Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:32, 4 April 2006

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Chad "Corntassel" Smith

I think this is a clear BLP issue - Johnc1 (talk · contribs) is posting unsourced criticisms of Smith (Principle Chief of the Cherokees) - using fairly strong language ("Dictator" and worse) which, IMO, may put us at risk for defamation. I have already communicated with the editor on this issue, but it doesn't seem to have had much of an effect on him. There are other issues with the article (a large amount of text has been added from the Cherokee article); in the course of reverting Johnc1 I removed it, but that's a content issue to be sorted out by involved editors. I would appreciate some other people having a look at the situation. Guettarda 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He has re-added his unsourced edits and a link to his personal site. I removed the link to his site, but not reverted his edits, including his claim that Smith is a DICTATOR (caps his) because I think I'm at three reverts and would appreciate someone else looking at this. Johnc1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at four reverts, but as I have been involved (I wrote the original article also) I feel someone else should block him. Would another admin take a look, to block him, either for 3RR or inserting unsourced attacks on a living person (elected leader), and revert the article? I feel it might be inappropriate for me to do so. KillerChihuahua 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The site at | John's Website is run by United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians members. They have about a dozen folks they are mobilizing to vandalize that article. Just to let you know to expect vandalism and postings from several ranges from these folks. They have three active folks behaving as meatpuppets to vandalize the article. I tried to reason with them today (I doubt you folks speak Cherokee but I do and tried to restrain them) to no avail. The UKB Chief is apparently using this group for POV pushing to hide the embarrassments of the prosecutions and other materials. Just to to be a little bird and let you know what's up here. They are Cherokee so they won't stop. You need to go to indefinite blocks are it will just continue. 67.169.249.44 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that, based upon edits at http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.169.249.44 and at http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php?title=Comanche&diff=7369695&oldid=7369694 it is likely that 67.169.249.44 is a sockpuppet for Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/User:Gadugi/User:Waya sahoni/User:PeyoteMan.

 $ host  67.169.249.44
44.249.169.67.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer c-67-169-249-44.hsd1.ut.comcast.net.

-- talks_to_birds 06:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reporting Serious Bug in Misplaced Pages Website

Hi, I edit on several Native American Wiki's and while editing this site at | WikiGadugi I noticed that while I am logged in as "Hotch" on the website, I am able at the same time to create articles without the normal warnings and blocking for a user who is not logged into the Misplaced Pages site while I was logged into both sites at the same time. I also noticed that I can edit articles with Sysop privileges on Misplaced Pages and Admin due to some issue with the cookies since I have a Sysop/Bearucrat status on the other Wiki. I don't know if this website has some code doing this, but it looks like a bug in Wikimedia rather than something malicious. I did not perform any admin actions on this site (Misplaced Pages), but the extra tabs for protect and other areas seemed to appear. It happens when I am logged into both sites, so it looks like a bug in the MediaWiki Software. PeyoteMan 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

They may appear but do they work is the key point. There are a number of ways to get the tabs to appear. Try protecting your userpage.Geni 07:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they do not work here. I click and nothing happens. Looks like a cosmetic issue of some sort. Probably should report it though to the programers. PeyoteMan 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. Sounds like a browser side issue.Geni 08:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What happens if you clear your cache? —BorgHunter (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

After I clear the Cache (did this already) I am no longer able to create pages without logging in. PeyoteMan 08:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am able to create pages without being logged in if I logout from Misplaced Pages, however. That's a bug. PeyoteMan 07:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about, but this kind of suggests that it might be possible to reverse-engineer cookies (ie, decipher the cookie encoding) used by Misplaced Pages, potentially allowing logging in as any arbitrary user, which if some troll organization like Bantown managed to pull off would result in all manner of hilarity ensuing. One anon on Slashdot claimed to have pulled this off something like this for myspace.com . Who knows. The very slow pace of software development and bugfixing of Wikimedia bodes ill for the future... the vandals are getting wilier while the software we critically depend on is basically standing still. -- Curps 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We need more information, including a coherent bug report, if we're to even understand, let alone fix this issue. Curps seems ill-advised about the actual pace of development of MediaWiki; bugs are fixed and functions added on a regular basis and there is a team of active committers. Rob Church (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

user:Molobo

Comments needed about disruption block

I'd appreciate comments at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Molobo_..._again. User Molobo has been blocked for 3RR for a week. I think this is unfair, but I rarely get involved with blocking and unblocking, and I certainly don't want to get involved in a block war, so I'd appreciate comments from some experienced admins there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that this user has violated 3RR many many many times, I don't have a problem with the long block. (I am, indeed, concerned by your overly-broad definition of vandalism. "Removing tags" is only vandalism if it is vandalism. Do you really justifiably think that the other editors reverts were a deliberate bad faith attempt to harm the integrity of the encyclopedia? If so, try it again with WP:AGF in mind.) In any case, someone who has had that many blocks for 3RR clearly is not getting it, so it may be time to think about a more substantial block (along these lines). Dmcdevit·t 04:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahem...sorry for intruding (I'm not an admin). But, what I see here is a classic example of a behavior I've been witnessing for some time. Example: you write a text on a subject. Someone incessantly vandalizes it. So, there is a problem. A mess goes to the public wiki "courtroom". But-if frequently ends in condemning, one way or another, those who tried to save the text from vandalization by reverting it. So, vandals get a tacit approval for vandalisation. A kafkaesque ending. That's what I see is in user Molobo's case. Mir Harven 07:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR policies (moved from WP:AN)

Molobo (talk · contribs), whose edits largely consist of endless reverts and who is permanently one revert away from breaking 3RR on a dozen articles, was blocked the total of six times in March, mainly for violating 3RR. Given his previous record of 3RR violations, each time the revert warrior broke 3RR, his block was increased: from 24 hours on 3 March to 3 days on 8 March to 4 days on 17 March to 7 days on 30 March. Last year, when Molobo violated 3RR, he would be typically unblocked by his comrade User:Piotrus and went unpunished for months. Last time Molobo was blocked, Piotrus approached the blocking admin on his talk page and the block was abolished. This time, given his propensity for wheel warring, Piotrus went on to proclaim that 7-day-block was too harsh and didn't comply with the existing policy and started to pressure the blocking admin into setting Molobo free for another reverting spree. You are welcome to voice your views of the matter below. --Ghirla 08:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, don't; AN/3RR is not the place for extended discussion. Piotrus already started a thread on ANI to which I have responded, here. Please other admins weigh in there. Dmcdevit·t 08:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Molobo ... again

This is copied in from WP:3RR, because it was getting long and verging into policy William M. Connolley 08:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on German Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 12:41, March 29, 2006
• 2nd revert: 12:32, March 29, 2006
• 3rd revert: 12:15, March 29, 2006
• 4th revert: 12:06, March 29, 2006
• 5th revert: 10:48, March 29, 2006

Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 13:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Molobo is a well known revert warrior, having been blocked for a 3RR about 9 times before, 4 times alone in this month. See also above for 3RR accusation on Otto Bismarck-- Chris 73 | Talk 13:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No 3RR, simply restored a tag for disputed section. Remember that removing tags is considered vandalism. Removing simple vandalism isn't 3RR.--Molobo 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don' think removing a tag is simple vandalism, but I leave this up to another admin to decide -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also you are mistaken as they are two different contents here that have been related.. Had I restored tag over 3 times or info over 3times I agree that could be considered violation of 3RR however this isn't the case. Also you are mistaken-I was blocked on 3 times for 3RR, one of which was sadly for restoration of my comments on discussion page that were being deleted and which sadly is considered 3RR also. --Molobo 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You reverted content three times, then added a tag, and reverte the tag removal two times, hence 5 reverts. The number of reverts is per page, not per paragraph or disputed text. YOU of all people should know that, you do know that, and yet you try to get away with this excuse every time again. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the text that I believe states that removing tags is vandalism. In this case the tag was removed without any comment to my statement on proper discussion page where I explained why the tag was added: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism Improper use of dispute tags. Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. --Molobo 13:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC) The number of reverts is per page, not per paragraph or disputed text. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/3RR For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded:

• self-reverts
• correction of simple vandalism

Removing a tag without any explanation and without adressing the issue on discussion page seemed to me like simple vandalism. --Molobo 13:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear pan Molobo, the things you do may be classified as tag vandalism. I believe we need a separate policy on those who, without contributing anything helpful, add tons of tags on any article they cast their eyes on. Please stop vandalizing existing articles and write some new ones at last. --Ghirla 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather sick of people trying to pretend that they are reverting "simple vandalism" as an excuse for their edit warring. Molobo has form and get 1 week for this William M. Connolley 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that removing a dispute (or similar) tag without providing an explanation for one's action, or when the issue is actively disputed at the article's talk page, is vandalism and can be reverted as many times as necessary. Those tags serve an important purpose, and those who remove them before the issues are resolved are simply pushing their POV and censoring all critique of it (no matter if deserved or not). I believe that in this particluar case Molobo is innocent, and it is his opponents, who removed the tag, who should be punnished. I most vehemntly oppose this block.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprized that your previous wheel warring - when you repeatedly unblocked Molobo after he violated 3RR - did not learn you anything. Actually, such disruptive editors as Molobo who are permanently one revert away from violating 3RR on scores of articles should be blocked for three reverts only. That their trolling is particularly nasty is no excuse for looking down on them. Unfortunately, Molobo has become such a problem and threat to the Wikicommunity only because he is encouraged by such Polish editors as Piotrus who joins his rabid reverting more often then not. Just a few days ago, Molobo was unblocked on Piotr's petition and instantly proceeded to turn dozens articles into a mess. Enough is enough. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo didn't quote the whole section. Misplaced Pages:Vandalism goes on saying "Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus." I fail to see that just because a very small proportion somewhere in a unimportant place deserves a totally dispute tag on German Empire, only because Molobo noticed he was not about to "win" the edit war. There was no dispute on the talk page and the text he quickly posted was only to justify the tag. Sciurinæ 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, inappropriately adding "disputed tags" is also vandalism and users are required to explain why they added it - marking the articles that one just doesn't agree with is not enough. I do think that this block is excessive though - I thought the maximum bar is 24 hours (WP:3RR: sysops may block for up to 24 hours) and while sysops are entitled to exercise their discretion in imposing longer blocks, in my opinion they should be reported to WP:ANI. While a longer block may have been deserved in Molobo's case, purely due to the fact that he's been revert warring on so many articles and evidently causing much disruption (and having been blocked so many times before), this is also taking into account the fact that it takes two or more to revert war. We could have reasonably expected Molobo to realise that more users are reverting against him than for him, IMO that is a sufficient reason for him to give up and discuss on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user in question. I think the block should be shortened but not to something less than 24 hours. --Latinus 17:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, I'm afraid you are deluded here. You have not enough experience with Molobo if you expect him to give up reverting by his own volition. What will he do then? Is there any other purpose for his edits other than revert warring? He is always one revert away from 3RR on scores of articles. To a disinterested observer, he seems like a reverting bot run by Piotrus and Halibutt in order to spread their nationalist propaganda. --Ghirla 18:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just like in real life: if you break the law, you're punished. If you do it again, the punishment increases. It worked somehow in Space Cadet's case (if Space Cadet really is not a number of other accounts). Molobo is not an autist but a university student so his being a "vigilante" as he puts it can become a matter of the past if he realises it is not the way he'd better be walking. I think it becomes more and more obvious that the only solution is the ArbCom. Until then conventional methods will solve it. Sciurinæ 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I blocked I'd better defend my action. I don't think removing tags can be called reverting vandalism (note: it currently says so explicitly in the 3RR header, but only cos I just inserted it; if you consider that disputable, remove it and we'll talk it over). The 1 week was what Inshaneee (sp?) gave then removed; it appeared to me to be the natural progression. I would consider a shorter block; especially if you consider this a bit doubtful. The 24h limit is long dead, though - check the logs. Also note that I removed another Molobo report from this page as now-irrelevant - if anyone is thinking of unblocking, best to check that out. And finally - he current state of his talk page doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his NPOV state William M. Connolley 18:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, if Molobo breaks 3RR again, the block should be extended to one month. Currently, half a dozen editors have to stop adding new stuff to Misplaced Pages in order to revert Molobo's pointless reverts, usually encouraged by Piotrus. All things considered, he is the worst troll to haunt Eastern Europe-related topics since Bonaparte was permabanned earlier this year. --Ghirla 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah Bonapare, his most active days were before my time, but I do remember those mysterious open proxies that kept turning up and trying to present the Aromanians and Meglenites as an oppressed Romanian minority in Greece. Kept everyone busy... --Latinus 18:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocks which are solely for 3RR violations are barred by policy from exceeding 24 hours. However, I would argue (and others appear to be practicing as well) that editors who violate 3RR repeatedly can be blocked longer for general disruption, rather than requiring that the ArbCom be called in every time we have a highly problematic revert-warrior. (ESkog) 18:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am really disappointed to see so much vehemence and ill will directed towards Molobo. Through he has been known for breaking the 3RR occcasionally, so are his opponents. Ghirla, who seems to be enjoying this incident so much (and labels Molobo as a troll in every second post), should be reminded of his recent RfC (and yes, Molobo also had an RfC, although IMHO he came out of it much better (that being a purely personal opinion, of course). Now, back to the case at hand: as the talk page shows Molobo did engage in discussion with his opponents, and although using a smaller tag like {{dubious}} might have been more appopriate than using {{totallydisputed}}, I think his opponents (which in that particular case number two - not a 'very large number') are as guilty of failure to talk as he is. A case can be made that removal of tags is breaking the 3RR (although I would not support it) - but let it rest. There is, however, no justification for blocking a creative (if sometimes to wild) user like Molobo for a week. I certainly don't see that Molobo is a 'general disruption' any more than Girlandajo is (please comapare their RfC if you need proof) and I will not support support such a ban on such flimsy ground. If one wants to bring this to an RfArb, then please do - hopefully this will finally put an end to anti-Molobo crusade by certain users (or prove me wrong - I am not saying I am perfect and unbiased here - but I am really fed up with some people 'throwing proverbial rocks' when they are no better).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I too deplore the ill-will. Back to your case: Molobo is not being blocked for failure to talk, but for (repeatedly) breaking 3RR. If anyone else has, report them and they will get the same treatment. The 24h limit is, effectively, a dead duck. There has been no real discussion of this (as far as I can see) but thats how it is: policy has evolved. I've considered raising it explicitly, but always decided to let well enough alone. Now: please address my point re Molobos talk page: it appears to be deliberately imflammatory and does not show good faith (I mean: the pictures, and the multiple to-remembers that are clearly there as messages to others, not to Molobo). Also note his response to the block: I shall return in one week and restore all information about Nazi and Soviet atrocities... which practically promises a return to edit-warring. If you can persuade him to calm down, great, then his block can be reduced. William M. Connolley 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your personal interpretation of facts, to which you are of course entirely entitled, but which cannot be used to overrule our policies if it is disputed (and I am afraid I have to dispute it). I see nothing that goes against our policies in his talk, and as for his reply, it is a well known fact that Molobo contributes to the controversial areas of G/P/R history. This is not the place for content dispute or the analysis of his additions, but he is obviously a content editor, and I see nothing strange in him saying that he will be back to edit the articles he likes. If people think he is not a good content creator, then ArbCom is that way. But using arbitrary blocks without any official policy to support them, just one's view of how the policy has evolved, is not the best way to solve it, not when it is - as you can see from my reply - disputed. I know you are acting in good faith. So am I, and I think - putting all my wiki-experience and reputation in those words - that it is unfair and counterproductive to block Molobo for a week. I have talked to him recently and he told me he will watch his edits more carefully. Therefore I'd like to ask you to change the block on Molobo to 24h - the period clearly supported by the rules.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I can understand that some Polish wikipedians - definitely not all (learn from Alx-pl rather than protect the black sheep) - feel the need to defend him because the anti-German, anti-Russian and Pro-Polish POV pushing coming from him may be the wrong attitude towards Misplaced Pages but at least he has the right POV. If there's a war crime by Germans against Poles, he's there for you. Whether Germans would die too (example Potulice camp) does not only not matter to him but he is quick to dismiss any source, accusing his opponents of denial. If there's ongoing discussion over Copernicus' nationality, Molobo is there to revert and disturb the discussion. You certainly know of Molobo's forum presence less than a year ago. Has he changed? Has he improved since his RfC? And what do you think: is he going to change? Sure, he will promise anything. It is not an arbitrary interpretation of the rules but one considering the sense of 3RR. It is the same thing with simple vandalism except that vandalism (like adding nonsense words) is often less hurtful to Misplaced Pages than POV pushing. If the offenders of either keep it this way, their punishments will increase until they've smarted from it till they're smart enough not to do it anymore. That's the way dealt with offenders both in the real world and in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing constructive in the way Molobo contributes like this and if Molobo starts discussing first before shooting, this will be the last block. Four violations within the month March - the block could have lasted longer. Sciurinæ 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points. If we vote on a policy to make blocking more severe, for example by adding an additional day for each 3RR block in a given month to a consecutive block, I'll support it. But until such a official policy is voted through by the community, I oppose arbitrary reinterpretation of existing policies. Second, I never said Molobo is perfect: he has a strong POV (as you noted), and as was pointed here, his 3RR record is a proof that he could talk more. I don't follow his edits closely and I don't know if his behaviour is getting better or worse (if this is the case, please present the evidence in a new RfC or a RfArb). But I have seen in many cases that he provides references for his edits and that he creats new content (like Potulice concentration camp or Hans Krüger). He is also much more civil than many of his 'sparring partner' - I have yet to see where he calls editors who revert him 'a pet troll' or make other personal attacks, even through his opponents feel that the Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks or Misplaced Pages:Civility rules does not apply to them (, ). That convinces me that he is clearly not a vandal or a troll, but a content creator with strong POV - like thousands of other wiki editors. If his POV is too strong and he is a liability for this project, than I again would ask those who think so to use the appopriate venues to prove their case (RfArb). Otherwise, I'll follow the innocent until proven guilty assumption in that (and other) cases.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course he doesn't call other people names - these are easy mistakes. He implies they're vandals or would try to cover up war crimes. I fail to see the arbitrariness in the block: why should it be any different than with normal vandals? Or with other people breaking the 3RR? If the user is new and probably unaware of the rules, the block should last for a short time. Same with teenagers committing a crime. If that user should know better, the usual punishment is 24h. If it is a repeated offender, the verdict will be more severe. I can see it isn't formulated in the rules. But it isn't forbidden in the rules, either, maybe even taken for granted as decision in line with other blocks. If Molobo needs to edit pages urgently, he won't be ignored on the talk page. I made an unsuccessful attempt to discuss with him on the subject of the Kulturkampf. Let him be forced to limit his influence to discussion for once, even though I doubt his discussions had a positive effect on Groeck, Wiglaf or Shauri. After a one-week holiday, which means some more peace in Misplaced Pages to me, he'll either see things differently or slip right into an RfAr. Sciurinæ 00:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So easy mistakes (offences against PA and CIVIL) are ok and we don't mind them, but more elaborate and disputable 'mind games' are the reason for calling one a troll? His deletion of your post on his talk is dissapointing, although it's a tactic I have seen his opponents use, too. Of course two wrongs do not make one right, and I have sent him a message that he shouldnt' be doing that. But you ignore my point above: if our rules don't allow blocking for a week in this period, then it shouldn't be done. Of course if everybody would agree that such an exceptionto the rules is beneficial, than that's not a problem, wiki-lawyering should be avoided. However here I disagree with a 7-day ban on a contributor I view as mostly positive, and therefore there is no consensus for an extraordinary ban. You say it's possible that the 7 week vacation will 'cool him down'. First, predicting the future is hard: it may or may not. Second, I know that his forced absence from wiki will make the life that much easier for various other POV-pushers and force many of us to waste our time dealing with them. I have conceded above that a 24h block serves as a valid punishment, but a 7 day ban is not fair, not legal, and is also disruptive for content creation (our primary purpose). Please don't make me repeat myself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't call him a troll. To me, Molobo is an efficient contributor but who works into the wrong direction, which makes him - in my eyes - more negative than a poor editor. Ghost in a machine's summary of Molobo's user conduct in the RfC describes it the best IMO. However, there is only one way to discourage someone from doing sth negative and that's what your and my state and probably most states recognised. An increase in the severity of verdicts. It's not wiki-lawyering but common sense. The time span between his blocks this month has widened after each and Space Cadet doesn't seem likely to me to be reported here in the near future. The block isn't hard but too weak. Look what happened to Bonaparte or bigoted and radical people in forums. Molobo prepares and can save content he wants to create in future so his his contents creations aren't at stake. He hasn't had a one-week break (if I remember correctly) since I met him in August. I know I can't predict the future at all, yet I'm positive his restriction to discussion space can only have a good effect unless one week is too short. He's a student of journalism and Social communication, not reverting. If this attempt should prove futile, then I agree with referring the issue to ArbCom. Sciurinæ 01:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But. The rules don't allow blocking for 3RR for over 24h. I agree they should. There are procedures we can follow to change the rules. I'll be happy to help with that. I don't agree Molobo deserves a 7-day block under current rules, and even in my variant of tough rules he wouldn't get a 7-day block (unless he got blocked 6 times this month already). If the rules are bended here, they are more likely to be bended more and more until they break. Molobo should be unblocked after 24h elapse on his block.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Being a 1 step under 3RR in dozens of article in a single day is a general disruption. In disruption blocks the admin's discretion is allowed. This whole thing started off the wrong foot. This behavior discussion belongs to WP:ANI (or indeed RfC or an ArbCom). If the latter is ever compiled, it should bring the verdict that limits his right to revert, paste and delete rather than a general ban. Then he may still create content, which he occasionally does, and be stripped of the tools he uses to disrupt.

Anyway, he was running amok lately and a week cool-off he can use to write articles is a good idea. Repeated general dispurtions warrant an admin block within reasonable discretion. The extent of this disruption, encouragement in trolling instead of mentorship from his wikifriends and his past history certainly make the extent of the block reasonable. You may call it a disruption block if more than 24h 3RR is not allowed for what I care. The time span is appropriate. If he wants to post something to talk pages, he is free to email me the text and/or post it at his talk. I will post it for him. Again, I am not for censoring the info of atrocities others committed against the Poles. I am for the proper coverage of them rather than making a mess out of such broad articles as History of Poland, Red Army, Catherine the Great, Alexander Suvorov and even Soviet partisan, Tyutchev and Ded Moroz (!) . Most of the latter are not polonocentric topics and should not be made as such. These articles have turned into a mess mostly thanks to Molobo's hysterical participation in them. I'd like him back cooled off a little and talked to by other Polish contributors into a more constructive behavior. I don't want to see another RfC and/or ArbCom on this. --Irpen 02:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

For one, I am an administrator too and I don't support this block (for longer than 24h). Second, I don't see that Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Disruption fits Molobo actions. The disruption lists: changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks, none of which fits Molobo's actions. I could make the same case against Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs), who is 'making a mess' and 'forcing dozens of editors to fix it' at articles such as Congress Poland, History of Poland (1939–1945), Silesian Uprisings, August II the Strong or Polish contribution to World War II, just to name the few. Should we block him for 'general disruption' too? Blocking policy states that disruption is controversial reason to block and should be avoided. I repeat again: if you want a block longer than 24h, than go to arbcom, who is definetly more neutral than any of us here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Pan Prokonsul, as I said many times before, if you don't stop likening one of the most prolific and active wikipedians who contributed about 500 new articles to this project with your pet troll who has not contributed a single article which survived WP:AfD, I'm afraid we'll have to continue this discussion on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus. The difference lies in the fact that while I have never violated 3RR, your pet troll breaks the rules on weekly basis.

While you have been having great time all the time Molobo was trolling, I was busy reverting his edits (as may be seen in the links you provided above), because you use Molobo as a ram weapon to spread the nationalist propaganda in Misplaced Pages. Yet I never added new stuff to the articles you mention above, therefore you allegations of 'making a mess' and 'forcing dozens of editors to fix it' are simply outrageous.

Please face the facts: Molobo fits to a T to the description contained in WP:TROLL and will be treated accordingly. Your tag team of Polish POV-pushers has already ousted from Misplaced Pages such precious contributors (and admins) as User:Wiglaf and User:Shauri and may claim many more casualties if we let you and Molobo proceed.

I'm still waiting for your apologies for this as for previous attacks, yet I feel from my previous experience with you that to expect an apology from yourself is quite useless. At least have a decency not to mention me on every other talk page you edit. Pestering and intimidation of editors you disagree with and dismissing those with almost 30,000 edits as "vandals" are unlikely to further your cause or Molobo's. --Ghirla 09:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla: you are not helping much. The fact that you are a much more productive contributor than Molobo does not give you the right to call him troll, and me his 'troll master'. Molobo has contributed valuable content, like in the creation of Potulice concentration camp. It would be also nice if you were to provide evidence that would support your personal attacks against him or me - like that 'our team' was resonspible for Shauri's or Wilgalf Wikiholidays (WP:CABAL, anyone?). And while you have not broken the 3RR, I'd like to point out that the reason for prolonged block Molobo received here was the disruption caused by his many near 3RR violations - something you are just as guilty of (see history of articles I listed above). The fact that you have not added content to the above article does not change the fact that you were engaged in the revert wars there, and did not provide any justification for your reverts other than revert trolling (read: revert of relevant see also link), giving no explanation for reverting of sourced additions, same here, or simple and clear WP:POINT vandalism. It is obvious to me that when it comes to content creation, you are a valuable contributor, but when it comes to any content dispute, your actions are no better then that of Molobo's - they are even worse, because he at least uses talk and provides some references, while you just revert. Of course there are exceptions: I love your argument that Katyn massacre was a CIA forgery :) I can see that arguments brought by others against Molobo have some value, but honestly I can't see what you are trying to prove other than that you are just as disruptive as him.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Shauri and Wiglaf were two of my dearest friends on here. We've remained in touch outside of WP as well. I know for a FACT that their departures had nothing to do with Molobo. In fact, one of the last things Wiglaf did on here was engage in a spat with Ghirla over the origins of the Varangians. So on the basis of that, one could argue, YOU, Ghirla, had more to do with his leaving than Molobo. It would be just as much a distortion too. Out of respect for them both, I ask that their good names not be dragged into this matter any further. Mine has been mentioned, but I don't mind. I'm still around to defend my comments and elaborate upon them. Unfortunately, what I wrote on Mobo's RFC, has been proven correct over the last several months. The 3RR rule is one of the most abused policies in the Wikiverse. It is too often misused as a blunt weapon or a trap against those with whom you're having editorial/personal differences. But if there is anyone worthy of a long-term ban for violating it, tis Molobo. Sorry, Piotrus, but it will come down to an RFAr I fear. People have been dragged before Arbcomm for far less than Molobo. I only hope, for the sake of fairness, that if they should come to any serious, punative decision against him, it will not be primarily for being a serial 3RR violator.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm as guilty of this here as anyone else, but please note from the top of the page that If you feel the need to leave a comment of more than a couple of lines you are probably using the wrong channel. Can we take the philosophical policy stuff somewhere else and de-clog this page? (ESkog) 05:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Should it be moved to WP:ANI? I don't mind. Piotrus, by your proposal of no more than 24h block without an ArbCom, Bonaparte should be immediately unblocked. Amount of aggravtion brought my Molobo to a whole bunch of articles is huge. This was a huge disruption. If he wants to write articles, he can write many now and post them all at once in a week. Everything else he was doing is harmful for Misplaced Pages. And don't try to compare him to your favorite Nemesis. This simply doesn't fly. You should have took it upon yourself to mentor your "valuable contributor" rather than encourage his actions. I was telling you about this all along. For more, see talk:Soviet partisan as well as my recent calls at dozens of talk pages. --Irpen 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it here. William M. Connolley 08:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also involved in an edit war at a different article which is over a tag being added. And yes, tags are subject to 3RR like anything else. If there's not enough support for them that an editor has to break 3RR to keep them on, then they shouldn't be on. That's the entire point of 3RR. I also support progressively longer blocks for persistent violators - as far as I'm concerned such blocks are still preventative rather than punitive, as they should be, because of the valid deterrence effect. I support William's actions 100%. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank people who took time to read this debate through and offer me their advise. Any further comments would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Herschelkrustofsky

I would like to block Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) for violation of LaRouche 1, LaRouche 2, and Nobs01, which placed him on indefinite probation and prohibited him from making edits related to Lyndon LaRouche.

He recently engaged in an edit war at Synarchism, deleting or modifying criticism of LaRouche six times over a couple of days. I left a note on his talk page warning him that his edits were a violation of the arbcom rulings.

He stopped editing the article, but yesterday left a note for another LaRouche activist, BirdsOfFire (talk · contribs), asking him to make the edits instead, which BirdsOfFire did a few hours later, even though he's only an occasional editor (90 edits in four months.) I see Herschelkrustofsky's use of BirdsOfFire, whether as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, as a violation of the ruling and of his probation, and I'd therefore like to block Herschel for three days and reset the ban on LaRouche-related editing. Other input would be much appreciated. I've pasted the pertinent rulings below. SlimVirgin 03:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest getting an immediate ip check on BirdsOfFire because if it is indeed a sock (as the patterns appear to be the same and the infrequency of the BirdsOfFire edits seem to suggest) then indef. block... I would also suggest bringing this back up to the arbcom if this continues for potential re-evaluation of the ruling to see if an indef. ban might be needed for Herschelkrustofsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegasus1138 (talk • contribs)

• CheckUser confirms both userids are using the same IP ranges. Jayjg 03:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jay and Pegasus. I've blocked BirdsOfFire indefinitely as a sockpuppet and I'm going to block Herschel for three days and reset the ban. Cheers, SlimVirgin 04:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also banned Herschel from editing Synarchism in accordance with Nobs01 and Misplaced Pages:Probation. SlimVirgin 05:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, at this point it may be worth it to ask the arbcom to revisit the ruling since Hershcel has repeatedly violated the ruling and has created numerous sockpuppets to try to get around it, though for the love of me I don't see how anyone can be so obsessed about Lyndon Larouche to purposefully violate 5 or 6 major guidelines at a time trying to POV skew the article about him. Pegasus1138 ---- 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. I don't mind spending time or conceding points to get articles right, but it ticks me off when it turns out that other editors are pulling stunts that make the job more difficult or that take advantage of the system. The aggressive POV pushing by HK and (what have turned out to be) his puppets is an abuse consensus and of our open editing. In previous ArbCom cases HK could argue that he aided the project on topics unrelated (or barely-related) to LaRouche, like classical music, but recently he has only worked on LaRouche-related articles. I don't think that anopther ArbCom case is needed - the previous cases included addtional enforcement procedures that we just need to follow. -Will Beback 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I use one computer only. No one else has access to this computer. It automatically logs on to this screen name, and I never log off this screen name. SlimVirgin's accusations of sockpuppetry are an entirely fraudulent and dishonest vehicle for pushing her POV. As far as IP ranges are concerned, I access the internet from an AOL account in the Los Angeles area; there may well be a few dozen other Misplaced Pages editors who are using these IP ranges as you read this post.

I don't know what the IP addresses are, but I'm guessing they're the same ones that were identified during LaRouche 2 that seemed to have been used by you and at least one of the other LaRouche accounts. In my view, it's more than a cooincidence that another person using AOL in Los Angeles uses the same two IP ranges, edits the same articles from the same LaRouche POV, and even though he hasn't edited in days is there within hours to revert to your version after you ask him to on his talk page. Of course, that doesn't mean you're necessarily the same person; it could be another member of the LaRouche movement that you use as a back-up, but that counts as sockpuppetry for the purposes of LaRouche 2. I don't see what difference it makes, in terms of your probation, whether you're physically making LaRouche edits or asking someone else to. SlimVirgin 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You have made accusations of sockpuppetry, and yet you "don't know what the IP addresses are"; you're "guessing." I would like Jayjg to come forward and reveal the IP addresses involved, in order to take the guesswork out of this. But then you say that it doesn't really matter, that BirdsOfFire is a "member of the LaRouche movement" anyway. Well, he says he isn't on his talk page, and you routinely brand anyone that gets in your a way a "LaRouche activist." You say that I "asked BirdsOfFire to make the edits instead"; my words on his talk page were "I wanted to call your attention to another article, Synarchism, which the Berlet crowd is attempting to convert into a soapbox." Since we are talking about further admin sanctions against my editing, I think that you ought to have the decency to come up with some real evidence, instead of a bunch of half-truths.--HK 23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

2. The article Synarchism has not historically been regarded as a "LaRouche article"; it does not appear on the "LaRouche template," and I did not add material about LaRouche to this article. User:172, in collusion with User:Will Beback, began adding original research, in the form of gratuitous and irrelevant misrepresentations of LaRouche's ideas, to the article, and I objected. SlimVirgin and her cohorts designate articles as "LaRouche related" at their pleasure, just as they designate any editor who questions her tactics as a "LaRouche activist" (as SlimVirgin did BirdsOfFire in this instance, or as Will Beback designated User:Northmeister after that user disagreed with him on the talk page of American System (economics).)

What counts as an article closely related to LaRouche is up to the administrator, and these edits were about LaRouche. SlimVirgin 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Likewise, re-setting my ban for yet another year, based on spurious charges of sockpuppetry, should be regarded as an example of SlimVirgin's underhanded Nacht und Nebel tactics at their worst. I will emphasize in closing that SlimVirgin and Will Beback are not disinterested Misplaced Pages admins, merely trying to bring order and make the trains of Misplaced Pages run on time. They are both impassioned anti-LaRouche activists. One of SlimVirgin's first interventions into Misplaced Pages was the creation of the attack article Jeremiah Duggan, which is basically a mirror for the Justice for Jeremiah website, created by Chip Berlet and the usual gang. Will Beback obsessively compiles lists (see User:Will Beback/LaRouche topics) of every article ever edited by myself, or by other editors that he has designated as "LaRouche editors." The two of them constantly compare notes, and they are generally comically misinformed about the objects of their vendetta (see this example.)The actions taken against me by these two, under color of enforcing ArbCom decisions, are POV warfare, scantily disguised as administrative action. --HK 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You've tried many times to tar me with the label "anti-LaRouche activist." If that were true, I'd have rushed to the LaRouche pages to delete your pro-LaRouche edits as soon as you were banned, but in fact I've hardly looked at them. My interest is only in making sure you don't introduce even more POV, and that you abide by the terms of the arbcom rulings. SlimVirgin 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a division of labor here; slanting the LaRouche articles in a defamatory way (in violation of WP:BLP) is Cberlet's job, with some assistance from 172. Your job is to bite the newcomers, bullying them and threatening to ban them (or simply banning them outright, as you did BirdsOfFire,) combined with frequent reverts with no edit summaries. Will Beback wikistalks and harasses anyone who objects. However, your credentials as an anti-LaRouche activist were already established in your first month at Misplaced Pages, when you authored the attack article Jeremiah Duggan. Although I know of no Misplaced Pages policy that says you should recuse yourself from the use of admin powers in controversies where you play such a partisan role, I should think that common decency would dictate that you do so. --HK 23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The 23:45, 3 April 2006 post on this page by Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) (see above) is a personal attack on four longtime Misplaced Pages editors: SlimVirgin, Cberlet, Will Beback, and me. In summary, Herschelkrustofsky is accusing Cberlet and me of 'defamation' of Lyndon LaRouche, SlimVirgin of writing bad-faith "attack artilce" related to the tragic death of Jeremiah Duggan, and Will Beback of "wikistalking." The attacks violate Herschelkrustofsky's arbcom probation stemming from the Nobs and others decision. According to the most recent arbcom ruling, if Herschelkrustofsky is disrupting the functioning of Misplaced Pages by making the personal attacks such as the ones posted above, admins are supposed to note the following:

Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Misplaced Pages:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Misplaced Pages, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Herschelkrustofsky's probation shall automatically end.

Arbcom rulings are meaningless unless admins enforce them. If Herschelkrustofsky is causing disruption on the administrators' noticeboard, the arbcom instructs admins to block him for up to one year for disregarding his probation. 172 | Talk 02:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What the Herschelkrustofsky rulings say

• (Nobs01) Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Misplaced Pages:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Misplaced Pages, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year."
• (LaRouche 2)"Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely."
• "Herschelkrustofsky is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way."
• "Herschelkrustofsky is banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche for up to and including one year. If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect."
• "If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles ..."
• (LaRouche1) "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as 'promotion' of Lyndon LaRouche." z

69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)

This user was recently blocked for posting various accusations on Misplaced Pages talk pages and user pages. Looks like he's back with more of the same, accusing me of vandalism/racism. Appropriate action should be taken to stop this. Aucaman 04:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a response here? Aucaman 18:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeated self-aggrandising vandalism of Archaeogeodesy article

Hi, this is a request for a block to deal with vandalism by a single individual of the archaeogeodesy article. It is repeatedly being vandalised by someone who is continually reverting to a self-promoting text that is 90% devoted to his own works. On occasion he has also included his business-name registration info in the entry.

He has used several IP addresses (listed below). He has also registered the user-name "Archaeogeodesy" and has begun to vandalise under that name too. All of his acts of vandalism are designed to present himself as practically the owner of the field.

On 8+ occasions I have reverted to a version that simply lists the different approaches to the field, of which the aforementioned individual's is one only. He has stated that he considers such reversion to be akin to 'book burning'.

I requested semi-protection but learnt that the vandalism has been insufficiently heavy to justify this, so I was advised to consider requesting a block. This I am now doing.

The individual has also posted my name and email address in the summary to one of his edits.

IP addresses he has used:

70.58.156.200; 4.242.108.232; 4.242.108.232; 67.42.194.251; 4.242.138.69; 4.242.141.205; 4.242.108.213; 4.242.144.186; 4.242.108.176

User name he has used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Archaeogeodesy

Many thanks.

Neil 12:50, 31 March 2006 (BST)

As a non admin I took a look at the article and I have a few comments. This is basically a content dispute. The article as of this moment is a stub; it seems like there could be a lot more content and if Mr. Jacobs is knowledgable in the area his contributions should be welcomed provided he sticks to WP policies on verifiability and no original research. (He should be free to summarize significant work in the field provided it is properly supported by references). I suggest semi-protection to force the user to stick to one user name. I also suggest other editors remember WP:CIVIL and avoid using words like "kook." I thirdly suggest that the user's perferred version be edited to improve it (by removing original research and adding citations) rather than simply reverting it. If the user persists in owning the article even after these measures, perhaps an RfC. Thatcher131 15:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe an admin should take a quick look. Looks like Archaeogeodetic Association is part of a hoax and Archaeogeodesy junk science. Strange goings-on on the talk page.. I prodded both articles. EricR 05:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the idea that certain ancient sites are linked by mystical lines is not a hoax per se, but is a notable form of crackpottery (see Ley line). This anon user has added the term Archeogeodesy to that article, see this diff. Seems more like OR than a hoax bu we need to get more editors involved who know about such topics. Thatcher131 12:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to the deletion proposals on the pages mentioned. In my opinion - but it is only an opinion! - James Q Jacobs is a crackpot, but in no way does he monopolise the field, which dates back a century and more. If you look at the AgA's definition of the field, it does not depend on any 'mystical' character of any alignments; nor does it depend on any description containing a concept of 'science'. The allegation of its being a hoax, or 'part' of a hoax, appears to depend on the link with the LPA. But the LPA was by no means only a hoax (although it did have some hoaxy characteristics, but...well...stuff about Wittgenstein and a ladder has been mentioned in this context). As for the AGA, it has never been hoaxy - and if anyone believes otherwise, could they try to present positive evidence, e.g. from the published pamphlet. There isn't even any such evidence in the column it used to run in the LPA newsletter.

Having said the above, the field does of course attract crackpots, but so do SETI, most or all religions, evolutionary biology, etc. etc. etc. There is nothing necessarily crackpot about the study and investigation of significant long-distance alignments (usually >100 km) involving two or more ancient sites.

158-152-12-77 01:40, 1 April 2006 (BST)

So is this all an April Fool's i just didn't get?

Socialfiction.org is a long-term research project that seeks to develop speculative knowledge that subverts ordinary ways to employ, experience and measure space, time and language.

The day to day reality of socialfiction.org is filled with projects. For most of them we encourage participation by persons known and unknown. Some of our projects are like whales, most are like plankton: the small ones feed the large ones.

Here are our whales:

Generative Psychogeography

It is a rule of thumb that if you want to be a famous philosopher you have to produce deliberately obscure and meaningless books about which you state that they contain deep insight only few enlightened souls will understand. Before you know it you have produced a classic by virtue of other people forming schools to defend and propagandise their particular explanation of your initial charlatanry.

Seems to be a bunch of this crap floating around: three sided football, Association of Autonomous Astronauts, Psychogeography, Unitary Urbanism etc.

Any help tracking this stuff down would be appreciated. EricR 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You are lumping together fields and efforts which do not deserve to be lumped together, which I can understand because from what you say, the relevant fields are new to you, whether we are talking about AAA show-off crackpots or the AgA which is something completely different in nature. But please do appreciate that your view, on whatever basis, that field X is 'crap' is no reason for deletion! For the record, I don't think the AgA has ever done anything hoaxy in its 14 years of existence, not even the slightest bit hoaxy. The AAA is however a hoax through and through, and the LPA did lots of things that were hoaxy.

The idea that archaeogeodesy is an April Fool's Joke is not only mistaken, it can only be the product of a very superficial acquaintance with the archaeogeodetic field. You might as well say archaeoastronomy is an April Fool's Joke, or plate tectonics, or cryptozoology. I would like to issue a serious call to take the idea of retaining a Misplaced Pages article on the field of archaeogeodesy as a serious suggestion, and not calculated to play games or wind anyone up.

158-152-12-77 23:09, 2 April 2006 (BST)

User:62.14.212.229

This user has vandalised the article about Republic of Macedonia several times. I have to state that he does the same thing as some other users do (NikoSilver, Miskin etc.), so he is a possible sockpuppet. I suggest this user be blocked. Bomac 17:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked at this IP's edits. They were not vandalism; the edits mention some issue with the name of the subject of the article. Vandalism is when an editor replaces text with nonsense, profanity, graffiti, that sort of thing. Check out WP:VANDAL. -lethe 17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but this case is specific. You see, there was a compromise from few months ago when it was decided the name dispute to be described in a proper section (as it is now). A footnote leads to that section. Unfortunatelly, no matter of the footnote, this user (and the others mentioned before) try to put redundant edit in the beggining of the article. That's the whole problem. Bomac 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So you have a content dispute with a user. Anon thinks some stuff should go in the intro, you disagree. I don't think admin actions are how we resolve content disputes. Check out WP:DR. -lethe 18:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bomac. We can't expect every user to be aware of compromise decisions made in the past, or agree to them when they're explained. Lethe is correct in noting that this is not Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. That said, if the IP keeps reverting, report that at WP:AN/3RR. If it is an editor logging out to avoid breaking WP:3RR, they will get caught in the auto-block as well. But, really, both of the users that you mention above are reasonable editors who are willing to discuss solutions to content disputes. I have faith that a reasonable discussion could take place if both sides would go easier on the reverting and stay on-topic on the Talk page. Jkelly 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that someone is obviously using the anon editing in order to avoid the 3RR and force his version. We, ordinary users that don’t want to break 3RR rule are powerless in such situations. I really don’t know what is appropriate to do in case like this. Bitola 18:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Using a different address doesn't let you bypass 3RR, it only makes it harder to spot the violation. Now, is someone claiming that this IP is a person who violated 3RR? I haven't seen that claim yet. -lethe 18:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I can see, 62.14.212.229 recently made 5 edits:, , ,, , and then user:Nejtralitet which can be the same user continued with reverts:. It will be interesting to check if the IP address of user:Nejtralitet has the same range (or maybe it is the same) as the one of 62.14.212.229. Bitola 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If nejtralitet is the same person, then there has been a violation of 3RR as of nejtralitet's first edit. However I don't think these edits fall under the aegis of the m:Checkuser policy. Wait longer and see if he persists, perhaps? -lethe 19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the anon edits from 62.14.212.229 have gone for now, lets see what will happen in the future.Bitola 13:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

48hr block on User:Grue - Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates

I have given Grue (talk · contribs) a 48 hour block due to his persistent incivility and combative behaviour on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates; see his contribs and look at the past few edits, and their summaries. I felt, as I explained on his talk page a 48hr cool down was necessary, as for example his incivil edit summaries, assumptions of bad faith, blanking of a deletion debate etc. really were unacceptable, especially from an administrator. I really, really hate having to do this, what with Grue being a valued contributor, but under the circumstances I can't see any other remedy being applicable, looking at other people's efforts to warn him. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are hardly a nurtral party since you yourself have done what User:Grue was oposeing. At 19:33, 27 March 2006 to be exact.Geni 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Geni: May I ask what you were referring to? I haven't participated in the deletion review for userboxes save for a perfunctory note indicating that I'd restored the userbox in question after a number of users had pointed out to me that my T1 speedy was incorrect. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So you don't know anything about this?Geni 21:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Geni: Yes, of course I do; but I can't see what relationship that has to the issue at play here other than that it involved userboxes. Note after the userboxes were undeleted I did not only not delete them, I accepted the undeletion and again, I reiterate, I haven't been involved in the userbox DRV page so far other than to note that I restored a set of userboxes that I formerly deleted. I hope you can determine by viewing my contributions for yourself that I have made sure to discuss with others as a consequence of them raising issue with my decisions as an administrator; I consider it a personal maxim to remain open to civil discussion on all matters relating to Misplaced Pages. I haven't had any other interactions with Grue, nor any other editor, on the userbox subpage - I thus cannot see how my neutrality could be compromised. If I may say so, your attempts to impugn my ethics are somewhat of an assumption of bad faith, and not really reasonable. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you or did you not delete "Template:User antitheist" at 19:33, 27 March 2006 with the reason(Speedy delete. Criterion T1 - divisive/inflammatory)? That tempate has been through DRV. As has Template:User review. You carried out exactly the actions User:Grue was acting against.Geni 21:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted Template:User antitheist. As for Template:User review - no, I did not delete that userbox. I have not been involved in the DRV debate for either userbox, and have not interacted with Grue on the subject. You still haven't explained how my deletion actions cast doubt upon my motives in blocking Grue, or indeed how such accusations of bad faith on my part excuse Grue from his behaviour. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

are you claiming you did not delete a userbox that had been through DRV?Geni 22:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Err... no, of course I'm not. Geni, think about it - I affirmed above that I did indeed delete Template:User antitheist above, which went through DRV. So how could I possibly be claiming that? Once again, you have still not explained how my deletion actions cast doubt upon my motives in blocking Grue; you've merely cast airy aspersions. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You did exactly what grue was oposeing. It is not enough to be neutral. You must also appear neutral.Geni 09:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Several editors appear to have warned this user of his needless leap into a combative and confrontational stance. One's edit summaries and words can reveal one's attitude in a matter of moments, and this holds true here. Reviewing this user's contributions, I'd like to comment on a couple.

: "Speedy deletion can't override a consensus to keep"

I'm of the opinion that this depends upon where the deletion criterion comes from. Since this was a top-down alteration to the CSD (and I'm well aware that this is a controversial one), I'd be inclined to state that it can. Nevertheless, that's germane to the reason I'm flagging this edit, which is to draw attention to the snide undertones of cabalism.

: "I will block anyone who redeletes it for wheel-warring and disruption"

Which could be considered wheel warring in itself, and would be disruptive.

 : No need to blank the discussion; I'm surprised, since I thought Grue was a consensus-based sort of person

I see no reason this block ought not to be left to run its course; and I see benefits both for the blocked user, for the Misplaced Pages community, and to a large part, I appeal to common sense. Give it a rest. Rob Church 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am not an admin and I have been participating in the debate (my view is also undelete) however if I may be permitted an observation this edit alone (blanking the entire discussion) deserves at least a short cooling off period. Thatcher131 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This was a proper closure of DR discussion. DR doesn't have subpages so the only way to close a debate is to blank it. The only thing I did wrong was forgetting to archive the discussion, but since it was restored very fast it was unneccessary. Seems that very few people understand what DR is for and how it is processed, and the discussion in question demonstrates it very well.  Grue  12:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have strong objections to the block, but I think 48 hours crosses the line from preventative to punitive. 24 hours is more than enough for someone to cool down (if they're going to). (Since most people will have had a good night's sleep before it expires.) --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While I personally agree that ignoring an ongoing DRV or TFD discussion is disruptive, a block is way out of order here. Where were the admins blocking Tony Sidaway and MarkSweep when they were taking the iniatiative to speedy delete templates with strong consensus to keep that were undergoing discussion on TFD? --Blu Aardvark | 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(Non-admin view) I think Samuel is entirely correct; the function, as I see it, of guidelines such as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL is not to ensure that untoward behavior does not occur, but, rather, only to ensure that such behavior (gauche though it may be) doesn't interfere substantially with our project. Grue's blanking a discussion page, for example, surely is disruptive, and, in view of a recent pattern, a cooling-off period is perhaps appropriate, lest further disruption should occur. A 48-hour block, IMHO, is excessive though; inasmuch as it prevents Grue from contributing to the project in the (good) sundry ways he does, it seems likely to do the project more harm than good. I readily concede that my view apropos of the purpose of behavior guidelines and the reasons for which to issue blocks/bans (viz., that the only relevant criterion in whether a given admin action, on the whole, is likely to help or harm the overall project, notwithstanding the rather nebulous "help or harm" formulation, toward the improvement of which I have made efforts elsewhere) is likely a minority one (toward which proposition I adduce, for example, the pedophilia wheel warring discussion, in which many concluded that, the procedural issues aside, and even if other users aren't dissuaded from editing because of a user's self-ID as a pedophile, self-ID'd pedophiles oughtn't to be here, irrespective of what they might bring the encyclopedia), but I think here that 24 hours would be a more appropriate timeframe. I should say that I know this isn't the place to begin a new discussion of blocks/bans, but I am so often troubled by certain blocks issued here that I want simply to express that everyone ought to remember that the project must come first (Grue's actions, unlike those of other users who are blocked simply for hate speech which, though it may engender anger in others, is unlikely to dissuade prospective editors from working on or using the encyclopedia, so some timeout is in order). Joe 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• 48 hours?? For that? We treat vandals better than this! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have decided to unblock him. I see that several think that a block was justified, but few think 48 hours was. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Kelly reblocked Grue because Sjakkalle failed to discuss it with Nicholas. As I left a message on Nicholas' talk page asking him to reconsider, which he hasn't replied to yet, I have lifted the block myself. This message has been copied to Grue's, Kelly's and Nicholas' talk pages so that there is no question of unblocking without discussion. --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!) 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, it appears that Nicholas *did* reconsider, and unblocked right as you were making this post: -- Mackensen (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My disapproval of Sjakkale's action was based on his unblocking without even notifying the blocking admin. I don't object, in principle, to unblocking Grue, although personally I think Misplaced Pages would not be harmed in the long run by disinviting Grue. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. So I spent so long making sure my case for unblocking was watertight it became unnecessary. Oh well :-) --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!) 20:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark's personal attacks

I have blocked Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week for WP:NPA violations. This user just announced that they're going on indefinite WikiBreak, and in doing so, called a bunch of well-respected users, including Raul654, "trolls" . This user hasn't done anything useful in awhile. He mainly just causes controversy on userbox deletion discussions or RFAs. He hasn't seriously worked on the encyclopedia for months. If you go on over to Misplaced Pages Review, you will see exactly what's driving him. --Cyde Weys 21:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Is all he did was call them trolls on his userpage once? The reason is I think a week is quite extreme for a single case unless there have been a lot of priors. Just another star in the night 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Support this. Criticism is welcome here, trolling and personal attacks are not. He says he's gone but will pop back to make the odd comment, well, if that's the level of the comments, no thanks. Enjoy your wikibreak, I'm sure we will. --Doc 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Because following up with attacks of your own are so much better? Just another star in the night 22:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We cannot block for personal attacks (see Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy) please pull this block.Geni 22:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We can block for disruption and he is disruptive. He's made very little contribution to the encyclopedia since August. Most of the personal attacks on his user page have been there since March 25, so he hadn't just posted them (and even if he had, it would make no difference). All he seems to do is cause trouble. SlimVirgin 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly so. The personal attacks, while obviously in violation of policy (WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), and certainly unwelcome, are rather run-of-the-mill; disappointingly uninspired. However, Blu Aardvark's only purpose here seems to be Misplaced Pages disruption; as has been pointed out, he hasn't edited fruitfully (at least under this account) for weeks. This kind of disruptive activity is a cry for help; by Blu's own admission he is disaffected and wants to leave Misplaced Pages. Cyde has assisted him in this. Jayjg 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Longstanding practice shows we can. That policy is outdated, incorrect and illogical. Sam Korn 22:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy says we can block for excessive personal attacks, and that certainly fits Blu Aardvark. SlimVirgin 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as an outsider, there does appear to be a dreadful double standard there. It looks a lot like you're throwing your weight around because he annoyed you and your friends. For great justice. 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Friends"? I know very little about Cyde Weys; the first time I heard of him was on his WP:RFA a couple of weeks ago. Jayjg 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And where is the double standard? There are hundreds of administrators, it is certainly not out of partiality, if that's what you mean. Administrators have the same requirements to be as civil, if not more, than other users, so if you imply that we set a lower bar for ourselves, you are wrong. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're sure I'm wrong, I'm just commenting on how it looks to an outsider. A bunch of people here sitting around congratulating themselves over how righteous they are to block someone who was rude to one of them. For great justice. 23:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I couldn't let this go without comment. Blu has been rude and uncivil to many editors here over an extended period of time, especially in his goodbye messages. I attempted to remove one of the personal attacks but he replaced it I have no problem with this block. Rx StrangeLove 23:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also as an outsider, I'd say a "cool down" block of 24-48 hours is appropriate, but a week a month seems a little long. --Deathphoenix ʕ 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

After futher personal attacks on established users , I have extended this block to one month. --Doc 22:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Recommend increasing the length of the block after this latest blatant flaunting of policy and using sock puppets to evade a ban. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A good long wikibreak will be good for Blu. When he returns, he can explain why he psrted with such a virulent personal attack. We cannot block for personal attacks? Oh, but we can. Blue is welcome back next time he turns up, but when he does want to come back, he should be first asked to apologise for parting in such a way. Then he can proceed in normal editing without a suspicion that he feels he can come and go as he pleases, and all bad faith forgotten. --Tony Sidaway 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd concur that the block, and Doc glasgow's extension are correct given Blu Aardvark's recent contrib history and his current making of personal attacks against valued contributors. I'd have said 24-48 hrs block for the user page personal attacks alone, but coupled with a prior history of disruption in terms of incremental blocking a month would not be unreasonable. I'm not sure I'd have likely made it that long had I blocked him myself but, well, I couldn't have said there was any reason why that was inappropriate, if he has indeed become disaffected with Misplaced Pages and is no longer editing as a productive member of our community. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde's link is to one diff of Blu's, perhaps if someone concuring with this block could contribute more links to establish a pattern of disruption, we could get past the NPA issue? I would agree that my impressions are that Blu's contributions of late are largely critical commentary, but I don't feel it's always been in bad faith or intentionally disruptive. So to me, this seems an excessive reaction. Still, I haven't researched the issue, so (like many, I'd assume), I'm comparing it to things with Grue up above...who restored a deletion and blanked a DRV discussion in the midst of a quite busy discussion. Before blocks against either user extend past a week, could we discuss things more calmly, here or at RfC/RfAr?

The sky, last I peeked, is still up there. InkSplotch 22:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blu has now used two socks, BIu Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Huhwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to attempt to evade this block. --Cyde Weys 23:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Add Teh_Puppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And now he's declaring his intentions to create more sockpuppets to evade the ban and vandalize: "I can change my IP faster than I can change a light bulb. If you'd rather I make bad faith edits, and become a vandal or troll, then keep doing what you are doing." I think an indefinite ban is in order. --Cyde Weys 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just banned Blu Aardvark's IP used to post a threat/rant here for 48 hours, 72.160.81.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I only set a 48hr block because it appeared to be in a DHCP range. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Add another sock: Howzhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Cyde Weys 23:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, guess it's not my day to play the voice of reason. Still, one last try. Blu, the "if you insist on calling me the bad guy, I'll give you a bad guy" tactic has never worked. It will not reverse any blocks, it will not win any admins to your side, and it will not call down retribution against anyone you consider a troll. If it makes you feel better, well, not much else to say except Misplaced Pages was never here to make you feel better. Please reconsider your sock attacks, it helps no one to go out in a blaze.

--InkSplotch 23:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand you're upset, but I've just looked at the debate over on DRV again, and Blu, it's you you starts slinging the profanity first (among you, Slimvirgin and JayJG). You probably could have continued to clarify your position on those issues if you hadn't let go of your language. Now, those who think you're a troll feel more and more vindicated by your reactions and use of sockpuppets.

If you blame Misplaced Pages, and I don't for a second think you do, there are many here who won't stop until you're gone. If you blame a few editors for misrepresenting you and your beliefs to discredit you in an argument, your best course of action is to take a 24-48 hour break from things to let everything cool down. When you're ready, mediation might help.

As for the blocks, if Blu agrees to stop posting through socks and seek resolution of his differences with Slimvirgin and JayJG through the official dispute process, would admins here agree to reduce his block down to 48 hours? I think we can all see he's angry, but that he's not out cause real damage.

--InkSplotch 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute with Jay or myself. We've had almost nothing to do with him, and in fact the first I heard of him was when he started the personal attacks on me. He's also launched attacks on others, including Raul654, Kelly Martin, Grace Note, and Malber. The sockpuppetry is simply him showing his true colors. SlimVirgin 00:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry is simply him showing his true colors. is a pretty determanistic phrase for someone you've had little contact with. While his disputes may not be with you, they're cetainly over perceptions of him and his website. I don't think much can redeem his website, and my vote on the DRV reflects that. But if it colors perceptions of him, I feel he has the right to clarify things. I just think he went about it entirely the wrong way tonight.

I'm not asking for a dismissal of charges, just a bit of leiency if he's willing to admit he's been disruptive in his personal attacks, and a chance to seek proper resolution after a reasonable cooling off period. And I'm sorry, I don't see how one month is a resonable period, unless a more comprehensive history of NPA violations can be presented.

--InkSplotch 00:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this block. In fact, he says he's leaving, and due to the fact that he's contributed nothing to the encyclopedia and has continued to make vile personal attacks, with sockpuppets, I see no reason he shouldn't be blocked indefinitely.--Sean Black 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly if people are going to come here and act all nice, and ten leave with attacks, and when blocked for attacks say "okay I'll come back and be nasty", you have to wonder whether they ever had any really good intentions in the first place. I used to have some respect for Blu Aardvark. That respect was misplaced. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology to those involved

Allow me to make an apology to those whom I have offended by my actions. Sometimes what I need most in cases like this is a little time away from the computer. There was no excuse for my personal attacks, or the sockpuppets I used to launch more personal attacks. I know that technically, I am blocked, so I shouldn't be leaving this message, but I do ask whoever is watching this page to consider leaving the message here rather than reverting it. I will from this point on respect the block, although I do want to make clear that I disagree with it vehemently. What Cyde should have done was to talk to me and ask me to change my userpage; instead, he changed it for me and blocked me for a week. At the same time, I was trying to clarify accusations that I am an anti-Semite, Nazi sympathyzer , or a even a Nazi myself. Those accusations hurt, regardless of what you think of me or of Misplaced Pages Review.

Again, I do apologize for my actions, because whether I was right or wrong, I went about things in the wrong way. User:Blu Aardvark, at 72.160.85.198 04:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be so much more convincing if you weren't continuing to make personal attacks off-site and saying it's a shame that you only have one aged sockpuppet left to get around a semi-protected page, which I believe you posted after the above. SlimVirgin 08:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we aren't seeing eye-to-eye. I don't see stating that I feel that such an edit consists of censorship is a personal attack. I don't think that you should be delinking sites because you don't agree with them. First of all, the whole idea of doing that doesn't seem to make much sense to me - basically, you don't want a search engine to follow it, for whatever reason - maybe it's full of hate speech, or whatever - but when a person copy+pastes the URL in their browser, it's stored in the autocomplete. How is that better? It's less convienent for all parties, and if the site really is THAT bad, it's stored in a person's browser autocomplete until they clear it - if indeed they know how. As for search engine caching, I don't think that's a serious issue. Maybe it would raise the site in search results by one hit, bringing it to, say, page 36 on a relevant internet search. (Seriously, the site isn't that relevant or notable - even a search for "Misplaced Pages Review" in quotes only turns the site up on the seventh or eight result.) As for the sockpuppet, yes, I do have an additional one, but I do not intend to use that sockpuppet to violate policy (Well, maybe to perform constructive edits if a ridulous ban is kept, but I honestly don't feel that to be abuse). I'd rather not identify it, because, well, that would defeat the purpose of having it around. User:Blu Aardvark, at 72.160.85.198 09:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder

I wonder, what if everbody had just cooled down a bit? Blu called some respected people 'trolls'. He was banned for what, a week? Vandals get treated better that that. It seems to happen quite a few times that the notion of proportionality (law) is abandoned. People on the receiving end of the block perceive this as unjust and then start to fight back. And strangely, we are surprised and blame 'em for it. What if, instead of blocking him, people would just have practiced some Tact and gone to his page to say 'this is uncalled for, maybe you should take some time away from the comp'. Would that have spurred him to an uncontrollable sockpuppet frenzy as well? I wonder. Cheers, The Minister of War 08:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal only accounts tend to get blocked indefinitely, dunno but to my mind that's worse than a 1 week block. --pgk 09:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK, this situation is probbly beyond repair. And Blu and wikipedia are most likely on the road to parting company for good. But since his above posts indicate a slightly cooler tone, it is probably worth an attempt at going the extra mile. Socks stink, but talk is normally good, so I'm going to unprotect his talk page for now so a conversation becomes possible. Any further socks, or anything that even smells of a personal attack and it should be protected again (and I'll be watching offsite too). But let's see if we can't cool things. --Doc 10:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Zadil's complaints

It seems User:Zadil has mailed several administrators following a block by User:SlimVirgin, from what I've managed to find from this rather vague information, the block seems justified, I'm just posting the message here in case someone more involved would like to add something:

Subject: unfair block

it seems like user SlimVirgin is abusing his privilages in the midst of a discussion.
please, note my follwoing complaints:
1)the above user has blocked me for no apparent valid reason.
2)He has used the block in the midst of a dicussion, and then took the freedom to revert my edit.
3)He has nominiate a new article by me for "speedy deletion" and indeed deleted it without any discussion. I'ts indeed a shame that I can not provide you any link to that article, but it was -in my humble opinion- a very useful article.
4)He has used threats against me and still use in the midst of discussion, a fact I’ve already complaint and was assured by Benon that they better should be ignored. (see my user page)<br 5)He has took to privilage of my block to "vandalise" my user page", a fact which is the most disturbing.

Please, if you can, take the trouble to look my relevant edits and ublock me. It is really unfair to have such
"discussion" on wikipedia. And may I suggest, that an administrator who constantly uses threants and indeed blocks other users in the midst of discussion, should be deprived from such privileges.

-Obli (Talk) 23:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Already wondered why he picked me to complain to? Both the block and the deletion of List of Racist Quotes in Judaism seem fair to me. —Ruud 23:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've had to unblock him because User:Wisden17 contacted me to say he'd been caught up in the block. SlimVirgin 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Did Wisden17 not give his IP address? Zadil should be blocked, especially if he continues his current trends. Just zis Guy you know? 08:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wisden17 did give me his IP address, which seemed to be dynamic, so I asked him if he could reboot to get another one, but he didn't seem too happy about doing that, so I unblocked. SlimVirgin 14:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Raith Preston (talk · contribs). Left this (a Zephram-uploaded image) on my talk page. Then began to rvt various articles back to version by prev sockpuppets. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• tick tock boom. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redundant -1 Cyde Weys 16:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redundant -1 Cyde Weys 16:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• And User:Xyloyl and User:Iceni. Jayjg 03:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero Sockpuppet

Malicious sockpuppet, I daresay. Has constructed vindictive edits and refuses to listen to reason. Requesting an immediate indefinite block.

-Zero 03:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for indefinite. No foolin.--MONGO 05:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redundant -1 Cyde Weys 16:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Xyloyl (talk · contribs). First edits removing entries from list of Zephram sockpuppets. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, with this username, he now has a sockpuppet beginning with every letter of the alphabet (see Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Zephram Stark). --JW1805 (Talk) 15:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Someone please block this one, he's still reverting. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Bang. Doc please. Have you ever thought of RfA for yourself? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Now check out Iceni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the madness never ends!!!! --TML1988 15:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Mm-hm. It's really not much different from when he was at least pretending to try to be a useful contributor to Wkpda -- a dogged persistance and self-centeredness that paid no regard to community or collateral effects. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Joshuaz": Misleading username

User:Joshuaz (contributions), who signs himself "JoshuaZ", clearly knows of the existence of User:JoshuaZ and may well have a beef with him. (See this.) -- Hoary 08:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on JoshuaZ's talk page asking him about it. --FloNight 11:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The user certainly isn't me. I strongly suspect that the user is 67.183.90.139 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (see his talk page especially, he seems to think I'm someone from some "zerohorizon.com" forum.) This may be the same person who is at 67.160.125.47. JoshuaZ 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

While we're here does someone want to explain on his talk page that saying "However, if it makes you feel better" is not a violation of WP:NPA and probably not a violation of WP:CIVIL either or alternatively, tell me if I'm wrong here? JoshuaZ 17:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can someone take a look at whatever is going on at the Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Funkastophales? The same anon seems to now be claiming that a) the Joshuaz account was not that user (I am strongly skeptical of this) and has furthermore produced screen shots claiming to show someone using this user name at zerohorizon forum to engage in attacks and inflammatory rhetoric. The screen shots also show the individual having a link to my Misplaced Pages user page in their sig. This is ridiculous for among other reasons, 1) I don't use my user page as a personal webpage by any stretch of the imagination and explicitly frown upon extra material on user pages (and say so on my user page). 2) The user that this individual claims is me also uses vulgar vocab that I think everyone who knows me on Misplaced Pages would know that I don't use in disputes. Can some impartial admin please get to the bottom of this? My current guess is that User:Benapgar(who i was involved in getting indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages) is behind this. Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert war looming at Community Portal

See also Misplaced Pages talk:Community Portal and User talk:Go for it!. It might be a good idea to protect that portal page for a while to force those involved to discuss their views. Kosebamse 12:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Informative +1 Cyde Weys 16:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NCV sock

Edheimer Beer-Drinks (talk · contribs · count) would appear to be a sockpuppet for the north carolina vandal. Edits include blanking WP:NCV and using names associated with the vandal. Kuru 15:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Informative +1 Cyde Weys 16:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; that's exactly who it is (I had blocked his IP range for three hours last night because he was making tons of attack accounts). I blocked E B-D and tagged it as NCV. Antandrus (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ruhollah Khomeini

Users constantly reverting article to their POV version while ignoring (and not continuing participation in) discussion and sources on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. SouthernComfort 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• +1 Underrated Cyde Weys 16:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • +1 Troll --SPUI (talk - RFC) 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? SouthernComfort 17:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See Cyde's new user page. JoshuaZ 17:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. SouthernComfort 17:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. --kingboyk 17:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Absolutely horrible, terrible, and ill-conceived. SouthernComfort 18:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Knock it off, Cyde. User:Zoe| 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels (imposter)

I believe the following account may be Willy on Wheels or a Willy on Wheels imposter (bold accounts have not been blocked yet:

• Facts&moreFacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Earthling37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robot32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Steve1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fargo3455 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Science3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nintendo5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GarageDoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Remohol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richard_F. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shoppers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snowball_Earth_Hypothesis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StarTrek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Troogol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not sure about this one.
• 64.192.107.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 64.194.44.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Proposed to move the Main Page to Main Page on wheels today.
• 64.194.44.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Appart from the similarity in user names they also have the same edit behaviour:

• Have edited Names of large numbers, Other names of large numbers, Jonathan Bowers or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Other names of large numbers.
• Has a user page staing something along the lines "Hi, I'm from Florida. Here a lot of oranges grow and there's a lot of sunshine." or "Hello. I've been reading about the snowball Earth hypothesis."
• Edits "dictionary enties" (e.g. articles like Utility sink or Fire alarm).
• Votes on a few AfDs.
• Moves several articles to change the capitalization.
• Gets blocked for (possibly) being Willy on Wheels or page move vandalism.

Should they be blocked now or should we wait until they are used for page move vandalism? —Ruud 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Block'em. User:Zscout370 20:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I've been able to track them all down (see Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Science3456). —Ruud 00:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User:65.69.154.91 at Chad "Corntassel" Smith

Bringing related incidents together. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chad "Corntassel" Smith Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:PeyoteMan blocked Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johnc1 at Chad "Corntassel" Smith

• Currently 65.69.154.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly inserting the content from a full newspaper article, of course copyright violation. Multiple warnings without results and needs a block.

This is part of larger attack on this article. Summary of collected incidents.

• Registered user Johnc1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on a one week block for similar editing problems on this page.

• PeyoteMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) block as a sockpuppet reincarnation of Jeff Merkey also targeted this article.

• 67.169.249.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is putting messages on a multiple administrator/editor's user talk pages making assertions about these incidents. Good Samaritan or attention seeking behavior?

• talks_to_birds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also weighing in on the incident.

Not sure how much of this is a single or multiple users? --FloNight 18:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Uga booga

I don't know where to report blocks for approval. (Originally I did in Misplaced Pages:Account suspensions, but it seems that about nobody looks there anymore. So I am trying here.) Anyway: Uga_booga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) thinks it's fun to upload nonsense images to Misplaced Pages and replace proper ones with them (and to add a few cases of userpage vandalism for good measure); I have blocked him indefinitely. Seems to be related to Commons user Assdonkey. - Mike Rosoft 19:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Doc glasgow making personal attacks on other users.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Doc_glasgow?diff=prev&oldid=46494842
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Doc_glasgow?diff=next&oldid=46494842

Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s only recent contributions have been revert warring, blanking debates against policy ("A page listed for undeletion should remain on DRV for at least five days": Misplaced Pages:Undeletion_policy#Restoring_the_page_.28for_admins.29)on Deletion Review) and talking to me so it's quite obvious he's calling me a "troll". This is a personal attack (WP:NPA and he should be blocked for repeated personal attacks like any other user would. Bob, just Bob 20:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see personal attacks in either of the difs you provide. Those statements are not aimed at anyone one person. He's only calling you a troll if you are one, no? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Bob, just Bob (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Essjay (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for a 3RR violation on WP:DRV. Calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Bob, just Bob for 24 hours for violation of the Three Revert Rule at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates. The diffs are listed below for information purposes. Essjay 20:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Reverts Doc Glasgow
• Reverts again
• Reverts pgk
• Reverts NicholasTurnbull

I have not edit warred (unlike our friend). I delisted bad faith DRV nominations, archived the debates, and clearly marked up what I was doing. I have answered Bob's points patiently on the talk page of DRV and on my own talk page. As to whether he could be called a troll, I could not possible comment. --Doc 21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Though only editor misbehaving here is the one accusing Doc of misbehavior. Jayjg

Pro-Lick/Halliburton Shill, sockpuppetry and disruption

Halliburton_Shill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for an inappropriate user name, and his user page was deleted as an attack page. He had been involved briefly in the Abortion article. As he was blocked for his user name, rather than for misconduct, he was free to return under a new identity, and I suspected very soon that Pro-Lick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was Halliburton Shill under a new name, with the same POV, the same rudeness towards people who opposed his POV, and the same habit of deleting other editors' comments from his talk page.

Pro-Lick began to edit war, violated 3RR several times (generally in his effort to remove "death" from the definition of abortion), and inserted extraordinarily POV edits into the abortion article. See for example, this (which he put in after I had said on the talk page that the word "death" doesn't imply that the fetus is human, and that I had recently taken antibiotics to kill an infection, and which is probably a violation of WP:POINT), and this. He was disruptive on the talk page as well, inserting links to comics and cartoons designed to ridicule the opposing POV.

He was blocked earlier this week for 3RR. During the block, some new users began to revert to his version. It was reported at WP:RFCU, and Essjay found that AbortMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cry_Me_a_Shill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Vote_Machine_Malfunction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were the same user as Halliburton Shill and Pro-Lick. There was also technical evidence strongly suggesting that Undermined (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ban.wma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were connected to the Pro-Lick sockpuppets. Another suspected sockpuppet, Curettage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started editing after the check was run, and so there are no results for that editor.

Despite being reset a few times, Pro-Lick's block expired today, and he edited his user page to link to his blog. The blog encourages people to come and disrupt Misplaced Pages, and to edit war.

Thursday 30 March

And speaking of spying extremists ... if you're looking for some interactive fun, head over to Misplaced Pages's entry on Abortion. Only need to make up a username and password to sign-up. In return, you get to edit any entries you like, your own user page, and a chat page.

They are having a fit over me in their little chat area. I am Pro-Lick, BTW. They didn’t like my other name. Apparently in their quest to put their enemy to death, they’ve been accusing other users of being me and banning them.

Make the definition beautiful. You'll get plenty of funny messages in return. There are some real-life religious fanatics trying hard to control the content, and any changes that don't include "death" drive them into a frenzy.

Some suggestions:

• Abortion liberates the uterus.
• Abortion is like a shower for the uterus.
• Abortion cleanses the uterus of bio-contaminants.
• Abortion is fertilization for flowers.
• Abortion frees the uterus of extremist elements.
• Abortion liberates the female from imposed pregnancy.
• Abortion liberates the female from a pregnant dictatorship.

I’ll stop by tonight some time and contribute. Enjoy yourselves and don’t take them seriously. Don’t respond (unless you want to prod them a bit further). Like the supreme court, none of them actually listen. You get 3 changes per 24 hours on any article, so you can switch your changes back twice if someone undoes them. Then you can move on to the pro-life entry and make changes on it, and so on. Narf.

Some of those suggestions have found their way into edits in the last two days:

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

• edit summary: a beautiful def; edit: An abortion liberates the female from a pregnant ]].
• edit summary: another beautiful def; edit: An abortion cleanses the uterus of bio-contaminants.
• edit summary: grammar fix; edit: An abortion liberates the uterus.
• edit summary: refine; edit: An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus, liberating the womb of terrorist organisms that threaten the woman's life.

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

• edit summary: beautify definition; edit: An abortion is fertilization for flowers.

It's impossible to believe that this isn't deliberate disruption and trolling, and it is very clear that these edits either come directly from Pro-Lick or at least through him. I don't want to have to request a new user check every 24 hours, and I'd appreciate some help in dealing with this. Perhaps some other admins could keep an eye on Pro-Lick's behaviour and edits. I feel that Annalina should be blocked, for disruption and for being either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Pro-Lick, but I'm heavily involved in the article myself and have the opposite POV. I do not think that those edits could be just innocent, misguided NPOV violations, especially as some are taken verbatim from Pro-Lick's blog. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 20:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: another edit from Annalina a few minutes ago changed the definition of abortion to:

An abortion liberates the uterus from an oppressive fetal regime.

The edit summary was: "an attempt to beautify the writing".

This is not just a content dispute: this is consistent with what Pro-Lick was calling for on his blog — that people would join Misplaced Pages and change the definition of abortion to something like the examples quoted above. AnnH ♫ 23:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been banned for a week (and have learned my lesson) over much less than this crap that pro-lick is pulling. Good 23:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. - RoyBoy 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been busy IRL and have not been keeping as close an eye on this article as I usually do; I intend to immediately block anyone making this type edit if I see it, for disruption. If anyone disagrees, of course they are welcome to unblock and tell me how wrong I am. KillerChihuahua 10:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Any suspected socks should continue to be reported at RFCU, as a check of one tends to turn up several others. I don't remember the ISP off the top of my hands, but I think a rangeblock could be considered without too much collateral damage if the sockpuppetry continues. Essjay 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I hae blocked Pro-Lick because of his continuing disruptive behavior (inviting other people to disrupt Misplaced Pages is just the most recent), but I have been questioned about this by a couple of other editors, so have brought it here. If somebody wants to unblock him, I will not object, but I think he deserves to remain blocked until he agrees to stop the disruption. User:Zoe| 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the first I've looked at any of this, but that sort of invitation to vandalize, combined with active vandalizing, seems entirely appropriate to block on sight. · Katefan0/poll 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would block on sight anyone who inserts any of the phrases mentioned. --kingboyk 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was very tempted to block Annalina, when I saw those edits, but was a bit uncomfortable doing so, as I edit that article and hold the opposite point of view. A more recent user check has confirmed that Curettage is definitely a Pro-Lick sockpuppet. Essjay's comments concerning Annalina were: "As for Annalina, if it smells like HS/PL it probably is, but the checkuser is inconclusive. There is, however, a vandal sock farm coming off that IP, mixed in with some legitimate editing." As far as I know, Annalina is the only editor with a known or suspected connection to Pro-Lick who is not currently blocked.

And by the way, I fully endorse Zoe's block of Pro-Lick. I have edited collaboratively with many Wikipedians who had opposite POVs from mine, but this is just disruption, trolling, and vandalism, with no intention to respect Misplaced Pages policy. AnnH ♫ 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I fully support blocking on sight any editors who make those edits you cited above, Ann. If Annalina makes another bad-faith edit, and I see it, a book will be thrown. Zoe's block of Pro-Lick seems to me entirely appropriate, under Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience. I've received an email from Pro-lick asking me to review that block (as, I suspect, have many admins). I replied on his/her talk page that I'm willing to support an unblock based on a convincing show of good faith - for which I'm not holding my breath. Naturally I still wouldn't unblock without input from others, including Zoe, the blocking admin. -GTBacchus 21:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I could have held my breath. Pro-Lick and I have exchanged emails, and I'm ready to support unblocking the account, and to unblock it or reduce the block myself based on our communication. I feel that Pro-Lick has expressed an understanding that hir behavior has crossed lines, a willingness to adapt and edit more cooperatively, and a desire to help with the project, evidenced by examples of better-faith editing shortly before the block. I've notified Zoe, and I'm also posting here, so if anyone has any concerns... -GTBacchus 06:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Deathrocker abusing Talk Page during 1 month Block

After a stanious 1 month block after the offences listed on this evidence page, the user had his talk page protected due to consistantly removing admin warnings and directing abuse at admins. The user kept placing the unblock template on his talk page, abusing several admins, and removing their denied unblocks from his talk page. The user eventually had his talk page protected and used a sockpuppet to disrupt the ANI board, logged int he archives. The user has since deleted all the warnings from his talk page when the page was unprotected , violating WP Policy, his Abbirition Ruling and his 1 Month Block. Ley Shade 21:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I assumed too much good faith in asking User:Freakofnurture to unprotect the talk page. It has been reprotected. Stifle 22:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Road moves clarification

We've had some misunderstandings regarding the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive84 decision to block any mass page moves. Requesting permission to block any user who does massive page moves on sight. We have many mechanisms to make sure that users know of this block, including posting a note on {{Project U.S. Roads}}, {{U.S. Roads WikiProject}}, {{California State Highway WikiProject}}, etc. This is because people are moving as many pages as they can then claiming ignorance of this when they are warned. Colorado and Delaware and parts of Washington have been moved in this way. Since no actual blocks have come (except for a 15 minute one), we need to tighten this up so that users cannot game the system. I call on other admins to enforce this with me (so that I don't look like the bad guy). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

All two pages in Delaware were moved to their correct names. Colorado was what, eight? Your claim that this was disruption does not hold up. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We're looking at the entire state highway system of the United States. If we don't do this then the 1,500+ state highway pages will eventually be moved. How does that not disrupt Misplaced Pages? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How does it disrupt Misplaced Pages to move them to the correct names? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

They're not the correct names. Also, there is no consensus, and this destroys the power of it. Then people will revert your moves. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

People don't need to get consensus before making ANY EDIT as you seem to think they do. Misplaced Pages would grind to a crawl if we accepted your idea that everything needs to be discussed before being done. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but to move 300 pages you do need consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Are you ignoring be bold in updating pages? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Consensus? Misplaced Pages:Disruption? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong and wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC) -- To be clear, neither page says you must get consensus before making edits. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM does. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Two things: 1) it's neither a policy nor a guideline, and 2) it specifically says only disputed moves should be brought there (and generally emphasises moves which cannot be fixed without the assistance of a sysop (where the desired target already exists and is not a redirect)). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course these are disputed moves. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying every move of a highway article is going to be disputed by you? That sounds like disruption to me... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First, you don't unilaterally expand the blocking policy (in your own favor, I might add) here on AN/I. Second, you don't enforce this not-policy on editors you're involved in the dispute with (namely, me) as you've done. Third, you don't abuse your sysop powers by demanding people you're in conflict with stop doing the actions you dispute to get unblocked (as you did with me). It is highly inappropriate and wrong. It also violates WP:BLOCK (specifically, the section titled "When not to block"). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not in my own favor- we can't move the State Route 1 (California) pages back, there are some that are stuck there for now. And what am I supposed to do- wait for another sysop to respond while you move all 200 Washington State Route pages? The policy was handed down, I only enforced it. What is more, you were unblocked for 15 minutes by myself. Don;t omit that critical fact. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This so-called policy applied to move warring, which doesn't apply to Locke Cole's Washington moves. It may however apply to PHenry's reverts. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and don't omit the critical fact that you demanded that I agree not to move any pages before you'd unblock me. Maybe just a little conflict of interest there, eh? And I'd hardly call your position a poor one: just because a few pages are at names you don't prefer, the vast majority are still at the names you prefer. Finally, nothing was "handed down" (and I use the term in quotes because that's not how policy is expanded) that grants you the right to violate WP:BLOCKs "when not to block". —Locke Cole • t • c 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the blocking decision: get people to stop moving pages until we can come to a decision. SPUI would not agree to this (diff on RFC page) so we had to implement the blocking measure.

You don't get it: you don't have the authority to create some rule here on AN/I. Further, as an involved party, you don't have the right to enforce blocks as you've done with me. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but we have the ability to interpret rules. And I didn;t do the interpretation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not when you're involved in the dispute you don't. And you certainly can't expand existing policy on a whim and with little outside discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So you would rather that I have reported it to this page or WP:AIV? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if reporting it to WP:AIV would have done any good (it's a content dispute, not vandalism), but yes, reporting it here and asking for assistance is entirely appropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically, admins don't check this page that often. What is one supposed to do when someone is mass-moving pages and you can't block? Wait while even more pages are moved? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually, because if there's some problem it can all be undone. (Please see Deferred gratification). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not when we can't revert the pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Who says you can't? I'm not the one making it impossible to revert moves. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 02:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, we don't have the permission to. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A condition arbitrarily imposed. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 02:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to even bring this up, because everyone who speaks up about SPUI seems to end up getting harassed by his clique, but, um... oh, just look. In case anyone's given any thought to User:Rschen7754's request for clarification up there, assuming anyone besides us even cares anymore, someone might want to, um, do something about it. Or not. Whatever. Doesn't matter anymore. --phh 04:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's fixing a number of Rhode Island pages. Good job SPUI! —Locke Cole • t • c 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Well, never mind then. --phh 04:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Against WP:NC/NH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhm.. no. As below, it was decided each state should be handled individually. He's doing this. What's the problem now? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Noisy reverting Template:hndis

{{hndis}} is just finishing a TfD. Noisy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just started reverting the template to an older version, with an older category name (merged and deleted a week ago). Since there are many hundreds of pages using this template, putting the pages into a category that doesn't exist is "problematic". Could somebody ensure that the template it at my last version, and protect it until the end of TfD, please.

--William Allen Simpson 23:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems that posting here was enough to stop the action. Wonder whether Noisy has had problems before and is watching this page. Ahhh yes, appears to be some issues in the past. OK, thanks!

--William Allen Simpson 01:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Life returns to normal

Just you wait though, 365 days from now it's gonna be chaos. --Cyde Weys 00:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for community ban of -Inanna-

Hello all. I've just blocked -Inanna- (talk · contribs) for 5 days. He/she was blocked on March 27 for 48 hours for the sixth 3RR block, which doesn't include three further blocks for block evasion, and two for incivility and personal attacks. In the day or so since Inanna's block expires, she has performed a further three reverts at Turkish people, made a very unsettling move of Turkey (yes, the very high profile country article) to Turkiye without discussion, removed talk page comments , performed a bunch of other reverts as well , etc. (see contribs), and been increasingly uncivil, with comments like "rv greek racism", you have no information about anything, just doing nationalistic propaganda, Jews don't feel shame...you suppose yourself you are really a jew.What a pity., And you request adminship with that POV..., As Shakespeare said "Jews are very proffesional at lying".Do you want more? By the way, the jew only whose mother is jewish is not at a jewish.They are only victims..., Listen to me now, kurdi! That's none of your affair what i am and i know very well who i am.I AM NOT A JEW AND I AM %100 ORIGINAL TURKISH!! Moreover Jews are trying to show themselves same with you against Turkey because their power is not enough against us(your's also for sure).Don't make me sick, be a good boy and obey your lorddess..., Australian source was added again and reverted greek and serbo nationalistic vandal....

This is all from yesterday and today. And this user has a very long history of such edit warring, attacks, and frankly, inability to work within the collaborative system we have here. I recommend that we extend the block to indefinite and make it a community ban along these lines, but of course, would like to hear the community consensus on such a move before acting. Inanna is temporarily blocked for 5 days presently. Thank you. Dmcdevit·t 00:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Banning looks good to me. --Doc 00:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. This sort of behaviour is unnacceptable.--Sean Black 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• I look at this user's talk page, and I look at some of their contributions; including the recent move of Turkey, and I can't say that I could dispute a 5 day block; and I can't say that I'd dispute an indefinite block, either. Rob Church (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support —Ruud 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• No problems from my end. User:Zscout370 01:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Block for a period of no less than one month. --Cyde Weys 01:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• 5 days is way too short in this case. What is this person contributing to the encyclopedia other than strong POV and indeed hatred? --kingboyk 13:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The user has made at least one good edit about Mediterranean history related topics. However, the vast majority of edits are, as you said "strong POV and indeed hatred." JoshuaZ 14:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• I longer ban seems wise, although I'm not convinced it will make a difference. But why not try a month or so (quick polls back again eh?) -- sannse (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not digging my heels in over this point by the way, I could also live with a longer ban - just a suggestion for consideration -- sannse (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User:GoogleMe engaging in serial vandalism on articles and userpages

User GoogleMe has engaged in serial vandalism on articles, especially Children of Bodom, in regards to the liking and disliking of the band by himself. Myself and other members of Misplaced Pages Project Metal Music have reverted this user several times for his unjustified attacks against users and vandalism on articles, being warned against this by Ruud . GoogleMe has however ignored this and is now using his user page to directly insult every and all users who reverted him, labelling them Dorks . The user also vandalised my user page , and blanked his talk page of personal attacks and vandalism warnings twice after being warned not to, , . This user is also refusing to follow WP:NPOV and WP:CITE and has threatened to vandalise the policy pages. Immediate action is required. Ley Shade 23:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Khoikhoi 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 01:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To save anyone else checking, he's already been unblocked. --kingboyk 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI breaking state highway page move warring thing

SPUI has started mass moving pages again. This time in Rhode Island. I've approached WP:RPP, but in the meantime... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat again: there is nothing wrong with mass moving pages. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Here I have full consensus between me and Analogdemon, who wrote all the articles, and is responsible for the majority of edits to them. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But not at WP:NC/NH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, WP:NC/NHs straw poll (see talk page there) seemed to decide that every state should be handled individually. SPUI is doing this. Where's the problem? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Whether it was a State Route, State Highway, State Road, etc- that was state by state. Whether to use parentheses or put the state in front of the name was to be across the country. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC/NH doesn't say anything about a standard across the country for disambiguating state roads. It does say that "Each highway falls into an individual and specific numbering system, ... Each system shall be considered on its own when deciding naming conventions." Nothing in there says or even implies that a single disambiguation convention is to be applied to every highway system. --All in 05:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page though, that was the agreement we came to. The project page is pretty outdated. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

This article is being hit several times in the last day by anon vandals. Many of the attacks have been the removal of the image at the bottom of the page, but there have been other hits as well. User:Zoe| 03:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Autoshade for one week for repeatedly removing the image, even though he/she was warned. User:Zoe| 18:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User:JoshuaZ - impersonating an Admin

Leaving threatening notes and reverting on my talk page: User_talk:Pro-Lick

I left standard warnings. I don't know why Pro-Lick thinks that I impersonated an admin. JoshuaZ 03:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I don't seem to see the problem with JoshuaZ's warnings. joturner 04:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I left his last revert and threat up. I have no history with JoshuaZ and have no idea why a message was left for me (provided no link to what the user suposedly had a problem with). Incidentally, shortly after JoshuaZ was done abusing editing privileges, User:Zoe vandalized http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Pro-Lick&action=history my user page]. It could be that Zoe is JoshuaZ or that they are teaming up to waste my time.--Pro-Lick 04:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

He may be referring to your edit summary here (hopefully he'll respond here again), although that is a rather mild incivil edit summary. Now for the other two, those should be a little more obvious as you twice removed his warning. Zoe removed the link because, as her edit summary says, she deemed it inappropriate. I don't really see the link as inappropriate, but even if it was she should not have removed it unless it was extremely inappropriate. Nevertheless, that does not constitute vandalism, but a well-intentioned edit. You could have responded to both of these issues by talking to them on their respective talk pages instead of accusing Joshua of impersonating an admin (which he was not doing and is almost impossible anyway) and sockpuppetry as well as accusing Zoe of vandalism. Next time, assume good faith. joturner 04:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the relevant edit summaries were actually Anencephaly, sometimes also known as biblebeltinbreadism more sources, less conspiracy original research) which were the last straw to the point where I had to make a comment (a few hours prior an edit summary refered to "useless whining" among others). JoshuaZ 04:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Zoe cited this page for her rationale for deleting the link. So her change may have been warranted after all. joturner 04:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Having had the sock account Halliburton_Shill (talk · contribs) blocked, the removal of the link by Zoe appears appropriate and is unquestionably not vandalism. Just zis Guy you know? 11:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark: I recommend a permanent ban

Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), of late, has been increasingly trolly, in reaction to the dispute over the {{user review}} userbox. He was recently blocked for personal attacks, and has responded by creating a number of sockpuppets which he has used to blank articles and to continue his personal attacks. I am blocking him indefinitely and recommend that he be considered banned by the community. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I have blocked Blu's ISP (72.160.0.0/16) for 1 hour; his response to this block was to create even more sockpuppets and vandalize even more of Misplaced Pages. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a lie, Kelly. After my page blanking and a reset of my modem, I made a single statement on your talk page. That wasn't "vandalizing more of wikipedia", but mis-representing facts.... well, you're good at that. After the range block, I wasn't able to get an IP outside of that range (although if I was determined enough, I could have), so any vandalism that occured during the hour block was not from me. --72.160.87.87 14:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced at this point that this is an editor who has no place editing here any longer. His presence serves only to cause harm to our encyclopedia, and I fully support the ban. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My spidey sense started tingling, so I checked meta on a hunch and caught him in the act of massive vandalism. Good thing he'd only been at it 4 minutes. Raul654 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Commons Raul654 05:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In light of I see no reason why this individual should not be banned from all projects. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care if you ban me from all projects. Really. I have no intention of ever contributing to your "encyclopedia" again, after the way I have been treated. Numerous admins have been rude, unreasonable, and unresponsive to reasonable requests. Don't act all surprised that I got pissy and went on a vandalism spree. You block my account for a month, for no reason other than that I called a few users, who happened to have made some trollish statements towards me or about me, trolls. I respond, quite upset, and eventually I'm able to negotiate an arrangement to solve the dispute. Then a single admin decides, "Oh, I'm not going to let that happen", misquotes one of WP:ALPHABETSOUP, and reverts and protects my page. I am quite pissed about this, so I take it up with the admin in question, who not only ignores my complaint, he reverts my statements and blocks the accounts. After about four or five tries, I say "fuck Misplaced Pages", and I Special:Randompage it. But why does this surprise anyone? You treat a person like you have treated me, and legitimately expect me not to bite back? (Yeah, I know some cunt is going to revert this statement and block this IP, probably for some ridiculous amount of time, but seriously, what is it going to accomplish for your wannabe "encyclopedia" to do it, other than alienating me, and possibly some other members of your community? It will accomplish the "NeedToPowerTrip", but what does that have to do with writing an "encyclopedia"?)

For one, it'll get rid of a child throwing a temper tantrum and wanting his diaper changed for him for a while. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice. You make a lovely little personal attack like that and then block my IP indefinately, blocking me from responding to it. Oh, that's a dynamic IP, BTW. You might want to reduce or remove that block, because it's possible that a legitimate user may end up with it at a later point. --72.160.73.242 07:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

An all-project ban certainly seems appropriate. Vandalism sprees are never justified, and users that engage in such activity are harmful to the project. Indefinitely blocking users who engage in petty vandalism is a long-standing practice and an appropriate action, in my opinion. Are you really asking what purpose blocking a vandal will serve the encyclopedia, Blu Aardvark? It may alienate the vandal, certainly, but will also help us fight vandalism, which is more important, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism was a foolish thing to do, granted, as were the sockpuppets, but seriously, I felt like I was being attacked and mistreated, and I fought back with the limited tools I had. When you treat a user like you have treated me, and then block all avenues of dispute resolution, you effectively escalate the dispute. I suppose the assumption was, "Well, we'll just make it so that he can't talk about it, or otherwise resolve the dispute, and maybe it will go away. Besides, there is no dispute, because he's not in the first group referred to by Raul's first law, and therefore is in the second.". I didn't vandalize until I was alienated, and all avenues of resolving the dispute had been cut off. I'm not very appreciative of the fact that, when I was actually making some progress in resolving the conflict, someone cuts the process short and says, "We don't do that here". --72.160.73.242 07:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt attacked and mistreated, but if your fighting style involves damaging the encyclopedia, then I don't believe you have any place here. I am not familiar with your dispute, but forms of dispute resolution available to blocked users include e-mailing the mailing list or e-mailing administrators asking them to review the situation. Vandalizing is never appropriate. I have not treated you in any manner, as far as I recall. I don't believe we have ever encountered you before. I am sorry you felt alienated and I don't wish users to be in such a position, but if this is the way you respond to alienation, then I would ask that you find some other project of which to be a part. I don't wish to be rude, but in looking at the edits you have made, it appears you are more interested in some sort of revenge than in improving Misplaced Pages, and that's really not the sort of editor I'd like to see here. Your comments above imply to me that you still feel your vandalism was somehow justified. I am sorry that matters came together to such an extent to cause you to feel it was appropriate to respond in this way. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid we never had a dispute, you and I. Primarily, my dispute was between Raul654, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and NicholasTurnbull, and a few other users. In other words, the High Cabal, and SlimVirgin and Friends™ - admins who think that they are above the rules, because none of the policies and guidelines matter if they pretend that they are interested in the "encyclopedia".  ::::::::Again, I'm not really concerned if I am banned or not, which is why my mini vandalism spree doesn't greatly concern me. I cannot expect to get sufficient respect from the High Cabal so long as I contribute under the name "Blu Aardvark". If I do eventually decide to come back, it will be as my sockpuppet - the only one I haven't abused, or even used in recent weeks (which is why Raul couldn't find it in his obsessive CheckUser search). A fresh start may do wonders for myself and for the encycloblog. For now, an apology from SlimVirgin for libelling me in every damn place she could would be in order - that's where my dispute primariy lies. --72.160.73.242 09:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with a permanent ban, on the grounds that the initial ban 36 hours ago was done in poor faith. --Golbez 07:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So do you believe then that if a block is done in poor faith (I'm not going to agree or disagree with you on that), then the user is quite justified in evading that block to vandalise wikipedia? Is that an expression of good faith on the part of the blocked user? --pgk 08:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying there was a rapid escalation of action and bad faith on both sides, and this needs to be addressed, rather than simply walking away happy to have banned him. --Golbez 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like someone involved to respond to this. --Golbez 18:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark has some good edits in the past with vandalism reversion, and I agree with him that policy is not followed enough these days. However, his personal attacks on DRV against SlimVirgin in particular are way off the rocker, and his sockpuppeteering displays a lack of sincerity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read, on Misplaced Pages Review forum, his admissions of sock puppetry, and witnessed his vandalism on Misplaced Pages, I don't think the good faith that was extended by me and others towards this editor in the past was merited. He is still openly boasting about having one undetected, unblocked sock. He also boasts about four undetected socks that are blocked, which suggests that he always abused Misplaced Pages while using the Blu Aardvark account for legitimate edits. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very damning. --Golbez 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

begging the question, if a user splits his editing behaviour between his socks to the point of schizophrenia, should he be considered a single editor, or several unrelated editors? I agree that Blu's behaviour on that forum ("wikipediareview.com"? o_O) merit a permanent ban. If he has any interest in continuing good faith contributions, let him use his undiscovered socks: that's the good thing about anonymity here, you can always start over with a clean slate. dab (ᛏ) 15:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit Conflict Mis-representative. The four "undetected" socks were blocked by Raul654 for being Lir, in a bit of a WP:POINT action I was taking that, IMO, improved Misplaced Pages, because it reminded admins to act with a little caution when reverting edits. Yes, I'm my own "friend". Meet User:Orange Flowerpot, User:Another Orange Flowerpot, User:Yet Another Orange Flowerpot, and User:Neon Orange Flowerpot. Whatever. It doesn't really matter now, so I'll just let the secret out of the bag. --72.160.78.81 15:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Damned by his own words. --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised at Blu Aardvark's behaviour as demonstrated above. He always seemed like a reasonable guy on IRC and on the old Misplaced Pages Review. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You all went about this thing the wrong way in the first place. Are you that surprised that someone lost faith and sanity in the project when they are attacked and question from 500 different angles by a dozen different admins? His own talkpage was protected while he was blocked, effectively making him unable to defend himself, so the only way he could was through anon IPs and sockpuppets. His past messages, most of which consisted of relatively normal conversation, were erased from his talkpage by admins. Maybe you need to re-examine the way you approach these bans and blocks, because when you accuse someone of being a troll or a vandal, erase their messages, and then you don't give them the chance to defend their character, chances are they will become a deviant, because they have nowhere left to speak, no one to speak to, and no way left to speak. You admins are the ones who set an example for mere users like Blu and I, but in this situation, it seems like all you did was sink to his level, and when that failed, you sought to ignore his plight. Blu Aardvark really can't really be spared now, he's not what he used to be, but don't think that he, and only he, did this. Next time, you take one or two admins to straighten it out, not a mass brigade of sysops.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 22:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rhobite, revert warring on the George W. Bush article and personal attacks

There's a revert war going on on the George W. Bush article, in which Rhobite (an admin) has participated in up to the maximum '3 per day'. I understand how heated opinions can get on a prominent article like that, but I believe he has acted inappropriately.

He deleted a section of text from the article, which I didn't revert - but questioned on talk. He did not answer my request for his rationale and participation before revert warring, but instead waited a few days and then this evening proceeded to game 3RR (00:54, 29 March 2006, 01:24, 2 April 2006, 01:35, 2 April 2006, 01:43, 2 April 2006) and level an unwarranted and unseemly personal attack at me on his talk page:

"you and Kevin are both single-issue editors whose main goal here is to malign George W. Bush." .

I don't think that's appropriate. While I am active on a number of political articles, it's not the sole focus of my work here and such revert warring and personal attacks are unbecoming of an administrator. I've not accused him of such bias despite our political differences and don't deserve this kind of personal attack, which is certainly against the assumption of Good Faith that is at the very heart of Misplaced Pages. I'm also glad to move this to an RfC if that's more appropriate. Can other admins provide some insight and comments? Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• How is that gaming 3RR? A four-day space between his first and second reverts suggests to me that attempts at discussion were ignored/failed. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:10 UTC (2006-04-02)

Rhobite made no attempt in that time frame for discussion, despite my specific request. I likewise left his edit unreverted in good faith, hoping he'd discuss it. Gaming became evident in when he continued to revert twice more in sequence, after posting his message that he hadn't even read the relevant discussion on 'talk' before proceeding to revert anyway. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 08:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Double standards, anyone? You reverted the same number of times as me. I don't enjoy reverting but when you put overtly biased text into the lead of George W. Bush, I don't really feel that I have a choice. Not only that, you still haven't responded to my note on Talk:George W. Bush explaining why I am removing this text. But somehow I'm the bad guy here. You and Kevin Baas are two editors who have spent over a year mainly attempting to use Misplaced Pages to push the theory that Bush stole the 2004 election. I don't think it's a stretch to call you a single-issue editor. Sorry if that offends you. Rhobite 07:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just a repeat of your prior personal attack upon Kevin and me, and it's unwarranted. I didn't put the text in, I only questioned your deletion of it. Moreover, you are an administrator. You should be setting a higher standard, not leveling personal attacks at editors and revert warring. You should be acting as an example of even-handedness and assuming good faith. You ignored my inquiries and commenced a revert war, only answering when you'd reached 3 reverts. Last - please stop personal attacks and assume good faith - I've done the same! I am not a single-issue editor, and your comment is offensive. You should apologize for the comment, not my offense. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

These are just lies, anyone who looks at my edit history can verify that I posted a reply on Talk:George W. Bush immediately after my first revert. I've done nothing wrong. Rhobite 07:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're not lies. I was mistaken that you posted to talk after your 2nd revert (and after 2 days of silence). You reverted twice without posting, not four times. My apology for the mistake.

However, in light of your accusations that I am lying, I reiterate my request for you to assume good faith. I'm not lying, and I'm not a single-issue editor. My work and my behavior speaks volumes to that effect. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any issue here. Baseless. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:54 UTC (2006-04-02)

Is describing me by stating my 'main goal here is to malign George W. Bush.' not a personal attack? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rude and incivil at best, but it's not a personal attack. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:59 UTC (2006-04-02)

The definition of personal attack at No Personal Attacks states that using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme is a personal attack, and instructs us to Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is. Is Rhobite's comment (especially in context) not such an attempt to discredit my and Kevin's views? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 08:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Ryan. It's rude, incivil and a personal attack. Rhobite should strike the comments immediately. Guettarda 08:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rhobite does seen a bit incivil here, I am not sure about NPA yet, at least not seriously. Though it takes 2+ to edit war. I don't see Rhobite as a reverting warring. If he is, then so are the others...He also does not seem to just be reverting without explanation. Betweeen the summaries and the talk page, I see no major wrong doing. I would say that some of Ryan's reasoning for including the text is against WP:OR; the exact ramifications of FISA and domestic spying still seem to be debated. I will explain on talk more, but I don't want to get into content here. I have to agre with NLSE, that there is no AN/I worthy issue just yet.Voice-of-All 08:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rhobite specifically said he reverted without reading the discussion surrounding the text. I reverted his deletions when it was clear he made them without participating or reading the discussion. While I participated in the discussion and he did not, we are both guilty of revert warring, for sure. However, the personal attacks are what prompted this AN/I. Nevertheless, I do appreciate you contributing your point of view and expertise. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 08:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

While Rhobite could have behaved slightly better, there's clearly no abuse of his admin powers here, and you could have behaved slightly better as well. People bumping back and forth somewhat incivilly is to be discouraged, but this doesn't rise to the level of an abuse incident IMHO. Nor a revert war; bouncing something back and forth a few times a week isn't a war. A few times a day, between two parties, is the beginnings of a war. A dozen or so times a day, that's a war. You both can calm down and behave a little better, but no reason for anyone else to get involved from outside (so far). Georgewilliamherbert 08:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

By saying Rhobite 'could have behaved slightly better', does that mean 'Rhobite shouldn't have called RyanFreisling a 'single-issue editor, whose goal is to malign GWB'? Because that was pretty blatant and that's why I'm here. I was happy to walk away from the revert war when 3RR was reached (and did), but the personal attack on Kevin Baas and me on the basis of our political views was and is unwarranted in my eyes. I'm a well-intentioned WIkipedia editor and have made many valuable contributions to many articles. I'm not here to malign (speak evil of) anyone. In any case, my responses here are not meant to indicate disrespect for your views, or the AN/I process. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 08:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's both rude and not uncommon for a slightly heated but not abuse situation content argument. Saying that he shouldn't have done that, and you shouldn't have done some of what you did, doesn't mean that anyone else has to get involved.

This is just not that bad (to date, that I see). He's been scolded a bit here, and so have you, and with those in mind perhaps you two can get along better on the page. But unless something worse happens, you should deal with this over there and between the two of you. Georgewilliamherbert 08:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

(unindented)

Yes, we've already said this isn't an AN/I issue. Take up an RFC if you feel strongly about it, stop wasting our time. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:45 UTC (2006-04-02)

• sigh*. I thought this was the place to bring such concerns for objective analysis, especially when a dispute exists between an admin and a user. You've provided your input, as have other admins here. I'm sorry you view responding to this claim as a waste of your time, I didn't mean to do so.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 08:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your heavy-breathing disappointment implies that the admins here are failing to be objective merely because they disagree with you, which means maybe you're not using the word "objective" correctly. --Calton | Talk 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I meant to imply, sorry for any confusion. What I meant to communicate was disappointment at being told I was wasting the admins' time, simply by following Misplaced Pages policy and bringing the incident here for comment in good faith. I was not disappointed because some admins felt the issue unworthy of intervention, that's their informed prerogative. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I applaud and congratulate Rhobite for speaking the truth and standing up to RyanFreisling's POV bullying. RyanFreisling's edits are indeed limited to Bush related articles, where she repeatedly engages in revert wars to push her anti-Bush POV. Although RyanFreisling is quick to call other editors rude and incivil (who don't share her POV), she has been the most rude and incivil editor I have encountered on wiki. Thanks, Rhobite. It was about time. --Mr j galt 03:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I can show you lots of people that are far worse than Ryan could be on the worst day in her life. Just let me know, as I know where to find them!--MONGO 04:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than attempt to defend against baseless and unfounded snipes by those who differ with my views, I'll just quote my friend MONGO (a right-wing admin with whom I have disagreed strenuously in the past) who recently described my character and conduct:

"have you ever considered, ah, Adminship? You've been around for some time and have been involved in dealing with some hostile editors and have always been fairly even keeled about it."

I stand by my behavior, my edits, and my history of good faith towards my fellow editors. I'v'e disagreed with other editors and have gone on to find great value and growth from our disagreements.

Most telling, while co-opting this incident to level attacks at me, Mr J galt didn't post links alleging abusive behavior on my part, he just posted a link to attempt to define my POV with a single representative edit - and an editor's political views (or someone's opinion of their views) should not be used to attack or diminish that editor. Please, Mr J galt, observe WP:NPA, and open an RfC or a different incident here, if you feel this strongly about my conduct. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have to side with Ryan on this. I don't think that Rhobite, an editor I have a lot of respect for, was fair or civil with his comment about Ryan and Kevin Baas. It's the kind of comment that should be reserved for trolls or those that have nothing to add but POV...and though I don't necessarily agree with the Ryan's or Kevin's edit on the George W Bush article, I do consider that both of these editors are pretty bright and deserve a little more consideration. I don't think an Rfc is in order, but it would be nice to remember who is a an editor of standing and who isn't. I don't agree with ryan or Kevin that the information they supported should be in the first couple of paragraphs, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be covered in the article, under it's own subheading even.--MONGO 04:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Kim McGinn

Request an admin to look at this history page of this non-notable bio where the original author insists that the subject (presumably herself/himseld) is notable. The respective {{db-bio}} and {{afd}} tags are constantly being removed inspite of talk-page attempts by User:Stollery and myself. --ΜιĿːtalk 12:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and protected as a temporary measure. No reasonable assertion of notability in my opinion. Request review from other admins. --kingboyk 13:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire response to this article from top to bottom has been a debacle.

1. In the two minutes between the time I made the first edit and gathering information for the more detailed second edit, a speedy delete tag is added.

2. User:Stollery twice removes warning tags from his talk page.

3. Both Miljoshi and Stollery break the 3RR rule. In order to cover-up their acts, they apply to have the article deleted, which they succeed in doing. This is what Miljoshi writes on user_talk:Stollery page: "Have flagged...on WP:AN/I. To avoid WP:3RR by either of us, some injection can be expected, hopefully"

4. There is an AfD going on, and there have been three votes: 1 for Delete, 1 for Keep, 1 for Speedy Delete. Yet these votes are ignored when this article was deleted.

5. On the talk page a consensus was asked for: to temporarily remove the page from wikipedia until more information can be gathered on the subject. Did kingboyk respond or participate in the talk page? No he deleted the article and said that nothing new can ever be added about the subject.

I am disappointed in wikipedia. But I demand action and the reinstatement of this article, and the enforcement of wikipedia rules. Toysoy 13:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well hold your horses there mate! Give a fellow a chance. I had to attend to other matters first, like asking the other person involved not to bite the newcomers (although I now guess you aren't a newcomer at all), and I was then dealing with an unconnected vandalism report (which takes priority). Whilst you were typing this I was typing a message on your talk page and on the article's talk page. I have enforced Misplaced Pages rules: I speedy deleted an article on an apparently non notable person, I protected the page against recreation as an interrim measure because you weren't taking no for an answer, and I have requested review of my actions from other admins (with the possibility of overturning with no hard feelings). AFD is irrelevant if an article falls under the speedy deletion criteria, which to my mind this one does (1 speedy delete, 1 borderline speedy, and you; for the record). Note that no page is deleted forever and if you provide evidence of notability on the talk page or another admin decides to restore the page it can be restored with a couple of mouse clicks! --kingboyk 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me toysoy but you neglected to point you that you removed the Speedy tag three times and the AfD tag four times! In doing so you twice over broke the 3RR rule. Also you'll note that Miljoshi's note to me states "To avoid WP:3RR by either of us, some injection can be expected, hopefully" - note the part that says "avoid WP:3RR" - neither of us broke it (and even if we had it does not constitute a breach if reverting vandalizm - and even if deleted admins can see the history even if you can't so you assumption we had it deleted to hide our actions is false). My warnings to you (all FOUR of them) were placed after two warnings were placed on the article talk page - all of which were ignored. Besides all of this your note on the Talk:Kim McGinn page states "im the author of the article. why dont you remove the article now so that i can gather more info and make a decent article? then i can make the article again. is their consensus?" which is exactly what kingboyk did, so what's the problem? If you believe this person is notable then simply rewrite the article and request unprotection... you are quite obviously not a new user by any means so you should know to have done this anyway right? I believe everyone acted in good faith considering you removed deletion templates at least 7 times. Good luck with the article. _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγč} 13:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First, on behalf of User:Stollery and myself my apology to Toysoy (talk · contribs) for any unpleasant event. To me, the reason why this matter is being discussed here is: User:Toysoy's reverts (an admin may see through the past history) on the said article by ignoring all rational on notability and warnings, and then, attempts by the user to stall User-page and talk-page of the fellow editor . It may be noted that subsequent to {{db-bio}}, the article was tagged {{afd}} - a gesture in good faith by User:Stollery to respect the editor's view (it is a different matter that the editor chose to keep reverting everything). While I may assume in good faith that the editor is new and the subject is indeed notable (25 google hits), neither of the above two cases qualifies for a pleasant situation. And I see merit in kingboyk's action and rational to size up the situation. User:Toysoy is very much welcome to assert notability to support the claims. I have created review section on the talk page for this very purpose, content of which can be later moved to the main article subject to qualification. -- Regards. ΜιĿːtalk 08:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are great arguments, but really I think you guys are trying to excuse the inexcusable. You broke the rules. You can't break the rules in the name of stopping what you think is rule-breaking.

My rule breaking was to remove the damn tag LITERALLY 2 minutes after creating the article; as I was adding information in the first place. In your rush to gain edits on wikipedia you fail to see the consequences of your hasty actions.

These people were so eager to put the tags on the page that they put two on at the same time - the AfD tag and the speedy delete tag. It just doesn't make sense.

And the talk page had suggestions which you guys ignored. Instead you made 3RR violations twice over.

And then, to top it off, you conspired with each other to cover-up your acts and hide the truth.

Well the chickens have come home to roost. And to the wikipedia administrators, I say, punish these people and let the article run its course. We'll see how it looks in a week after some editing. Toysoy 10:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And it's funny how you guys haven't given any excuses for removing two warnings from your talk page. Toysoy 10:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiple account/IP vandalism

These vandals insist on adding articles and content about themselves; Sushrut Kulkarni & Chinmay Joshi.

Accounts and IPs noted so far:

• Neurosurgeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chinmayjoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.1.86.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.163.25.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.68.145.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The first three appear to be purely for vandalism.

Articles involved so far:

• Aurangabad, Maharashtra
• Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
• Nagpur
• Sushrut Kulkarni - Now deleted.
• Pune
• Nobel prize

I believe I have reverted most if not all of the edits. They have ignored numerous vandal warnings but don't seem to be vandalising right this moment although it does still need looking at by an admin, at least as far as blocking those first few accounts/IPs goes (preferably indefinitely considering their nature). Thanks in advance. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 17:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Hourcas

Seems like yet another Bogdanov POV-pusher - please take action immediately regarding this account. --TML1988 18:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Macedonia

This is more of an inquiry. I am wondering what is the take of wikipedia on edits that very much look like google bombing? (what google bombing is). Is that legal, and if so upto how many repetitions are allowed? It looks to me like the user is trying to manipulate search engine results, but I might be wrong. FunkyFly 19:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So, let me get this right, because of him placing the word Macedonia on his userpage nearly 100 times, he will alter the Google search engine so that Macedonia will have a higher page count than the other names of this country, like Republic of Macedonia and FYROM? User:Zscout370 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not guessing what he intends to do, just basically to what extend is such a repetition allowed. Is it OK to enter a word 1 million times for example? FunkyFly 22:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say approx. 40 time is quite enough, but that is just my educated guess. User:Zscout370 23:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Links accessibility

Another inquiry. What should be done in case a given website is not accessible outside its country of origin, its availability is somehow restricted - maybe the server does not have international connectivity or it deliberately rejects international accesses. What if someone in the country uses that page as a source? That might be the case for Economy of Serbia. Look at the history for more details. I'm trying to give the anonymous user who inserted the source credit, and not just reject the website as a bad link, because at least the domain is correct. FunkyFly 19:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Andrew William Morrow

PlsTalkAboutIt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a self declared sockpuppet of Andrew William Morrow left me this message to draw attention to himself. FloNight 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, Amorrow is disgusting. Of course, this is exactly what he wants to be; he seems to get off on creeping people out, especially women. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not random. I interrupted his sockpuppet Pro123tester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). When I found him, he was adding innapropriate information to Jefferson Poland. My first report only got him an hour block, per WP:BITE thinking. I wasn't satisfied, something about his pattern of editing seemed too deliberate. He also left a talk message about a member of the Wales family. I searched through Pro123tester's contributions until I figured it out. This is my reward. : ) FloNight 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A dubious one indeed; thank you for reporting here. · Katefan0/poll 22:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

NorbertArthur

Would someone please take a look at Talk:Romanians#Ethnic_Romanians? I believe NorbertArthur should be blocked (heck, I think he should be banned, but that's another matter), but since he has chosen to turn his venom on me for what I at least believe was a totally appropriate remark, it would be unseemly for me to make that decision. I would very much welcome an uninvolved administrator blocking him. If anyone thinks that anything is wrong with my conduct in this matter, please let me know where they think I was out of line.

Full disclosure: I came over to the Romanians page (which I believe I had not looked at since December 2005) at Jayjg's request (via email). He asked me to look at it because I know more about Romania than he does. However, as I think my edits and remarks over the last 45 minutes will readily confirm, I did not come over there as a partisan for Jayjg's views. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No one has responded either to follow through or to tell me they think I'm wrong. I'd appreciate one or the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Slash/slash edits (\'\'\' etc.)

Edits such as this are to be reverted with the IP blocked on sight, right? Is this a sign of an open proxy? Antandrus (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits with introduce backslashes before quotes (single or double) are almost always the result of badly-written php proxies. Any IP found inserting such content should be blocked as an open proxy. The edit should either be reverted or cleaned up, at the discretion of the discoverer. Logged in editors should be submitted to WP:RFCU and the underlying IP blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked indef 72.232.64.49/29, belonging to "A Ferree Hosting", a hosting company. There are very few legitimate edits that come from hosting companies. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that when these IPs are blocked, some administrators place {{CompromisedWebHost}} on the IP account's talk page. However, this template suggests that only backslash/prime-inserting IP accounts that vandalize WP are to be blocked, whereas my understanding is that any account inserting the backslash-prime sequence, regardless of whether the edits are in fact malicious, are considered undesirable. Could you clarify, please? We should probably edit the template if indeed every one of these IPs is to be blocked. —Encephalon 21:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarified. Sam Korn 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. —Encephalon 21:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Any proxy which introduces backslashes is going to be harmful to Misplaced Pages just from polluting article contents. And any open proxy is potentially harmful, whether or not it's been used for vandalism as of yet. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kelly, that makes sense. I presumed the same, which is why I blocked the account I mentioned earlier on your talk. —Encephalon 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Further details

38.119.107.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 72.232.64.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 72.232.13.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 66.90.73.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appear to be continuing the work of Pubert fengbart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), featuring such edits as a repeat nonsensical image and the addition of such text as "Harry Potter - u cant stop me.jpg", "Harry Potter - get lifes im doin this for laughs wif ma mates u take this seriously.jpg" and "this could all be over if u unblocked me". The IPs return all over the map, suggesting a coordinated attack or the use of proxies. RadioKirk talk to me 21:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

38.119.107.81 has been blocked indefinitely as an open proxy; this IP has a clear history of blogspam. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

72.232.13.24/29 has been blocked indefinitely as a probable proxy; it's located at a hosting center (Nuspace Pty Ltd). Kelly Martin (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich AfD puppetry

There is suspected voting fraud at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members by Jason Gastrich, believed to be in connection with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich case. I'm running a sock check in the meantime, but I was told it is more likely to involve the use of meatpuppets instead.

I thought it'll be good to hear more opinons on what action should be taken - To block the meatpuppets on sight under Remedy 5, or leave them alone if RCU turns out negative. And for the AfD, should it be re-listed, or overturn the "no consensus" decision and delete the article? See here for the comments left on my talkpage on the issue. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And two new Jason sock puppets to block Neil Bonetti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jeffrey Tuttle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) JoshuaZ 00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Block Gastrich on sight. I will check and block these. KillerChihuahua 00:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but even if the suspected socks/meatpuppets are instead regular (if newish) WP editors who just happen to want the preservation of such lists, I note that they do little or no arguing on behalf of the article. (JJay does indeed argue, but these users hardly cite the points that JJay makes, let alone elaborate on them.) I hadn't thought that WP was a democracy, but perhaps I was wrong. (Incidentally, this section of this page has just been vandalized by "Damon1984".) -- Hoary 00:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Damon should be blocked, and the RfC that Damon made should be speedy deleted as well. JoshuaZ 00:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedied. · Katefan0/poll 01:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And another making standard whitewash to LBU. Please block: Jayson_Marx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) JoshuaZ 01:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it... also currently in discussion with others. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:04 UTC (2006-04-03)

Two more: TumblingAcrobat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Alyssa1440 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . JoshuaZ 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearing up. - Mailer Diablo 01:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm also a bit concerned that some at least of these "meatpuppets" might be potential contributors. There seems a bit of a witch hunt on for Jason, which may be playing into his hands. I don't, for example, see what deleting a recent edit from my talk page achieved. It's still there in the history, and I still get a heads-up about it, and I don't see what damage it did anyway. Similarly, I'm not convinced it's good to speedy delete everything that suspected meat puppets, even of banned users, create.

In fact, I'm not even too comfortable about the term meat puppet. It at least goes close to violating WP:ATTACK IMO.

Is there a better place to be discussing this? Andrewa 01:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Creating a new account solely to spam is a no-no, which occured on your talkpage. The original set of alleged matpuppets remain unblocked pending results of RCU. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. But that's not a meat puppet, that's a sock puppet. There's a big difference IMO between a user who is known to be a sock puppet and one who is suspected of being a meat puppet.

If it's a sock of Jason, then certainly the revert of my talk page was justified in terms of policy, and a block in order. But even in that case I still can't see what the revert achieved. It seems like a waste of everyone's time to me. And if it's not a sock of Jason, then it's a very dangerous precedent IMO. Andrewa 03:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed a pattern to Jason's edits which may be relevant, however, pointing it out on open space is a serious WP:BEANS issue (I don't know if anyone else has noticed it or not), if anyone wants, I will email them details. JoshuaZ 01:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• From WP:RCU : Confirmed that BryanW4C (talk · contribs),Jeffrey Tuttle (talk · contribs),Jon Calla (talk · contribs),No Jobs (talk · contribs),Angelina Y. (talk · contribs),Shindig Me (talk · contribs), and Doe, John (talk · contribs) are Gastrich sockpuppets. Inconclusive results on all the rest. Confirmed socks are indef banned. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You should probably revisit your close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members, and perhaps say a few words at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#List of TRACS members, Mailer. Good work on the above. ;-) —Encephalon 04:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to head to bed, but someone else should add them to the list of confirmed socks at the Arbitration log and move them from the suspected sock list. JoshuaZ 04:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Also, someone may want to bug the RCU people about running a check on SYITS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which there has been some dispute about whether or not he is Gastrich. JoshuaZ 04:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've received the email of Gastrich trying to persuade me to vote keep. However, his persuasion failed on me. Since this are socks of Jason, we should monitor the edits on the pages he usually edits. If any of you received the email or like to see it, I can forward it to you. He is banned from editing for a year and is placed on a probation. He's violating his probation and I will monitor the current situation (by checking the new user log). --Terence Ong 11:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Linkspamremover

I have temporarily blocked Linkspamremover (talk · contribs) as I suspect it is a bot (which doesn't have approval nor any information on who is running it). I base my suspicions on its single focus of edits and username reflecting what it does. I asked a few hours ago for more information but the user did not respond but carried on making similar edits. Could others help look into this? Talrias (t | e | c) 02:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Appears not to be a bot, has replied on his talkpage. Recommend unblock since he's doing a useful job here. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• • The block should already expired by now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ross.Hedvicek

This user has been repeatedly writing about Guy Peters a/k/a Vít Zvánovec, a Czech Wikipedian, in articles such as Guy Peters, Vít Zvánovec, and Vit Zvanovec (the last now has {{deletedpage}} on it) using a strong Pro-VZ, anti-Czech Misplaced Pages, POV. He has repeatedly reposted almost the same exact content multiple times and has refused to back down. I think a block is in order here. --TML1988 03:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack?

From Talk: Democratic peace theory:

Regarding Robert A West, he is real-world friend or relative of Septentrionalis. See their extensive collaborative editing of numerous Baron West and Earl De La Warr. They have extremely deep knowledge about this particular aristocratic family. The Arbcom included him in their decision. Ultramarine 23:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. West and I have known each other for some time before we began to edit. When he began to edit Lord Delaware and create related articles in time for the 400-th anniversary of his Governorship, he asked me, since I have access to a university library, to check out some details.

The three of us are under an Arbcom decision (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine) to edit Democratic peace theory by consensus; Ultramarine is justifying his removal of text which the other two of us have explicitly defended. (see Talk:Democratic peace theory#1).

This incivility is not helpful. Whether it is a veuled (and false) assertion of sock-puppetry is unclear. Septentrionalis 04:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I fail to see anything remotely close to incivility or a personal attack. Ultramarine wrote that you are a friend or relative of Mr. West. You admit that you have known Mr. West for some time, so Ultramarine's comment appears to be accurate. Did you or Mr. West introduce the disputed material without Ultramarine's consent? --Mr j galt 05:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The material, as it stood, was the product of a series of rewrites by both Ultramarine, myself, and other parties not involved in the arbitration; the actual text was a condensation of an extremely verbose text of Ultramarine's, preserving the arguments. Robert West has not edited this section; I'm not sure he has edited the article recently. Septentrionalis 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Other jibes, on the same subject, include

Now this is interesting: both Septentrionalis and Robert A West has created and co-edited many articles about Baron West and Earl De La Warr. An old aristocratic family, who like the rest of the aristocracy lost their class privileges when democracy was introduced. Ultramarine 15:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

From User talk:Scaife; and Talk:R. J. Rummel:

The attempted deletion is even more strange when considering that they have created and expanded numerous vanity articles about non-notable relatives to a least one of them, various Baron West and Earl De La Warr. Why should persons whose only achievement were to born into a class exploiting the rest of the population be included, but not a a respected researcher who have spent his life on something as important as how war and mass murder.

This is attacking Robert West for a deletion vote, when in fact he voted to keep; just to add to the bizarreness of it all. Septentrionalis 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should speak on this -- to me, it is clear that Ultramarine intends this to be understood as a negative remark, else his dark and portentious tone makes no sense, but the point escapes me. I am reminded of the old story where the politician announces that his opponent's sister was a public thespian. I hope that Ultramarine will either drop the irrelevant discursion or clarify his intent. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

user:Bakewell Tart and user:Count of the Saxon Shore

I wonder if someone could please look into both of these accounts. Count of teh Saxcon Shore was, until recently, called Crusading Compoiser - both the name Crusading Composer and Bakewell Tart and intended as personal digs at me - I work in the town of Bakewell and, as a composer who often uses music to camnpaign for certain issues, it is an epithet which has been used to describe me. BT and CC (now CotSS)'s behaviour shows them to be rather fixated with me - initially attacking the page created by someone else about me Robert Steadman and then, when I began to edit on WP attacking me. I strongly believe they are stalkers from another internet forum who wage a campaign of hounding and harassment for months on there and have now transferred this to here. Despite a handful of other edits they are both clearly single issue editors who seem to be on a mission. What can be done? (By the way, despite claims to the contrary I have never edited the page about myself and the accusation of sockpuppets against me is false (I am asure this will come up) - I'm afraid that user: Jayjg was wrong in his actions to block me for this and I would like this recified and the claims that I used sockpuppets removed from WP as it is defamatory). Robsteadman 13:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Bakewell Tart seems to have no interest in adding content to wikipedia - the only real reason for anyone to have an account. User:Count Of The Saxon Shore has made some useful edits but doesn't seem to be able to keep away from Rob despite being encouraged by myself and AnnH. As for the sockpuppet accusations against Rob - just from the edit histories of User:Robeaston99 and User:Vhjh I can see why Jayjg made the decision he did but in the light of the strange folk Rob seems to attract I don't think this can be taken as a simple case. Jayjg himself was happy for other users with checkuser privilige to discuss this with him at the time but I think Rob was hoping it would all just blow over. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTCF 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Bakewell Tart did not conduct himself in the manner of a Wikipedian- when I was reverting his edits to User talk:Robsteadman he began to start insulting me in his edit summaries and began gaming the system by making unique edits to the page every time. He still made 6 full reverts to the page in 24 hours, and was eventually blocked under 3RR, after me filing a report on the WP:AN/3RR page (admittedly badly formatted, as I was in a rush to get Bakewell Tart blocked as we were in a huge edit war with him). In the end I took to reporting him on WP:AIV. That's all I really have to say on this matter. --Darth Revert (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The words pot and kettle spring to mind. Another over reaction from the man whose favourite word is outrageous. Why does he have to see everything in terms of 'cabals' 'conspiracies' 'friends' and 'foes'? Should I respond by making him the subject of a RfC - his conduct would certainly merit an investigation?

I'll just make a quick summary:

1. Yes, I initially created my account with the intention of removing the gush and autiobiography from Mr Steadman's article. The original article was heavily POV and unacceptable. I also wanted to add links to Mr Steadman's activities on other internet forums.
2. I got into a lot of arguments with VHJH (later alleged to be a sockpuppet of Steadman) and some of these were not pleasant and I'm sure that I broke rules re: personal attacks, AGF and civility - but I'm not that fond of being called 'liar' and mentally ill.
3. Once the gush had been removed, I let it go. I used Misplaced Pages to research my interests but I didn't edit for a while.
4. Then the whole sockpuppet issue arose. Still smarting from VHJH's vicious personal attacks, I couldn't resist gloating and adding a 'Ha ha' to his userpage - although if anyone reads that, it was perfectly in context, considering VHJH's last comment to me.
5. My AfD, although, unsuccessful, was not a bad faith nomination as Mr steadman, if he was indeed editing as VHJH, would have broken policies on vanity articles and biographies.
6. I have NOT engaged in any further personal attacks, I have not joined in any of the many arguments that Mr Steadman has involved himself in. I hardly see how I can be accused of harrasing or stalking him (not in the last 2 months anyway). In fact, the only time that I involve myself with Mr steadman is when he makes attacks on me. I politely asked him to remove personal attacks from his userpage and he mocked me then ignored me. I am more than happy to have nothing more to do with him now that he has removed the offensive comments. Quite frankly, he does more to harm himself and his reputation than any of his 'enemies' ever could.Count Of The Saxon Shore 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And again, repetitions of lies, abuse and stalking - at least here is an admission that this stalker has carried his campaign over from other web fora. I did not and have not use any siockpuppets - that is a lie. I do hope something can be done about this stalker. Robsteadman 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that Robsteadman has removed the comments from his talk pages (Thanks for that), you two can try and leave each other alone, surely? Misplaced Pages is a big place. I suggest you simply put your differences aside, forget about each other, and move on. That's what I am attempting to do. --Darth Revert (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is any justice ALL vandals and stalkers would be banned. Let's see how long before this particular stalker starts again - or will it be as another new name? Deskana, if you had been stalked by someone for a year over different net fora and involving real-life events would you be hjappy to just let it drop because they felt the heat was on them? I somehow doubt it. Robsteadman 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

.......and if he continues with the stalking I will put back the naming and ashaming on my talk page because others should be aware of this sp-called editor's behaviour. Robsteadman 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, whether or not he stalked you, if he wishes to move away from this issue and his past, and edit on Misplaced Pages, he is welcome. The same is true of you. He certainly does not seem to be stalking you now, at least. Quite the contrary, he has expressed that he wishes to move on from this issue. --Darth Revert (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

He has expressed this wish months ago, and yet continues, he keeps expressing it.... what sort fo behaviour is that? Ummm... let me think! If he wanted to move on he would - as it is he doesn't and hasn't. Actrion should be taken - stalkers should NEVER be welcomed on WP or anywhere else.

The heat is on me? Just how, robert? This silly RfC is likely to backfire big time. Could you please stop referring to me as a 'stalker'. I am not a stalker in any sense of the word. If I was a stalker, then surely I'd be following you around. I happen to have edited on 2 sites which you have also edited, big deal. I edited an article about you because It was misleading. You have not undone any of those edits. Your article, as it stands, owes a lot to my contributions. I have had nothing to do with you on any forum for months - is that the action of a mentally unbalanced stalker? You seem far more interested in me than I am with you.Count Of The Saxon Shore 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, you are not letting him move on by repeatedly commenting about how he is a stalker on your user talk page. It is difficult to move on if someone keeps repeatedly calling you a stalker. If you let him move on, he might well do it. You need to try, otherwise you'll get caught in a deadlock constantly blaming each other for blaming each other (for blaming each other for blaming each other....). Count of the Saxon Shore cannot be blocked simply because you insist he is stalking you. --Darth Revert (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

69.95.86.73

69.95.86.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to have difficulty with WP:NPA and it appears the vast majority of the edits from this IP are either article vandalism attacking the subject or attacks on another editor that attempts to reason with the user of this IP. I've blocked for a week because this is the 7th block for the same reasons -- if anyone thinks that needs to be changed, please feel free :) .:.Jareth.:. 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

206.183.140.244 (talk · contribs)

206.183.140.244 (talk · contribs) is constantly inserting the words BIG POOP (not kidding!) into the article on the European Union. He is a known vandal, having been blocked several times before (see his talk page). Could somebody with blocking tools take a look?

Cheers, The Minister of War 14:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this is any relations to the feces vandal that struck a few days back... If not we should set them up on a date together, they'd be perfect :) Pegasus1138 ---- 14:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha! I'd hate to see them make out though! :-) The Minister of War 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Question: when does it reach the point when indefinite blocking is in order. All his previous edits are vandalism as well, and he's bound to return (he always has). Cheers, The Minister of War 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite is a very long time, and in a "very long time" IP addresses can be reallocated. --kingboyk 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So how "very long" would seem appropriate? To my mind, a ban of a year or so should do the trick, or is this considered overly harsh? Cheers, The Minister of War 19:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

GNAA 11th nomination

How long will it take before I am RFCed for cutting this AFD debate short? Also, I don't really think the nominator is a newbie at all, is it possible to get a check on who it is? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC for that? I wouldn't think so. Much as I would like to see the article deleted, it was kept at the end of March for the 10th time. There has to come a point when new listings are just disruption. --kingboyk 15:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Coudl be a User:Science3456 sock. He has edited Gay Nigger Association of America before, and AfD disruption is his thing. His user name, user page and the edits to Laundrymat seem to back this up. —Ruud 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well who knows, we may just have the 20th nom this year (but hopefully not). - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's going to really fault people for speedy closing GNAA nominations at this point. I've done it myself (the 10th I think?) Personally I think we should just delete the obvious bad faith nominations of GNAA, so as to cut down on the self-aggrandization factor. --W.marsh 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think it would have to be Jimbo himself nominating GNAA for it not to be speedy kept. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hijacked AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Licking has been hijacked by User:Musical_Linguist. She does not like the concept and she has protected this page after voting for delete herself and getting a few of her Catholic friends to also vote for delete. What is Misplaced Pages coming to that an admin is not significantly punished for such a flagrant abuse of her admin prviledges?!? Misplaced Pages is not her personal cathedral where only the sacred and blessed even get a turn to speak? She has a million other articles to work on and yet she had to

• deeply reverted the "Licking" article itself
• deleted other comments
• tilted the vote in her favor
• Hide perfectly valid criticism of an error that her fellow female User:FloNight made
• use her admin priviledges to protect an AfD page to force the outcome in the way she just happens to want it to go?!? -- WaitingForTurn 14:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The above user is a sockpuppet of a banned user who has been harassing a number of editors. JoshuaZ 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is VERY interesting. Thanks. Robsteadman 14:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For more information one should ask Flonight. Flo and Musical seem to be the name targets of this individuals harassment. JoshuaZ 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am more interested in thebehaviour of Musical Linguist. Robsteadman 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has been following but did not comment on the AfD either way, I don't see her as having done anything wrong. What is your concern? JoshuaZ 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew William Morrow has a long history of problem behavior concerning what he calls "a certain demographic" (meaning, female Wikipedians). He has also cyberstalked at least one of them off-Misplaced Pages. He has been blocked under several sockpuppets, most recently for this edit. User:Zoe| 16:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. Full protection would be highly irregular. Nonetheless I'm not sure it sets a good precedent. Best to block the dispruptive editors or close the AFD early than to protect a debate I would have thought. --kingboyk 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)

User:71.156.102.142 has already been blocked. I'm going to unprotect the article and add it to my watchlist. --kingboyk 14:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And I've perma-blocked WaitingForTurn for personal attacks, although sockery is also a valid reason. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Woops, Musical Linguist beat me to it by a minute. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that this page itself is currently semi-protected, which it really shouldn't be for a long period of time. --kingboyk 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I should point out - I am the one that started the delete process, by tagging the page for speedy deletion as patent nonsense (which it was not, I realize, after reading the article.) No one had directed me to it - I linked from a user page I was on, and it happened to be one of the first articles I came to that I thought was un-encyclopedic after I learned about AfD's. My speedy delete tag was removed, and changed to an AfD - but NOT by User:Musical Linguist. When I went to vote on the article, I struck out some abusive text by User:71.156.102.142, not realizing he was the banned Andrew Morrow; and was hit with abusive comments on my user talk page (I have since removed them - you can see them in the history, some negative comments at the AfD for Licking, and then further comments on my talk page by the same user using IP User:71.141.19.94 (the same IP used to start this section). I had no personal vendetta when I started the delete process - I have periodically come across articles I think drastically lower the educational/professional standards of Misplaced Pages, and learned about AfD's in order to nominate them - this was one such article I came across shortly after learning about it. The attacks on Musical Linguist are, as near as I can see, totally unwarranted, as a number of other editors (myself included) played the primary role in tagging the article for deletion; a process Musical Linguist had nothing to do with. She simply deleted article updates/AfD vote by a banned user, something any editor, let alone administrator, is permitted to do. Hope that helps clear up any confusion as to the origins for the AfD.DonaNobisPacem 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Link spam by user SykoByte

User SykoByte is repeatedly adding links to his own website, in violation with the guidelines on WP:EL. Despite the efforts made by other wikipedians to make this user understand that linking to your own website is not allowed, he continues doing so. This user consider himself and his site to be above these rules, and refuses to comply with the guidelines of Misplaced Pages. When his spam links are removed, he adds them again, and complain about being harassed by other wikipedians. In my opinion, blocking this user and his IP would be the most suitable solution. An administrator might be able to set him straight, though, since he - despite the efforts made by other wikipedians - doesn't seem to understand that rules apply to all who publish on Misplaced Pages. Articles in which this user continues to link to his own website are:

• Serial killer
• Scott Williams (serial killer
• Maury Travis
• Aileen Wuornos
• Ted Bundy
• Albert Fish
• Ed Gein
• Jeffrey Dahmer
• John Wayne Gacy

In my opinion, this matter is way beyond a simple misunderstanding. SykoByte have been made aware of the rules and policies a number of times, but dismisses that as harassment. Now he needs to be made aware that the rules and policies are real, and meant to be followed, not bent or broken.

/Magore 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

While not the end-all and be-all as a guideline for spam, the site he attempts to add has no Alexa rank and Google PageRank, so this site is little more than a personal web site. If it keeps up, spam1 to spam4 warnings might be appropriate. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Although the links currently given are more than adequate evidence of the problem, I got involved in this issue on DreamGuy's Talk page ("What is wrong?"). Never once did SykoByte acknowledge that he had read WP:EL. EVula 19:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you guys are right. I read WP:EL and I will stop adding my links to the articles. I do not want to be banned from Misplaced Pages. I'm just glad I was able to add the 2 articles that I did without them being deleted. However, I do think DreamGuy needs to be told to stop being so rude to people on here. I did a search on him and I couldn't believe the amount of problems I saw with him and other Wikipedians. He may be a good editor, but he is downright rude and hypocritical. The other editors were overall kind about the situation.SykoByte

Deleting the lolicon picture

After weighty consideration, I have deleted the inappropriate picture that resided at Lolicon. I put my justification on the mailing list: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/043119.html. As I say in that email, I am extremely reluctant to bypass policy in this way. Nevertheless, I make no apology for actually deleting the image when it was so clearly appropriate. Sam Korn 18:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good move. People wanting child porn can look elsewhere than Misplaced Pages. --Ryan Delaney 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are people wanting child porn really going to seek out, and be satisfied with, a Japanese cartoon rather than real pictures? *Dan T.* 23:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. Ashibaka tock 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who participated for a long time at Talk:Lolicon (but withdrew recently due to it causing me far too much wikistress), I say well done. The image is clearly inappropriate, there is an alternative and it would long ago have been removed had the "OMG WP:NOT censored" crowd and several self-admitted paedophiles not engaged in a concerted campaign to keep the image. Mikker 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, jolly good show. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who was vaguely in favour of keeping the image in the first place, I'm very happy with the deletion and Sam Korn's latest replacement image. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Free images should always be preferable to fair use. .:.Jareth.:. 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My compliments, Sam. Your arguments are sound and reasonable, and this move has long been overdue. If this move means you are part of an evil pro-censorship cabal, be it known that I would be honored to become a member too. Kosebamse 19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You have my support. I regret my own mind was not so clear on this issue. Steve block talk 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The deleted image has been added to the article by an external link. It was soon removed, perhaps accidentally as editors reverted each other over the new image. If an edit war ensues and protection is done, could we protect with the external link gone? It made no sense to me that the article was protected for days with the image in the article. It was a clear copyright violation in that state, out side of fair use. This is a cabalish request, I know. But does it make sense? Several days ago I added a comment about this at Misplaced Pages:Protection policy FloNight 21:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sam. If the link becomes a problem, we could request that a meta admin add it to the blacklist, which would prevent it from being added again. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is back and forth editing going on now about the external link with the deleted image and also the new image. It is a large group doing it on both sides so no 3RR (yet). FloNight 22:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure we can talk about issues of appropriateness when a couple of clicks takes you to a close up where you can clearly see girls of dubious ages, one shoving a refreshing glass of lemonade up her nether regions, another being groped (and unless Japanese smiles go the same way as their writing, i.e. backwards, she's not enjoying it) plus the usual masturbation, bukakke etc.

Nonetheless, a free picture always trumps a fair use, and I've been on the Internet long enough not to care the least about taste. Oh and by the way Sam, it's spelt "rouge". 212.225.66.153 (logged out for obvious reasons) 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. "Rouge" is red makeup. Somebody who breaks the rules is a "rogue", just like Sam spelled it. --Calair 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (Unless that was a joke and I missed it, which is entirely possible. --Calair 23:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

The long term joke has been to use the mispeliing "Rouge admin." This came from a problematic editor who kept making accusations about "Rouge admins." JoshuaZ 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Sam for his action. The image was, in addiiton to everything else, extremely divisive. -Will Beback 23:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why that had to be mailing list first, wiki second. -Splash 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the message on the mailing list first because it's good to have a single set of reasons that you can point to. Writing on the mailing list means I could point to it from various places on the wiki without pasting a long rationale each time. For everyone's benefit, there is an RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Sam Korn. Sam Korn 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Diffs to, e.g. a talk page edit (on e.g. Talk:Lolicon) work in exactly the same way as a link to a mailing list post. A diff, however, has the benefit of having been posted to the relevant page in the first place. -Splash 00:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but I find diffs illegible. I find it far, far harder to marshal my thoughts and I find that using the mailing list and linking there is clearer to understand. I apologise if you did not. Sam Korn 00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PfP Suboptimal

This is pretty fucking poor suboptimal behavior. The article has a talk page, it was getting used. There was a request for a protected edit, and we really didn't need cowboy antics. - brenneman 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, Aaron, do not dismiss my actions in this way. I spent a good deal of time considering what to do and writing a rationale for the mailing list, and have spent several hours after the fact discussing them. Please afford me a little respect. Sam Korn 00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm very very upset at how little respect you've demonstrated for those of us who were working towards a solution on the talk page of the article, and without falling back on force (deleting the image) and appeal to a higher power (the mailing list.)
  brenneman 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  I understand that you are upset. As I have explained before, I saw that this was the only method by which the issue could be resolved. As for the mailing list, I was not using the mailing list as an appeal to a higher authority. I was mainly using it as somewhere where I could place my rationale and link to it from different places. I apologise if people think this was a mistake. My attempt was to make this as calm and as flame-less as possible. I resent a great deal being labelled a cowboy when I have put a huge amount of effort into being as conciliatory as possible. Sam Korn 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Conciliatory? That's simply insulting. You didn't even use the article's talk page, and the hurried archiving of all the old discussion where there was talking is odd, too.
  brenneman 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  This discussion does neither of us any favours. Sam Korn 00:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  I do sort of agree with Aaron in that people finally seemed to be discussing things despite the cry to jimbo - and for those who would bother the last image "proposition" that Sam did (the rack of magazines) was actually already discussed in archive 3 of the talk page. I'm just hoping it doesn't ignite an even bigger edit war. Oh well, I guess if that happens I can protect again thus starting the discussion cycle over again... Just another star in the night 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Aaron and perhaps some others are presumably not aware that this problem had persisted for well over a year until someone had the guts to take action. --Tony Sidaway 08:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  There's no need to be dismissive of those who have tried before. Just another star in the night 11:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti (talk · contribs) and continued disruptive behavior

Benjamin Gatti, who has been sanctioned by arbcom for biased, tendentious editing, was recently banned from editing Nuclear power and Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for disruptive behavior. He has begun to edit again, this time proposing that Category:Nuclear safety be renamed to "Nuclear danger" or "Nuclear risks" . He also seeded the intro of Nuclear safety with a scare phrase of dubious relevance (Nuclear safety "is a term which underscores and understates the danger implicit in the use of nuclear materials") . He has also injected inappropriate, biased statements into Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi: , (where he writes as fact that Hashemi was given "preferential treatment" in his admission to Yale). Both of these types of edits continue a long-established pattern of biased editing to nuclear and political topics -- for which he has been placed on probation by the arbcom Final decision. I was one of the people who brought the original case against Benjamin so I don't feel it's appropriate for me to be counted in administrators voting to enforce his probation with a block, but for goodness sake, somebody else, please consider it. This has gone on long enough. Three administrators are needed to take any blocking action, and one is needed to enforce a per-article ban. · Katefan0/poll 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I echo kate's statement. I think we need a ban from any article involving the nuclear industry. This would include everything...categories, articles, etc. Ben isn't going to change. He's showed absolutely 0 inclination to change. In fact, he's become more troll-like since his arbcom case ended. --Woohookitty 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Support enforcement. --Syrthiss 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support; obvious continued disruption. .:.Jareth.:. 19:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support enforcement. Clear unreferenced POV after being sanctioned by ArbCom for same, protests ring hollow. Enough. --Sam Blanning 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Comment the edits are sound and well sourced. "Nuclear safety" is an oxymoron as nuclear chain reactions are an inherently volatile proposition, and it is self-evident that the subject of Nuclear-safety - is a misnomer intended to convey a subconscious POV. I propose the more accurate Nuclear-risk and somebody blows a fuse. Yale did absolutely give preferential treatment to Sayed based on his association with a human-rights abusing organization - this is well reported by the Times - or is someone suggesting with a straight face that Sayed's fourth grade education made him more qualified than thousands of other applicants? - Some of which defended this country and the principles enumerated in the Constitution at the risk of their own lives? Please Benjamin Gatti 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's three administrators needed for a block. Now someone needs to place it. 71.251.48.60 04:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Fear of ISMs (talk · contribs). this edit at the little noticed Battery electric factory flat truck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is identical to this edit (see Batteries section) of previous sockpuppet. Also terrorism-themed info on his user page. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

They also have similar styles of edit summaries. JoshuaZ 21:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Now, concerned about verification of image uploaded by ZS, currently on ifd: this edit. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

After this I indef blocked. Thoroughly inappropriate and likely a sock anyway. · Katefan0/poll 21:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a mildly clever trick, I don't think I've seen that one before. JoshuaZ 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hell, I fell for it. I notice nobody is bothering to extend ZS's six-month timer. I'm unilaterally making his block indefinite; I'm assuming there's consensus for a community ban in this case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone revert his talk page to this version and protect. He is banned, and should not be allowed a forum for posting his essays. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Joycie 15

Joycie 15 (talk · contribs) is continually adding articles about non-notable amateur football (soccer) players who play in their local league to Misplaced Pages. Most have been had been deleted, via prod or speedily. Despite request on user's talk page to stop adding them and read WP:BIO's guidelines on notability for sportspersons (i.e. that in professional sports such as soccer, being a full-time professional is the minimum for notability), user persists in adding dozens of new badly-formatted articles. Can someone please warn and/or block them? Thank you. Qwghlm 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempts at communication have totally failed, so I am blocking them for 48 hours. Ashibaka tock 23:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

New Jason sock needs blocking

207.160.71.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) JoshuaZ 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Medule

Medule (talk · contribs) is continually reverting articles relating to Croats and Croatia, inserting factually inaccurate data and breaking the 3RR. He has refused to discuss on numerous ocassions and has been disrupting these articles for over a month. He has also been using sockpuppets like User:Purger and User:Purrger and has ignored repeated warnings to stop vandalizing. Here are just some of the articles he has been disrupting with his reverts - Battle of Vukovar, Croatia, Human rights in Croatia, Borovo Selo raid, History of modern Croatia, and many more. Can someone please warn and/or block him? Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Medule is nothing more than an arrogant vandal with a highly biased opinion and will stop at nothing to further his Serbian propaganda and lies. This user should be banned from Misplaced Pages, because he has no useful edits and only makes life harder for those who try to maintain Misplaced Pages as a neutral encyclopaedia. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

National Security Archive

The article National Security Archive has been a focus of much contention lately. There is a user, User:Tbeatty who continously debates the usage of Misplaced Pages's copyright policy on the page's talk page when it is not the proper forum. He refuses to submit to logical and reasoned arguments and continues to change material when arguments clearly prove him wrong on the point of copyright and POV. He has been hostile and is borderline on the violating Wiki's policy on civility. Please also note that an administrator, User:Gamalielis involved in the dispute. --Strothra 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

User:Hipocrite removed a sockpuppet message from User:Hpuppet (). Due to the closeness in name and the edit, perhaps User:Hipocrite is a sockpuppet as well? Hopefully, someone can check this out. joturner 02:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser is this way.:-) Regards —Encephalon 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Warnings

Can users violate a Misplaced Pages policy by erasing warnings from talkpages just because admin says he can do it? --Nikitchenko 03:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The "warnings" he is complaining on my talk page about were from UNK who now is now banned as he is a sockpuppet of JimmyT: a permanently banned user who made numerous personal attacks (borderline threats) repeatedly on myself and at least half a dozen users as well as legal threats.

1. The warnings were completely without merit and were made over and over again on my talk page in attempt to vandalize them
2. Included was the following: "Fuck you, you pathetic loser." "I still think you're contentious AND pompous and biased;" and "full of claptrap lugged out of your despotic"
3. Misplaced Pages policy states: "It is generally acceptable to remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid."
4. The warnings were not valid, but to be sure I sought administrator approval before removing here.

Hopefully this shines a little more light on the circumstances behind this situation. - Glen _C 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Copy from talk:Stollery for references

I went and looked. You call someone anal, it's a psych-oriented personal attack on a person who INSPECTING details.:) If you disagree, so be it. All cultures have different values. Have a good day. --Nikitchenko 03:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not call someone anal. Read it again, the click the wikilink for "this cultures" definition. Sheesh. - Glen _C 03:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You suggested someone was anal, a personal attack is uncivil and unnecessary for talking about contents. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AWikipediatrix&diff=46304631&oldid=46303381 --Nikitchenko 04:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Just forget about it ok? It's over with. --Nikitchenko 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"if RadioKirk is going to be ] I have uploaded..." - Glen _C 04:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I cant find ChrisO (admin who banned UNK) discussing anywherein WIkipedia that UNK is sock puppet of JimmyT. --Nikitchenko 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard, an admin, has determined that UNK and JimmyT are sockpuppets who harassed Stollery on his talk page and made a big fuss about removing warning templates (just as you are doing now, interestingly). You may not be aware that in the USA the term "anal" is commonly applied to overly meticulous people who make a big fuss over inconsequential matters (just as you are doing now, interestingly). wikipediatrix 04:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The following was posted on my talk page (Nikitchenko it seems you didn't look very hard)

Stollery, FYI - UNK has been blocked indefinitely as a block-evading sockpuppet of the currently blocked JimmyT. -- ChrisO 00:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems strange that you put a post on my page saying:

Just forget about it ok? It's over with. --Nikitchenko 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Then right up an incident report over it. I'm curious as to your motivations here? Why are you so bothered by this? Someone who launched abusive personal attacks against me many times writes me warning... why is this such a big deal to you? - Glen _C 06:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Prasi90

I ran across a user claiming to be Prasi90 (talk · contribs) in #wikimedia-stewards this evening. On asking if I could help him, he indicated that his account was indefinately blocked by MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), his IP blocked for a month, and his talk page protected; on further examination, I found that he had been indefinately blocked by MONGO, after being blocked a number of other times by a number of other administrators, while his talk page was protected by Gator1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who was not involved in the blockings.

He was requesting to be unblocked, or his talk page unprotected so he could file an RfAr against MONGO. My first suggestion was that he email an Arbitrator; he responded that he had emailed Fred Bauder, but hadn't received a reply. (I've heard from other arbitrators that most arbs (Fred included) are very good about forwarding such requests to the ArbCom list, so it's entirely likely that they are discussing/have discussed the matter.) Rather than reversing other admin's actions, particularly in a situation where I had no idea what was going on, I told him I'd raise the issue here. (Here rather than with the individual admin, since it involves several admins.) It strikes me that with so many admins involved, it is unlikely to be a mistake, but, AGF and all. I'm notifying MONGO, Gator1, and Fred of this post, so they can offer thier side of the story.

I'd appreciate others taking a look and offering a more rounded view of the backstory, as well as thoughts on what, if anything, to do. I'm inclined to trust the judgment of the involved admins, and leave it alone unless the Arbitration Committee sees fit to get involved. Essjay 03:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Prasi90 (talk · contribs) is also 202.177.246.3 (talk · contribs). Repeatedly blocked for vandalism, harassment, personal attacks and general disruption. I blocked Prasi90 indefinitely after receiving numerous harassing emails and a scan of the talk pages on Prasi90 and IP 202.177.246.3 shows that I am not the only one. I blocked his IP for 1 month which should expire on about 4/28/06. After 203.177.246.3 repeatedly was posting the unblock template on his talk page and even though a couple of days went by and I was the only one responding, I asked him to stop posting the template. He then posted it in three places on his talk page, so I protected his page, telling him I would remove the protection just before his block expired. I also posted that the page was protected at WP:PP. There is also a standing Rfc on this editor at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Prasi90. Prasi90 was blocked before and asked to be unblocked to file an Rfar and I told NSLE to go ahead and unblock him. NSLE told Prasi90 that the unblock was contingent on him filing the Rfar, which he didn't do. Prasi90 did apologize, but has done this in the past as well, and ended up going right back to his old habits. When no Rfar was posted and after review of the editing history, I decided a long term block was in order. NSLE sanctioned the block and Hamster Sandwich said he was thinking of unblocking and mentoring Prasi90, but didn't follow through with this. I said that would be fine, but I was not going to have anything else to do with this editor. If someone wants to unblock him...do so...but I am NOT going to help anyone who has anymore difficulties in regards to this situation. I get one more insulting email from him, I'm simply going to contact his service provider.--MONGO 04:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See also, block log for IP 202.177.246.3--MONGO 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected his users pages and am watching them. If something happens which justifies protecting again please do so. Fred Bauder 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I went and unprotected his IP page as well.--MONGO 08:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

He's recently posted a listing of comments constructed by MONGO at earlier dates, for Fred to include in the impending rfar. I reproduce it all below:

The following is a (not yet complete)request for de-administratorship/disciplinary action against the user MONGO.I ask Fred to please post this on my behalf alongwith the RfAr.

Statements made by MONGO to Prasi90 which seem to be uncivil/rude/unprofessional in nature when compared to the tone in which Prasi90 communicates with MONGO.These statements show that Mr.MONGO uses his blocking powers to harass Prasi90-especially with permanent and month-long blocks. Urges Prasi90 to "have fun" writing Anti-American "nonsense" outside Misplaced Pages.

Urges Prasi90 to "grow up" and "be a good scout" since "this (Misplaced Pages) is not a playground".Also asks Prasi90 "Want to be blocked again for disruption?" in what seems to be a threatening manner.

Do you have anything constructive to add to Misplaced Pages? I am inclined to think that you do not.--MONGO 16:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to write an encyclopedia or do you want me to enforce a block on you for disruption. I'm about done with your uselessness. Oh, and no question mark.--MONGO 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The above comment seems to be particularly aggressive.

Here,in line 173 MONGO says-"Do you want a month long block...I'll be glad to give you one",seems again to be an aggressive statement

This editor has contributed nothing of worth to this project and in light of the incessant trolling and harassment of several editors, the one week block is quite lenient.--MONGO 09:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase which has been highlighted by me again seems to be judgemental and uncivil.

On an unrelated note, I believe dear Prasi90 will require much more than this to request an de-sysoping and explain the reasoning for his disruption.-Zero 11:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Mary K. Sponze

Mary_K._Sponze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in a very strange pattern of behavior. I tagged "her" article Movement to End Woman's Suffage a possible hoax; she tagged my user page as a hoax and has been making personal attacks , removing test notices from her talk page, and other such disruptive behavior. I posted to WP:AIV but I also wanted to post here as the AIV notice will be removed (whether or not she is blocked) and I'd like someone to keep an eye on this. Thanks. Thatcher131 03:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Sample edit: Antandrus (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Potential edit war on the articles about the United Nations

Dear admin, I would like seek your help in solving an edit dispute related to several articles about the United Nations, such as United Nations Security Council, International Court of Justice, United Nations Economic and Social Council etc. Each of those articles contains the name of the organization / department / agency in all the six official languages of the United Nations. (The six official languages of the United Nations are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish.) But User:Raul654 is recently, unilaterally, very actively, deleting the official names except the name in English. I asked him to seek a consensus in Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Alternate_names first before he delete any information from the articles. However, it seems that he is still deleting the information from the articles. I am afraid that would invoke an edit war. I hope that you can help us to stop his deletion, and encourage all Wikipedians to discuss, ask for other people's opnion, and seek a consesus, before they delete information from the article. I sincerely want to avoid an edit war, and I hope that you could solve the dispute. Thank you. - Alan 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this is the English Misplaced Pages, we try to keep foreign names down to a bare minimun. What I suggest is that you do not add the templates, but check and see if the articles in the said languages are created at AR, ZH, FR, RU and ES Wikipedias and add interwikilinks. If that is done, then just do not add the templates again. User:Zscout370 04:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. In my opinion, it is already a common practice for the articles about nations or international organizations to include the name in the non-English official languages. I don't see any points for making any exceptions for the United Nations, which is one of the most important inernational organizations. Furthermore, as I pointed out in the discuss page of one of those disputed articles, I think it is especially important to include the names of the non-English official languages in the English Misplaced Pages. As English is becoming a common language for international communication, or even a worldwide language, nowadays. English has the importance of being a bridge between people who speak different languages to overcome the language barrier. Unlike the Misplaced Pages in other languages, the English Misplaced Pages has a lot of contributors and readers from many different countries, which includes a lot of non-English-speaking countries. It would also be helpful for English speakers who are searching information about the United Nations, if they can see the terms in official languages all in one page, rather than guessing which word is the official name in an article written in a foreign language. (Some English articles don't even have a corresponding article in some other languages.) While the Wikipedias in a lot of other languages also include the English name of the United Nations in their respective articles, it would be fair for the English Misplaced Pages to include the names in those languages as well. I hope you guys could understand that.

But no matter what, it is very important to ask for the opinions of more Wikipedians of different origins, so that the consensus would be a widely accepted one, rather than one dominated by a small number of Americans who only speaks English. I don't appreciate the fact that some user is unilaterally deleting information from the articles without seeking a consensus. - Alan 05:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:United Nations Commission on Human Rights) There are arguments for both sides of the argument. The UN has many official languages, and thus the page should contain the translations. Raul's analogy that we should not include say, an Arabic translation on China, is not relevant, because Arabic is not an official language in China. So there is merit in adding the translations. However, I note that there are no translations on the United Nations page, so if we wanted something to follow, that would have to be it without the translations, although you can argue it either way really... But I think more discussion should occur before a revert war starts. enochlau (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the analogy "adding the Arabic name on China" doesn't make any sense.
• No one is trying to add Japanese or German to the articles about United Nation. Only the six official languages are added. I have to emphasize, again, that this has been a common practice in Misplaced Pages.
• The name in all the five non-English official names of the United Nations was already put in the info box (on the right hand side of the article) long time ago. It wasn't added by me. For a long time, no one suggested that we have to delete them.
• As I said before, I would like people to discuss and seek a consensus before deleting any information from the articles.

- Alan 06:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath (talk · contribs)

This one is long overdue. This guy has been asking for trouble it looks like for a long time, and somehow has avoided it. Hidden agenda, confirmed sockpuppeting, sneaky editing, vandalism, personal attacks, the works...he has already been blocked for 48 hrs for 3RR Recommend: blocking for extended period...give him some time to smell the roses...Also - articles in question below probably require arbitration Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, Mahavatar Babaji, Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji - there has been bickering going on for months now, with no resolution. main users in question are Adityanath (talk · contribs) and hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs)

• earlier citations

an/i sockpuppets

• most recent

• personal attacks/incivility

in citation tag

• original research

interprets his sources to mean the opposite of what they actually meant intentional misinterpretation used immaterial reference to bolster his thesis of conflicting viewsno basis for this misinterprets to bolster his thesis original research - uses leading-words to bias reader misrepresentation of fact writing his thesis on wikipedia interpretation and false in context misrepresenting source demonstrates bias

• removal/sneaky vandalism or edits

false claim of mediator opinion false claim that section was deleted - it was integrated in main body not a PA claims to abide by mediator decision, but does whatever he wants in practiceto avoid punishment he removed an admin notice removed notice to avoid consequences disingenuous tags and vandalism disingenuous tags and vandalism removed citation exposing original research disingenuous tags and vandalism shows hipocrisy when previously he said you can't add conflictingviews of conflicting views disingenuous tags and vandalism removes edits that falsify his claims numerous ways he tries to undermine views he disdains another false statement to create bias false statement to try to get out of trouble

• more on:
  • his own talk page

removing warnings - threat - removing warnings -

• • kriya yoga page

• • Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath page

deceptively trying to weaken argument weakens syntax then claims it to be nonsensical

• • babaji page

sneaky removal

• • nath page

tags tags removing discussion 3RR: POV original research edits

Kalagni Nath 05:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Phair

Hello all. I won't bore all of you with a detailed account of the prior behavior of Brazil4Linux, I'll leave it that he's a user with a long history of behavior who has a permanant ban. Recently, he created a sockpuppet with the username of Rick Browser and used it maliciously (personal attacks, stalking and other abusive behavior). He placed a vicious personal attack on RFA- then a checkuser revealed for sure that he was indeed a B4L sockpuppet and the sock was permablocked. Unfortunately, he anticipated his block and merely resorted to creating another sockpuppet. He shares the same edits AND he's voted once again against Jedi6's RFA. Of note- I'm not the only one who's noticed this. DeckKiller, a prominent administrator, has noticed this. Evading a ban, not to mention using it to create a duplicate oppose vote on an RFA... *sigh*. Daniel Davis 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadar

Judging by the many articles he contributed to this project, User:Harisingh does his best to turn Misplaced Pages into a Sikh prayer book. I'm afraid that such statements as "fundamentalists thrust Islam by hook or by crook... by sexual harassment and forcible abductions of the daughters of Hindus and other satanic misdeeds" are liable to bring WP into disrepute. I put the article on RfC, but nobody cared to comment. User:Dbachmann added some necessary tags, yet Harisingh removed them within minutes. So what is to be done now? --Ghirla 07:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Asb2111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have indefblocked this user whose stated aim is "A group of over 325 people have signed up to destroy this website from Columbia University". His edits were mainly spamming of the statement "SORMTACULAR HERRABISM!" and variants therof to numerous pages. He also created the nonsensical Sormtacular herrabism article, now speedied. As I'm still gaining my admin legs around here, comments please. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, enough, he was coming from a Columbia University IP. It seems static enough; if it keeps up, let me know and I'll nail the IP. Essjay 09:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Err, did you mean he wasn't coming from a Columbia University IP? --Cactus.man ✍ 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect mild humor myself, Cactus.man.;-) —Encephalon 10:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn that internet communication thing :-( I presume that since I'm not locked in the stocks with a mob throwing tomatoes at me that the block is OK? --Cactus.man ✍ 11:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I mean he was. It's odd, because usually these kinds of claims come from crackpots with no affiliation to the place they claim to be from; this guy was actually from Colombia. Essjay 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll keep an eye out for similar nonsense and let you know. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry related pages - Mutually supporting (probable) sock farm

Across a number of Freemasonry related pages Anti-Masonry, Christianity and Freemasonry, Catholicism and Freemasonry, Jahbulon we now have a herd of mutually supporting edits to disputed versions with no discussion or attempts to reach consensus. Current probable socks are JeffT (talk · contribs), ABrowne (talk · contribs), Ulsterman81 (talk · contribs), PaulMcCartney (talk · contribs), MicroMacro (talk · contribs), Activevision (talk · contribs) with a check user request at ]

THis looks like co-ordinated flooding to force established editors into 3RR violations.ALR 11:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody found reverting these editors should be blocked for 3RR; all are Lightbringer socks, as established by checkuser. I've blocked the lot of them, and anything they have done should be reverted on sight. Essjay 12:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that. ALR 12:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Add Linament (talk · contribs) to the Lightbringer block list please. Thanks Blueboar 12:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards