least, I should have been notified before such drastic action was taken. The draconian response is entirely unfounded. --DansGhost 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read as far as Misplaced Pages is not a space for the promotion of products, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. android79 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem right. Shouldn't the users get some kind of warning before being blocked? It's not like they were vandalising content. Their comments to various talk pages has been going on for days if not weeks. Recommend reverting the blocks and issuing warnings; only carrying out the blocks if the spam continues. Nfitz 05:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Try this: unblock and see what happens. Since it was added to the meta spam list after all blocks were issued, we could see what happens next. User:Zscout370 05:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now unblocked Awrigh01, because he's apologized and he seems to 'get it'. I look forward to positive contributions from him. Since the site in question is blacklisted, he can't spam anyway....

I've also lifted the block on Roblefko. Once again, because of the blacklist there isn't a need to keep the block, methinks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Editor Defamation by User:Raphael1

User:Raphael1 stated that I was lying diff when I made this comment stating: Irishpunktom is the one who added the reference to Taliban.

Additionally User:Raphael1 has made bad faith requests for support, "Please help me to remove the anti-muslim propaganda on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. User:Raphael1 " on numerous editor's pages diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, (a total of about 20).

As well he has falsely accused other editors of Misplaced Pages violations like he did against User:MX44 here (MX44 will surely verify this).

And he has attempted to use a false pretense (claiming WP:NPA) in requesting deletion of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons image. diff

He has vandalized the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy article. diff and been subsequently warned.

All of which has added up to an editor that has been quite disruptive.

What recourse does an editor like myself have against a fellow editor who defames me? Netscott 03:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is disruptive, I myself have been accused of not following consensus by this editor, but as I am (albeit a minimal) part of this dispute will not take action. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:13 UTC (2006-03-14)

I will politely point the user toward Misplaced Pages is not censored and add a warning. Sasquatch t|c 06:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

CyberGhostface

Blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly removing {{nsd}} ("no source" image tag) tag from image (Image:Will.i.am.jpg) without discussion, explanation and after being warned the first time. --Wgfinley 05:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

Now blocked for one week for removing the tag again and removing my previous admonition from his talk page . --Wgfinley 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User contacted me via email, I agreed to shorten to 3 hours, he has provided a source for the image which I missed due to a formatting problem with how he posted it. I agreed to reduce to block if he agrees to make a better effort to make sure his images are uploaded and tagged correctly. --Wgfinley 17:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

202.72.148.102

Could someone please block this user for his constant vandalism, mainly at Christianity. Thanks, Str1977 09:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Upper Canada College

I am an administrator who has been trying to mediate a dispute on this article -- see Talk:Upper Canada College. An anonymous editor is not satisfied with my atttempt at mediation. It would be useful to have another administrator take a look at this. If I have overstepped my bounds as an administrator, I would like to know as I am relatively new at this. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• That anon is definatly not helping things, and certainly seems to be alone in his POV about the changes to the page. I strongly encourage other admins to take a look at this before it gets (more) out of hand. --InShaneee 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User 66.208.54.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) / 68.50.242.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been warned to desist disruption and trolling by several uninvolved editors, including two admins and an advocate. The actual grievance the user has is that no one has provided sources to say that UCC is all-male, has an elementary school, has a secondary school, or if it is indeed in Toronto, Canada, or on planet earth at all. The article has many references already. See Talk:Upper Canada College. Request intervention by an admin so that other editors can use the talk page constructively. ॐ Metta Bubble 06:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A newly-registered user, who does not appear to be the anon user has requested the semi-protection be lifted so that the anon editor can be allowed to demonstrate good faith. This has been supported by another newly-registered user, and by a couple of other anon editors. I believe that lifting semi-protection would allow the anon editor to return to his disruptive behaviour, but would respect the decision of another administrator to lift semi-protection if s/he sees fit. See Talk:Upper Canada College#Lifting semi-protection for the discussion. thanks.Ground Zero | t 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time this morning reading the UCC talk page; as well as having tracked the discussion on and off for a few days. I think the semi-protection should not be lifted at this point. The anon user is not, in my opinion, acting in good faith. Requesting that basic, well-known facts be sourced is unreasonable. To do so repeatedly is annoying at best, and may be regarded as trolling by some. If the anon has issues with any specific basic fact stated in the article, then s/he should provide an alternative, which would of course require appropriate citation. The point of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is not to source basic facts, but rather to cite facts that may not be accepted by everyone. Mindmatrix 19:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack by Alireza Hashemi

He/she personally attacked me on this page: by calling me a racist vandal. MB 12:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've warned the user against personal attacks. If he/she does it again, they will be temporarily blocked. --InShaneee 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Majalo

Can someone keep an eye on User:Majalo. He's vandalizing and uploading useless images, but I don't have time to deal with him right now. Sorry if this isn't a good place to put this. I'm a little confused by the recent restructuring. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 14:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Netoholic

Despite repeated warnings, Netoholic (talk · contribs) continues to insert the harmful "hiddenStructure" CSS hack (explicitly condemned by lead developer Brion Vibber) into templates (and to revert war with other users over its inclusion). This warrants a block, even without considering the fact that Netoholic is banned from the template namespace and limited to one revert per page per day (restrictions that are to be enforced when his edits are disruptive). Due to Netoholic's allegations of misconduct on my part (and pending arbitration against me), I'm listing this here. —David Levy 15:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators have asked that I not be blocked unless being "disruptive". hiddenStructure is being added to many templates by many different editors. It's a very common practice... so how am I special, deserving a block? I think David is complaining about my edits to Template:Infobox Book, where I've described on talk my changes (to remove fields which give details on a specific printed version of a book, rather than the work itself). There is nothing disruptive about that proposed change, except the people who can't bother posting on talk. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The template cited above is only the most recent example. 2. You're well aware of the fact that the "hiddenStructure" hack is harmful (because it breaks pages for some users), so repeatedly adding it to templates is quite disruptive. So is revert warring. Several users oppose your changes (and a couple have even requested on your talk page that you stop), but you insist upon violating your ArbCom ruling by forcing them through. Posting explanations of why you're right and they're wrong doesn't magically justify your stance. —David Levy 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not "well aware" that hiddenStructure is harmful. In fact, we did have one blind Wikipedian comment on it and said it wasn't bad if user properly, which is why there are guidelines on Misplaced Pages:hiddenStructure. Charging me with revert warring, when it is rarely anyone except you and Locke Cole reverting me, is disingenuous. On Template:Infobox Book, you did not explain why you reverted. I explained whyI made the changes, so why is there a double-standard? It seems to me the only harmful revert warring is when the reasons for the reverts have gone unexplained. You're not allowed to stalk me to a template, revert me with no reason given, and then claim I am the revert warrior. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Brion Vibber clearly and unambiguously explained why the "hiddenStructure" hack is harmful, and you've been directed to his comments on several occasions. 2. Even if your premise that the opposition to your edits is confined almost exclusively to Locke Cole and me were true (which it isn't), so what? Do you deny the fact that you're revert warring? 3. I've repeatedly explained to you that your insertion of "hiddenStructure" code (in flagrant defiance of Brion Vibber's stance) will not be tolerated, so you knew perfectly well why I rolled back your edits (which were tantamount to vandalism). —David Levy 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Even in that statement by Brion, he advocated built-in conditionals to hiddenStructure. So far, we still have no built-ins. Brion also never advocated Template:Qif - neither as an alternative to hiddenStructure nor on it's own. He's shattered WP:AUM without providing alternatives. Without alternatives, there is no single solution. As such, removing optional fields from a template is a totally legitimate alternative, depending on the circumstances. -- Netoholic @ 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The {{qif}} template doesn't break pages. The "hiddenStructure" hack does. Therefore, while {{qif}} is not an ideal solution, it certainly is a much better solution than "hiddenStructure" is. Feel free to discuss (but not edit war over) the removal of optional fields.

And incidentally, Brion didn't "shatter" WP:AUM, which was overwhelmingly rejected by the community. He shattered the myth that the developers had promoted it to policy status. —David Levy 18:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you justify continuing to accuse me of edit warring without discussing? Look at yourself, you've reverted me twice on that template without dicussion. I posted on talk when people raised a concern. Where are you? Do you even care about the particulars?

I didn't accuse you of "edit warring without discussing." Your comments in question pertain to an unrelated debate. I only reverted the edits in which you inserted the "hiddenStructure" hack (which I have discussed a great deal). It's absolutely unacceptable to deliberately break pages for some users, and no amount of discussion is going to change that. —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with David and Locke on this and would like to thank them for their energy to tackle Netoholic. Most people have given up on this. Netoholic will never stop. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Adrian. Netoholic continues to advocate positions that other members have repeatedly and soundly rejected. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So here we have it... I am being attacked just for advocating a position. I'll never stop advocating a position I feel is correct. I've greatly tempered my actions in recent months; whereas I'm now subjected to people reverting me on-sight without explanation. -- Netoholic @ 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you only would advocate, that wouldn't be so harmful. But you revert war on templates like a dick. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I see David Levy's link to comments by Brion why he doesn't like hiddenStructure. I've also noticed comments on Brion's talk page that suggest he has as much disdain for QIF. I haven't seen anything here suggesting that either one has been "explicitly condemned" per se. Mind you, I'm rather looking for something from Brion saying "Never use this!" since the obvious conclusion here is that both sides are reading different subtleties into his statements so far.

InkSplotch 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Brion has indicated that both methods are "ugly," and that native support for conditionals would be preferable. He has not indicated that {{qif}} is inherently harmful. In fact, he shot down the primary reason for avoiding its use (a belief that it adversely affected server performance). He has, however, cited several ways that the "hiddenStructure" CSS hack causes harm. It's been clearly demonstrated that it breaks pages for some users by generating nonstandard HTML code—something that {{qif}} absolutely does not do. Netoholic believes that this is "OK" and "no big deal," and he claims that {{qif}} has the potential to break things (despite a lack of evidence to support this contention).

Brion also stated that while {{qif}} is "ugly," he doesn't care if it's used as a temporary stopgap (until native support for conditionals is added, at which point it probably will break). Compare this to the aforementioned statement regarding "hiddenStructure," in which he cited three ways that it "harms both the primary site's accessibility and offsite reuse of material" (in addition to being "very ugly"). In other words, it's broken now.

To be clear, I'm not here to advocate the use of {{qif}}. It just happens to be preferable to something that breaks pages. —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, considering an RFAr is already forming, is there anything here critical, or would this work better as a requested Temporary Injunction? OK, a question and a thought, then. :)

InkSplotch 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How about simply enforcing the terms of Netoholic's existing ArbCom decision? —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well said... Brion has not said one is preferable to the other. -- Netoholic @ 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

His stance (that {{qif}} is the far lesser of two evils) is abundantly clear. It's hilarious that you were willing to twist Jamesday's vague statements on meta-templates into a "policy," but you choose to ignore entirely unambiguous statements on the part of Brion. —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So from that you imply that hiddenStructure is better than qif because it looks horrible in non-CSS browsers. I do not believe you defend a noble thought here. You only defend your outdated old stance, because you are unable to admit that qif is the better solution for now, because you have always said that metatemplates are bad. But you failed to prove that and nobody believes you, even Brion said the server load issue is a non-issue because there is no evidence. You are using this debate to hinder a viable solution because you are against templates anyway and you are opposing a Media-wiki built in conditional function. What the hell. When have you last time done something useful for this Encyclopedia? I can't remember. Your only goal seems to be to bind resources. Well then. Go for it. This is ridiculous. Let Neto have his hiddenStrucure on the templates or see what people say when he removes conditional things from the templates. We do not need to defend Misplaced Pages from him. The damage is obviously too little to be noticeable. We are just wasting our time here. That bladder needs to get bigger to burst. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I confess I've never understand why this debate generates so much heat. I use Lynx quite often and it negotiates hiddenStructure just fine. Sure, there's some excess data, but no worse than a normal template with missing parameters (a common occurence in the less heavily-traveled articles). I also confess that I've missed the statistics which demonstrated that Misplaced Pages was broken for a sizable fraction of the browsing public. This issue is surely not worth descent into a frothing rage. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see User:Locke Cole/Don't use hiddenStructure. And keep in mind, some screen reading software used by the disabled chokes on this stuff too. Also note the diff link to Brion's comment at the bottom of the page. And to be honest? The only heat here is coming from Netoholic. Everyone else seems to agree this is bad stuff, but he's revert warred over it (in defiance of his ArbCom ban) for the past two weeks. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't "choke" or "break pages". At worst, the reader sees some extra empty rows in an infobox, as Mackenseon said. As long as one follows the guidelines on Misplaced Pages:HiddenStructure (to design your template with that in mind), there is no major problem. That point has been confirmed by lynx readers and one blind wikipedian that reviewed the material as well. If you want numbers, non-CSS browsers made up fewer than 0.04% of the hits on this website (as of Feb 2004, though I can't image that percentage has grown). -- Netoholic @ 02:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I note, again, that you regurgitate your claim that it's causing no harm, while ignoring the people who say it is in fact harmful (of which Brion VIBBER is one, and the many participants at WT:AUM are another). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A few blocks handed out related to Ian Lee and Clive Bull

I just blocked User:. Westminsterboy as a possible imposter account of User:Westminsterboy. Related to this, I indefblocked ._JamieHughes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) primarily because he was moving around User:Arniep's accusations that . Westminsterboy was an imposter on Talk:Ian Lee and because his username was similar to User:JamieHughes...whose talkpage has a warning about vandalism to Margaret Thatcher from me and who was also contributing to the Ian Lee discussions.

If another admin could review some of the contributions of ._JamieHughes and see if my block is reasonable I'd appreciate it. I don't mind any shortening of the block if you feel it is justified. Thanks! --Syrthiss 15:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

These impersonators should be indef-blocked, without question. I just got back from removing the 'actually I think Iain Lee really is gay' comments entirely (which is what the accounts were set up to do), replacing them with '(impersonator comment removed)'. The rest of the impersonators' comments I left up, but annotated with notices to the effect they were impersonators. Further oversight of Talk:Iain Lee and any other LBC-related articles would be appreciated. LBC seems to be a magnet for Misplaced Pages vandalism, not least because at least one DJ has encouraged listeners to vandalise Misplaced Pages - a spree of vandalism at Weetabix Minis, which at the time was a stub and not a redirect, was apparently at the behest of DJ James O'Brien. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I also find it an odd coincidence that the Zoewhatever user disappeared right after I blocked . Westminsterboy and . JamieHughes. --Syrthiss 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Um? Zoewhatever user? User:Zoe| 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked ZoeCroydon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not you. Unless you're another impersonator, who cunningly registered years before, made lots of edits and gained adminship just to make the impersonation more plausible. *glares* --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well of course I'm just a vandal, as lots of people tell me on my Talk page. User:Zoe| 01:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel confident enough to say without reservation that the 'Iain Lee is gay' claim is complete bollocks, and the various IPs and accounts claiming that he is are, if not sockpuppets (or whatever the equivalent of a sockpuppet for an IP is - shadowpuppets?), at the very least meatpuppets. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, imo some kind of puppetry... Lack of understanding of how wikipedia works ("10 users say its so! PUT IT BACK IN YOU HOMOPHOBES!1!!!"), and lack of reliable sources. :) --Syrthiss 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if y'all want to lift the protect and/or make it into an sprotect, I won't object. · Katefan0/poll 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that since its in full protection already per you, lets leave it for a couple days and see if the socks have gone home. --Syrthiss 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I stuck {{indefblockeduser}} on User:. JamieHughes and User:. Westminsterboy. Just checking that this was the right thing to do? Syrthiss' block summary of the JamieHughes impersonator said "indef block pending investigation of sockpuppetry and hoaxing", but despite the word 'pending' I can't possibly see how we'd allow this blatant impersonator account to edit Misplaced Pages again. If any admins are in doubt, here are the diffs: JamieHughes Westminsterboy--Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The pending was in case someone here said "OMGWTFBBQ", but nobody has. I was trying to keep a small amount of good faith that . JamieHughes was just JamieHughes who forgot his login information when I made the block. Since nobody objected, they'll remain indefblocked...tho I thought I had dumped at least a username block template on . Westminsterboy. --Syrthiss 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, socky goodness. Has someone visited WP:RCU? · Katefan0/poll 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

These are about 7 users from different companies. Please unblock 84.13.84.22 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu violating revert parole

Hi, we're having a bit of trouble over on the article Moi dix Mois. User:Leyasu is currently under a revert parole from Arbcom, limited to 1 content revert per day (see ). However:

are all reverts done by Leyasu on March 14, 2006. While Leyasu's edit summaries call the reverts "reverting vandalism", what we have here is a plain old content dispute. I wasn't sure whether to place this here or on WP:AN/3RR; please bear with me if I've made a mistake. Could an administrator please have a look? flowersofnight (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Recently the user Deathrocker added an infobox to the article for the band Moi dix mois, .

I corrected some gramma and restored the genres to what they previously where, before Deathrocker changed them .

Deathrocker reverted this, marking the revert as minor .

After reverting their edit , i posted to Deathrocker on their talk page, making a polite request concering the article, aksing them not to start a revert war and to post to my talk page if they have a problem with my edits .

Deathrocker deleted this , and then went on to revert me, inciting a revert war and making personal attacks using the edit summary .

I reverted this, noting that i had asked him not to revert war, and noted id be informaing an admin .

He reverted me again, making yet more personal attacks in the edit summary .

I reverted this again with some neutral wording , which then a user seemingly in the intrest of ending the edit war changed it .

Deathrocker however immediatly went on to revert back to his copy, violating 3RR .

At this point, i reverted his version again, leaving the note that the neutral attempt was good, but wasnt in Misplaced Pages prose .

Deathrocker then went on to attack me on the Moi Dis Mois talk page calling me an idiot, , to which i responded , which he then went on to revert the Moi Dix Mois article calling me a troll 'unwilling to partake in discussion on the talk page' .

He has also attempted to edit what i have written to you, changing what i have written to insult me , which i reverted, noting the vandalism .

Its ironic how Deathrocker is in violation of 3RR and WP:NPOV, and that bears no mention. I also find it ironic how that, when the users couldnt bully me into agreeing with them, they chose to hide behind my arbcom ruling, even though Deathrocker is in violation of WP:3RR, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, and Flowers is defending the user.

I also added a source for information, which is in compliance with WP:CITE, .

Deathrocker replied by reverthing it back to his version, claiming that the source wasnt allowed without his permission , again violating WP:CITE and WP:NPOV.

I also notifed admin Sceptre, who has had to deal with Deathrocker deliberatly vandalising articles and inciting revert wars before. Its also ironic how this notice was posted in an attempt of Wikilawyering in the hopes of making sure im scolded before admin Sceptre can intervene. Ley Shade 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Source was in violation of WP:CITE; Altervista pages are free personal blogs, not prominent music media or reliable for factual information, and it says "visual gothic metal" there isn't such a genre. Defemation of character by User:Leyasu, NOWHERE did I claim "the source wasnt allowed without his permission" - Deathrocker 19:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE says nothing about pages not being allowed. If it does, i ask the user Deathrocker to quote here the part that says that Altavista pages are not allowed, considering he has provided no sources of his own. Ley Shade 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I will block Leyasu for 48 hours. Leyasu, labeling another user's edits as "vandalism" doesn't exempt you from your parole when it's actually just a content dispute. What you did is *exactly* what the arbcom was trying to stop. I'm also going to block deathrocker for 24 hours for violating 3RR because he's a repeat offender. And as all will note, I am completely uninvolved. Honestly, until I saw this notice, I wasn't even aware of the arbcom case. --Woohookitty 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu violating revert parole for the second time

Hi, I'm afraid this isn't the only time Leyasu had violated revert parole today, sorry to report this but I feel its my duty as a good Wikipedian. On the Gothic Metal article, that editor seems to be doing the same as above. As stated, User:Leyasu is currently under a revert parole from Arbcom, limited to 1 content revert per day (see ).

Evidence however shows: - Deathrocker 19:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Its also ironic how the above statement was made by no other than Deathrocker, , who started the revert wat on the Moi Dix Mois article. Its also ironic how it was Deathrocker i was reverting on the Gothic Metal article, for removing cited information, , , , , . The user also is refusing to acknowledge the sources on the talk page that are in abundance. Ley Shade 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, if you revert too much you've gone beyond the bounds of what's allowed. The other person could also be in the wrong too. --Cyde Weys 03:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Duffer1 impersonator

DufferI (talk · contribs) just blocked. Watch closely for further impersonators of Duffer1 (talk · contribs). I will err on the side of not saying what the IP or range is, but I've made a note of it and will keep an eye out for future examples. See Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Sockpuppet - David Gerard 19:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Godmode lite

Why does my GML rollback say:

Please wait, reverting edits by 207.31.166.130... Bad authentication token!

It just stopped working...even older versions don't work.Voice-of-All 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

but don't you have admin rollback?--Alhutch 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though semi-auto pistols have been around for awhile some people still just really like revolvers. --Cyde Weys 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the semi-automatic holds more bullets and kills more vandals (more quickly) than a plain ole revolver. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of usepage

I've informed DickClarkMises that he may be in violation of WP:NOT by his mention on his userpage that he is currently running for political office, with the wording: "I am presently campaigning for the Alabama House of Representatives, District 79 seat, against Mike Hubbard (R; incumbent) and Carolyn Ellis (D)." A brief scan of the comment and the word "campaigning" links all readers to his campaign website. When I asked him to remove it, he stated that "I do not depend on Misplaced Pages for promotion, and I am not attempting to self-promote via Misplaced Pages." I would find this to be an incorrect statement and refer to WP:NOT, especially sections: Misplaced Pages is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and the fact that this also pertains to userpages.--MONGO 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree here. I just finished a successful political campaign for public office myself and could have easily used my user apge to promote it but did not because I knew that it would have been wrong here. Please deal with this as you will MONGO.Gator (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. He makes edits, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that he's running for office. Will we now prevent people from including links on their user page to companies they work for? WP:NOT, sure, but I thought we were allowed to have a post about ourselves on our USER PAGE. He has over a thousand of edits, so it's clear that's not the only reason he made an account.--Golbez 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

seems like he's acting in good faith, and a contributor to the enyclopedia otherwise. I don't have a huge problem with it.--Alhutch 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't forget the fact wikipedia is not the site to promote seflish gain. The userpage is an asset to the site's resources as long as it productively contributes to the main goal. -Zero 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Part of the attractiveness of Misplaced Pages is the community. Yes, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia and not Myspace etc. etc, but fact is, a feeling of belonging to a community makes people feel more welcome to stay and write that encyclopaedia. Some of the things which help generate that feeling are policies and guidelines on how editors treat each other, projects like Esperanza, and the ability to have a userpage to identify oneself to everyone else. What would distract us from writing an encyclopaedia more - the odd notice on someone's user page about what they're up to in real life, or policing other people's userpages for anything that looked unconstructive?

I don't believe Dick mentioned his campaign on his userspace to attract votes (what are the chances that someone would find it and live in his district anyway?), I think he listed it because part of the function of a user page is to tell people who you are, and he wanted to say 'I am a politician who runs in significant elections'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have completely missed the point. This isn't about anything other than this editor posting links on his userpage to a current political campaign in which he is running for political office. This is a violation of WP:NOT and not to mention WP:SPAM. None of the information he has about his current political campaign has one thing to do with writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As a point of information, I would submit that my involvement in political campaigns is germane to my Misplaced Pages activities given that I spend a great deal of time working on politics-related entries. I want to make absolutely sure that I wear my biases on my sleeve, so that others can be as critical as need be when reviewing my edits. If I were really trying to get every reader of my talk page to my campaign website, I would have posted a link to it at the top of my page, right where I put the link to Kate's tool. Respectfully submitted, Dick Clark 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You think I've missed the point, but I think you've missed the wood in favour of a single tree. It's just one sentence in a single paragraph about what he does in real life. Many people post stuff about their personal life on their userpage, myself included (not so much as Dick, but then I haven't done as much interesting stuff as him). If you want people's userpages to contain nothing about their personal life, or even to have a limited amount on their personal life (perhaps a ratio of content about Misplaced Pages to other content?) then I have to say you're going to have to propose an actual policy. Singling out a single sentence on a single userpage won't do any good. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not advocating anything other than he remove the spamlink to his own personal political campaign. The rest of the page is fine. If the hand has a splinter, we pull it out, no. The policy already exists...did you not bother to examine WP:NOT and the sublinks? Or does the policy only apply when you think it should.--MONGO 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but if the hand rests on a cane I do not take an axe to it. (Come on everyone, join in and break the Guiness World Record for most wood-based metaphors in a single thread.) I have examined WP:NOT, extensively. The policy, like all policies, applies not when I think it should, but when it's best for the encyclopaedia. Antagonising a well-established editor over a single sentence on his userpage is not good for the encyclopaedia. Like I said, if you don't want to see a single non-Misplaced Pages-related thing on any userpage, propose a specific policy on it, because Dick is far from the only one and there seems to be no reason to single him out. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the link can be described in any way as spam... if you come across it that means you are reading a four-paragraph biography of this individual. Presumably this means you have some interest in finding out about him. How in that context could the link be described as spam? Basically, I see no problem with users having a short biography on their userpages; there's no reason for Wikipedians to be faceless. What is important is that the encyclopedia comes first (that is, that the site not become a place primarily for social networking) and that userpage content create a fruitful and collegial editing atmosphere that allows for cooperation rather than sabotaging the spirit of wikilove. I would say that the material in this case is fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's very different to link to one's place of employment and altogether a whole different thing to post links and information about the fact that they are running for political office. I doubt that he created the userpage just to use it as a political pulpit, but using it in this manner is completely different than and is in conflict with the areas I mentioned above.--MONGO 20:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If he's not using his user page to promote his campaign, then he should have no problem removing the external link (which is the only part I think can be justifiably requested be removed). Interested parties can easily use Google to find out more about his campaign. I don't think this is a serious issue, however. android79 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the link to the political campaign. We allow people to link to campaigns for and against George Bush, for and against gay marriage, etc. It should be no different when the cause in question happens to be the campaign of the user. As long as the user page is being used primarily to help edit Misplaced Pages, then there is no problem. Johntex\ 21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  It's his own personal political campaign. Guess I'll email Jimbo on this one cause this will go to a higher authority. We already know where he stands on userpages. You look at my userpage...there is nothing there that identifies anything other than the articles I have written, some images granted to me and some of my open tasks. Userpages are "on loan"...they belong to Misplaced Pages, and as such, they are not to be used for personal gain...this is no different than if he was soliciting money for himself.--MONGO 22:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Um, why do we need to contact Jimbo? Do we have no more dispute resolution process that we have to run to daddy any time admins disagree? --Golbez 22:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I think that this is a serious enough issue to possible warrant the website owner opinion on the matter. I don't run to daddy, Golbez...I resent this statement and find that anyone that feels that is is okay to use our userpages for spaming for their political campaigns really needs to reevaluate what the purpose of this project is.--MONGO 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I don't think it's serious at all, and I'm wondering why you feel such urgency over it. He's not spamming at all - has he posted it on any other page? The purpose of this project is to make an encyclopedia, which he has been doing. --Golbez 22:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this whole thing has caused more people to see his "campaign" than if it had been left alone. By drawing this large-scale attention to his user page and campaign website, it has done more for the visibility of his campaign than the original link ever would. Maybe DickClarkMises and MONGO are in political cahoots... ;-) But seriously, Johntex makes a good point above. There is a larger question at hand, Should we continue to allow users to add a link to their personal website on their user page? --LV 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that this is much ado about nothing. As for linking to one's personal website, this guy does it. -- SCZenz 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the context, I don't see DCM's userpage as a problem. It looks more like he threw it in as verification of the claim in his bio than as a promotional piece. Spam is usually more garish, y'know? -Colin Kimbrell 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that DickClarkMises is a long-time editor who has always acted in good faith, to the best of my knowledge. I do not believe that he added the link with the intent of promoting his campaign, but rather to fill out his autobiography. -Will Beback 23:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that anyone who gets through the first three paragraphs of his bio is probably interested enough that he would genuinely want to know this. The manner of presentation is in no way promotional. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The best thing for Misplaced Pages is if users can express themselves freely on their user pages. This stands whether they want to say which brand of caffeinated cola beverage they drink, which politcal party they have affiliations with, or where they stand on gay marriage. It is not good for Misplaced Pages if genuine wikipedians feel contricted in what they can say. —Pengo 00:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's policy...userpages follow the same rules as article space. If this webspam was in article space we would usually remove it for being what it is. One thousand edits or ten thousand edits makes no difference to me. I have over 12,000 edits and not anywhere on my userpage is one userbox, one piece of POV information about my politics, my religion, my biases. I link articles I started, a few images given to me and few tasks I have to do. Blatant spam advertising of this nature, in which an editor is using his loaned userpage, that is the property of the Misplaced Pages Foundation, to promote his own political campaign is: not what Misplaced Pages is all about. Now maybe this is going on in other userpaces and I didn't know about it...so I take it as an eye opener...a very disappointing one at that. "Manner of presentation is in no way promotional"...."Much to do about nothing"...."not spamming at all"....I've never seen so many erroneous comments in one thread in this noticeboard.--MONGO 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that it's pretty blindingly obvious that this is not spam. This link will be discovered only by people who are interested in finding out more about this editor. Presumably they might be interested in seeing his site. For the same reason John Kerry links to johnkerry.com, Coca-Cola links to cocacola.com, etc. A link to cocacola.com would be spam if placed on beverage, but on Coca-Cola it is not. Links to outside content are often very useful for providing further information, no less so in userspace than in article space. Further, in light of this being a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia, part of the purpose of userspace is to allow fellow editors to learn more about each other. DickClarkMises introduces information about himself in a way that is nonconfrontational, friendly, and unlikely to be intrusive for people that are not seeking out the information. Acting as if he is disregarding basic Misplaced Pages policy is fairly absurd, and conflating this with the userbox issue is even more so. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that this is blindingly obvious that this is not spam? Baloney. This has nothing to do with "learning more about the person"...it has to do with self promotion in a political campaign in which he is a candidate for public office. I would say your stance is absurd. His userpage is not a free webhost to link to these types of things.--MONGO 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's policy...userpages follow the same rules as article space. Ummmm... they do? And here I thought they followed the rules of userpages... -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Really...that's a revelation...userpages do not belong to the users...we simply borrow them from the Misplaced Pages Foundation. Obviously they are not supposed to be edited by outsiders without consent. He links to his campaign website...in userspace...WP:NOT: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox...see also, what can I not have on my userpage:....it also states that regular users are offered wide latitude...so what. Linking to a political campaign page for himself in which he is a candidate is advertising...it is spam and the equivilent of a weblog for all basic purposes.--MONGO 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's news to me that userpages are subject to the same rules as articlespace. Even those that relate only to Misplaced Pages violate WP:V and WP:NOR. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Then consider yourself enlightened. WP:NOT certainly seems to indicate that userpages are to follow the same rules overall as article space, as far as that policy goes.--MONGO 11:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We're dealing in generalities here; there is no policy that Dick has clearly broken. WP:NOT says "Most of the policies here apply to your user page as well." (my emphasis). WP:UP says "Misplaced Pages offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space" and the section on removal of inappropriate material starts with "If the community lets you know..." To me, what this adds up to is that whether a userpage is being used properly or not should be determined by what the consensus thinks is good for the encyclopaedia. In this case it seems to me that the consensus is that Dick is using his userspace legitimately. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if we were treating userspace like article space, I still don't see the issue with this particular link. If someone wrote an article about a notable political figure with a line about how that political figure is currently running for a particular office, and they linked to a statement by the candidate saying that he's running for the office, wouldn't that just be citing sources? -Colin Kimbrell 12:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about a third party report and you are correct that it may be citing sources, but I know I have routinely removed any links I have found in article space that lead to campaigns since it simply advertising.--MONGO 12:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to reach the level of abuse, it's a small part of a larger biography. Plenty of people here write about themselves, and some link to outside resources. While it may violate a strict reading of WP:NOT, I don't think it violates the spirit. I hope we're still able to judge issues on their merits and not just a reflexive exercise of rules. Rx StrangeLove 04:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Samuel here, the link is nonintrusive, and Dick Clark is not using the userpage as a soapbox. Several people have links to their personal webpages on their userpage, including commercial links. It is no more offensive than campaign links in a candidate's mainspace article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's blatent advertising of a political campaign he is a candidate in. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Maybe I need to look at a lot of userpages and discuss the matter with the Misplaced Pages Foundation about people misusing their loaned webspace for advertising.--MONGO 11:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There were some strong feelings, there. I hope that in time this will come to be regarded as a basis in the application of commonsense on Misplaced Pages. I hope future policy will take the opportunity to rule that the encyclopedia always comes first. No where in policy does it dictate that that editors are entitled to the freedom of userspace resources, offensive or not. As for the talk of following the spirit and not the letter, that is currently not an option. This leads to the conveyance of policy in one's own favor, and it must be followed to the letter whenever possible.-Zero 11:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy must be followed only when it is beneficial to the encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't even begin to understand what you mean there. Policy was created for the sole purpose of benefitting the encyclopedia and dictating the main goal of the site. However you do seem to be acting like someone who believes this nonsense, so I'll remove the accusation that you're deliberately ignoring established policy and guidelines. You seem to be honestly confused. -Zero 12:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Policies are not infallible and do not cover all eventualities; that's why we have pages like WP:IAR, to make it clear that policies are not laws to be blindly followed but tools to help with building the encyclopaedia. I am not invoking WP:IAR here because 2) prevailing opinion seems to be that Dick has not violated policy anyway. 3) What accusation? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The infallibleness of policy pertains solely to its following when it interferes with the well-being of commonsense. It does not apply to the stability of constructing an coup out whenever one feels it is necessary. As for my alleged accusation of you and IAR, could you please show me that? I do not see it. As I recall, policy is to be followed to the letter whenever possible as by the encyclopiac intent. It should always be adhered to, unless for instance Jimbo or consensus decides to declare the policy changed. I can appreciate that some parties may want to undergo links and personal information in order to resolve their biased differences with one another, but I don't see why this should affect the following of dictated policy. Those who are not interested in the true purpose of an user page know who they are and should probably refrain from potentially provocative subjects in times such as this. -Zero 13:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this - clearly we just approach the idea of policy from different angles. Regarding IAR, I know you didn't bring it up, I brought it up pre-emptively as it's a very tricky thing to invoke properly, so I was making it clear that I wasn't arguing that it should be applied here. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective. There is a balancing act of IAR, and a rather delicate one, between doing what one thinks is right and keeping commonsense intact. I respect your opinion; there's certainly room for difference of views on the wiki. -Zero 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Cut the guy some slack. A user page can be a brief biographical article of the given user. This does not seem to be an effort at campaigning. El_C 12:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh nm, he's a libertarian; I thought he was an indepndent or something possibly progressive. Misplaced Pages is already too pro-libertarian. El_C 12:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Bio, absolutely! A link to his campaign website...I say no, obviously. I want Mr. Clark to edit with all the gusto he can muster. However, I do not think that this specific manner of advertising is in keeping with policy. That the concensus here indicates that almost everyone is in disagreement with me on my interpretation of policy, I can accept that. I may be wrong. I have never seen another userpage that links folks to that persons campaign website. If this has been going on in other userspaces then it is a revelation to me.--MONGO 12:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes! I, too, support the repatriation of all libertarians to Bangladesh (there's enough room there for all 30 of em, including Jimbo!). El_C 12:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Libertarian Party? — the what? Exactly. El_C 12:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for lightening the mood, El C. For the record...I'm a Republicrat (Demolican?)...voting for the lesser of two evils and hopelessly confused.--MONGO 12:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes people take themselves too seriously. (not me, though, never!) :) El_C 13:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

There has been a lot of editing back and forth going in at the Falkland Islands. The discussion is to lame for words, but it evolves around whether the commonly used spanish name "Spanish:Islas Malvinas" should be mentioned behind the name Falkland Islands. The main motivation not just to follow the proposed guidelines in Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) is political (giving the name would be an endorsement of the Argentinian claims, the islanders are offended by it etc). A staw poll clearly showed support for the names in the first line, now the editing is to minimise things, by adding lines like (sometimes referred to as the Islas Malvinas) while sometimes means many milion hits at google. --KimvdLinde 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the above comment. In the end it is undeniable that a substantial number of people refer to the Falklands as the Islas Malvinas; the reason for this, and the merits of the claim which underlies it, is, from the standpoint of the lead paragraph of an encyclopaedia article, irrelevant. CIA World Factbook has Malvinas in the lead, so should we. And I am British. Just zis Guy you know? 21:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User:SweHomer

This is regarding the abuses and violations of SweHomer (talk · contribs) on Sweden Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Mind you, he is a member of the politcal party being discussed in the article.) He wrote a section in the article in which he presents his personal opinions and conspiracies as facts and tries to argue their truthfulness with unverified/unsourced claims, which is a violation of WP:POINT policy.

Another user and I tried to delete the section but he keeps reverting, breaking the three-revert rule. I think my version stands now, but I'm not sure. This user is hell-bent on advertising his conspiracies and personal views on Misplaced Pages articles. He threatens the integrity, truthfulness, and reliability of Misplaced Pages. I ask that he have his editing privelages revoked. WGee 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on WGee talk reminding about WP:BITE. I think WGee is a relatively new user. --FloNight 22:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jackjohnson33

If you get a chance, could one of the admins reading this please confirm to the above user that people aren't allowed to remove warning notices from their talk page? He isn't inclined to take my word for it, at present. -Colin Kimbrell22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what have you got against him removing the notice? It's in the history after all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It does appear that User:Jackjohnson33's only contributions so far have been to harass User:Colin Kimbrell, but I agree with Theresa that there's no point getting upset over someone removing warnings from their talk page. I'm sure a good handful of admins will be keeping their eyes on this user now, and if he continues to engage in personal attacks, he'll be blocked soon enough, visible warnings or no visible warnings. -GTBacchus 22:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I told him not to do it because it's against policy to remove warning notices, and while I don't really care about him insulting me, an investigating admin might accidentally miss that he was warned if he decides to start posting personal attacks toward someone else. If he just spends the rest of his time here trolling on my talk page, then you're right, it's no big deal. -Colin Kimbrell 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(teleposted by Colin) I strongly disagree with Theresa and GT. When I, and surely others, issue vandalism warnings on people, the major factor on which I base which testx (or NPA or whichever) to use is which ones they've had before, and how recently. I don't want to have to check their history to check that they haven't deleted any {{test3}}s in the past 24 hours before I post a {{test1}}. The 'Removing warnings' and 'Talk page vandalism' parts of 'Types of vandalism should, in my opinion, be followed, at least for recent warnings. The answer to "why not check the history?" is "why should I waste my time for a vandal when policy dictates that I shouldn't have to?" --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that line of thought is that vandals, by definition, don't follow policy. Policy says you shouldn't have to check their history, but it also says they shouldn't vandalize. I always look at their contributions page, and if I see that they've edited their talk page, I check the diffs. -GTBacchus 23:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There are vandals and vandals. Vandals who care enough to remove warnings are relatively rare compared to the usual sort. I operate on the assumption that if an IP deletes warnings from his talk page, people do what I do - see it on their watchlist, roll them back and possibly send them {{wr}}. It would save a lot of time if everyone was able to count on recent warnings staying up there. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

...Though no-one can be forced to revert warning vandalism, so I guess this is just going to be a case of different strokes. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably a stupid question, but what does "teleposted" mean? -Colin Kimbrell 23:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict (hence the slight duplication of your post). Reference to being telefragged. Normally I would say "edit conflict" like everyone else, but the word came into my head (it was the subject of the first article I created, now deleted). --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, got it, thanks. -Colin Kimbrell 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeated POV insertion by User:200.69.24.9

200.69.24.9 (talk · contribs) has been inserting blatent POV claims into the intros of a few articles, such as Freedom fries, Franco-American relations and 112 Gripes about the French. His edits frequently involve dropping large blocks of unformatted text at the top of these articles, which in turn seriously messes up the pages (e.g. ). This ordinarilly could be dealt with on talk pages, but the user is ignoring requests to stop or at least acknowledge the concerns, and keeps repeating the behavior over and over. His only explanation has just been to claim it's okay for him to insert POV . I've reverted and warned him, but given my involvement I don't feel comfortable blocking him since this is not simple vandalism, in my opinion. --W.marsh 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The user has seemingly returned after a block by another admin as Another POV (talk · contribs) and has been blocked indef. I think they've crossed the line and are pretty much just vandalizing at this point. --W.marsh 02:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, every IP used by this vandal/POV-pusher is an open proxy (at least 100% of the ones I have checked); he quite clearly knows what he is doing; it's not just a case of a clueless newbie. Please block them all indefinitely. The silver lining to this one, as usual, is that he's outing lots of proxies for us. Antandrus (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of userpage (déja vu anyone?)

Arlyn salido-acierto (talk · contribs) has two edits. One posting his resume on his user page, the other to the Help desk asking how he can make his userpage searchable on Google . I think he's misunderstood what Misplaced Pages is for. He's been here for a week with no other contributions.

On the one hand this is so trivial I wondered if I should even bother drawing attention to it, on the other hand - compared to the discussion going on above - this seems to be as clear-cut a misuse of a user page as it gets. I considered blanking the user page as it seems unlikely he'll notice, but thought that would be unnecessarily unilateral. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does this need administrator involvement? You haven't even left the user a message yet. If his user page remains inappropriate, you can use WP:MFD. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of political campaigning for himself with a link to his political political website...but policy applies here because this editor has two edits and the one above has a thousand? "compared to the discussion going on above - this seems to be as clear-cut a misuse of a user page as it gets"...oh please...spare us the opinions. What, not even a warning to him...but of course, since he/she has only two edits, they don't get a warning, right?--MONGO 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll repeat what I already told him on the Help Desk. If I don't get a response to that either I'll go to MfD - thanks Rspeer for pointing that out, it hadn't occurred to me. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's always going to happen, wiki gets cached by google faster than any website I've ever seen, I've made up 3 or 4 entire people, and even though some will get deleted, the websites that mirror wiki, pick up the content so fast, that you can vrtually destroy google wacks, and simply make things up if you want to, most people realize this eventually--152.163.100.65 22:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violation and defacement by User:Vigilant

This user is violating 3RR at Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) and changing the identity of sources I uploaded and were mailed to me. I have resolved the issues however, this user wants to continue to misrepresent the sources. s/he needs to be blocked for 3RR. Waya sahoni 01:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:04 UTC (2006-03-15)

Besides being on the wrong board, you were the first to hit 4 reverts anyway. So you're reporting yourself for a 3RR violation. --BWD 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Check again, the user was removing citations for sources and sources from article content to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia -- I believe this is called "vandalism". I also only replaced the text three times, not four. The other edit was to refine the description of the source. Waya sahoni 08:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Checking again shows that MerkeySpeak for "removing citations for sources and sources from article content to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia" is actually 'returning the title of the picture to (insert some guy's name here)'s book". To be expected from Jeff Merkey though. BTW, I reported you for 3RR on the correct page. Vigilant 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User DJAc75 is using obscenity, vandalising article

In the Joseph Sobran article, DJac75 is adding random quotes from Sobran into a quote section that was structured to reflect the source of the quote. This seems to be a deliberate effort to blunt the effectiveness of the article. He has used obscenity in his responses to me. Is this behavior permissable within Misplaced Pages? I would prefer to settle this by sorting through the quotes and separating them by theme, however, in light of his use of obscenity, I would prefer not to deal with this person. Adam Holland 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Zmmz

I was asked by User:Chick Bowen to keep him updated on the behavior of User:Zmmz, but he's not longer active so I was asked to post this here. Lately he has been vandalizing my talk page and personal user page about issues that have nothing to do with him. See evidence here and here.

He has also been following my contributions and removing all of them indiscriminantly without much explanation. Some examples were recorded here. Most of my edits have been fully discussed in the talk pages and were implemented upon consensus. User:Zmmz has not even been participating in the talks.

Could you tell me what I'm supposed to be doing about all these? This type of behavior has to stop. I left a message on his talk page asking for explanations, but the message was removed without any response. Aucaman 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would propose the following simple, temporary fix, but I don't know if I have tha authority to come up with such a solution - at very least I would want the support of a couple other admins before I enacted/enforced this: simply that Zmmz cannot edit any pages in Aucaman's user space (except talk), and vice versa; also that neither may revert an edit by the other even once. Violations could lead to blocks. Is this something we can negotiate here (think a settlement to avoid a long legal battle), or would the rest of you be more comfortable waiting on the inevitable arbitration involving these two users and the other edit-warriors around "the Aryan question"? (ESkog) 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I support this but I'm not sure there's a precedence for imposing sanctions like this via administrative fiat even if there is sufficent support. Jtkiefer ---- 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In the mean time, the reasonable editors you two are, please open up a dictionary snd look fior the word Aryan, and Indo-European. If and when done, at least you`ll see that user User_talk:Aucaman is an unreasonable editor, since he insists the unconditional ban of any article that mentions that word.Zmmz 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not a problem between me and User_talk:Aucaman; this is a problem betwen and entire community of users; we have brought this problem here over and over but you ignore us, yet as as soon as User_talk:Aucaman makes a complaint, certain admins come to his help. What User_talk:Aucaman has stated are catagorically false and demeaning. Also, the user consistently tries to attack or stop anyone who disagrees with him, and honestly this is not fair that one user should be allowed to insert highly controversial, racially motivated comments into articles, and others would not be able to take it out, so they can preserve the integruity of the article. For example in an article named Iran, recently he tried to equate the country with Nazism; even though, if one looks at the discussion page of that article, will see that not only such edits were irrelevant to the article, but also see most users disagreed with him in the discussion page. I actually thought I was protecting the page from sneaky vandalism. Furthermore, he was never asked by User:Chick Bowen to contact you, rather the admin mentioned simply told User_talk:Aucaman to contact another admin, since User:Chick Bowen will take an indefinite break from Wiki. I am disappointed that User_talk:Aucaman continues to this day to complain, initiate numerous revert wars, and personally attacks many good-intentioned editors in this site. He is very disruptive, and continually goes against the consensus. In fact, User_talk:Aucaman`s behavior has become so disruptive that there now is,

• An Rfc page against him endorsed by 15 other editors

• A second Rfc page set-up against him by user User: Cool Cat

• A complaint made against him here on this very same Noticeboard/Incidents page

• A third complaint against him and two other users were submitted in Noticeboard/Incidentsthe weeks ago here

• A fourth complaint set up against him here

• And, finally an attempt by 10 editors who agreed on the Persian people article to set up a Mediation Cabal, because User_talk:Aucaman continued, and to this day continues to go against over-whelming consensus.

Aucaman has a history of attacking others and accusing them of vandalism, you may see the evidence page in the Rfc set up for him. I have never personally attacked him, or anyone else, nor vandalized his talk page. When are the admins going to look into this and help us? Thank youZmmz 04:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User:ESkog, I couldn't help but notice that you have endorsed an extraordinarily lopsided, harsh, accusatory statement against Iranian editors, in favor of User:Aucaman. In light of this, I doubt that you are neutral enough to negotiate or mediate a "settlement" here. It's no surprise that numerous serious complaints against User:Aucaman are overlooked, but as soon as the User:Aucaman makes a frivolous complaint, certain admins are always there to help. --ManiF 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

But you don't have the power to make that call. Look here. From what I've skimmed through the RFC, none of the supposed 'personal attacks' made by Aucaman are personal attacks. I'd advise Zmmz to read WP:NPA to get an idea of a personal attack. Secondly, the section ESkog signed noted exactly what I've noted - there is no basis for the dispute. In my judgment, I'd agree with what Eskog has said above, that Aucaman and Zmmz should stay away from each other. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:28 UTC (2006-03-15)

Neither do you. Form what I understand, an arbitration committee should be set up to make such decisions. As for your assertion that "none of the supposed 'personal attacks' made by Aucaman are personal attacks", you just have to look further on this page to find a clear example of ethnically-motivated personal attack by Aucaman . --ManiF 05:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

His latest attack in another language is pretty vulgar, User:NSLE. How can any reasonable person say user User:Aucaman hasn`t been incivil? You`re kidding right? Hhmm, makes me wonder. Secondly, his other comments calling people, racist, go back to second grade, arrogant, anti-semites etc., are at best incivil, and he has a long history of that sort of bully behaviour. When was the last time I was incivil to any user in this site, or worse, personally attacked users here? If you bother to investigate this, you`ll see today it is me, yesterday and tommorow it`ll be somebody else. I didn`t follow him anywhere, and in fact, I am very active in the articles mentioned. Aucaman has this problem with many, many other users; to the point that user Voice of All gave him a 1rr limit per article . So, what are you going to do, eliminate every single person he disagrees with one-by-one?Zmmz 05:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Incivil, perhaps, not personal attacks. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:51 UTC (2006-03-15)

If "Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental." is not a personal attack, then what is? --ManiF 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I can`t comprehend that calling others racist, go back to second grade, arrogant, anti-semites etc., is not a personal attack? But, certainly you are entitled to your opinion, or maybe I`m missing something here.Zmmz 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No, since English isn't likely your first language let me explain to you. He called the content racist and anti-semitic, not the contributors. WP:NPA - "Comment on content, not contributor". He did not make personal attacks. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:12 UTC (2006-03-15)

Do me a favour please, don`t assume things, and I don`t appreciate your patronizing tone. I`m not sure if English is your first language, but you sound intellegent, and if one reads the comments user Aucaman says, Some are trying to insert racist, anti-semetic comments into this article, which at best implies, the editors who are doing so are racist themselves, let`s not kid ourselves here, the guy is unreasonable, and we know what he means. Thank youZmmz 06:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

English is, de jure, my first language. Read it again, he's talking about the comment. You're free to infer what you want from it, but from an official administrative standpoint per WP:NPA it's not personal attacks, in my view. Might I also remind you that I am an administrator, so I'd advise you cut the incivility towards me. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:28 UTC (2006-03-15)

Certainly, Aucaman saying, "Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental" #User:Aucaman is a clear attack the last time I checked. Also, I`m not sure exactly how I was uncivil to you, and although you may very well be an admin, yet, that does not mean you or anyone else can abuse your privliges, just be aware of that please. Thank youZmmz 06:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I appreciate that that quote is a personal attack. "I don`t appreciate your patronizing tone" can be construed to be incivility, depending on who you ask. And I'm just reminding you that as an admin, I do not wish to see or hear about any incivility, especally against me. All admins are empowered by the community to use their powers when/if need be. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:37 UTC (2006-03-15)

Administrator or not, telling a user "English isn't likely your first language let me explain to you" in a patronizing manner, goes against Misplaced Pages etiquette. --ManiF 06:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a patronising manner. I believe that it is fair to assume that Farsi (would Persian be the right term?) is his first language. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:45 UTC (2006-03-15)

From my writing it is clear that I have complete command on the English language. Why would you assume that I speak Persian, or Dutch or anything else--since I have never talked about my nationality? Where does that come from? Thank you Zmmz 06:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should continue the language discussion off the admin noticeboard. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:59 UTC (2006-03-15)

Ah...that`s OK. I think it`s fair too say you assumed too much, but that`s fine.Zmmz 07:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Also--that would be about 15 of such incivil behaviour documented so far. When was the last time I was incivil to any user in this site, or worse, personally attacked users here? The answer to that is never. So that should be some sort of indication about the history of I, as compared to user Aucaman. Zmmz 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, I'm currently requesting a checkuser on the RFC signees. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:53 UTC (2006-03-15)

Your making this a bit one sided huh, aren`t you? What will that prove?Zmmz 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It will prove if any of the signees are sockpuppets. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:12 UTC (2006-03-15)

Hi NSLE. In case you didn't know, this whole conflict started when Aucaman got into a revert war with an anon over a dispute tag. Aucaman mainly disputes the fact that the word "Aryan" is used in the article. Weeks and a large archive of talk page comments later, Aucaman removed the word Aryan , something that was done against consensus. I myself tried to meditate the dispute but Aucaman has refused to compromise, and continues to push for the word Aryan to be removed from the article. We have all explained to him that it is not considered racist in Iran and India, but it looks like this dispute may take a lot longer than I thought to resolve. --Khoikhoi 08:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I have never personally attacked anyone here, however, recently on a page that I honestly thought was a nomination page for Aucaman as an admin, I wrote the following so others could be informed that the user may not be qualified as an admin--certainly not now--I wrote, I`m not sure if user User:Aucaman is qualified for such judgements since he has been reported as an abusive editor in Misplaced Pages.Zmmz 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC). If this has caused a problem, then in the intrest of civility, I apologize for that.Zmmz 01:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User Foosher has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Foosher has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 02:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This was definitely a valid block. The last two pagemoves were "on wheels" moves so I'm going to go ahead and block the user indefinitely. Feel free to correct me on this if I may have erred. --Cyde Weys 03:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just have been reading through the talk page etc, and I would not be surprised if it is indeed also WoW. --KimvdLinde 03:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User Facts&moreFacts has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Facts&moreFacts has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

(fixed below)

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 03:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any page moves in the log? What's going on? --Cyde Weys 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

His contributions show 03:42, 15 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Square metre (moved Square metre to Square metre on wheels!). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, here's the actual move log: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Facts%26moreFacts&page= --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The ampersand in the username isn't being handled properly in the link in the above message. It doesn't show up properly either if you use the "vandal" template: Facts&moreFacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Try this instead: Move log

-- Curps 04:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Freestyle.king (talk · contribs)

This user has returned after vowing to leave Misplaced Pages, and is again injecting POV and making personal attacks. As I've perhaps had too much interaction with him/her, I would appreciate it if someone else reviews the situation and take appropriate action. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

After the user continued to troll on my talk page and on his own user page (see history of that user page), I blocked him for a week. However, if someone reviewing the situation believes that it's not justified, please unblock. Again, I'd like it for someone else to look into the situation. --Nlu (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that Fk might be (or have a connection with) GrandCru, since both users have focused on China/Taiwan pages and both have made personal attacks against users who revert their edits. (This is my personal opinion; don't use this as a ground for indefinite blocking just yet.) --TML1988 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

67.188.89.64 (talk · contribs)

This user is injecting lots of POV into Chiang Kai-shek. I've removed his/her POV once and then reverted twice, but while I think I would be entitled to revert the POV further, I'm hesitant to do so. Can someone look into it and see if my judgment that his/her edits are too POV is correct? --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I can tell you that you definitely did the right thing. The paragraph that the anon added makes Chiang sound like the greatest guy that ever lived. That's why it's POV. I suggest you explain to the anon what NPOV is, and if they continue revert, ask other admins for help. --Khoikhoi 07:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

Hi there my friends. can you please fix these npov paragraphs on hitler

"Despite this there have been instances of public figures referring to his legacy in neutral or even favourable terms, particularly in South America, the Islamic World and parts of Asia. Future Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wrote favourably of Hitler in 1953. Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler.

The "despite this" is adding in a pov making it seem as if you can't have the two together, obviously again the writers opinon. putting the "even favorable" line is 100 percent pov, it implies that it is amazing that someone could like Hitler.

"While some Revisionist historians note Hitler's attempts to improve the economic and political standing and conditions of his people and claim his tactics were in essence no different from those of many other leaders in history, his methods and legacy, as interpreted by most historians, have caused him to be one of the most despised leaders in history."

According to who has his legacy caused him to be one of the most despised leaders in history, we either need a source or remove it, the writers opinon doesn't count as a source.

Thanks admin people! 203.112.2.212 20:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This users contribution history should be reviewed. It is enlightening. Hpuppet - «Talk» 22:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)

This user seems to be spamming other users' talk pages with very general yet accusatory statements without much evidence to back them up. He posted this on my talk page and this on another user's. I'm also warned him against this kind of behavior before. He needs to be seriously warned, if not dealt with. Aucaman 20:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Warned per WP:NPA, mostly low level but undoubtedly personalising things. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

-Inanna- (talk · contribs)

I don't know much about any of these users, but the comment left here requires at least an explanation. I also found this on his talk page. Aucaman 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 48 hours for personal attacks and extreme incivility. Even after being warned on his talk page he has continued his hostility towards other editors as can be seen here. Jtkiefer ---- 22:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

William Morgan (anti-Mason)

I have a problem on this page. User:Imacomp placed a totallydisputed tag on the article and then fact tagged every line. I asked for an explanation of what he objected to and besides a fair amount of incivilities, the best I can figure out is that he wants every line footnoted. The article was clearly way undersourced besides a few links, but when I tried adding a reference he removed it without explanation and has since removed it three times. Morgan was a cause celebre in the 19th century so there are no shortage of possible references. But how am I supposed to source the article if I can't add references, remove the fact tags, or have any kind of coherent idea of what the real problem is? I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this. -- JJay 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes do take a good look. I'm not here to study either code, or Law. You decide, and inform MSJapan as he may be interested, as another editor. Thanks, and sorry if this is taking up your time. Imacomp 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is quite a common way of operating for Imacomp. His use of the totallydisputed tag (see Anti-Masonry and Catholicism and Freemasonry) seems to be an objection to the subject matter rather than to the article itself. Try and get him to give specific charges. JASpencer 13:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ati3414 (talk · contribs)

User:Ati3414 was blocked yesterday for violating 3RR because he kept trying to add himself to the list of notable Romanian-Americans. I also took the time to remove all his other self-promotion such as spamming external links to his work all over relativity and physics pages. Immediately upon the ban being lifted, he has adding all his self promotion spam links back onto the pages. Despite many warning he seems unable to learn that Misplaced Pages is not for self-promotion, and a ban seems to only have fueled his efforts. Since the ban lift this morning he has already added his self-promotion spam to:

• Atom interferometer
• Ring laser gyroscope
• Interferometry
• Sagnac effect
• Michelson-Morley experiment (he added three of his papers here)
• Electron interferometer
• Ives-Stilwell experiment
• Trouton-Rankine experiment
• Pound-Rebka experiment
• Speed of light (he added two of his papers here)
• Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction hypothesis
• Faster-than-light
• Richard C. Tolman
• Emission theory (he added two of his papers here)
• Trouton-Noble experiment
• Mössbauer effect
• Herbert Dingle
• Transverse Doppler effect
• Time dilation (he added two of his papers here)
• Twin paradox
• Relativistic Doppler effect
• Mass in special relativity
• Pound-Rebka experiment

I and others have tried numerous time to explain to User:Ati3414 that Misplaced Pages is not for selfpromotion. Please do whatever you can to help rectify this situation. Gregory9 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of ip 69.124.123.9

69.124.123.9 has vandalized a page (Realism in international relations) 5 times after being warned, and I think this IP deserves a temporary block (Even though I think it is public)

Please bring these to WP:AIV for action. I'll give it a short block for now given the nature of the edits, but in the future please list them at WP:AIV. Rx StrangeLove 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sarfatti

Banned user:Jack Sarfatti is back, and getting worked up. I blocked an IP he was using for 24 hours. 69.104.61.108 (talk · contribs). -Will Beback 05:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rattlerbrat

I blocked this user yesterday for personal attacks and incivility (see WP:AN#Rattlerbrat for background) and she's returned from the block with a fury. See her contribs from today; it's pointless for me to link diffs because every single edit has been troublesome. android79 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

With a fury indeed, I'll give her another 48 to calm down if there are no objections. Rx StrangeLove 05:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black indef blocked. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:57 UTC (2006-03-16)

Indeed I did.--Sean Black 06:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And what a FINE job you did, Sean! I applaud you. FAREWELL, CRUEL INTARWEB!!!! - Jennifer (this comment was actually posted from the IP 81.168.162.201 -- Hbackman 07:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

What's {{Ring of Honor}} ? Is it some sort of a ring ... of honor? El_C 07:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

IP 81.168.162.201 blocked as well. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that answers nothing. El_C 07:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I solved the mystery! Template:Dallas Cowboys Ring of Honor. El_C 07:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she orginally named it Template:Ring of Honor but I had to rename it to be more specific, of course. BTW, I did have a feeling she was going to be trouble when she made this priceless comment to me about a week ago before all of these incidents with her: Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Onefortyone

Just thought it should be known that User:Onefortyone has been engaging in disruptive behaviour (edit waring, citing poor sources as fact etc.) in articles: Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia and Elvis and Me; violating his probation in the process.--Choco 06:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Stifle 09:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The remedy is "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.", and I feel it has been violated in this case so I am banning him from those three articles for a month, renewable by request to me or any admin if the behaviour returns in the meantime. Please post again here if the ban is violated. Stifle 09:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. I have been banned for one month (!) from Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia, and Elvis and Me "for violation of probation by tendentiously adding links and poorly-referenced claims." See . I do not think that this was necessary. I have only discussed some newly discovered sources with other users on the Talk:Elvis Presley page. See . As for the other pages, I only reverted repeated edits by Ted Wilkes. Certainly this is part of a long edit war. His contribution to Elvis and Me includes false information. Original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:

She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See , and . I corrected the text but Wilkes repeatedly reverted my version to the fabricated one he has written. See , , , , , , etc. For direct quotes from the book, see . On the Memphis Mafia page, Wilkes is frequently deleting two external links to sites related to the Memphis Mafia arguing that these websites are "improper" and personal websites. See , , etc. etc. It seems as if Wilkes does not like the content of these pages. Significantly, the two external links to websites he had inserted are also links to personal websites. Isn't this double standard? See also this comment by administrator Tony Sidaway and Talk:Memphis Mafia. So I don't understand why an administrator has now blocked me for one month from these articles, especially since my opponent in the edit war is also on probation (see ) and there is much evidence that he is identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack, etc., who was constantly gaming the system in the past. See . Onefortyone 00:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Inspite of his ban User:Onefortyone is continuing to make edits on the talk page of Elvis Presley: , Count Chocula 08:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Boromadloon

My first indefinite block as an admin, so I wanted to toss it up here for validation. This is a self-declared vandal account, with only vandalisms to it's name, including user page vandalism of the main vandal fighter who had been cleaning up after him. - TexasAndroid 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse - We also usually block users who put WoW/WiC-sock tags on their own userpages. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholics for a Free Choice and User:Cberlet

Ongoing edit war. Cberlet insists on placing the totallydisputed tag even though he has been shown that his claims that a statement is factually incorrect are without merit. He has been shown the right tag to use but refuses. He is violating WP:FAITH and WP:POINT to insist on his points of view to remove one statement. He claims the entire article is biased yet refuses to do anything except remove the actually correct criticisms. Request page protection and user education. -- Jbamb 15:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No edit war, just a content disagreement, in which Jbamb seems to think he is the teacher slapping the wrist of a slow student. Entire characterisation above is false. I have posted numerous comments and made numerous edits. I am using the proper tag, and posted a request for comments on the proper page.--Cberlet 15:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)

I just reported this user yesterday for spamming some users' talk pages with baseless accusatory comments. He received two warnings to stop personally attacking other users (here and here). And now today he's made yet another out-of-context, irrelevant accusatory comment in a discussion he's not even participating in. Frankly, I'm tired of putting up with his constant out-of-context accusatory comments (more examples can be found here). Whatever happened to the good-old Misplaced Pages saying, "Comment on content, not contributor"? The fact that he was just warned about personally attacking other users yesterday (not just once, but twice) and he still makes a personal attack today says that he's not taking the warnings seriously enough. I ask fot at least a short-term block to let him go over some of the things he's been saying before making more accusations.

Right after User:69.196.139.250 has made his comments, User:Zmmz (who was also not participating in the talks) uses the opportunity to make a series of new personal attacks. This results in an unwanted discussion which further disrupts the previous train of thought and discussions. I want User:Zmmz warned against making such personal attacks on article talk pages.

It would also be nice if someone can go in there and remove the personal attacks - so that we can carry on with the relevant discussions. As of right now the talk is simply dead and this is exactly what the attackers wanted.

Update: He has left yet another accusatory comment on my talk page. Aucaman 17:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for being blatantly attacking and hostile towards other editors. Jtkiefer ---- 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman what is wrong now? Why are you dragging my name into this without even letting me know, so I could respond properly? You already reported me here, yet, you were ignored by admins. Why do you have problems with so many people in this site? You keep reporting people frivolously, most of the time for invalid reasons and grudges, and annoy the admins. However, I see here in this case you goaded this user to lose his cool and attack you, which he shouldn`t have done. But, when did ever attack you, and why don`t you provide some diffs if you accuse me of attacking you? You can’t keep doing this all the time, and have the good intentioned admins turn on some editors here. There are at least two Rfcs set-up against you , and a pending ArbCom case. Please stop throwing my name around for now.Zmmz 03:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not having a discussion about this. Leave it up to the admins to decide. I've already explained what you've done wrong. You were not participating in the talks but used the opportunity not to talk about discussions we were having but to personally attack me. If you want diffs, I'm talking about this comment and this comment. Saying that I've beeen "hidding under the protecting umbrella of being a neutral user" and saying I'm "being unreasonable in order to push a POV" are accusatory statements that have no place on Misplaced Pages talk pages (where article's contents are supposed to be discussed). This user needs to be given a serious warning (on his talk page) and asked to stop posting baseless accusatory comments on article talk pages AND user talk pages (as he constantly spams new user talk pages accusing me of having Zionist reasons for my actions among other things). Aucaman 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That was highly innapropriate, and I've given Zmmz a strong warning, and pointed him in the direction of Misplaced Pages:Harassment. This flamewar needs to end and it needs to end soon. For any admins just joining us, a group of opposite minded middle-eastern users have been having it out like this for some time now. It went from content dispute, to personal attacks, and is now a subtle war of harrassment, with both sides trying to get the others blocked (which, unfortunatly, seems to be the way this will end up). --InShaneee 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, those are no personal attacks, as any reasonable admin will attest to that; secondly, those have nothing to do with your recent grievences with user with the IP address 69... . At any rate, my comments were mere observations made after seeing 20 others editors are ready to sign a complaint against you, and after noticing you relentlessly try to equate the country of Persia to Nazism. On the other hand, you have a history of always complaining, trying to game the system, and in a strange way try to bully others. This has no place in an encyclopedia, and a history of your profanity laced personal attack, and incivility can be viewed here.Zmmz 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you both need a hug. Chill out, relax, and love a brotha. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 05:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Recommend temporary block for User:208.31.155.254 as user(s) have been repeated warned today. - CobaltBlueTony 17:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

48 hrs. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Rhode Island

At some point, someone embedded a spam link into the flag link. An anon tried to remove the spam link, but left the link in an unusable state. Since I am thoroughly clueless as to image links, can someone fix it? --Nlu (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed. Mark 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Falkland Islands continued

Several users Astrotrain (talk · contribs) Gibnews (talk · contribs) TharkunColl (talk · contribs) with strong political motivations keep on insisting to remove the commonly used Spanish name Islas Malvinas from the firt sentence with as argument that the Falklanders are offended by the name. As an alternative, it has to be make explicitly clear in that first sentence that it is not the official name of the islands, or that the name is linked to the occupation by the Argentinians (As if the name is only used in that cointext). Astrotrain (talk · contribs) has now inserted the {{POV}} tag to make his/her point which I think is a violation of WP:POINT. KimvdLinde 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Feck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am torn over this one, but I am wondering if this an appropriate user name or if it too closely related to Fuck. Judging by the vandal like contributons of this editor, I am really wondering if the choice in name is in good faith. Either, way, would an admin give their opinion on this one? Thanks.Gator (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I know of someone with the last name of Fecke; it's a perfectly reasonable username, IMO. (BTW, which contributions are you talking about? I get an empty list.) android79 20:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

At least one speedied article, I'm guessing from the message on the talk page. --Syrthiss 20:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All of his contributons have been deleted because he/she just kept on creating the same attack page. That was why I began to wonder, but AGF likely applies here. Thanks.Gator (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Feck is used in some countries as a milder version of fuck, but I would also WP:AGF until proven otherwise. Stifle 21:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Especially in the BBC's Father Ted. Sam Korn 21:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Young_Zaphod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My user page was just vandalised by 67.165.85.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who checkuser has previously shown is an address used by currently blocked user Young Zaphod, who has done such things on other pages with some of his other socks before. Note that this is someone who I've been in a bit of a content dispute with on NiMUD and Online creation. If someone would look into this and take whatever actions are appropriate, I'd be obliged. Thanks. Ehheh 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Spam blacklist?

Yikes. This person's adding tremendous amounts of adult linkspam. If I knew how to deal with the spam blacklist I'd do it myself. Anybody? · Katefan0/poll 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that's one darn bored person. I'm afraid this doesn't answer your question though... —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Only meta admins can place sites on the m:Spam blacklist. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

Aha. I'll leave a message for Raul; the guy's blocked for the moment. · Katefan0/poll 22:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker commiting serial offences within 12 hours of being unblocked

I logged all of Deathrock's offences on a page from my user page, so only myself and Admins can edit it. The link is here, . I urge yew to look into this matter immediatly. Ley Shade 22:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After only minutes from returning after a lengthy 42 hour ban, User:Leyasu who is currently under a revert parole from Arbcom, limited to 1 content revert per day (see ).

Well exceded that and the terms of parole, in content disputes on pages, going against concencus, maybe its time to pull the plug? Can we get an admin to look at this.

Gothic Metal:

all reverts - Deathrocker 22:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker misintprets users User:Spearhead, User:WesleyDodds, User:Sceptre, and several anons, and the Wikiproject Metal, as being consensus in his favour. The user has also violated WP:CITE by refusing to supply sources, and then removing information with sources from articles because 'he dislikes Gothic metal'.

All this behabiour, and other violations such as the Vandalisng of admin pages and claims of 3RR not applying to him are documented Here. Ley Shade 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't edit in favour or out of favour, when I edit articles I try to make them NPOV. Something which you have no interest in doing.

It is however quite touching, although some what pyschopathic, that you have dedicated an entire section of your user page to me. You make up complete lies, claiming quotes that I have never said, the only quote regarding my like or dislike for Gothic Metal is "I actually like some Gothic Metal bands".... you delete reliable sources from pages and claim message board posts as validation for your ludicrus claims.

However, this is about you... and your totally lack of respect for parole, which you violate within minutes of returning. - Deathrocker 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If yew are in favour of NPOV, then why keep making comments that your POV superseeds everyone's, and that sources dont count unless they agree with you?

Sources are sources, per WP:CITE, yew cannot decide a source is reliable simply because the other 8 sources dont agree with you. And its ironic, that within 12 hours of being unblocked by Admin WooWhoKitty, yew reverted other editors on the Moi Dix Mois article over 30 times. Also reverting users on the Selling Out article over 10, and users on the Gothic Metal article 20 times. Thats a bit disrespectfull of WP:3RR.

Its also ironic that yew make claims that the policys dont apply to yew, seemingly thinking that its ok for yew to violate the policys whenever you want. Yes ive violated Parole, i know this, and i will admit to it openly. But alas, youve been warned now by FOUR different admins to discontinue, and have been banned a far greater number of times than me for POV pushing.

Its also funny to note how yew delete every and all messages and warnings from Admins from your Talk Page, in violation of yet another Misplaced Pages policy. But then again, according to your claims, policys dont apply to you, so i guess its ok. Ley Shade 23:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker has been blocked for 3RR, and Leyasu for Arbcom violation. I've noticed that Deathrocker is calling Leyasu a vandal (even on this page!) recently for any of her edits on the subject (3RR is more likely disputing instead of vandalism). Both are blocked until Monday evening, as I've dealt with these before. I'm also putting up a Request for Comment for the two Sceptre 23:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

High Traffic Reference to Project Entropia

Our article on Project Entropia has been relatively stable until recently. Then this thresad appeared in the Project Entropia forums. The gist is that someone has a theory that the Project Entropia MMORPG system, which allows conversion between game dollars and real-world dollars, is analagous to a casino, and therefore is illegal due to US laws against on-line or over-phone-line gambling. It's basically a content dispute, but the extra traffic from non-regular Misplaced Pages contributors is having an impact. One of the editors has a username which is the same as a person involved with Project Entropia. Anyone who has time to help do a little mediation/education with these new users is very welcome. Johntex\ 23:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Seanver, User:Blisz, User:George McFinnigan and User:George McFinnigan ie

There seems to be some sort of series of personal attack from the first three users aimed at the last one. I noticed it when closing Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blisz, although I cannot speak any spanish so I can't get to the bottom of it. However, User:Seanver blanked the mfd in question, , and a quick flick through his contributions, the majority of which are to the user space, turns up , , , , . I'm figuring a ban, but want to run it by people here, to get a gen on what the Spanish means. Steve block talk 00:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Tracysurf (talk · contribs)

This user put in images with spammy/advocacy edit summaries. As I am not sufficiently familiar with surfing, I am not sure whether the edits/uploads are spam, so I'd appreciate if someone else look into it. (I did warn him/her about replacing Chris Burke (currently a disambiguation page) with questionable nearly-empty biography of surfer.) --Nlu (talk)

Wikt:ionary blocks AOL

At present, Wiktionary is carrying a message saying "AOL users are presently blocked from editing Wiktionary pending contact from AOL. We apologize for the inconvenience. For more information please visit the IRC channel.". And it's not April 1. -Splash 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance to bad rubbish, we should block them on enwiki as well. Jtkiefer ---- 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

According to our article, AOL serves nearly 24 million subscribers. Whatever may be the difficulties encountered in dealing with sundry AOL users, the suggestion that they are categorically (or even generally) "bad rubbish" is wholly preposterous. Joe 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't, it wouldn't be true if AOL would actually deal with their delinquent users but since AOL doesn't give a fuck many many many AOL users run rampant and commit huge amounts of vandalism to the point where it starts to become mind boggling. Jtkiefer ---- 02:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't that AOL subscribers are inherently worse netizens than individuals who use other ISPs. The problem is the proxy server system that AOL uses, where a single individual in a single session will appear to come from a new AOL IP address with each successive edit. This makes it extraordinarily inconvenient to deal with a vandal from AOL, because we cannot block them effectively without blocking all of AOL. In contrast, editors through most other ISPs will tend to have at least a semi-static IP address which makes it possible to block troublemakers without causing collateral damage to other editors.

Additionally, the rapidly changing (apparent) IP of each editor probably makes it very difficult for AOL (if they wanted to) to associate specific edits with a specific real-world individual. This in turn hampers one of our last-resort options in dealing with vandals—contacting an ISP to get them disconnected. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but it's great for file sharing, AOL couldn't associate a client with any specific ip, even if a court told them to, lawsuits are virtually impossible! oh wait, that has nothing to do with this--64.12.116.65 03:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• also, someone really should tell them that the 172.x.x.x users behave like normal static ips, so they dont need to be range blocked, same for AOl canada ip ranges, i think--64.12.116.65 03:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Requireing them to log in would not be blocking the 24 million users, I think we should make them log in. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User SPUI has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:SPUI has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 04:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not unblock. He is edit warring, see Med Cabal (link coming) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correctly, SPUI was snagged by the bot on several occasions before this. However, I will not unblock. User:Zscout370 07:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already been unblocked - the bot is meant for permablocking page-move vandalizers, and any false positives are worrisome as an assumption of bad faith. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User SPUI is always blocked by a bot (page moves), you call this entertainment? I want him to dance for us, at the very least. El_C 08:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User Dbachmann vandalizes by redirection

Since he was unsuccessfull in deleting the page (the other editors voted to keep), now User:Dbachmann permanently vandalizes the 2 pages with help of a small, but active and hate presenting clique, by redirection:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups#Protection

and

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_Groups#protected

• Please let me know, what is the right method to stop User:Dbachmann's vandalization and mis-use of his administrator rights.

• He let delete the rfc pertaining his and his clique's vandalization and he continues vandalizing.

• On page http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann I saw: 13:03, 10 March 2006 BorgQueen deleted "Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Dbachmann" (deleting bad faith rfc as per requests at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)

I need that rfc page at least reconstructed on my discussion page, I did not think, it will be that easily deleted. Thanks.

• I do not think, rights misusing admininstrators, like User:Dbachmann and small hate cliques are a good reclam for open projects, that require money and lot of intellectual work from users. Also vandalized informational pages are not a good reclam.

Thanks, Bgully 09:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose removing this abusive campaign on sight from now on

I'm getting tired of this silly AN/I campaign about dab's supposed "vandalism" by User:Antifinnugor wearing various socks. Antifinnugor, the conflict between you and dab has been dealt with by the ArbCom, it's over. There are no new facts since then, there's only your continuing invective. For other readers: Antifinnugor's disruption of some linguistics pages was the subject of an RFAR brought by dab and his "hate clique" (=every other editor who ever attempted to work on those linguistics pages) a year ago. It resulted in Antifinnugor being placed on personal attack parole and banned for one year from editing the articles in question. Dab was not in any way censured by the ArbCom. Antifinnugor used sockpuppets on his own RFC. These are facts. Thank you. I propose we delete these easily recognizable posts, no matter what footwear has signed them, on sight from now on, as mere disruption and abuse. Anybody besides Antifinnugor got a problem with that? Bishonen | ノート 11:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC).

I agree with Bishonen on this issue. This bad-faith campaign gets annoying. --Ghirla 11:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

I seek advice on the disruptive behaviour of User:Piotrus who, as far as I can recall, never uses rollback for reverting vandalism, but reserves the button for content disputes only. I repeatedly demonstrated to him the impropriety of his behaviour and quoted the appropriate passage from WP:RV: Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it. If you use the rollback feature other than against vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to explain on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted. Yet he recently abused the rollback again and, despite my remonstrances, yet again. I wonder how this sort of behaviour can remain unpunished. Probably a short block is needed to stop his disruptive activities. --Ghirla 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to let another admin rule on this one. But. Just wanted to say that there is no *policy* per say against using rollback in the way that he is using it. What you quoted isn't a policy. So I'm not sure it's blockable. --Woohookitty 11:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that your reply is very helpful. As his actions clearly abuse admin tools, should I seek defrocking, as the guy also practises wheel warring, copyvios, etc, or should I request for comment and arbitration, as the standard proceedings are? --Ghirla 12:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards