Misplaced Pages

The problem is that this got taken wikiwide, so the best viable option now was to entrench, which is far from my preference. This could have been handled more diplomatically all around from the get-go, I totally agree. I think that that's the take-home message here. Kim Bruning 11:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC) I'm getting too good at managerese :-/

The problem is the entrenchment; it is the lack of introspection. Otherwise, I'd pass it for errors in judgments that can be overlooked. El_C 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

*blink* I just said that, didn't I? I thought I sorted this out with Slimvirgin and PZFUN on saturday. We even got a third party to recheck and renominate articles that were clearly bad. But people still continue to assume bad faith, even after that point. Even though basically we have the whole thing sorted out. And every time we need to explain. But it is hard to explain, and I'm sort of stuck on what to do about all this. <hmph> Kim Bruning 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not. You said "the best viable option now was to entrench," that's the opposite. El_C 22:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now you've twisted me around so far even I don't know what happened. And I'm sure I have the logs ;-) Kim Bruning 22:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, as mentioned elsewhere, in order to demonstrate to you that I am not evil, and am in fact, good, I will be proposing a specific set of reforms to AfD in the near future. This will involve a two-part effort: 1. Better clarifying the guidelines in terms of the minimum steps necessary to file an AfD for single and multiple articles. 2. Better organizational structure. Once we defeat the aggregate nature of AfD, it will become drastically more accessible to outsiders and especially, respective experts. So watch out for my proposal soon. El_C 04:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we established that you are not evil yesterday already. ;-) Even so, this is great :-D . Kim Bruning 09:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I for one find it refreshing to see people blowing up over the mass deletion of something other than userboxes. :]

Seriously though, I think we all have particular topics which we care about and there are always going to be a few who go ballistic when their interests are 'attacked' (or looked at funny). One of my favored topics has unimaginable tons of unreferenced cruft that we are slowly trying to sort out and organize into lists and sub-groups and whatnot, and I would certainly be less than pleased if someone came along and nominated huge chunks of the admittedly unencyclopedic/unreferenced/et cetera stuff for deletion before it could be cleaned up. Lacking verifiability, notability, et cetera are reasons to delete individual articles... not entire topics with dozens of articles. There is almost always going to be another option. For instance, these 'Jewish summer camps' might not be notable individually (I really have no idea), but an article listing them and explaining why such camps exist or how they are different from other camps would seem to be more notable... thus a discussion before taking action might have resulted in an amicable agreement to merge some of the articles or efforts to add references and explanations of those which were notable, et cetera. Ditto the rebbes (sp?). Any mass action at odds with the efforts of some group will lead to disruption and anger. Not may, not could... will. Is that 'unfortunate' and 'unneccessary' and 'bad'? Yes... but railing against that which is inevitable (unless we replace all the humans with robots) is equally pointless and 'bad'. Accept that all humans are jerks - it allows you to feel indifference on those occasions when they prove it and surprise and admiration on those occasions when they don't. :]

I look forward to seeing El C's proposal in regards to the 'mass actions' issue. --CBDunkerson 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a minor aspect of my proposal for AfD reform. Please take the time to review it here. El_C 13:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just posted a proposal at the Village pump. (First time I post a proposal, please tell me if all is done right!) Read all about it here. Dr Zak 22:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino

I have blocked Xino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely based on this edit . The linked post followed a sustained pattern of disruptive behavior. Fred Bauder 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

An appropriate block. Looking at his history and general contributions, he depicted a clear pattern of disruption and inability to construct productive edits. Also see this and other stuff. -Zero 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He currently has a WP:RfAr going, actually. You might want to offer to dictate his reply to it on his talk. --Avillia 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not paticularly relevant. He's blocked indefinitely, and Fred has rejected because of that. Please note that the user has neglected to respond to the rfar. He's an obvious indefinite block canidate. -Zero 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Utterly agree with this block—one need only look here. RadioKirk talk to me 14:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Extraordinarily difficult editor. · Katefan0 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am just a user. But wouldn't it be better to block a user for say, 6 months, or even 5 years. Indefinitely seems too strong. Wallie 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely doesn't necessarily mean permanently. · Katefan0 19:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? Wallie 20:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Indefinitely" essentially means, "you've demonstrated that you need to be blocked until you convince the community that your block should be lifted." Indefinite and permanent are not synonymous. RadioKirk talk to me 21:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the phrase "until hell freezes over..." comes to mind.Wallie 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Like this? :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims

I have deleted User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims as it was listing Users by Username as having persecuted Muslims because of actions taken on Misplaced Pages. User:Zoe| 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good delete, fair play. Snoutwood (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, a permblock may be an order, but then again, I am not an administrator. Could someone promote me for all the good advice I've placed on this board? And my roommate would like one too, because he has been invaluable at helping me research these matters.Transcendetitized Artist 17:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to step out of line up there, but my roommate is one of those people that thinks he knows everything. He told me to ask for a promotion on this board. I told him that this was the wrong board! Sorry.Transcendetitized Artist 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of action needs to be taken against this user; he's just not "getting it". Also, Transcendetitized Artist needs to be blocked indef ... it's our favorite, the ANI troll, again. --Cyde↔Weys 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. User:Zoe| 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what it is, that I'm not getting: I am well aware, that you have the power to block editors for vandalism any time you assume bad faith. And I am well aware, that Zoe did not intend to persecute Muslims, but blocked them, because he wanted the cartoons to stay in the article. Since I'm obligated to assume good faith, I consider the persecution as collateral damage. Furthermore I am well aware, that you have the power to censor critique on administrators. Raphael1 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"I wonder what it is, that I'm not getting:" I think it's WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Tom Harrison 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Does WP:AGF and WP:NPA mean, that any critique on administrators is prohibited? Raphael1 02:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Accusing any user of "persecution of Muslims" is a personnal attack, not a critique. Tom Harrison 02:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never accused anyone. "Persecution of Muslims" has been the title of the article in which I've listed editors, who have been blocked for (re)moving the cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. I'd consent to change the title to "Victims of the J-P cartoons controversy article", but I'm not sure whether I'd still be blocked indefinitely. Raphael1 02:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not try working to create an encyclopedia instead of editorializing? User:Zoe| 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that you'd feel more comfortable, if I'd forget about it. OTOH there are currently at least four editors unwarrantedly blocked, who could not only help writing articles, but they could help balance the bias too (which is IMHO even more important). Please tell me: Do you want a neutral encyclopedia or do you want to block editors for not sharing your POV? Raphael1 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have another question ... can we just block Raphael1 and get it over with? He's clearly not going to change his ways. --Cyde↔Weys 23:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, with the exception of this incident, some spamming and some repetitive (read vandalistic) image altering on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (with corresponding neverending talk about how they need to be removed/hidden/etc.) Raphael1's editing hasn't been the perfect example of a truly disruptive editor. This list making does strike me as a bit egregious but only due to the language he used for the title and the fact that it wasn't done in a public "RfC" style format and he was spamming a select group of other editors talk pages to inform them about it. At this point the only reason that I could possibly see for blocking Raphael1 would fall under the "exhausting the community's patience" clause of the blocking policy... but imho that reasoning isn't currently applicable. If you're serious Cyde, I'd suggest you start with an RfC and go from there but unless Raphael1 repeats the behavior I'm mentioning here (for which he'd merit serious blockage), I'd say it's too soon. Netscott 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to know, that I've just filed a Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims. Raphael1 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Attack page

Looks like User:Anwar saadat the muslim extremist is aimed at User:Anwar saadat. A indef ban may be appropriate. Tintin (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefnitely. --Cyde↔Weys 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Tintin (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Anwar Saadat may not be an appropriate username, either—Anwar Sadat is a real and quite famous individual. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to GeneralPatton, etc. ? El_C 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the face of it, neither seems appropriate under the username policy. Both would seem to violate "Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures (e.g. Benjamin Franklin; Chuck Norris)". In general, I'd suggest that if you can put square brackets around a user's name and end up in a biographical article, then we're afoul of that provision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Anwar Saadat's username is fine. His personal attacks, vandalism and POV pushing, however, were not. I'm pretty sure he was blocked over it. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 22:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please let's not have any further restrictions on user names--there are an awful lot of username blocks as it is. It would be possible to construe that policy in such a way as to indefinitely block me, not to mention our friend Tintin above. Chick Bowen 03:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I am afraid that if I ever go for RfA, people will vote against me because my nick is 'copyrighted' as they did in Lord Voldemort's RFA. Even though in the west the name of Anwar Sadat is always linked with the Egyptian President, elsewhere it is a common Muslim name. In this case, it appears to be the editor's real name. Tintin (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My block of TruthSeeker1234 (talk · contribs)

After repeated warnings about civility, being asked to not refer to other editors content disputes with him as vandalism and his commentary to two editors (myself included) that he is going to "publish" information on editors, I have blocked TruthSeeker1234 for 24 hours after he made comments as shown here, which are actually mild compare to some he has made. There is an arbitration request which details this better.--MONGO 20:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Recommend indefinite block. --Cyde↔Weys 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's clear to me that he's not here to write an encyclopedia, but to promote his pet theories. I'd be inclined to accept that as the cost of doing business, but his persistent incivility, and his threat to publish an article accusing me of vandalism, make his presense here a net loss for the community. I support the block. Tom Harrison 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• The diff above doesn't IMV support a block. I also can'tin a brief search find threatening comments. He's clearly not here for the right reasons - but can someone provide more evidence? The Land 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Clearly not here for the right reasons" supports an indefinite block, actually. --Cyde↔Weys 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Here are a few examples. User:DCAnderson collected more for the arbitration:
      • • User talk:Tom harrison#TruthSeeker1234 has written about you
        • Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#12 May 2006
        • Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center#Tom Harrison and Vandalism
        • "I, cannot, in all my imagination, think that Tom Harrison's deletions of my work were anything other than deliberate acts to suppress important information, acts of bad faith."
    • Indefinite is fine with me. Tom Harrison 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think if you examine the arbcom request linked above, it may povide more detail. This has been an ongoing event for some time now.--MONGO 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I've had another look. To me it seems that there are three points:
      • The user is continually engaged in POV-pushing on an article
      • The user refers to other peoples' edits as vandalism
      • The user has made one, not very credible, threat to 'publish' something about someone
    • If I've misunderstood something pelase let me know, but to me that doesn't indicate that he's a threat to anything, just a fairly unproductive user. I am not happy with an indefinite block against him and would urge people like MONGO and Tom harrison not to block him themselves - further action should only be taken by someone who's not party to the dispute. Start an RfC on him? The Land 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe this block is unwarrented. This is part of a battle between several users, some of whom use their admin power to win arguements. This user has been politely argueing his case and has been repeatedly and often agressively shouted down and unnecessarily reverted by Mongo, Tom Harrison and others. Accusations of vandalism have been made all round, not just by truthseeker. I for one have gotten bored of these irrational arguements, but Truthseeker, Mongo and Tom Harrison have all continued. It is unfair for this user to be blocked simply because he disaggrees with an admin. Seabhcán 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• While I believe he probably needs to be blocked, it should come from a third party and not MONGO.--DCAnderson 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that blocking people who deserve to be blocked for incivility and failure to respect the consensus reached in articles is not a bad thing. I also think that he should be indefinately blocked but considering the AbrCom maybe we can let them decide that. With regards to Seabhcán assertions I must diagree. If you see the user's history of edits, he continously defends users like TruthSeeker because they hold his 9/11 truth point-of-view regardless of what Misplaced Pages policies they break. This is extremely frustrating. It is not fair that administrators refuse to acknowledge users who break with Misplaced Pages policy because they share their POVs. I would say that this is reason enough to remove adminship from users.--Jersey Devil 01:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a block is a very last resort, but TruthSeeker1234 has thoroughly tested patience here and the incivility is unacceptable. I support the 24 hour block but any longer-term or indefinite block should come from an uninvolved, third party. (not me) Since this has been brought up in ArbCom, I would prefer them to take a look at the situation. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DCAnderson: Admins should not block people they are currently disputing with, and decisions regarding indefinate blocks for these kinds of reasons need to be left to ArbCom. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct by admin InShaneee

Pantherarosa was listed on WP:PAIN for making personal attacks against User:Melca. When I looked into the situation, I noticed that Pantherarosa had been removing warnings. I restored the warnings and add the do not remove warnings tag to his/her talk page. This caused Pantherarosa to start attacking me. I elevated the NPA warnings but (s)he continued. I continued to elevate the warnings but to no avail. I became annoyed and made one incivil remark to Pantherarosa. InShaneee posted a NPA warning on my page. When I contacted him about it , he admitted that my comments were not personal attacks, but still refused to change the warning. He also said that all of my edits violated WP:CIVIL , when in fact there was only one. When I asked him for an explaination, he pretty much resorted to "it is because I say so".

Secondly, one of my comments was incivil towards Pantherarosa who had repeatedly made personal attacks against me. Misplaced Pages's policies go for all users regardless of circumstances, so an incivil warning should stay on my talk page. However, because I had made one incivil comment toward the other user, InShaneee refused to block Pantherarosa. Not only is this a double standard, but I was not even the one who had the brunt of Pantherarosa's attacks. As another user said on InShanne's talk page: Obviously you aren't interested to even consider that your action isen't the proper conduct of an experienced administrator. I agree with this completely, and to add on that InShaneee is refusing to punish Pantherarosa to make a point to me, even though I wasn't even the person Pantherarosa was originally attacking. The full discussion on WP:PAIN is here: Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard#Pantherarosa (talk • contribs) Paul Cyr 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrator, User:InShaneee exhibited a double standard when blocking me. He blocked me and stated on my Talk Page, "You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption. If a user comes here, to an encyclopedia, asking for information, it shouldn't be difficult to point him to such info". However, I spelled out for him expilicity how the answers I gave, difference, were w links that are sometimes in and sometimes out of the article, Scientology but are the most direct possible answers to the user's specific question. I also spelled out to him why the link answering, "when did the present Church of Scientology start?" is not present in the article today. InShaneee came up with the term, "linkspamming" to describe his blocking me for that answer. Then, in discussion on my talk page, User:InShaneee he made me a promise. "Fax us over some of those high-level OTs and I PROMISE you it'll get fixed up." Left unsaid was "I'm with the Cartel, you should betray Scientology and Fax "us" confidential documents." Whether he is aware or not, such an invitation is unethical to make and would be unethical to fulfill.Terryeo 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both users above. User:InShaneee's conduct is not proper for an administrator. There's more to being an admin than giving warnings out like candies and refusing to discuss related issues. User:InShaneee was adamant that accusing someone of trolling even if they are a troll constitutes as a personal attack, when I displayed that he himself has accused other users of trolling and that it's hypocritical he blocked me for 24 hours in retaliation.--Eupator 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Being unpopular is usually par for the course for admins, especially those who have SP type roles. I personally think that InShaneee is a good lad, a bit of a laugh. Thanks. Wallie 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe our statements don't address his sense of humor, but address his judgement. Though his sense of humor would be a subject that might be explored. :) Terryeo 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what's even funnier? I was warned by InShaneee for making a similar remark as Wallie just did. I imagine that if you weren't defending him, he'd give you a civility warning. In fact, mocking a complaint is incivil, so why don't you deserve a warning? Paul Cyr 20:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I realise you were hurt at my comments. I have said sorry on your talk page. I did not want to get in the way of your compliant. Wallie 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problem with being called "a good lad". :) --InShaneee 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Inshaneee is quite right in saying that calling someone a troll is a personal attack even if they are trolling. Just like calling an obese person "fat" is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with cerebral palsy a "spastic" is a personal attack. Just like telling an ugly person they're ugly is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with low intelligence "dumb" is a personal attack. I could go on but I think you get the message. The accuracy or otherwise of a personal attack does not make it any less a personal attack. In fact, usually the accurate personal attacks are the most hurtful. Snottygobble 05:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not always. WP:NPA is pretty clear that the comment may be considered personal attack "if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." If it is a relevant and fundamentally informative observation, then by definition it's not a personal attack. FeloniousMonk 05:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling anyone a troll is always wrong. It is a device to get your own way when editing articles. Wallie 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Snottygobble on this. There is an additional argument here about not feeding trolls; calling a troll a troll is an indication to them that they have provoked an emotional response, and as such is an incitement to troll some more. Better just to leave the default messages. --bainer (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, can you provide diffs of where InShaneee accused others of trolling? I just want to make sure all claims are linked to with diffs so that we don't have people accusing others of lying. Paul Cyr 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just look at his contributions, you will find many instances such as this , I merely pointed out that it's hypocritical for which he blocked me for 24 hours.--Eupator 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong. Will (_@) T 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not going to engage in this, partly because I qualified InShaneee warning against me, Eupator and Paul Cyr as a lack of experience from this administrators part, but to my surprise having seen him/her sign a disput which I don't ever remember having seen him/her even being engaged in or involved in or having even edited those articles or their talk page , I had to conclude that this was a retaliation to my remark about him/her , . Administrators should not act like this, retaliating against a user like this reflect immaturity. Also, I am troubled that some veterans find it nothing wrong about InShaneee block against Eupator. While in practice there is nothing wrong in blocking someone for not respecting a guideline or policy, that the principal alleged victim here of Eupator remark was InShaneee, and to the measure that he/she took the decision to block him, I believe, InShaneee made this something personal and obviously reflect unexperience and somehow a lack of judgement. Also, that Lutherian is a troll, I will repeat this and should never be blocked for this. A checkusers has reflected that he is indeed a troll, he has done nothing in Misplaced Pages other then trolling and slandering members. Insteed of provoquing veterans of Misplaced Pages by giving warnings because those veterans have retaliated against a troll, he/she should work to prevent such things to happen. Fad (ix) 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is no different than calling someone a vandal - the characterization should only be made when assuming good faith is no longer reasonable. Otherwise, it shouldn't be considered a personal attack, as it indicates specifically whether an editor's edits primarily disrupt Misplaced Pages; it doesn't address any personal trait. HKT 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I think in most cases there are far better alternatives to using such terms. If a troll needs to be dealt with, he should certainly be dealt with, but I just don't see how saying "You're a troll" solves anything in most cases. --InShaneee 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

True. When it comes to warning others, though, "Watch out - he's a troll" is easier than "A high percentage of his edits exhibit trolling, and this trolling is further reflected in his edit summaries and talk page remarks." Nevertheless, I think that "You're a troll" would violate WP:CIVIL rather than WP:NPA. HKT 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been extensive about how to address a user, specifically the use of the term "troll", "vandal", characterization of individual editors, etc. Those were not the issues which brought this discussion into existence. InShaneee's (viewed by some editors) inappropriate blocking, inappropriate administrator behaviour was what brought this "good lad's" actions into discussion. Not the words he used, but the actions he took. To revolve around the words used denies the central issue which was the actions he took and the basis he took those actions on. Terryeo 06:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

King Vegita (talk · contribs)

I need some advice on this one. Please look at these three edits by King Vegita (talk · contribs) on Aleister_Crowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

- Adds 17 {{fact}} tags

- calls removeing 15 of 17 tags vandalism.

- reverts again.

To me it seems like at the very least a violation of WP:POINT. What do ya'll think? ---J.S (t|c) 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree; but my judgement is clouded by the difficulty of trying to bring some sanity to what appears to be a disagreement over something everyone agrees about, so someone else probably should gently remind King Vegita of WP:POINT as well as WP:CIVIL, since calling good faith edits vandalism is the epitome of Wiki incivility. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's a flagrant violation of WP:POINT, for the most part. "This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in Misplaced Pages itself proof that the rule does not work." I'm making a point, sure, but I'm not showing that any policy doesn't work. In fact, this is an attempt to force the article to improve itself.

I also should point out that WP:POINT clearly states: "This page is considered a guideline on Misplaced Pages. It illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy." Administrators cannot act against me for violating a guideline, if I were violating it in actuality....... I'm pointing out that there is a clear POV bias.

Now, in the light of Crowley calling other races inferior, and that is cited, they decide that it is necessary for me to cite that he is a racist. Seeing as those statements were the only cited pieces of the article, I decided to go fact by fact and force them to cite it, especially an opinion, unbalanced, and the attempt to cite something with another statement. There were more than 17 facts in that statement, all uncited as per WP:V. I could in all rights, delete everything BUT the prejudice section, but I don't see that as helpful. But if I force them to cite everything, they'll 1) create a reputable article and 2) learn that you cannot be extremely stringent on the applications of WP policy, overriding policy that override even editor consensus according to all three, in the support of one viewpoint..... and then expect extremely lax in the application of it to your own.

I'm making a point about fair application (in which none of the citations I have asked for are even close to being as easily drawn from other citations or as obvious given the facts as what they insisted on another source for)

KV 05:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User is on his third and final reversion for the fact tags. I'd suggest that things are left be right now. If King Vegita reverts again, 24 block for violation of WP:3RR. If he continues after that, more might be merited. --Avillia 05:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)_{Note: I'm not a Admin.}

No, actually I am not. I made the initial change here, which is a beginning, not a revert. My first revert was here, and my second revert was here. I am still entitled to one more reversion, and even if I were to use it now, I could revert three more times tomorrow...... so long as no four are within 24 hours of one another.

And then I notice that there is no worry to enforce WP:V here. That is an overriding policy that cannot be compromised except as per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR which are equal. Even editor consensus cannot be seen as overriding. Those must be cited.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. You could also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided.

Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

I was being more than fair by giving them a chance to provide sources. They cannot simply decide that they don't need to cite but two of seventeen requested facts, and as of yet, they still haven't cited them. Administrators have a duty to make sure that the policies are followed, and yet I see threats laid against me of a 24 hour ban, if I take my third revert, which I am absolutely allowed.

KV 05:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Err..... sorry, I was thinking Avilla was an admin...... that was probably the original edit conflict, her saying that.

KV 06:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop causing edit conflicts, dammit. WP:POINT in-and-of-itself isn't a blockable offense; However by the definition of the rule, if you've managed to break it you managed to crack another egg along the way. I'd also note that in this case, the addition would probably be considered a reversion. If you get blocked, you get blocked. It's 24 hours; The world won't change in that time. Furthermore, 24 hours isn't a fixed limit... I think the highest we've had is 4 reverts in 32 hours resulting in a ban. Aside from that, adding a fact citation to each word isn't generally liked; You are usually expected to slap one at the end of a disputed sentence(s) or paragraph. Try getting a third opinion, maybe a friend from WP:MEDCAB.--Avillia 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) _{Also, I'm a he dammit!}

No, it isn't a revert. I asked for citations, that isn't a revert. "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references." as per WP:V. Then, WP:Revert explains "To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. A partial revert undoes only some of those changes." I did not undo anything, I added demands for citations. When I had a series of citations to make, word after word, I did it, properly. "Crowley made racist statements against the Chinese, specifically the lower classes, the Indians, the Italians, and the Jews."

If they decide to put that many facts in a row, then they run that risk. Everything must be cited, and the policies must be applied in an NPOV manner, not in the favor of the Crowleyites.

KV 06:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

1 tag makes the point just as well as 9 for one sentence. The way that it is typically done is to mark the end of the sentence and then start a conversation to the talk page. Instead, you decided wp:civil, wp:point, wp:van, wp:3rr were just annoyances to be ignored when you want them to be.

Oh my god, this has to be one of the most retarded conflicts I've ever been in. I'm arguing against someone I completely agree with. YES, ALL THOSE CLAIMS NEED CITATIONS! WE GET IT! Not only do we get it, we ALL agree with you! You keep trying to make the case it needs to be cited... and wow! You win! Your right! It does need to be cited! But, 17 bloody tags is inappropriate! It completely disrupts the article. 3 or 4 tags is fine. I'd even be fine with a tag a sentence. If 17 different citations is needed for the first paragraph, then fine. But 17 tags aren't needed to get the point acrost that citations are needed. Can I say this in any other way? Shall I try French? err... never mind, I don't actually know French. You may not belive this, but this weekend when I was reviewing the article I was planning on actualy going to the bookstore and buying a biliography so I can fill in some of the citations, but if I need work under these combative conditions, I'm not so sure I want to do that. ---J.S (t|c) 07:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to the above — King Vegita added 36 {{fact}} tags to the Christianity article on 15 March. I tried, politely and gently, to tell him that we don't need citation tags for things like Christians believe Jesus in the Messiah, or Chritians believe in heaven and hell, or Catholics also believe in purgatory. I did not call his edit vandalism, but said that if it had been made by an anon, it would possibly, though unfairly, have been called vandalism. (I'm sure we've all seen cases of eccentric edits being labelled as vandalism.) He then went to the talk page of Trollwatcher (an editor who has been banned indefinitely for his part in contributing to and promoting a website that attacked Christian editors and gave personal information about them, which had led to stalking) and asked that my reverting of the fact tags and calling it vandalism would be reported to that website. In fairness to King Vegita, the website at that time did not yet give personal details about the editors. He has also, made what seemed to be a WP:POINT by removing things from the article when something he wanted met with opposition. It's discussed here. I don't think his edits are in bad faith, though his support for the stalking website raises questions, but he seems not to understand policy properly — expecting me to block an editor for seven reverts when four of them were reverts of vandalism, and questioning the block of an obvious sockpuppet, which was reported by the blocking admin (myself) and upheld by others. AnnH ♫ 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If I found 17 cite tags added by an anon, I'd revert it as vandalism on the spot. Adding all those tags was disruptive, and was clearly meant to be. That was his point. I also dislike this counting of reverts, as if someone could say "No, that was two, not three, so I get 2 more before 10:30, then I get another until 2:15 when it resets." My answer to that would be, "No, you get a block right now for edit warring and disruption, with an oakleaf cluster for wikilawyering." Tom Harrison 12:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I have two administrators who I have disagreed with, who are included in a mediation project, but haven't made any appearance either trying to argue that I am a bad editor. Hearing JS say that he understood that a citation would be needed in all those places eventually was all I actually needed to hear. WP:POINT is saying that I'm trying to prove a rule does not work...... which in neither case is applicable. In this case, I was trying to prove that there was a bias in how the rules were applied, not that the rules shouldn't exist. Technically you DO have to verify all of that, I have done so in other articles I have made and worked on. My additions are always full of citations, so I am certainly not saying that WP:V does not work. In the addition of the tags on Christianity, that was after having mentioned that I planned on doing that, 3 days prior, and having no reply on an active talk page. Nothing was cited, and I had been arguing for weeks prior that that way to solve the conflicts was to verify it. Both cases are the opposite of WP:POINT, though someone not looking into it would think that just that I was pointing something out, that I was violating it.

KV 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, I have had no dealings with King Vegita. I have warned him on his Talk page that he is being disruptive, and he can be blocked for disruption. If he continues his behavior, I will block him. User:Zoe| 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to have it explained exactly HOW it is disruptive. WP:DISRUPT does not suggest that at all. As much as that might apply, the others would be in violation of WP:OWN, removing NPOV tags, and removing requests for facts to be cited. WP:V states "Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I am challenging the contents, as they are not verified, in an attempt to improve the article quality. I know that most of it will be verified shortly, and that which cannot can then be removed, if it seems untrue, otherwise we have it noted that it is not cited. That increases Misplaced Pages's credibility. Yes, it wasn't the easiest to read, and when I hear JS state that he recognizes that each of those facts still have to be cited, I won't feel the need to add as many fact tags. But that should have been fixed within 24 hours as those are all basic facts which made it into the introduction. In the end, the article, and in a slight way Misplaced Pages as a whole, would be much better off. WP:DISRUPT also applies to policies, whereas I'm not disagreeing with any policy, a review of my contributions will show that I have gone out of my way to include heavy citation whether or not I am being challenged. I have gone out of my way to cite opponents' views as well. So please, give some reasoning.

KV 22:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been active in the discussion on the Crowley talk page, and am not an Admin. I think this would have been avoided if you would have challenged it on the talk page first KV, like these people are saying. You disrupted the article in order to make a "point" that more citations were needed, where as, a fact tag after a sentence would have made the page easier to read. This however was not addressed in the talk page prior to demontrating this, and NPOV tags were removed as well because it appeared you were trying yet again to prove a point. The problem is, this needs to be discussed first, and then resolved. I learned this when I added fact tags to the page, and was corrected. I hope this helps in answering some of your questions. Zos 23:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did bring it up on the talk page. And I did not disrupt the article, in my opinion. I made the first step in a movement of drastic article improvement in the way of verifiability. If I were trying to disrupt the article, I would have riddled the entire page at once with such tags. I, however, did not. It was not disrupting, it was proving a point as per Misplaced Pages policy suggests "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. " I could have taken this to a much larger extreme, which would be the case if I were trying to disrupt. The guidelines don't even require that to be true, as I was not trying to prove that any policy did not work. And NPOV tags, everyone knew what my objections were, I had voiced them constantly on the talk page. It is not disrupting, and it cannot be done to "prove" a point, but rather to make one.... and the tag cannot be used if one isn't trying to make the point that the article is biased.

KV 23:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the hypocracy of jpgordon accusing me of an infraction of WP:CIVIL. In a recent edit made he has been outright uncivil. . I considered the removal of requests for information to be vandalism, but here he makes the outright comment: "rv weaselization. His words that are racist now were also racist then. This doesn't improve the article; it just makes it sound sloppy.)".

KV 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Kv, if you check, you'll see that this was a comment made about user:999's revision, and not your own. Zos 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Use only one : per layer, so it stays readable please. Now, I know who the comment was made about, but it still is a violation of the policy he accused me of violating. Moral: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

KV 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, I apologize for my wording. What I meant was: You did not discuss the matter of citations in the Introduction to the Aleister Crowley page prior to using as many fact tags as you did (Here at 19:37, May 22, 2006 Here at 19:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ). This could have been brought up before hand, and discussed rather than how it was handled. I'm more than willing to discuss each and every issue you wish to address. Zos 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I had brought it up less directly, but the issue here is administrative action against me. I have been accused of being "disruptive" in violation of WP:DISRUPT, which is what I am refuting. "Not perfect" and "in violation of WP:DISRUPT" are two different things.

KV 00:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, AnnH has made accusations that I had added 36 fact tags to the Christianity article and she tried to tell me nicely that they're not needed. Not only have I found that that is not the stance of WP:V, but I felt it necessary to include exactly what she said:

King Vegita, we don't need citations for things like saying that Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, or that they believe in heaven and hell, or that Catholics also believe in purgatory. The template is not meant to be used for things like that; it's never used that way in other articles, and actually looks slightly bizarre. If that edit had come from an anon, it would possibly (though unfairly) have been reverted as vandalism. Have a look at other articles that use that tag, and try to get a feel for when it's appropriate. AnnH ♫ 13:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is at the bottom of the page at .

She did not actually explain source to a policy or guideline that applied to her statements, and I am still convinced they have no basis in Misplaced Pages policy. My edits, however, did.

KV 01:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dark Tichondrias (talk · contribs) creating redirects

Dark Tichondrias (talk · contribs) has created on the order of 500 redirects within the past hour or two, most of which redirect from Spanish-language translations of article titles (Razas discutibles en la India) or weird misspellings (AZN race in USA. He has been told to stop on his talk page, but hasn't. If nothing else, admin intervention to get rid of the masses of redirects may be necessary.

He has claimed that the Spanish translations fall under {{R from alternate language}}; however, this seems entirely unnecessary for redirects from Spanish titles that are never linked from within the Wiki, and will probably never be typed. Some assistance? Zetawoof 07:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a sufficiently stern warning on the user's talk page. If he keeps doing it I will block him for disruption. The Land 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He's stopped. The Land 09:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Now can we have some admin assistance to get rid of the hundreds of redirects he created? Zetawoof 09:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you either make an omnibus entry on WP:RFD for the lot, or start going through with a speedy tag and using edit summaries to make it clear that there's a whole wodge of these things. That'll help attract some attention. I can't do this sort of non-urgent stuff for a day or two, sorry... The Land 10:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing some, but it would be very handy to have them tagged for collection if you could be so kind . TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm tagging them with {{db-notenglish}}. --Ligulem 18:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Older versions of the user page like this one have a list of most of these redirects. Vegaswikian 21:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am usually all for foreign language redirects (especially for proper names), but this is ridiculous. I have started deleting. Kusma (討論) 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Drini Deletor engaged and ready to go! -- Drini 23:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No time to leave a message, just deleted some 150+ redirects, more still coming... AndyZ 23:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ligulem says he has checked all contributions of the user, and I have deleted many of these redirects, so I guess this is done now. Kusma (討論) 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like the cleanup job is more or less done. Have a cookie. Zetawoof 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones/JJstroker

Usernames:

• Jerry Jones (talk · contribs)
• JJstroker (talk · contribs)
• 68.126.232.191 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.180.37 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.185.95 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.243.216 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.245.179 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.255.2 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.12.137 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.15.213 (talk · contribs)

• 71.131.176.109 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.178.83 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.203.101 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.214.151 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.234.218 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.254.118 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.13.65 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.16.64 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.21.184 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.8.144 (talk · contribs)

Problems:

• Plagiarism: On many occasions this user has copied material verbatim, has revert-warred in order to re-insert the information, and a couple of times has used sources to make it appear that the writing is his own. Three of the excerpts were copied from Professor Kevin B. MacDonald, whose work has been called "anti-semitic" by commentators from across the political spectrum. Due to this editor, virtually an entire article, Immigration Act of 1924, has been copied from MacDonald and from an article in American Renaissance (magazine) (another fringe source).
  • from
  • from
  • from
  • from
  • from .
  • from
  • from
  • from

• POV: The editor has worked to identify Jewish people and insert derogatory information about them,, as well as Democrats and African Americans. while at the same time promoting Neo-nazi groups and sympathizers, and removing critical information about them.
• Here he removes the entire list of Polish American criminals, saying the article needs to be shortened and only positive stuff should be included, while here he fights against the deletion of List of Jewish American criminals and victims, saying every group has its criminals and they shouldn't be hidden.

• • HE MAY HAVE A POINT HERE, if a list of criminals were added under "Jewish Americans", many of you would object. How is that fair and NPOV to include Polish criminals only? Anyone?75.0.145.231 07:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's another issue. The point here is that he single-handedly removed the Polish American criminals list while working against deletion of the simialr Jewish American list - a double standard, and, in the case of his removal of the Polish American list, a precipitous act. Pinkville 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• POINT: After insisting that "far right" and "racist" were not terms that should be allowed in articles because we should "allow the reader to decide for themselves", he inserted "far left" into a number of articles.

• • AGAIN, HE MAY HAVE A POINT. How can the term "far left" be controversial as applied to those organizations? Misplaced Pages should treat the issue fairly and equally.75.0.145.231 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And again, the double standard he has implemented is in his removals of "far right" from some articles, while including "far left" in others. The double standard is the issue. Pinkville 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Other problems include a combative approach to editing and removing source requests without answering them.

Solutions

• The edit warring over plagiarism is sufficient reason to block this editor until we can straighten out the improper edits. -Will Beback 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a block is warranted. SlimVirgin 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to cherry pick my edits and then show pages of edits and take them out of context and show pages from another account go ahead and ban me. It's not like you will let me defend myself anyways because you continually ignore what I have to say. You just have rocks in your head. You do not follow through with wikiNPOV policy and you continually put your opinions in the article because its common censensus among leftists. I even showed you my reasoning from wiki NPOV policy and you didnt even respond. With all due respect you are probably one of the dumbest people I have ever met in my life. I am going to make 5 edits right now applying what I am doing to "racist" articles and "Far right" articles and watch them get reverted. Just look at my next 5 edits. Jerry Jones 17:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You certainly may defend yourself. What do you say about the plagiarism? -Will Beback 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, making personal attacks while a flock of admins are eyeing you with blocking on their minds is not the wisest course of action available to you. It continually puzzles me why people think prefacing an attack with "with all due respect" somehow means it's not an attack - apparently by magic. It is probably already too late, but I strongly recommend you reverse course, and explain your actions civilly. I assure you, no matter what you think, if you make your case cogently and civilly, it will be listened to. Kasreyn 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've run into the same editor, and noticed similar issues. He continually insists on inserting edits insinuating that "Jews are commies" Here's another "Jews are commies" edit: Note, the source he is using actually says the Jews and communists are separate groups: J. Edgar Hoover said the Front was planning to murder Jews, communists and “a dozen Congressmen. Not only that, he is obsessed in general with identifying people as Jews, particularly as left-wing or liberal Jews. Here are a sample of his edits as Jerry Jones:

He's also been sockpuppeting, as User:JJstroker, making the same kinds of edits: etc.

As well, when he's not identifying people as Jews, he's whitewashing Nazis and right-wing groups, insisting that the Nazis weren't racist. Here is a classic edit in which he insists that the Nazis were not racist, but rather just patriots defending Germany from Jewish Bolshevism.

Even more disturbing is his lying about his editing. When confronted with the fact that he has been continually identifying people as "Jews" etc., he denied it, even after being shown the evidence (of which the links above are only a small part). He has also continually denied sockpuppeting as JJstroker, even though his edits make it obvious, and it has been confirmed by a CheckUser. This, combined with his multiple copyright violations, makes it clear there is a fundamental dishonesty here that makes his editing incompatible with Misplaced Pages. Jayjg 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of this behavior in isolation I probably wouldn't censure. The copyvios are bad, but he seems to plead ignorance that he copied too much or didn't properly attribute; that could be fixed. But, all of it taken together, along with his weak responses (especially saying Will is "one of the dumbest people" he's ever met) -- well, I think it's a pretty damning portrait of a user with a certain agenda. The continual whitewashing of "racist" (to include changing "racist" to "racialist") and removal of critical information from the SPLC is what swayed me, and the throwing stones to hide his hands doesn't help. We don't need to waste time cleaning up after someone who edits in this fashion. · Katefan0 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've yet to see anything constructive come from from this editor, but no shortage of disruption. Time for that to stop. FeloniousMonk 21:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism is sufficient reason to block this editor. Adding improperly sourced material is a problem in any case. Doing it after explanation of policy and warning makes it completely unacceptable behavior and destructive to the mission of the 'pedia. FloNight 21:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ignorance of copyright and plagiarism, there are numerous threads on user talk:JJstroker about copied material. He has referred repeatedly to the plagiarism of Martin Luther King, Jr. so he is familiar with the concept of plagiarism. When asked to source the material he never indicated where he'd obtained it and instead gave original references from the original source as if he'd done the research himself. He wrote " I did a lot of work please do not remove it" when defending one of the copied sections. That shows he's consciously lying about the copying. -Will Beback 21:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: If the user engages in any more plagiarism or whitewashing, indefinitely block the user. JoshuaZ 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the evidence above is fairly overwhelming, but I'll just chime in that in my personal experience with this user agrees with the above, especially in regards to his POV-pushing. The edits to the "Racism" page linked above are classic -- first he removes a statement saying that the Nazis' racial policies had some role in the Holocaust. Then in its place he adds a line about how the Nazis believed the Jews were Bolsheviks. When this gets reverted, he asks innocently on the talk page why people didn't like his edits, and tries to argue that he was just trying to counter the idea that racism necessarily leads to a Holocaust-like situation, which was clearly not what the page said and not what his edits were trying to do. Personally I think he's an obvious and pernicious hardcore POV-pusher, and I am sure it is only a matter of time until he is blocked permanently. My only hope is that it won't take a long RfA to do so, since his behavior is so blatantly unacceptable. --Fastfission 01:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive76#User:JJstroker uploading problem images for old discussion. Sorry, I can't contribute at this time. -- ADNghiem501 01:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that JJ is a highly disruptive editor. I think that he was given more than enough chances to correct and would support an indefinite ban. ←Humus sapiens 07:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Holden Barina article

Can anyone help me with this one?? There's no specific template suggesting that an article be split into multiple articles, only merged with them, if anyone could help me I would appreciate this. So far I've used the splitsection tag, but this isn't helping. Advice is appreciated, thanks. --Sunfazer | Talk 11:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See here for all templates concerning merging and splitting. Hope that helps. Btw, the helpdesk is the better place for asking those questions. Garion96 02:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wushu

user Llort continues to revert my edit to Wushu. He has asked for evidence, i have obliged. Yet he continues to revert on the grounds that he does not feel it is relevant, which i contest and i have reinforced through my representation of the gpforums as being very very large. I have tried to enter into dialogue about why he continues to revert it, but all he does is play on my anger when i revert the article back by complaining and getting me banned for an understandable reason, but the grounds are unclear. Can someone please warn him not to revert unless he has given proper reasoning as to why he has done so? Cheers. --Subwaynz 11:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They are absolutely right to be reverting your edit. You're trying to add a section on the Wushu disambiguation page on Wushu : a frequent poster who claimed at times to be in the posession of a Toyota Supra, which was later discredited and unsubstantiated. More recently wushu, under various aliases (such as japanese_girls) has spammed GPforums with copious amounts of softcore japanese pornorgaphy under the pretences that they were somewhat hot, thus he has gained a cult status and is a very famous member of gpforums. The fact that no less than 3 different people have reverted this, and that there IS an explanation for this on Talk:Wushu asking you very politely to stop doing this, should have clued you in to the fact that a troll on a forum (that doesn't warrant its own article) is not encyclopaedic. You are now disrupting Misplaced Pages. Please do not add the section again, or you will be blocked. I'm going to copy this to your talk page. Proto||type 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Even as I generally look with great disfavor on indefinite blocks, I certainly can conceive of a situation in which Subwaynz might exhaust the community's patience and merit such a block. His/her account was ostensibly created in order that he might continue making edits to Wushu, having been reverted whilst editing anonymously (this proposition, raised on his/her talk page, seems undisputed), and his/her contributions are only to the Wushu article, the concomitant talk page, and the talk pages of users with whom he/she has quarreled over the Wushu page. I certainly believe the user to be acting in good faith, but his/her recalcitrance seems to suggest either that he/she is incapable of appreciating our verifiability and notability guidelines or that he/she, comprehending them, simply flouts them; neither scenario is particularly comforting. One always hopes that users such as this will comport themselves with policy, in order that they might contribute effectively, but surely this account should be watched closely, as it shows signs of having been created for disruptive purposes (or, at the very least, of being wholly, if avolitionally, disruptive in practice). Joe 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

J.Smith (talk · contribs)

Hello, i am an anonymous role account of another wikipedian, my password is swordfish. please inspect my account to confirm that i am a benign role account and am not hiding anything malicious--J.Smith 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets themselves are not prohibited. It's using them for malicious purposes that is. I'd recommend changing your password, too. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Account indefinitely blocked until user changes password and contacts me. Role accounts are not prohibited, but public accounts certainly are. We don't need a password to check your contributions. Syrthiss 13:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, whoever changed my password, could you please change it back to swordfish, thank you--J.Smith2 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And hence we see the problem. Syrthiss 14:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that J.Smith decided to post this notice in about 15 places causes me difficulty when trying to assume good faith. Please do not create another J.Smith account. The Land 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And I've taken the liberty of changing the password on the second account. If the user wants the new password, e-mail me. Otherwise, go away. --Calton | Talk 14:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And then User:Johnny Smith 2 materialises and starts vandalising this page. what a surprise. The Land 14:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with this account. It is too similar to my account: J.smith (talk · contribs). ---J.S (t|c) 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thewolfstar update: new sockpuppet meets naive admin

Community banned user Thewolfstar's new sock Dot_Bitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked. (Her obvious sock/meatpuppet Lamb_of_god (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already was.) Either username or sock-ness would separately be enough for an indefinite block, and Thewolfstar has even confirmed that Dot Bitch is her account. I apologize to the community for inadvertently enabling yet another soapbox for Thewolfstar by engaging in dialogue with her on User talk:Dot Bitch. In my block message, I advised her to get another account, edit harmlessly, keep her head down, and not draw attention to herself. She spoke gently at first, thanked me, and, well, then things started to go downhill; it's all in the History if anyone's interested. I guess I learned something. :-( The talkpage has now been protected, by User:Andrew Norman, and I've blanked Thewolfstar's rants from it. I won't be caught that way again — not by this user — though I hope to remain capable of extending even unreasonable last chances to problem users in general. Anyway, I advise any admin who might be tempted to assume good faith in dealing with any future incarnation of Thewolfstar to take a look at the development of User talk:Dot Bitch first. It's instructive. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

Happens. Meh. Thanks for keeping us up to date. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Newest sockpuppet: User:Laplander. She apparently got logged out, because she continued editing as User:24.161.21.22, posting a long and convoluted message to User talk:Jimbo Wales calling for Thewolfstar to be unblocked and the many corrupt admins to be sacked. This is based on my review of the contributions of Laplander and User:24.161.21.22 . I've blocked Laplander indefinitely and the IP temporarily. Review of my decision is welcome. FreplySpang 14:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

uh

What is that how is it that sometimes one RU can create another RU?--205.188.116.65 14:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you create another account while you are logged in, that's how it shows up. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL block

- this blocked user must have been using AOL since I am getting autoblocked. Please help 64.12.116.65 15:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This probably seems insensitive, but If you get off AOL and get another ISP and it probably won't happen again. You might even save a lot of money! Due to how AOL works we have to sometimes block IPs used by multiple users to protect ourselves. We recognize that you may not be the one to blame, but we still get attacked. --mboverload@ 00:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right...that is pretty insensitive. --InShaneee 00:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

=( --mboverload@ 00:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You might find Advice to AOL users page to be helpful. FreplySpang 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

BACKIsayBACK

BACKIsayBACK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). New phenomenon, or a sock of somebody? I've blocked him anyway. --GraemeL 15:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ball of wax vandal. I am marking him as such. - Mike Rosoft 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact I didn't have to, he did it himself. - Mike Rosoft 18:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My blocks

• Deleereeum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Permanently blocked for upload of Image:Hilary.jpg for the purpose of vandalism of Hillary Clinton, and for creation of an attack page Bryan Broach.
• 61.95.199.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Blocked for a week for repeated spamming (pornographic links). (May need to be checked if it is an open proxy.)

Mike Rosoft 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

61.95.199.116 is not currently an open proxy. Naconkantari 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What to do about Darren Hayday?

Back in March I nominated Darren Hayday for deletion. The person in question wasn't impressed by his page being nominated for deletion and after accusing me of everything from bad faith, to pushing a homosexual agenda on Misplaced Pages and targeting him because he's a straight Conservative he eventually apologised and agreed for the page to be userfied to User:Hayday/Darren Hayday. Had he not done so I very much suspect consensus in the afd debate would have been delete or userfy anyway.

On 25 April Mr Hayday mentioned on his talk page that he has no plans to add a page for himself anytime soon. However I have noticed the page is back, created on 8 May, and a new user, Sky1066 (talk · contribs) is only interested in the same subject that Mr Hayday was previously: i.e. Darren Hayday.

What is the feeling regarding this page? Does it achieve notability criteria? If not, can someone else nominate it for deletion? I'm not going to, as I don't want to go through the rigmarole of accusations and vandalism that I did last time. -- Francs2000 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I certainly think him to be a non-notable personnage (neither his candidacy in the UK local elections, 2003 nor his election to be mayor of High Wycombe, IMHO, necessarily conveys notability), and I certainly don't think any reasonable person could impute bad faith to Francs' nominating it for deletion, even in view of the history betwixt Hayday and him. I'm confident, though, that an AfD would not generate a consensus for deletion (in fact, I highly doubt the disposition would be any other than no consensus; hence, keep by default), and so I'm disinclined to AfD the article. Certainly there are traces of POV in the article, and much of it is, in any case, unencyclopedic (e.g., that Hayday's wedding ceremony was samll), and one should certainly watch edits carefully lest unsourced POV should be inserted; I don't see any superior course of action. Joe 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(Somewhat off-topic note: should Rob Assels, a new article for an otherwise non-notable candidate in a local election, be tagged for deletion per the criteria expressed above? --John Nagle 03:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

• Local councillor. The only mayor in that town ever to be blue-linked. Technically been deleted before (I userfied it and then deleted the redirect). Vanity. I'm tempted to speedy it. However, I'm off to bed now - if it's still there in the morning I'll AFD it. --kingboyk 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, a lot of that information looks fundamentally unverifiable. --Fastfission 01:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of Category:Councillors in south east England and I din't check to see if they were all of encyclopedic standard. Rather than AfD it tonight I started a rewrite to remove the OTT material. Some else can check and see if it needs deleting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I lean towards delete. The category that you mention is quite big, but the popups tell me that most if not all have gone on to be federal members of parliament, while this person is a local government mayor in a town of 100,000. Unless the town has a high rate of turnout to local community elections, I would lean towards delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

He's mayor of High Wycombe. Not a deletion (or userfication) candidate. Not even remotely. --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I most enthusiastically agree. He's mayor of High Wycombe! Snottygobble 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, he may be mayor, but the article is clearly written as a vanity piece. My guess is that, once reduced ot the verifable info, it'll only be a quarter of its current length. -Will Beback 06:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just remove all the stuff that can't be verified, and the trivia. Copy the non-trivia to the talk page in case someone else can verify. I tried to verify the bit about being on the Council of the Bow Group but without luck. The Bow Group's website lists the Council for the current year and his name isn't there. --Tony Sidaway 10:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Being mayor of High Wycombe makes him notable? Have you been to High Wycombe? Seriously though I hadn't considered this as even a possibility, and I must admit to some bias because he turned out to be such a t*sser the last time his page was going through afd. If what you say is the case my next project will be producing pages for the mayors of Aylesbury (my home town), most of the more recent ones I know on first-name terms. -- Francs2000 10:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I will of course keep everything verifiable. -- Francs2000 10:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been so many mayors, and their equivalents, of cities of similar or larger size all over the world and throughout history that a single one is not notable unless it is an enormous city or through some other circumstance. Also, mayors often serve for just one or two years, limiting their notability (some serve four or five year terms, though). -- Kjkolb 10:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If High Wycombe Town Council runs to a similar structure as Aylesbury it'll be a two-year term after which someone else will most likely take over. -- Francs2000 10:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hayday created the article Mayor of High Wycombe. Perhaps we can merge a line about him (as the current mayor) into that article and delete the biography. It appears that mayor is a one year ceremonial post. NoSeptember 10:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I know High Wycombe. It's a reasonably pretty market town. I don't think the "if we added articles for all present, past and future mayors of towns of similar size, we'd have an encyclopedia the size of Saturn" argument makes much sense. We have an article about this politician about whom a reasonable amount of verifiable information is available. His father and great uncle were notable Labour politicians, the latter being a SDF member who was present at the historic meeting that created the LRC. He's an elected councillor and the mayor of the town, which means that he represents his town in ceremonial capacity at all important social and political events. Why would we want to delete it? Lack of paper? --Tony Sidaway 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear that this issue needs administrator intervention at this time and would suggest the matter be taken to the article talk page, or to an AfD, if one is appropriate. Let's reserve AN/I for finding increasingly outlandish reasons to burn User:Cyde at the stake. ("He made a gurn at my userbox!", etc.) JDoorjam Talk 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin Jargon

I wish admins wouldn't use jargon (windtalking?) which us users don't understand. Someone asked me to provide a "diff". I see "sock" immediately above. This stuff seems to have only crept in over the last few months. Wallie 18:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would only say 'sock' if I'd already said 'sockpuppet' or made it a piped link to WP:SOCK. However, the word 'diff' is in everyone's watchlist and contributions list and is the accepted technical term (see Help:Diff), so it can't and shouldn't really be avoided. --Sam Blanning 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Glossary is a handy page. It's a necessary evil to have some specialized jargon in any field—having to explain what a 'diff' is every time we use the term would be too cumbersome. If you see something you don't understand, feel free to jump in and ask. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Note the previous posts to ANI by this user. --Avillia 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What's to note. I don't use jargon. (not that I'm aware of.) Thanks. Wallie 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume he's referring to your attempted scolding above -- but I also suspect you knew that already. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. Scolding obviously didn't work. I left a note on her page too, re that I must trying to keep on topic, but I thought it was funny. Wallie 18:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe you should consider taking it up. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• ZOMG! OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Genau. Wallie 04:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

German isn't easier to understand than jargon (unless of course it is). -lethe 04:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That one is. Means exactly. WP:FU in that link had me worried. Means Fair Use. Used to mean something else in my day, eg, SNAFU. Wallie 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've taken my point. This is English Misplaced Pages, and it's harder for people to look up German words than it is to look up wikipedia-specific acronyms (which usually have wikipedia namespace shortcuts). People might not even know that "genau" is German, and even if they do, they might not know where to find a good online German dictionary (no, not wiktionary). So you've committed the very sin that you're complaining about, using language that isn't readily understandable to everyone here, and I think your transgression is worse. It violates policy (WP:UE). Luckily I speak German, so I can communicate with admins and Wallie. Want to hire me as your translator? -lethe 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Salary. One barnstar a week. Wallie 05:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not really trolling, Ryan. Too much overtime at the VDU? The question has been answered. The rest is just chit chat. No harm in that. Deleting it is unnecessary, and with that comment. It will die naturally soon. Thanks. Wallie 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What Ryan are you talking to, and how did this post get to the bottom again? Are you talking to yourself? I think admin jargon is the least of your worries. -lethe 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Might seem that way. Refer to log timestamped 7:11 24 May 2006. Thanks. Wallie 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

post removed by Ryan_Delaney (talk · contribs). -lethe 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

HerkimerCountyWasteoid, et all.

Persistent sock puppet vandal is back again under new names: HerkimerCountyWasteoid, WikiCreedia, NocturnalAdmission, and BlazingLasers. This is a continuation of the silly vandalism and reversions previously conducted by CaptainMarvelDC, CthulhuCommandsYou, GlobalGUTS, GottaCatchEmAll, KidIcarusNES, MeddlingKids, PurplesaurusRex, Samoa Joe Is Angry, Secondwhiteline, SuperSloppyDoubleDare, TheFlashDC, based on the target articles, type of vandalism, connections between "vandalism only accounts" and actual junk inserted into artcles. It is time to add the first listed and lastest names to the list of indefinite suspensions so that the attacked articles can have a rest. Stepp-Wulf 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

I moved this from WP:AIV as it was too complex for that page. Share and Enjoy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to use WP to further health fraud? User:72.224.168.161 and Mucoid plaque

I believe that the pattern of edits of this user indicate an attempt to use WP to support the health fraud of this variety of colon "cleansing".

• No contributions but in this article contribs some gaming - demanding citations for things that really shouldn't need them - and now blanking portions of background information demonstrating the falsity of the alleged techniques. I wonder if blocking the IP address is justified and also whether sprotecting the article might be contemplated. Midgley 02:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I highly suggest protecting the page, people reading such crap on Misplaced Pages may get the false impression that it is peer-reviewed medical advice or that an entry at least makes it noteable --mboverload@ 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Colon cleansing, at least with their methods, is pretty dangerous. They have you swallow clay, sometimes specified as bentonite clay, which absorbs water any liquid it encounters in the stomach or bowels. The clay increases greatly in size and can cause a bowel obstruction (this is why you should take fiber with a lot of water, so that it does not expand too much in the instestines). If it does not come out, surgery may be necessary. Even if it does come out on its own, you may have very painful intestinal spasms as a result of the intestines trying to unclog itself. The "mucoid plaque" that people expel, and what colon cleansers give as proof that it works, is actually the clay itself. It retains the shape of the instestines, so people think that the material had built up on the intestinal walls like the colon cleansers claim. Finally, mucoid plaque has never been found during surgery or autopsies, despite unreferenced claims to the contrary. Misplaced Pages should not say that instestinal cleansing works for ethical, legal and accuracy reasons. -- Kjkolb 10:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is at AfD now. I do gastroenterology and I'd highly recommend sprotection until the AfD is complete. You don't want someone fasting and eating clay by themselves based on what they read here -- Samir धर्म 11:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Google, I feel it is important that (provided the consensus or general view remains that this is a health fraud and A Bad Thing) the first line of the article continues to state that it is a fraud. The reason is that otherwise the person seeking information who uses Google will see that WP reports that "it is claimed to be blah blah". They are likely to read it as an indication that the condition exists - IE take it as support. There is actually some benefit to having such articles, and Tearlach's original was pretty good and IMO balanced and his justification or rationale for it correct. But if the price of having it there is that someone who I cannot believe is not an interested party can repeatedly force us to defend it from use as advertising, then perhaps we'll have to do without it. I propose that there should be a low threshold for sprotecting such articles. Midgley 17:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt Vandal

Curt-SchiIIing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note spelling is two capital i's instead of the L's), Curtis_S2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), imitating all the worst early behavior of EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (my opinion, just a guess, this isn't actually Eddie). Editing from an AOL address, I believe, and maybe some others too. I'm going to sleep now, but admin eyes on Crossover (rail), Exicornt, and the deleted Eddie Smith and X-junction might be helpful for catching further socks of this character. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just caught one Bunchofgrapes. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- there may be others. It's someone pushing the "exicornt" neologism, and pasting the content of that deleted article elsewhere as well. Antandrus (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then there are the pages Eddie_Smith, Eddie-Smith, Eddie Smith., Eddie Smith... and Bunohofgrapes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... I've also S-protected Exi--- uh, Crossover (rail). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just found and deleted two more, and blocked Dsvidortiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). FWIW, he's using AOL as you can tell by the voting history here . Antandrus (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also DavidOr tiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Slambo (Speak) 19:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

db tagged User:DavidOr tiz/exicornt. Slambo (Speak) 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. I hate blocking these (AOL collateral damage, no doubt) so if anyone has any better idea, let's hear it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also now David-wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vandal_buster_288 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Y-y-yoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Kingturtel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Main modus operandi is to create redirects to Crossover (rail) from pages like Exicornt; or exicornt,, along with corresponding redirects to the talk pages. Also common is sockpuppet voting in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Dragons, messing with the old Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Exicornt, and voting in RfAs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly the "exicornt vandal" that has been hitting various Wiktionaries for a while now; realistically, it is probably all User:EddieSegoura. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Te above user had created nearly a hundred talk pages which had no corresponding articles. I have deleted most of these wit some help from Drini. Any idea how long the vandal's block should be. I've currently set it on indef 72 hrs, cause its a shared IP.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Admins, please help out at C:CSD. There seems to be another batch of them.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Imposters of AlexKarpman

There are a whole lot of imposters of AlexKarpman.132.70.50.117 10:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific. The Land 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This user is trolling. He has a history of trying to get his whole school blocked. Just ignore him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

He is trolling, but there WERE a whole lot of impostors of User:AlexKarpman. I've been trying to investigate (see User:Woggly/Bar-Ilan vandal) but the extent is dizzying. --woggly 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

193.164.126.35 vandalising

Hi,

Please, block this IP: 193.164.126.35. Hi keeps vandalising articles

• Knin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Croats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mole (animal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mowgli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See his Contributions

Regards, Ante Perkovic 11:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• WP:AIV, please. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Jylenholm 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.

NOTE: This user should not have been blocked. Please unblock as soon as possible. It is possible that the user's account was compromised. --Havenstone 11:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely, any unblocks should wait until after compromised accounts are confirmed 'clear' again...? Femto 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already removed this notice once as instructed as the vandalism has been dealt with, and the user indefinitely blocked. The user wasn't blocked by a bot as pointed out above, but by me. If the user account was compromised they have the ability to point this out on their talk page or send me an email. -- Francs2000 11:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: they have actually asked to be unblocked on their talk page stating that the account had been compromised, but looking at the user contributions and the short timeframe between vandalism and unblock request, an unblock just isn't going to happen. -- Francs2000 11:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Question No bot has the ability to ban, block, or I think even actually give a test vandalism message to. Someone back me up here. --mboverload@ 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Autobots can be programmed to do anything a user can do on Misplaced Pages, the question you should be asking is "should they have the ability to..." -- Francs2000 11:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Tiger-man

Tiger-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has up-loaded a string of images, none of which has a satisfactory source; I and other editors have tagged them, and the situation has been explained to him. His response has been to remove tags, replace images in articles, and engage in personal abuse. Now, however, he's gone one step further — he's gone through my contributions, removing images (whether placed by me or others) with the false summary that he's removing images without a source. As I'm involved in all the articles, by definition, would it be unacceptable for me to apply a block, or warn him that he might be blocked? If so, could someone else take the appropriate action? If not, would a block be precipitate? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a day. This is blatant WP:POINT violation, and the personal abuse is equally unacceptable. --ajn (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Abusive edits

Hello,

I'd like to report vandalism (as in edits) to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/W.I.T.C.H.

A guest with IP address 85.101.33.217 editted it several times adding herself to the characters list, believing she would be in the next comic then.

We tried to reason with her, but it was of no use: we got ignorant mails in return ("Why the hell is there an edit button on it, then?"). You can read the discussion over here: http://www.tv.com/w.i.t.c.h./show/29931/a-new-guardian-/topic/13689-247766/msgs.html&msg_id=3503844

We would appreciate it very much if this user would be banned from editting the article.

Thanks in advance, Aaron van Geffen.

Please forward this to WP:AIV if you haven't already done so. 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this ges here or not, but there is also a page dedicated to the non-existant character here, Aylin. At least I think she's non existent...don't watch the show. Anyways, it says it's up for speedy deletion, but that was a while ago, and I don't see it on the WP:SD history page. Krisorey 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Username?

I think User:Kandal the Vandal is an inappropriate user name, but I don't want to march in with a sledgehammer before checking with other admins first. (WP:USERNAME doesn't appear to explicitly ban the word "Vandal"). Comments please. --kingboyk 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked that user a little while ago, but this post made me look a little more closely, and it seems that it is a positive contributor, so I'll leave a message on their talk page. Prodego 19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The name is a bit suspicious. If someone merely identifies with the Vandals (ancient Germanic tribe), per WP:AGF I wouldn't have a problem with the name per se. OTOH, if they engage in vandalism, then the behavioral association is clear and WP:AGF is off. ←Humus sapiens 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they identify with off-Wiki vandalism (like the spray painting of subway cars) ;-). NoSeptember 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Which you see would justify a block under username policy, since vandalism is illegal! --kingboyk 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the saying "If you were a real Goth, where were you at the sack of Rome?" Zetawoof 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Stupidest history joke. Ever. But I'm still laughing, thanks! =D --mboverload@ 07:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as he's not using the name to make some sort of point, I don't see a problem. Chick Bowen 01:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Demiurge011 evading block

User:Demiurge011 is clearly a sockpuppet of User:Demiurge010 (itself the N sockpuppet of Ndru01 for N → ∞), created to avoid the block of Demiurge010. --Lambiam 20:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• And User:Demiurge101 and User:Demiurge110 are already lying in wait. --Lambiam 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Demiurge010 (result: 24h) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Demiurge011. --Lambiam

Dealing with vandalism

What is the policy regarding people who vandalize, then revert their own vandalim 6 minutes later, then apologize? It's 65.79.36.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Should they be blocked anyway? The IP is owned by a school.--The ikiroid (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we often issue a {{selftest}} tag for a first time of doing that, if it is being done repeatedly it is still disruptive to wikipedia and hence further warning and a block maybe required to prevent the disruption. --pgk 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do.--The ikiroid (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Pansophia and article Kaiser Permanente, return after block, 9RR, personal attacks, blanking "on departure" of user talk page with warnings...

The article was sprotected because of Pansophia's multiple adverse edits from a collection of open proxies. POV warrior now returned. Immediate action has been to set about reverting again, but also at this point inserting a link to the whale.to site which has been determined by RFC etc to not be either WP:EL or WP:RS

No discussion of any of the changes in the talk page.

No response in the RFC on her conduct

Action please. Midgley 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Something should really happen here, and soon. --Avillia 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Any suspected open proxies should be reported to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on open proxies immediately. Chick Bowen 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We did that last time. Pansophia is, as well as blatantly using WP as a platform to launch an attack on KP (I suspect they fired her, I begin to be unsurprised) editing disruptively not least by flaunting consensus on acceptable links. I'm also tired of the personal abuse. Midgley 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"'Flouting, damnit,' he said pedantically." --Calton | Talk 00:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Flaunting his flouting. Midgley 10:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"'Dammit, dammit,' he retorted with as close to parallel structure as he could muster, lacking an adverbial form of 'parallel.'" JDoorjam Talk 03:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For convenience - a link to previous discussion and block Midgley 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks not sticking

Today two separate editors whom I thought I had blocked indefinitely managed to resume editing. In both cases they were already blocked when I extended the block to indefinite - I unblocked them then reblocked, but the indefinite one still didn't stick. See the contribution histories and block logs of The Middle East Conflict Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I'm N' Mad-dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Am I doing something wrong here? Just how are you supposed to extend blocks? --Sam Blanning 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

An admin recently placed a one-year block on an IP address which didn't seem to "take" either (see here) - it was used a few days later. - David Oberst 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a go at fixing the Middle East Conflict Man block. I searched and destroyed all extant blocks and autoblocks on that editor, then reimposed it. Fingers crossed. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets confirmed but not blocked yet

See here. This vandal is a repeat offender with an active farm. As directed by Essjay, I am reporting this incident here. Anwar 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

All blocked. --Sam Blanning 23:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats from The Middle East Conflict Man

While on the subject (two doors up), TMECM (indefinitely blocked per exhausted community patience not far up this page at time of posting) is now using his talk page to issue legal blather Apparently, I "may be in trouble". Presumably Viking lawyers will be rolling up the Itchen tomorrow and rampaging through Southampton waving battle axes and subpoenas. Is this worth protecting his talk page over, or threatening such? I don't care myself, but someone might want to close his trollhole so well-meaning users can't throw food into it. --Sam Blanning 22:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected by HappyCamper. Chick Bowen 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruption of Robert Byrd

The Robert Byrd article is being disrupted (again) to make a point. A User:DanKorn and some IPs keep adding usourced info that hints that he is still a member of the Klan. youngamerican (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user:TheMadTim

User is blocked, but keeps creating new accounts using proxies etc to beat block. User has created RFC against me. And has started 3RR against me and Request For Investigation against me.

• TheMadTim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AggieTheTeaLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 공수 아이는 수음자 이다 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user name is a WP:ATTACK
• VeryJollyGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hahahahahahahaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StanTheMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.4.230.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• DoctorHooDoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ﺾﺸﻏﻞﻤﻌﻏ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.38.53.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 211.48.37.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.201.176.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 218.48.229.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.20.37.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 58.225.37.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 221.114.194.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 216.155.95.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• BiII the Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created RFC pretending to be Bill_the_Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who he claims is my sock, but isn't

--Karatekid7 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Request For Investigation"? User:Zoe| 19:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFI --pgk 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFI#Requests Yeah a South Korean IP address has put a request up. I can not get it to proxy but, I would be surprised if the person is from outside of Britain or Ireland. --Karatekid7 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Likely Sock # 54 of User:VaughanWatch

• The first and only edit of Galatti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was to remove a newly added piece of information from Vaughan, Ontario in similar fashion to the many socks of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was banned for running a massive (53 so far) sockpuppets. Requesting an indefinite ban on Galatti. - pm_shef 01:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Alexis97 posibly opening an open meatpupet

• User:Alexis1997's only edits are to his userpage. He stated his password and left a message in his talkspace to the effect of "I hate you all". Much mischief in this do I see, young Padawan. Pat Payne 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I tried the password and it didn't work, so either he changed it or it wasn't true. No reason for action for the moment, I don't think. I'll give him a {{welcome}}. Chick Bowen 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • Or perhaps somone else tried it and changed it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar

User:Antaeus Feldspar reverts my indication of dispute (reliability of source) in an article that has a case at the mediation cabal. User makes no comment in talk page about this dispute until after I message his talk page. He removes my messages to his talk page without discussion with personal attackin in edit summary and then makes personal attacks and general uncivility on the the disputed article's talk page. --Nikitchenko 02:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The actual state of affairs is that Nikitchenko is trying to abuse the {{dubious}} tag -- he wishes to apply it to a statement of the form "X claims Y", not because he actually finds it dubious that X claims Y, but because he claims to find Y dubious. Despite several editors explaining to him several times how this is not a correct usage of the tag, he persists in this behavior -- and then trumps up reports like this one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User unilaterally and repeatedly removing image tags

Evrik (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly and deliberately removing {{PUIdisputed}} from images listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images despite being told by myself and other users to stop. He has so far refused to defend his notion that these images are PD or refute (or even comprehend) our arguments: seehere, here, and here.

In any case, since PD itself is disputed, he should not be using PD to justify the removal of PUI tags. He has been told this several times, but insists on continuing: see discussions linked above and here and here. Yet, he persists.

I am requesting help here to ask for 1) more users to tell him that removing PUI tags before the discussion is over is inappropriate and/or 2) a block him for persisting just like how any user who repeatedly removes afd tags would be blocked.--Jiang 03:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Left a message for Evrik asking him to stop removing the tags until discussion is complete. .:.Jareth.:. 03:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And he went and removed the tags once more. --Jiang 20:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:BorgHunter

This sysop speedy deleted a file violating deletion policy: Image:Lock-icon.jpg. The file was used for weeks on all template talp pages using Template:Protection_templates. As JPG it's clearly no dupe of any SVG. -- Omniplex 04:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's actually pretty strange. Have you contacted him? That's the first thing to do in this situation. It is probably just a misunderstanding on his part --mboverload@ 04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a duplicate of Image:Padlock.svg? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically, CSD I1 only covers images in the same format. However, it is often used, in a sort of semi-WP:IAR manner (apologies for the jargon), to delete redundant images in different format when the admin considers the deletion to be uncontroversial. As Mboverload said, I'm quite positive BorgHunter meant no harm by it. Chick Bowen 04:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I suppose I should start defending myself here. First, I replaced all instances of the JPEG with Padlock.svg, because they were the exact same image but in different formats. Then, I deleted the JPEG under CSD I1. And finally, I left a note on Omniplex's talk page, which he has yet to respond to, when I saw him reverting my changes. However, per WP:IUP, the JPEG clearly is unnecessary, and the SVG is far preferable. Keep in mind that I changed all links from the JPEG to the SVG before I deleted the JPEG. This is common practice, and I've seen it on Misplaced Pages all the time. Once I even deleted a slew of PNGs that were replaced with SVGs, and nobody complained then. I'm not sure what the issue is currently, though I'm open to complaints. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Complaint posted on WP:DRV. It's impossible to misinterpret an edit summary "working with more browsers". -- Omniplex 05:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate user name

Sorry, but couldn't seem to find another location for this.

Stawkerbot3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a bogus vandalism warning on my talk page yesterday (I'm guessing a sockpuppet of Bongout (talk · contribs), from context), but it occurs to me now that the username is inappropriate both for using "bot" and for apparently trying to confuse readers with User:Tawkerbot. Shouldn't it be blocked? --Calton | Talk 05:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Daloonik (talk · contribs) seems to be a part of what looks like a sockdrawer, but I don't know if my suspicions rise to the level of being enough to request Checkuser. Would an admin mind taking a (quick) look and offering an opinion? --Calton | Talk 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Stawkerbot3 indef as an impersonator, is definately a sock of Bongout, checking for other socks. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Inconclusive on Daloonik, no other socks at the moment. If anything else suspicious turns up, bring it to RfCU. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A Troll supports Vandal and takes over my talk page

This is a bizarre issue. A troll keeps editing my talk page insisting I don't have the right to re-organise it. Now what exactly is the policy, if any, on talk pages? Anwar 06:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The vandal in question here had an active farm and his 13 puppets awarded each other fake barnstars , .

The troll in question here is a fierce ultra-conservative nationalist who has been stalking me, for a fortnight now, for reverting his fascist POV and opposing his friends' unfit RfA candidacies and substandard contributions. Anwar 08:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Prin's Sockpuppetry is irrelevant to this debate, I have already stated below that I did not support Prin's sockpuppetry. However, I believe some of those barnstars were awarded by others as well. You deleted them all nonetheless. In relation to the rest of your comments: How can you say those RFAs are unfit when Blnguyen's made it to WP:100 in terms of support!! In relation to the Fascist Ultra-Conservative Nationalist stuff...that's funny :). Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, it's probably untoward of you to alter the text of his message (viz., by removing bolding, since such bolding isn't overly intrusive and is illustrative here; the header, OTOH, you may, in my estimation, alter as you like, though nevertheless consistent with WP:NPA and not where clarity is lost), but it is likely similarly untoward of him to revert your alteration. Nobleeagle, even assuming arguendo that he was trolling here (and I don't think he was; the tenor of his message is rather cordial), is not a troll, and your using that appellative likely won't help to mend the rift. Joe 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only one with issues with Anwar. But if I am requested to do so, I will refrain from making any form of contact with him. That is if I am requested to do so. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, completely agree with Joe. See Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines - right to refactor and reorganise doesn't mean you can give uncalled for apellations to other users. Also, this doesn't call for administrator intervention, so placing this comment here is wrong. Anwar, you may want to file an RFC and see what others have to say. --Gurubrahma 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Specific quote from Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines: "Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context". From the following diffs, I think Anwar is going beyond re-organization by changing titles and adding emphasis: . It places the comments of others out of context. -- Samir धर्म 06:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have a little more time now so I'll have a look at Anwar's claims. I believe they are false:

He claims that: a troll keeps editing my talk page insisting I don't have the right to re-organise it.

The first two words a troll are debatable on their own and Anwar has been noted to label very good editors as trolls simply because they do not fit his POV. keeps editing my talk page, I have reverted once and once only, I doubt that qualifies as keeps. Insisting I don't have the right to re-organise it, when did I say that? A falsehood if I ever saw one, instead in my edit summary (in the instance in which I did revert his talk page) I have said: you may categorize as you wish but you will not change anyone's comments against their will. Therefore Anwar's claims are false and purely fiction. Instead I believe he's just trying to get rid of me by hook or by crook. That's my say. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding formatting to change the intent of a comment by someone who didn't make it is at the least not very nice. Changing someones content goes far beyond your userpage, when people see someones comment they assume that is is verbatim from his keyboard. Other than spellchecking someone's comment to improve readability (and only when it's REALLY bad or you know that person) I do not beleive in changing them. --mboverload@ 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he likes tips on his talk page at all. I told him to remove some copyright fair-use images from userboxes in his talk page so that he could remove them himself. But he labelled them as troll . I reminded him again, but can't find that on his talk page. Later 2 other users forcibly removed them from his user page. There are many other issues with Anwar, but it would be pointless to list them all here. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's discouraging. Accepting advice from your peers is a great way to further yourself. *mboverload gets off his high horse* I recently came away from a fight with Cyde and I think I'm a better person for it. Not sure about him though, haha. =D --mboverload@ 07:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting words in people's mouths is completely unacceptable, whether it's on your talk page or anywhere else. Fixing typos is probably okay, fidgeting with clearly unintentional formatting (like if they accidentally start a line with a space, or somehow screw up lists, or whatever) is okay too, moving comments around or removing them is acceptable on your own page (although not always advisable), and adding a heading when one didn't exist is good practice. Putting words in people's mouths includes changing the semantics of their post, including the addition or removal of words, emphasis, and punctuation marks, and it extends to headings. All those are presumed to be part of the user's original post, and I would definitely revert any changes to such a post on sight, user talk page or no. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to talk about the heading of this entire discussion:

A Troll supports Vandal and takes over my talk page

A troll supports a vandal?? When did I say Prin's sockpuppetry was legitimate or alright? All I said was that Anwar's conduct with Prin was shocking, removing Barnstars from other people's user pages is a serious act. In that case I supported the editor that received the barnstar, and would have done so for any other editor, not just because this editor was a sockpuppeteer.

Next comes the takes over my talk page, you have categorized all my edits as Troll and have not responded to ANY of my concerns at all. Have I deleted your headings?? No. How on earth am I taking over your talk page?? I don't think there's anything else left for me to say. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bar-Ilan vandal

I've been forced to block the Bar-Ilan IP 132.70.50.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This is a vandal who has been actively trying to get the IP blocked for some reason, but he is up to some serious shenanigans. He is apparantly a notorious vandal on the Hebrew wikipedia. I've been trying to keep track at: user:woggly/Bar-Ilan_vandal but the extent is dizzying. Expect woggly impersonators in the near future... --woggly 07:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, there is a legit contributor coming from that university's IPs. Be on the lookout for collateral damage as well; we've already had reports of imposters on RfCU earlier today. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this vandal has been very active on several different Wikimedia projects in at least two different languages, and his vandalism is particularly insidious, as he impersonates other users trying to implicate them as well. While I realise that the block I put in place is playing into his hands - after all, he WANTS Bar-Ilan blocked - I don't quite know how else to handle him. This is long term serious abuse. Perhaps even justifies his own Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse subpage? Again, see: user:woggly/Bar-Ilan_vandal (shaping up to be readable.) --woggly 09:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, I didn't say you shouldn't have blocked it, I just said to be aware there is a legitimate user on the IPs, and that collateral damage may turn up. Any new socks should be reported to RfCU so we can track his IP shifts. Essjay (Talk • Connect)

No need to calm me, just calling attention, not upset. :-) --woggly 09:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats

Here . Arniep 10:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week (will obviously renew if he continues threatening after it expires), but it looks like he has others. --Sam Blanning 10:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I note that the 'controversy' he was removing is unsourced, however (not that that justifies legal threats). I've brought it up on the talk page in question. --Sam Blanning 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bev074

This user name has recently been created and used on a page on which I have edited, presumably in an atempt to appear as me. What can, if anything be done. Bevo74 10:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dschor banned indefinitely

In the midst of serving yet another week long block under the terms of his probation, Dschor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in another round of abusive sockpuppetry (see Category:Misplaced Pages:Sock puppets of Dschor). Accordingly, I've banned him indefinitely for abusive and disruptive behavior. I think it incontestable at this point that he has any interest in decency or positive contributions. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Support block, this says it all. --Sam Blanning 12:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the "confirmed" tags I have a small thought. I should probably understand this, but if checkuser can confirm someone is a sockpuppet, why doesn't the autoblocker, err, block them? And I'm not objecting to the block, but I don't get the link. I just picked a few at random and they all looked fine. You don't like skiiing? - brenneman

Well, part of the problem is that they all weren't banned at the same time. Another is that the autoblocker only hits a specific IP address, unless a range has been specified. I think Sam's point about the link is that we're looking at the sum total of Dschor's mainspace contributions. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my point wasn't number but timing. Apart from two edits a month ago, he stopped editing the encyclopaedia at the end of January. --Sam Blanning 13:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Aaron is incorrectly assuming that all socks use exactly the same IP. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Support this. I deleted User:Huy User:Cyde/Flatulent as vandal pages created by the same Dschor sock. --Doc 21:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick check?

I've blocked RK (talk · contribs) for 72 hours following a report by PinchasC (talk · contribs) detailing a contravention of the 1RR aspect of his his arbitration ruling on article related to Judaism. 2 clear reversions, 22h 16m apart . As his one year parole which began 7 April 2005 included a reset clause, apparently last triggered by Essjay (talk · contribs) on 15 January 2006, this seems the appropriate action. However, it is my first block dealing with a listing at WP:AE, and I'd like an experienced admin to check it over? Nice one, Deizio talk 12:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Challenge to User:Rgulerdem's indefinite block for "Exhausted community patience"

IMHO User:Rgulerdem has been unwarrantedly blocked indefinitely for "Exhausted community patience". Apparently Rgulerdem has been using sock-puppets for Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet#Segregation_and_security, which is a legitimate use for sock-puppets. His sock-puppets User:Mokotok and User:Light&Truth disputed the NPOV tag on Fethullah Gülen, which has been inserted by User:Azate for questionable reasons. Admittedly User:Mokotok has been rather incivil in his edit comments, but this is IMHO still no reason for an indefinite block. Raphael1 13:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no excuse for using sockpuppets to misrepresent consensus. The block is valid. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Resid Gulerdem's editing habits are bad. This is further confirmed from the block report found for his user name on the Turkish Misplaced Pages. He was previously permanently blocked for the same behavior and subsequently unblocked to be mentored by User:Johntex. He failed to abide by his mentor's suggestions and again engaged in disruptive editing in relation to several editors. At this point this permanent block is ridiculously warranted. Netscott 13:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict with Netscott) Check out the block log: . Rgulerdem hasn't gone for more than a month without being blocked since he started editing in early January. He has received blocks for an assortment of policy violations and general bad behaviour, including WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:OWN, WP:CIV, talk page spamming, WP:NPA, and now sockpuppetry.

I note that while an editor may use a single sockpuppet for 'segregation and security', it becomes much more difficult to assume good faith when there is more than one. It's also not appropriate to use a sockpuppet for the purpose of prosecuting an edit war.

The community is patient, but not infinitely so. If Rgulerdem were allowed to return, I can only imagine that it would be after an enforced break to cool down and allow him time to review Misplaced Pages's policies. Such a return would no doubt be under personal attack, revert, and sockpuppet paroles, and he probably would be barred from the article and talk page of Fethullah Gülen and related articles. Per Netscott's comments, I'm not persuaded that implementing and enforcing such a solution would be worth our effort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately User:Raphael1 is further encouraging User:Rgulerdem to continue being disruptive. Netscott 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's okay. He's entitled to make a request on the mailing list. That request will be ignored and possibly belittled, and if he makes too much of a nuisance of himself, he'll get dropped from there, too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

@Netscott, pleace let me remind you of the quote I presented to you yesterday. I know, that this is not part of any Misplaced Pages policy, but it is in your own interest to still follow it. @Johnleemk and TenOfAllTrades: I accept the reasons you've given for the block. Raphael1 14:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe User:Cyde is right and I am wrong that the time for your own disruptive editing is drawing to a close Raphael1. Netscott 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, are you trying to intimidate Raphael1? --Irishpunktom\ 15:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice demonstration of good faith there Irishpunktom when in fact I was making the case above that User:Raphael1 should not be blocked for exhausting the community's patience (as User:Cyde was suggesting doing) I illustrated his previous disruptive behavior, perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that he shouldn't be blocked. Netscott 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, the socks cannot exist for "segregation and security" purposes if they are not segregated. --bainer (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Can somebody keep an eye on Ted Kennedy. It keeps getting vandalized. Someone had previously asked that it to semi-protected, but it was turned down. Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Lots of us have it on our watchlist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Could some other eyes take a look at First Amendment to the United States Constitution. User:Pythagoras repeatedly attempts to add a rather opinionated essay to the article. Several others have repeatedly removed it citing OR and POV, among other concerns. Pyhtagoras appears to know enough to avoid 3RR, but now there is User:Just The Facts, which may be a sockpuppet (although the account has been around since October 2005, the only edits have been to that article and the talk page. Article edit history older ≠ wiser 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the user has violated 3RR as well. I've notified AN/3RR.

New sockpuppet of User:Thewolfstar

User:Thewolfstar has been banned for exhausting the community's patience, including her use of User:Dot Bitch as a sockpuppet. Today I blocked User:Laplander as another of her socks, editing both under that username and as User:24.161.21.22. She posted a message to User talk:Jimbo Wales that bore all the hallmarks of Thewolfstar's writing style. After reviewing Laplander's and 24.161.21.22's contributions, I am certain that this is Thewolfstar. Review of my decision is welcome. (I'm reposting this from above after a suggestion that it would not get read way up there) FreplySpang 16:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks right to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, quite. Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should stop hating and start re-educating. This is... What, fifth sockpuppet now? --Avillia 16:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's been tried, but it didn't take. FreplySpang

• I'm not sure I understand you. We're supposed to unblock if they become a persistent nuisance because it means we did something wrong? We shouldn't reward trolls just because they bitch up a storm. Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think he's just saying that an ideal admin would have patiently and calmly sat with Laplander, explaining about civility and collaboration, for however long it might take until a mutual enlightenment was attained. Perhaps he's thinking of User:Boddhisatva. FreplySpang 16:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't require the admin mop to do that kind of stuff. Maybe Avillia would like to volunteer to be a mentor to Thewolfstar? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's already been a great number of users (including myself, as one of the few that she actually liked) who tried to do just that. Absent any conciliatory gestures on her part, I see no benefit in spending time on a repeat abuser that could be better spent elsewhere. Tijuana Brass 17:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:131.211.42.152

I may have stepped into a problem with user boxes and offended this user: User:131.211.42.152. However, I have apologized and am not edit warring over it. Anything I have edited in poor taste or in error can be easily reverted without a fight from me. I ask though, that User:131.211.42.152 may be a vandal sockpuppet and should be warned for intentionally modifying my user page which I purposely posted via the {{subst:template name}} method to avoid unwanted changes on my page. If you see User:131.211.42.152's talk page at User talk:131.211.42.152, you will see that User:131.211.42.152 intended to make trouble. Wombdpsw 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Byrd

An anon using several different IPs linked to the US Navy and Marines keeps inserting his unsourced POV remarks into the article. Not quite a 3RR vio, since they are using dif comps for each edit. Maybe the article should be locked for a while? youngamerican (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is likely best that requests such as this go to WP:RFPP. Joe 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Block on school IP address

209.18.49.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I blocked this IP address for one week for repeat vandalism. This is not much longer than two previous blocks from User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me of 99 hours. In the past there has apparently been no collateral damage or need to unblock this IP address. However, as this is a fairly long block on a shared IP, I decided I would post here and put the block up for review. If consensus is to shorten the block, another admin is free to overturn it without further word from me. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this event or product. This IP (and the related ones) have a history of repeated vandalism, with historically little collateral damage. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is frequently true with shared school IPs, the recent block on 207.245.40.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) being a case in point. HKT 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job, frankly I don't see this as ANI-worthy. --Cyde↔Weys 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cyde (and everyone else). I'm sure you know the whole routine about new admins not wanting to step on any toes. I'll try to limit "unworthy" posts. ;o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If the vandal decides to make a reappearance soon after this block expires, please do not hesitate to report it to WP:ABUSE for further investigation. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Uruguayan spam

For a number of weeks now, Misplaced Pages has been enduring a large amount of spam originating from Uruguay. Can someone please ensure that the following domains are added to the SPAM block list?

• *.stvincent.od.ua - spam domain
• *.odessa.ua - spam domain
• *.rovno.ua - spam domain
• *.pru.in.ua - spam domain
• *.uzhgorod.ua - spam domain

Thank you much. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That would need the attention of a meta administrator. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• .ua is Ukraine, not Uruguay. Aecis 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

John Adams High School

71.193.97.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Please take a look at this users conduct at John Adams High School. The user is adding questionable content while taking away credible information. --MOE.RON 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

ILovePlankton (talk · contribs)

seems to be having difficulty with his/her bot assisted vandalism reversion, and is reacting with hostility, user seems to have an odd history of near vandalistic edits, mixed with mostly vandalproof assisted vandalism patrolling, perhaps someone should talk to him/her?--152.163.100.65 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, IP addresses from AOL often have vandalism histories. So does 152.163.100.197. I think this user just erroneously removed your db on YESSIR using VandalProof given the AOL IP, then made note of it when you advised them of it. Doesn't seem like a big deal. -- Samir धर्म 02:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, ILovePlankton is a "him" (says so on his userpage) and I have never known this . Can you not create an account or something so that your edits will be attributed to just you? It would be better than getting blocked all the time for using a shared IP (you are aware, are you not, that you are using an AOL proxy server, and as such, other users' edits are being attributed to the IP you're using?) I suggest finding ways around this or switching ISPs. — Nathan 02:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User names are just as vulnerable to AOL autblocks as IPs unfortunately, and tagging articles that have been recreated vandalistically, is easier when the people recreating them, can't follow you home, if you catch my drift--152.163.100.65 02:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Then as I said, why don't you switch ISPs so as to avoid this problem (it comes back to AOL proxies)? — Nathan 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Because switching ISPs just to edit wikipedia with slightly less inconvenience, is a bit unrealistic?--152.163.100.65 02:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's realistic when you consider that AOL changes the IP address you use every time you open/close your browser. If you are the one paying the bill, you have the power to change this. Other ISPs aren't like that and you'd be a lot less susceptible to a block for something you didn't do. I'm only trying to give constructive advice here, please consider it as such. I'm sure the admins don't want us talking about this here, please stop by my talk page if you want to have a talk about it. I'm only suggesting what I think would be best for you. Please take some time to stop by the link that I posted above (important note: there is even a method of bypassing the proxies that doesn't even require you to change your ISP). There are many many reasons why AOL is generally considered bad. Would you like to discuss this on my talk? — Nathan 02:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

HoY Vandals Returned

64.185.45.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made the exact same, lengthy PoV edit to House of Yahweh that has been treated as vandalism multiple times. Previous to this instance, the vandalism was committed by 64.185.45.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as you can see, coming from the same general IP field - probably the same person. Can the page be re-semi-protected and this IP be blocked pls? - pm_shef 02:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• both seems to be non-portables, from some business in texas, registered through NTS Communications, if the block doens't work you should be safe with a range block (i think), on second thought, this seems more like a content dispute--152.163.100.65 02:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Chadbryant

Chud Manzier (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

I indef blocked Chud Manzier as a fairly obvious sockpuppet of Chadbryant who is constantly reverting to his version of Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: I wonder if I should block They Call Him Flipper (talk • contribs) too, but as a sockpuppet of someone else. Perhaps a Checkuser is in order? --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt Vandalism/EddieSegoura

While checking into a possible sockpuppet situation on RfA, I discovered that Y-y-yoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DavidOr tiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both blocked exicornt vandals, are sockpuppets of EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was suspected in the mass-exicornt vandalism on several other Wikimedia projects. Both had already been permablocked for exicornt vandalism, but a decision needs to be made on what to do with EddieSegoura. The floor is open for suggestions. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure connection? An indefinite block would seem clearly called for. See above section. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, how reliable is the connection? IIRC, the vandalism was done through AOL, so a CheckUser could be unreliable there. I would support an indefinite block if it were the case, though. Titoxd 04:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If it were AOL, I wouldn't have reported it as a confirmed result; I am aware of the proxying behavior of AOL, and the unreliable nature of thier IP shifts. The above named accounts are not using AOL, they are using a static non-AOL IP, they are the only users using it, and they are using it in a manner that dispells any suggestion of dynamic assignment. They are the same person. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Obscene matter

Why is obscene, flesh-revelaing matter promoting decadence lifestyle allowed for wikipedia. See Portal:Eurovision and Portal:Swimming.Redbluesmurf 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)