Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 22 June 2006

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Conservative notice board

Oh yes, this is going to go over well--name 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that the stated purpose of the page was to use a Misplaced Pages: space page to organize editors to promote a partisan point of view, I am ignoring all rules and deleting the page. I am very specifically not using any existing speedy deletion criteria to do this, and am putting my action up here for review. I will not revert any admin who undoes my action. Nandesuka 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's physically impossible to pour too many megatons of salt over the earth where this page once stood. --Cyde↔Weys 14:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I agree with the deletion, but I also think that there is very little good that could have come from the association. If the association had been present, like the saints portal, to be sure that neglected figures of conservativism (are there any?) were represented, it wouldn't be a big deal, but there's no need for a project to do that. Besides, eventually the thing would have to have succumbed to battling "liberals," and liberals are, according to the sorts of people who hang out at conservativism projects, everywhere and include pretty much everyone who dissents, so it's probably delete it now or delete it after the RfC's, RFAR's, etc. have gone on. Misplaced Pages should never have factions. This is not Guild Wars. Geogre 15:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this deletion fully. Wikiprojects should be for widespread topics, not points of view. --InShaneee 15:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The avowed purpose of the page is not to promote a partisan point of view. It says: "This is the Conservative notice board, for Wikipedians interested in articles related to Conservative topics. It should be noted that this is intended to be a noticeboard for all Wikipedians interested in these issues, not a noticeboard solely for the use of conservative Wikipedians." It seems similar to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild among others. I don't see any pressing reason this needs to be deleted now rather than after five days of deliberations at WP:MFD. I've restored the page. Haukur 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Haukurth's reversal. Take this one through process; or establish a policy to remove all projects about political philosophies (since, of course, the adherants of those philosophies will be the most interested in the projects.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between WikiProjects and "noticeboards". This one had a list of "action items" with links to Afds and Cfds on conservative topics. It was transparently a vote-stacking page. The deletion should not have been reversed. --Cyde↔Weys 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh boy! WHEEL WAR! Someone get the lawn chairs; I'll bring the beer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Stop trolling. --Cyde↔Weys 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Personal attack withheld. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Cyde's assesment. This is humor. --mboverload@ 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have suggested elsewhere, this is not WikiProject:Conservativism, this is Smash the filthy liberals: you bring the petrol and I'll bring the marshmallows. Unlike the Muslim project cited above, it makes no attempt to be neutral, merely listing pages on which "action" is required. If the Muslim Guild went the same way, I would advocate for deleting that also. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is deleting it better than just editing it into something neutral? -GTBacchus 17:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If a house has a rotten foundation you don't just keep pouring more plaster on the walls to cover up the cracks ... you demolish the house and start somewhere else on a steady foundation. If someone wants to try this thing from the ground-up with a neutral perspective, then that's one thing ... but the purpose of this page was very transparent. --Cyde↔Weys 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty useless metaphor on a Wiki. Reworking a page like this into something neutral and then moving it to a better title would be a excellent way to communicate how we function. -GTBacchus 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you deleted this project when it simply followed the model of the pre-existing Misplaced Pages:LGBT_notice_board . --Facto 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion#Misplaced Pages:Conservative_notice_board

Why was this debate closed so early (less than four hours after it started) and closed by an admin User:JDoorjam that voted for its deletion? --Facto 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that page was an utter violation of Misplaced Pages's policies. --Cyde↔Weys 18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it conformed to the model of the pre-existing Misplaced Pages:LGBT_notice_board, which also has lists of "action items" with links to Afds on LGBT topics. --Facto 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One is an issue of sexuality and another is an issue of partisan politics. I don't see the similarity. --Cyde↔Weys 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the US, everything is political. -- Kim van der Linde 18:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism is a philosophy not just an issue of partisan politics. And LGBT is not all about sexuality, see http LGBT_movements and LGBT_Political_Investment_Caucus. --Facto 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I closed the MfD as a matter of housekeeping: the article was already deleted (appropriately, IMO, though not by me). You keep going back to the LGBT board, but obviously political conservatism and LGBT issues are not at all of the same ilk. It's the content and potential for misuse, not the formatting adopted, which editors objected to. In any case, WP:AN/I is the incorrect forum to discuss the form and merit of the Conservative notice board. JDoorjam Talk 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam, you say that political conservativism and LGBT issues are "obviously" not at all of the same ilk. I find that statement very un-obvious; certainly not obvious enough to warrant bypassing discussion in favor of a speedy deletion. -GTBacchus 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. The MfD page was the place to discuss it, and you short-circuited that discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From WP:MFD: "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas." From WP:DRV: "Misplaced Pages:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted." From these two page-purpose descriptions, it's my interpretation that MfD is not, in fact, the correct place to discuss pages which have already been deleted. JDoorjam Talk 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The LGBT notice board has potential for misuse as well. Also, I did not start the discussion here. --Facto 18:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you believe the LGBT notice board has the potential to be misused and believe you would be within the guidelines at WP:POINT, I would recommend airing those concerns on the talk page of that board. However, this discussion has not been about, and most likely will not morph into, a discussion about the LGBT board. That you did not start the discussion here does not mean that this is the correct place to discuss these issues. I am not placing blame for using the wrong forum; I'm simply pointing out the fact that this isn't the appropriate place to have the discussion. If you would like the deletion reviewed, I would recommend you air your grievance at WP:DRV. You are unlikely to receive any response or cause any action on this board that you would find satisfactory. JDoorjam Talk 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you and other editors believed the conservative notice board had the potential to be misused then why didn't you air those concerns on the talk page of that board instead of ignoring all rules (Nandesuka) and deleting the project. I'll check WP:DRV later.--Facto 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people want to delete a page, some people want to keep it. Outside the narrowly defined speedy-deletion criteria, our procedure in cases like that is to hold a discussion at *fD on the merits of keeping or deleting. Meanwhile the page itself is kept readable to all. After five days or so someone closes the discussion and if there is a consensus to delete, the page is deleted. This mechanism has served us well for years. When individual admins ignore all rules and summarily delete content they don't approve of they are spitting in the face of our community-based decision making. Now non-admins can't even view the page to comment intelligently upon whether it should be undeleted. I can understand that in cases where something is seriously embarrassing or damaging (and yet doesn't meet the CSD criteria) it may make sense to shoot first and ask questions later. But no one has claimed that allowing the page in question to stand open for five days would cause any damage. Haukur 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the impatience. Why bypass *fD, if it seems remotely controversial? Maybe this didn't seem remotely controversial to Nandesuka, but by now it's clear that there is difference of opinion. I don't even think it's clear that this page should have been deleted instead of improved. -GTBacchus 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Haukur, you've said just what I've been trying to say. I rather think this page should be deleted, and would happily say so on WP:MFD. However, I am very strongly opposed to this out of process deletion, and worse twice. It doesn't come remotely close to any of the CSD criteria, and is a perfect candidate for WP:MFD. I don't understand why the admins who deleted this are so bothered by it hanging around a few days while it undergoes the proper deletion process. Incidentally, I really can't see any difference between this and the LGBT one, it seems to have exactly the same purpose to me, and therefore either both should be kept or both deleted. Petros471 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that when the page is such an outrageous violation of Misplaced Pages policies, like this one, it turns the situation on its head. It's not "what's the harm of letting it hang around a few more days," it's "why should we have to put up with this egregious misuse of Misplaced Pages for a few more days?" Crap gets deleted immediately, not after a waiting period. --Cyde↔Weys 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you are quite wrong about that. Crap very, very often gets deleted after a waiting period. Your impatience (or Nandesuka's, or anyone's) is no reason to change how we do things. Take your time, explain why something is crap, and if it's truly obvious, everyone at *fD will agree, as very, very often happens. If it's not that way, it's possible that it wasn't crap, and that some course of action other than deleting might be wiser. It is utterly unobvious to me that this noticeboard is an egregious violation, when almost identical noticeboards exist unmolested, and I really don't see the argument that Conservativism is different from LGBT issues in a way that makes it obviously un-noticeboard-worthy. This seems to me to be a perfect candidate for rescoping in a way that educates all the editors involved about how we see the NPOV policy working. Handing them a cause to complain about process violation, practically begging to be criticized on utterly beside-the-point procedural grounds, is actually stupid, and helps to prevent the right conversation from happening. "Crap gets deleted" is a foolish motto to speedy-delete with, unless your goal is to generate DRAMA! -GTBacchus 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I regret commenting about the LGBT page. This discussion is not about that page. It's about the merits of and problems with the now-deleted conservative portal. "Either they both stay or they both go!" arguments are rather pointless, as the page in question needs to be able to stand on its own merits. The deletion of the LGBT page would have no bearing on whether the page in question has any value. When this inevitably makes it to DRV, I'll comment there; as WP:AN/I is the wrong forum for continued discussion about the matter, this will be my last comment about the deletion on this page. JDoorjam Talk 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Crap should be edited, not deleted. -- Daniel Davis 02:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This would leave you with well-edited crap. Which would, nonetheless, still be crap. --Calton | Talk 03:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatsamatter Calton, you've never edited crap into something that was no longer crap? You should try it sometime. POV-ectomies are good perspective stretching exercise; speedy deletions cause that part of the brain to atrophy. -GTBacchus 05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wavering on this until I saw that the defence of it was "well the gays have a noticeboard". Salt the earth, set the salt on fire, douse the fire with cyanide, nuke the cyanide from orbit, then throw the orbit into a black hole. WP:NOT Fark.com. --Sam Blanning 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only is the deletion of the project unwarranted but also the page protection. None of the criteria listed in Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#A_permanent_or_semi-permanent_protection_is_used_for: are met. --Facto 20:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You were caught trying to recruit over 50 conservatives to your new noticeboard. Why I didn't just block you for spamming escapes me at the moment. This clearly was not a good faith effort to create a noticeboard about conservative issues. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of spamming Tony as it is incivility. I already told you on your talk page that the precedent had been set for inviting people to notice boards. I individually invited editors that showed interest in conservative issues to a project page where we can share articles of interest. Admin User:Samuel Wantman did the same thing when he started the WP:LGBT notice board, inviting editors interested in LGBT issues. See and Thanks. --Facto 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to grant you any assumption of good faith when you continually give me a good solid reason to doubt it. You say: "I individually invited editors that showed interest in conservative issues" but this is what you said to those editors (my highlighting):

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Misplaced Pages:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks.

You contacted those editors, not because of their interest in conservative issues, but because of their self-asserted conservative political leanings. You're pretending that it didn't happen. And just because you did the spamming by hand doesn't mean it wasn't spamming. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the canonical defense would be truth, and that one seems to be ironclad. You've spammed many talkpages for this. Also, WP:SALT is where you'd look for the protection precedent. -M 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:SALT says, "In cases where pages of inappropriate or unencyclopedic content are continuously re-created after several deletions, it becomes prudent to protect these pages in a deleted form. This practice is commonly known as "padlocking" or "salting the earth" and should be used at the discretion of the deleting administrator. You can use {{Editprotected}} to edit these pages." Also, please do not accuse me of spam when I followed cross-posting guidelines and admin precedent. --Facto 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're highlighting the wrong part there, chief. "This practice is commonly known as "padlocking" or "salting the earth" and should be used at the discretion of the deleting administrator. Try again. -M 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No I did not highlight the wrong part. Protected pages are considered harmful. "These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances." And the limit is defined as "In cases where pages of inappropriate or unencyclopedic content are continuously re-created after several deletions" --Facto 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness

Folks, you are kidding yourselves if you think Muslim Guild and LGBT noticeboards are not centers for precisely this type of advocacy and solicitation. Alternately, you're fully aware of this, which is even more disturbing. I'd suggest that all such partisan Guilds and projects be deleted, but short of that, this smacks of manipulating the system to achieve a desired content bias throughout the affected articles. Nor is this the first issue in recent days which suggests that the idelogies of favored "minorities" are acceptable, but American conservatism is not. I'm not opposed to drawing distinctions, as some ideologies are broadly accepted to be beyond the pale (e.g. Nazism, segregationism), but I'd like us to be upfront about what they are and not play games like "conservatism is political, LGBT is sexual." There is a name for the ideology which considers Islamism and LGBT as oppressed classes worthy of special protection (never mind that under Islamic law the LGBT crowd must be executed), while conservatism merits scorn. It's called political correctness, and it doesn't deserve our support.Timothy Usher 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A simple endorsement. Haizum 08:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you worry about our political bias: this would have been nuked had it been the other way around, you can be assured. In any case, anybody who accuses me of "political correctness" obviously has never actually paid attention to anything I say; now excuse me while I go and give my cats a good laugh! HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete them all and anything like them. They're all partisan, they're all edit rings, and they all should go. There are already categories to help editors navigate through related topics, and there are already article talk and user talk pages to discuss things. Such projects are just ways to facilitate and evade restrictions on spam by gathering like-minded editors in one place.Timothy Usher 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

POV clans and vote solicitation are known problems. Whether it's for a cause we favor or one we oppose, we need to stop it when we see it. I think we sometimes fail to see it when we like the result. I know I see it more clearly when I don't. Tom Harrison 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

POV clans and vote solicitation are known problems. At some point, it would be very useful to collect some explanation of and evidence for this claim in a place where we could point people to it when it comes up. If that already exists, I'd appreciate a link. It seems we are obliged to repeat ourselves far too often on this point. -GTBacchus 00:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Alliance and this one are two that immediately spring to mind (since I was involved in dealing with both). --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That discussion may be found at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia.Timothy Usher 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Careful now we don't want anouther wikpedians for decency on our hands. Some things are just a bad idea. The old wikiproject alt med was so POV that it caused problems.Geni 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Misplaced Pages:Watch/schoolwatch is ok, but this group of links isn't? - brenneman 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We really need a policy about schools. They're constantly swamping WP:AFD, and it's really never clear what to do with them. Paying attention to the fates of the myriad school articles -- kept, merged, deleted -- may be the first step toward establishing at least a guideline in that arena. You don't see that as a value-add? JDoorjam Talk 03:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it actually possible to delete schools again? For a while, even hoax articles on schools were hard to delete. --Carnildo 06:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's never possible to delete schools. I think I figured out why - if they start to get deleted (as they should be), then people's vanity articles about their own schools would be in danger. So they just mindlessly vote 'keep please schools are notbale too' (spelling intended). Oh, yeah, and Nandesuka goes on my list of admins I like for applying common sense over some garbled, policy-wonking Wikilawyering. Sadly, it's still a small list. Proto///type 15:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As uncomfortable as I feel about people discussing me and my motivations, I would hope that people assume good faith whenever a notice board is created. I put some effort into the creation and management of the Misplaced Pages:LGBT_notice_board so that it is not seen as politicizing Misplaced Pages. The LGBT notice board has stated clearly from the start that it is for ANYONE interested in articles related to LGBT topics. The reason someone is interested may well be because they believe they should all be deleted. When I found out about the current controversy, I went to look at the deleted pages to see if they were so constituted. It concerns me that this page has been deleted, because it puts the LGBT board in a similar threatened position.

I think the conservative board was presented in a pretty much NPOV way, and I appreciate that it used the LGBT board as a model. The test for a board that has postings about controversial articles or issues, is if it would be useful to people on both sides of the issue. In this case, I would have found the board useful even though I in no way consider myself a conservative.

Anyone who works on controvesial articles, whether they be related to politics, reproductive rights, religion, or sexuality, more likely than not will bring their own bias into play to some degree. The question is, what is the best way for the Misplaced Pages community to address those biases. People may think that the LGBT notice board is attempting to organize support around LGBT issues. I don't see it that way. I see it as people being honest about the issues that concern us. The LGBT notice board is as much a vehicle for everyone to watch us, as it is about us watching an issue. I hope that the conservative board, and those like it can be restored, stripped of any POV bias if necessary, and allowed to peacefully coexist. -- Samuel Wantman 03:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at WP:LGBT? Obviously, deleting this conservative noticeboard was correct ... but I see multiple xFDs listed on the LGBT board that all got plenty of vote stacking. Why is ANYTHING that serves as a clearinghouse for votes allowed to continue? Having a list of articles of interest that need work is fine IMO - for gays or for Conservatives - but listing xFD debates is pure vote stacking. BigDT 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best to assume good faith. The notice board lists are a useful feature, not vote-stacking. And it exists in many Wikiprojects (Schools, etc) - not just notice boards. We all know there are MANY POV-motivated nominations for article deletion. Most of the editors who use the LGBT notice board are busy working on other projects - and unable to constantly check up on the VFD (AFD) boards every day (or every week), because instead of being involved in the politics of voting for deletion every day or talking on talk pages, we are writing - or editing actual content articles. The notice board allows us to give notice to each other when articles in our area of expertise are being discussed or voted on elsewhere - probably by folks who are honestly ignorant about issues and factual realities. Notice boards ensure a sunshine law-type running of this project and allows experts in topics to voice their opinions/concerns and helps ensure the quality of this project will steadily improve. Davodd 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with it, as someone might easily in good faith believe, and in these cases probably usually does believe, that religious, political or otherwise partisan revert-solicitation and vote-stacking improves wikipedia.Timothy Usher 08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I still cannot understand why conservative noticeboard was has been singled out for speedy deletion and protection. At least for the sake of consistency, other similar noticeboards must be speedily deleted and protected. Pecher 08:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of this project is outrageous, and I'm disappointed in the "logic" used to justify it. Haizum 08:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Logic:

• A noticeboard is for those intereted in the topic, all are welcome.
• Since all are welcome, a "conservative" noticeboard may attract conservatives, yes, but it will also attract those that wish to make sure articles related to conservatism are kept up to quality standards.
• A conservative noticeboard will therefore attract a diversity of editors; this is no different from any other article on Misplaced Pages; it attracts people that are interested.
• Since all are welcome, and since various groups may take an interest in a conservative noticeboard as they may take an interest in any other article, you cannot assume that such a board will only serve a conservative agenda just as you cannot assume that any particular article will serve any agenda.
• If you cannot assume that an agenda will be served, you have no reason to oppose the creation of a conservative noticeboard as it will only serve to attract a diversity of editors, which is positive. Haizum 08:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I nominated the project for deletion because of recruitment message that the founders sent out to 50 people, including unrepentant POV-pushers with a history of attempted votstacking, and because the only articles it targeted were ones that the founders were in meaningless revert wars over. I suggest if people want a conservatism notice board, they make one, and link articles that could use people with special knowledge about conservatism could be helpful with - for instance, Edmund Burke, but not articles that people with special opinions could edit war over - for instance, Partisan Bitchfest with STONES. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If such activities are unauthorized, why not take action against the individuals? Why punish those that might be well served by such a noticeboard? What happened to AGF? Haizum 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I missed when we redirected WP:AGF to Misplaced Pages:Ignore Bad Acts, like, say, spamming 50 people who have edit warred on your side of issues to get them to join your "neutral" project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Both sides are right... or wrong, take your pick. The organizer(s) of this page clearly 'leaned' towards one side of the political spectrum... but the page clearly did not (as yet) present any bias. It simply listed issues relevant to the topic like any other noticeboard - some of which also have 'leanings'. If one assumes (bad faith) that the page was going to develop into a 'bias springboard' then an out of process deletion would be justified... but I don't think we can, or rather should, make such assumptions.

All that aside... would it not make more sense / be more generally acceptable to instead create a 'Politics noticeboard'? Truthfully, a great many issues 'important to conservatives' are also 'important to liberals' and vice versa. You could put the same list of articles that this page had onto a 'Liberal noticeboard' and they would fit perfectly... all topics that people 'interested in liberal issues' might want to comment on. Putting 'conservative' in the name when the issues are really of interest to all sides might imply that the page is only or primarily for conservatives. Make it a page for the issues without reference to one particular viewset over another, put little 'noticeboard advertisement banners' on the talk pages of relevant articles, and try to work together. --CBD 10:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a politics noticeboard is a great idea - it would concentrate all the lunatics, trolls and POV warriors in one place, and we could live happily ever after. Proto///type 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the best suggestion I've heard so far on this issue. Petros471 15:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this would be obvious. No issue is exclusively "conservative" or "liberal". Even liberals have an opinion on conservative opinions. A politics noticeboard is the best way to go, and I would have suggested it earlier had I not forgotten about it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is people have a tendency to take ordinary, non-political articles and turn them into politically-flavored-flame-balls--64.12.116.65 15:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that the page was deleted out of hand and the discussion short-circuited. Restore the page, protect it, restore the MfD, and move the discussion there.- Merzbow 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This poorly-named page professed to be a place for organization of editing to topics related to conservatism. It seems natural to me that the project creator would invite conservatives to participate, since conservatives obviously are interested in conservatism. I suggest a rename, not a deletion, and I find the deletion to be entirely unilateral. IAR does not give you the right to supercede consensus. Nevertheless I will not wheel-war about it. Deco 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented this idea at Misplaced Pages:Politics notice board since there seemed to be some support and it should address the 'NPOV' concerns. --CBD 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:Politics notice board was quickly deleted as a re-creation, but there are discussions about restoring it on its talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Misplaced Pages:Conservative notice board

Removed. Does not require administrator action. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfair block placed on an editor

I am requesting that some admins take a look at the 3-day block placed on User:Alienus by User:Tony Sidaway. I will not go into detail here, as Alienus' talk page contains substantial information. Please read Alienus' arguments there, as they clearly demonstrate how this block was unjust. Thank you, Romarin 00:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Upon review, if 3 days is harsh, it's only slightly so (I'd've done 48 hours). See User talk:Romarin for my further comment. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I second Romarin's doubts. I've reviewed Ayn Rand, and, aside from last week's "vandalism" section of the talk page, which got a little heated, the tenor of discussion doesn't seem particularly unusual for a controversial topic, nor does there appear to be any kind of full-scale edit war. While Alienus is known to have been incivil in the past - and been blocked for it - Alienus' behavior in this instance seems to me quite uncontroversial. Immediately prior to this, another administrator had placed an NPA warning on his talk page, accompanied by diffs which are not reasonably construed as personal attacks. This is completely puzzling to me. I can only guess that he is being judged primarily on the basis of behavior he appears to have ceased. If the point of previous blocks was to bring him into compliance, mission accomplished. The relentlessly negative treatment of Alienus has become unseemly. Let's stop kicking people when they're down, shall we?Timothy Usher 05:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Alienus and I are nearly constantly at loggerheads. So this is not the dispassionate evaluation of an uninvolved admin, but the strictly personal opinion of an editor who has to suffer his nearly constant badgering and insults. With that out of the way: am mystified how you can describe the things he is being warned and blocked for as "behavior he appears to have ceased" when he is making edits, on a nearly daily basis, like these: ,,. Nandesuka 12:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, your response is appreciated. I do not think the third diff unacceptably incivil. In the second, he appears to have removed his own comments. The first is clearly incivil, with the "snipppies" epithet which he's resorted to, and been warned away from, in the past. This diff was not presented on his talk page, nor is it on Ayn Rand, for which he was blocked, and which I'd reviewed, so there was no way for me to have taken it into account.Timothy Usher 12:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're misreading the second diff. The point isn't what he wrote in the text itself, but the edit summary in which he provides his reason for removing it: referring to Arbcom as a "kangaroo court." With regard to the third diff, the key point here is that it is representative of this user's well-established habit of addressing arguments at people rather than issues. It is not incivil for Alienus to describe the actions he thinks I am taking, but he doesn't limit himself to that: he crosses the line with "Clearly, you do not respect the rules you are expected to enforce." Obviously, I take that as a rather severe and personal insult, and the people who reviewed his accusation on the personal attack intervention noticeboard agreed. His response to that was to imply that they are operating in bad faith as well.. Numerous editors have suggested, advised, warned, threatened, and begged Alienus to address his arguments to subjects rather than to the people he is arguing against. To date, he has shown no willingness to do this. Nandesuka 13:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy is right (and thank you for taking a stand); those examples that Nandesuka has given are irrelevant to this case. The quote that was judged "uncivil" in this particular instance was, as Tony Sidaway wrote on Alienus' talk page, "*sigh* the cult allegation is well-documented; please stop edit-warring against us; we have the consensus and the rules on our side." This is in no way uncivil; it shows someone who is wearly of having to revert what could be taken as vandalism, considering that the changes being made were against concensus. As Timothy stated, Alienus is being judged for past incivilities (which no one is denying he has made), not for what he has done here, as he has done nothing wrong in the particular instance for which he was apparently blocked. Unfortunately, it appears as though he got picked up by a trigger-happy admin. There seem to be many who would jump at the chance to block Alienus. Is this really the point of adminship? Romarin 13:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked. -lethe 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Romarin 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat perturbed to see this unblock decision by Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), in the face of Nandesuka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s correct description of the harassment that Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has engaged in. Also disturbing is the fact that Lethe did not consult me as the blocking admin, nor did he engage in the discussion and justify his unblock.

Also of relevance is Alienus' long-running animosity and edit warring with LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), for which I blocked both in March. It was because this was a recurrence of the earlier pointless and disruptive behavior that I blocked both of them.

Two administrators commented on this block here, and while one thought allowed that the duration was excessive "but only slightly so" (indicating a reduction) the other thought it was amply justified. Pschemp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had also previously reviewed the block and rejected the request to unblock it. In the circumstances, to unblock without further consultation, against the opinions of four administrators, was an extraordinary act. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, I think unilaterally removing the block from this rather tendentious editor was perhaps a bit premature. Better to consult with the blocking editor and review what has transpired before, the removal of the unblock request seems a good clue that unblocking would not necessarily have consensus. Lar 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is especially disappointing that Alienus is using this unblock as a sign of his vindication (that the block was somehow improper), and proceeding to harrass Pschemp (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) for not unblocking him. NoSeptember 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the claims of harassment are false. Just wanted to make that clear, thanks. Al 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course you will claim that. However, inserting accusations of me not wanting to admit a "mistake" and not properly reviewing the block repeatedly into my talk page after it was clear that I consider such notes false accusations is indeed harrassment and is considered so by other editors besides myself. Not to mention this lovely note here: . While I'm sure you will claim you did nothing wrong and didn't mean anything untoward because you have masked your incivility and attacks in pretty words, the meaning is quite clear and offensive. If you were so sincere and innocent, you would have no need to post such things in the first place. pschemp | talk 03:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You and Tony are correct. I have made a gross error. While I stand by the opinion that the block was unwarranted, my reversal of Tony's block was not only against policy, but was also is exactly the sort of thing that I have vocally criticised others for. I think I should have declared my intent and waited for a little while to establish consensus a bit better before reverting another admins actions. -Lethe 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lethe, will you please stop unblocking people without consensus and discussion with the blocking admin? You do this all the time, and it is more than annoying, it is becoming time to file an RfC against you. User:Zoe| 21:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my unblock was out of process, and this is getting to be a pattern. I will try to learn my lesson. -Lethe 22:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I wonder if a week of debate would suffice to justify overturning a three-day block. Al 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed this with lethe on my talk page and am happy that he has taken on board my concerns. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Alienus and RJII for three hours. Unblocked, Alienus got himself into exactly the same kind of sterile edit war for which I blocked him the other day. --Tony Sidaway 04:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the chief commonality that this block shares with the previous one is its lack of justification.

While it's true that RJII had repeatedly changed the Randism page against consensus to redirect to the wrong target and I kept fixing it, it's also true that I was done for the night. I had discussed the issue repeatedly with RJII on the talk page, but he kept punctuating each response with a revert. By the time I was ready to go to bed, I noticed that I'd made three reverts in short order, and decided that flirting with WP:3RR was unwise. Instead, I started writing up adverts on Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to get more editors involved.

While RJII and I were at loggerheads, additional editors could overcome the stalemate, which I thought was the prudent action to end what was becoming an edit war. Unfortunately, Tony's block hit me in the middle of this and prevented me from taking the one action that would actually solve the problem. In other words, not only did the block utterly fail in its stated purpose, as I had no intention of touching the article again until other editors joined us, but it actually stopped me from getting other editors involved in the first place. How counterproductive!

If Tony felt the need to get involved despite the fact that I was entirely on top of things, a simple warning, perhaps with a helpful suggestion on how to overcome the conflict, would have been far more effective and bloodless. Unfortunately, Tony chose to shoot first and ask questions never.

What's particularly distressing about this bad judgement call is that it is part of a constellation of odd behavior by Tony ever since his previous block was overturned. If you visit my talk page, you'll see that he was clearly polling my contributions page, as he kept commenting on my edits and trying to engage me in disputes. This did not seem productive, so I very politely walked away from any conflict with him.

At that point, Tony did something truly weird and unexplained: he edited my signature to set it to the default, instead of the simple cyan "Al" that I've been using for a while now. If not for good faith, I would wonder if he was baiting me in the hopes of getting me to say something that might justify a block. Regardless of his motives, which I genuinely cannot fanthom, the results are creepy and demotivating. It's like being watched by someone who has a loaded gun and is guided by unknown and seemingly arbitrary criteria for shooting.

I've taken this with good humor, good faith and constant civility, but I really shouldn't be taking this at all. As much as I laugh about it, now I have an entirely spurious block on my history, which is a stain against my reputation and will hurt me in the future when dealing with other admins. To be quite frank, I think it is now apparent that Tony has some sort of difficulty working with me in a mutually productive way, so I must conclude that it would be best if he kept his distance. I ask that he recuse himself from matters that involve me and avoid frequenting my Talk page unless there is some really good reason.

I don't think I'm asking too much here. If you've been following this whole thing, particularly if you're an admin, I encourage you to respond here and try to persuade Tony to walk away from this mess he's creating. Thank you. Al 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sufficient indication of legal threat for blocking?

Hello. Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a post which I believe consititutes a legal threat. I cautioned him, and he has essentially reiterated the threat. Is there community consensus that this does in fact consitute a legal threat and is there community consensus for an indefinite block? I also see much evidence of incivility both at the article where the legal threat was made as well as elsewhere in the user's edit history.Johntex\ 05:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The diffs I see have only an argument about whether personal recollections by a subject are allowable (Sbharris says they are, because they do not conflict with WP:BLP, Johntex says they are not, because they violate WP:CITE). Sbharris did not make a legal threat in any of those diffs. He simply theorized about what kinds of information the courts might rule on. It seems to me that perhaps Johntex got confused and thought that McCoy and Sbharris are the same person, but there is no reason to think so. I think this is an overreaction, and I unblock. -lethe 12:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The text which looks vaguely like a legal threat is

"Courts tend to regard "public figures" as people who actively try to put themselves in the public eye (like politicians or actors-- the people in your example list), and not people who are simply dragged into the public eye 40 years ago, by means of a single tragic occurance which made it into the news then. So have a care, because you're on thin legal ice, and complaints to Wiki are going to a lot more effective here than if Maddona was complaining. You understand?" -sbharris

(and note that this comment was in an earlier reply, not in any of the diffs Johntex provides) But anyway this looks to me like merely an explanation of why McCoy might have a case if there were libelous material in the article. Sbharris is explaining to Wookitty that in fact people are not prohibited from editing their own articles, something which Wookitty had claimed. In fact, Sbharris is quite right in this matter: people are allowed (though discouraged) to edit their own articles, and the courts do indeed take a disfavourable view towards damaging information about people who are only unwillingly famous. Misplaced Pages has acted on this theory before (see the star wars kid). Sbharris claiming that McCoy might have a legal case if there is false information does not constitute a legal threat on Sbharris's part. -lethe 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sbharris' remark looks like a legal threat to me. I think the block was appropriate. Tom Harrison 12:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The intent to chill discussion by making (vague) legal threats is clear. Just because they aren't very effective legal threats is no reason to avoid blocking for them. Nandesuka 12:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously I disagree. Harris was correcting Wookitty, and Johntex mixed up Harris with McCoy. But if you have to reblock, then I won't wheel about it. -lethe 12:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He was, I think, saying that someone else may take legal action or complain. He does not plan to initiate or participate in it in any way. Therefore, I don't think he was making a legal threat. If the concern has a real basis in law (I have no idea), then I think it would even be prudent to point it out. Is there something I'm missing? -- Kjkolb 12:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider this comment from a later diff see below, :

COMMENT:' Thus, those who plan on re-inserting any unsourced negative biographical 
material which I remove under this policy, may find themselves on the negative end of what 
it says above may happen. In that case, please don't say you acted in ignorance of the 
possible consequences. Thank you.  Sbharris 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I read that as him attempting to use vague legal threats as a way of gaining the upper hand in a content dispute. This isn't "be careful, or Misplaced Pages might get in trouble" it's "you had better do what I say, or you will get sued." I currently intend to re-apply the block, but I'll wait a while and see what people here have to say.Nandesuka 13:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have given a diff to a comment by Johntex, not by Sbharris. -lethe 12:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed it -- take another look. Nandesuka 13:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The "negative end" which Sbharris refers to is blocking. He is making threats that people who insert libelous material will be blocked in accordance with WP:BLP and Misplaced Pages:Libel. Read the text immediately preceding the comment you quote to see the context. It is not a legal threat. -lethe 13:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me -- that second diff I posted was indeed referring to blocking, and not legal action. I withdraw my objection. Nandesuka 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sbharris has been unblocked (by Lethe) and is appealing the block at WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to call people's atttention back to Sbharris' first statement (provided in full in my first diff in my original post in this section):

...There are ways of verifying the source of material involving notaries, and when they need to be employed in legal action, the footer of the expense bill is generally the person who is/was the skeptic (unless of couse they were right). So again, beware. Cause you're putting your money, and the Wiki Foundations's money, where YOUR mouth is. And the Wiki Foundation is very conservative about such things. When they get complaints, they tend to block pages until legal issues have been settled. Sbharris 18:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The warning about potential financial damages to an editor is what I think is a thinly veiled legal threat. Johntex\ 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced that sbharris' posts constituted a bona fida legal threat, they were definitely assholery and a (short) block was warranted on that basis alone. Wag the finger at him and cut him loose. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly WP:CIVIL is held to apply only to me. For I come to a Wiki page here, and find another user publicly labeling my opinions "assholery." Irony. Steve 21:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I look at the diff referred to and, frankly, don't see a "threat" to anyone per se, but a reference to a possible action by a third party (the WMF). It did seem to me that User:Johntex over-reacted a bit though with User:Sbharris then 'joining in' as it were. This may (or may not!) be a difference of understanding in the way something is phrased (an issue I have come across many times, usually in a en_UK -v- en_US context). I don't see that either user deserved to be blocked.--AlisonW 15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel Shamir solicits meatpuppets to do his reverting for him

Israel_shamir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for his activities at Israel Shamir and for racist attacks, see above, and meanwhile the article has been reverted to Shamir's preferred version by a brand new user, RhinoRick (talk · contribs). I blocked RhinoRick as an obvious sock, but now it turns out that he is more likely to be a meatpuppet, unblushingly recruited by Shamir through a message board. (User:Denis Diderot sent me this link.) I think this action by Shamir warrants a longer block. See Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry: "Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Misplaced Pages". Bishonen | talk 16:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

• I strongly agree. Also, semi-protecting the page in question for a bit might be warranted, as well. --InShaneee 16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree too. Block him and block all meatpuppets, as the more he edits, the more disruptive he becomes. Pecher 17:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised he had not already been blocked indefinitely.--Mantanmoreland 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Me too... -- Grafikm 17:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no longer any room for assumption of either good faith or newbie ignorance. It's time to put this one to bed. Since I'm seeing little in the way of defense of this guy, we'll skip the "all in favor" and go directly to "Is anyone opposed to an indefinite block of this guy?" Tomer 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My own feeling is that there are three different block discussions going on:

1. User name violations
2. Hate speech, repeated
3. Calls for intervention and 3RR

and the three folks aren't talking to each other very clearly. As for #1: if the user has an article on himself, then he can't have the name, but the user shouldn't have a page about himself, because he is not actually substantial enough for the .se Misplaced Pages to have an article on him. As for #2: absolutely. This user's speech has been horrid and continuing. However, for process sake, I don't think an indefinite ban for hate speech is at all allowable. Personal attacks and bad speech is not sufficient, IMO. The user's edits are not all vandalism. Instead, they're all worthless, but worthless isn't vandalism. There are plenty of ArbCom cases of people calling each other "communist fascist" and the like, and since there are no priviledged classes, the mere hatred behind the terminology can't allow an indefinite block without consensus. For #3, the call for meatpuppets is at least a cause for resetting a 3RR block for the duration that the call for intervention is visible. In this case, I think the worst offense should be treated. To me, that's #2, not #3. I'd say a month block for repeated and pretty much sole attack and hate speech is appropriate and a referral to mediation/ArbCom after that month at the first sign of attack language. Incidentally, I think that Israel Shamir should be sent to AfD after the block is in place. If that is disrupted by any calls for intervention, etc., I'd say we're looking at an indefinite block. Geogre 21:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, from the point of view of the encyclopedia, I believe that the worst offense is not the hate speech, it's the "All edits worthless" and its concomitant "user is not here to build the encyclopedia". I've gone through his edits, and they may be divided into POV rants in article space, extreme personal attacks on userpages, and additions of useless external links. Following your argument I will block indefinitely for encyclopedic uselessness, not for the call for meatpuppets. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

P. S. Excuse me, I forgot to mention that User:KimvdLinde who placed the week-long block is on wikibreak till the beginning of July, or I would have consulted with him, naturally. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

I think that it would not change anything... -- Grafikm 22:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Geogre: I think the only "problem" with the 3 simultaneous discussions/causes of action against this user is which each of us thinks is the worst of his blockable offenses, not that some of us regard one as a problem but not the other two, etc. I don't think we're talking past each other so much as saying "yeah, I saw that, but look at this! this is even more outrageous!", all the while agreeing that everything is sufficient cause to block him indefinitely. The guy needs to go for all three reasons, and I think sufficient evidence has been brought to demonstrate that an indefinite block for any of them will meet with zero admin disagreement. We can discuss and discuss all day which of his offenses is worst, but at the end of the day, the verdict is still an indefinite block. Cheers, Tomer 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of terrible in being process oriented. I'm well aware that our dispute processes are...overburdened?...but I worry very much that a lack of dissent on one project page (this one) be taken for positive assent from the project. Again, I'm certainly not defending this person or his actions. I think he's probably irredeemable, but I'm concerned that we have all allowed "well, I'll mention it on AN/I" to replace our fuller, slower, but surer methods. I also don't like relying on "well, anyone else can block for a shorter time." Again, in no sense do I vouch for this anti-semite. I'm all for a block, and past offenses are plentiful, but past remediating actions aren't. Even though it won't do any good, I recommend a month. <shrug> I'm just one scold, but that's my nagging opinion. Geogre 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to dragging it out, I just don't see any point in doing so, other than to placate the policymongers. If I think this discussion has served pretty well as an RfC, and I don't see how an RfM would go anywhere...I don't like to sound so dismissive of this guy, but sometime reality has to strike and say "THERE IS NO HOPE". As happens far too often, this guy would simply take the extra time he's given while we go through "process", to continue flagrantly violating every WP policy in existence (I can't think of one he hasn't violated, except perhaps naming conventions, but that takes productive editing to violate...), meanwhile productive editors are being tied up not only undoing his useless edits, but now also with compiling all the voluminous evidence against him for presentation. If it were to ever go as far as ArbCom, I think they'd be very annoyed with us wee little admins for having dumped such a clear-cut BAN ON SIGHT case on them, as though they don't have enough TRICKY cases to work on. My 3¢, for what it's worth. (inflation, you know... ) Tomer 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really very simple: multiple reasons for indefinite block. Ergo an indefinite block is warranted.--Mantanmoreland 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

His Excellency/Amibidhrohi indefinite block

For his calculated personal attack here I have blocked indefinitely His excellency (talk · contribs)/Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs). I don't intend the block to be permanent; I invited him to get in touch with me or another admin to unblock him when he decides to follow the rules. Tom Harrison 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to a fellow editor as a "bigot" is unacceptable. This block was a good call. I do hope that H.E. realizes the error of his way and agrees to return to demonstrating civility. Netscott 18:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense! No one can be blocked indefinitely for a personal attack -- at least not according to Misplaced Pages policy. First, WP:NPA is not policy, but a guideline. Second, when people feel attacked, their response should not be to block. Third, only vandalism-only accounts are blocked indefinitely. I read the exchange, and saying that someone's actions show them to be a practicing bigot does not amount to hate speech or even an insult. The person may be disagreeable, but folks need to lay off the block button and start using other methods. Geogre 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I see that you don't intend the block to really be indefinite, but that's not cricket. Please don't be theatrical with the block button. We really, really, really need to curb the block-happiness that's become common on AN/I. (Most of the people blocked are totally horrid, and I don't want to talk to them, but blocking is extreme.) Geogre 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Geogre, I don't understand this block. I've been reading some dialogue between the users involved, and it seems to me to be a matter of strong differences of opinion and a rather hostile tone (the presumed victim giving as good as he gets) rather than of His Excellency making any extreme personal attacks--let alone of disrupting the wiki by doing so. I urge Tom to unblock. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Gentlemen, if you haven't seen it I believe this is why Tom Harrison has taken this action relative to User:His Excellency. Perhaps those previous blocks were not called for either? Netscott 21:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

His Excellency/Amibidhrohi mounted that personal attack shortly after a previous personal attack and after Tom had warned him to stop. The user has just emerged after a week-long block for personal attacks under a new username, so a block was more than justified. Contrary to what was said above, WP:NPA is an official policy and people are blocked every day for personal attacks; indefinite blocks for personal attacks are no rarity either. However, I also agree that any block must be serious, so if Tom does not intend this block to be permanent, I believe he should reduce the length of the block to, say, one month given that the previous block was for a week and the user shows no sign of repentence. Pecher 21:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Given his recent remarks on his talk page, I'm inclined to make it permanent. Of course, anyone who wants to can unblock him. I think that would be a bad idea, but if someone chooses to do so, I won't reblock. Tom Harrison 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

His excellency (talk · contribs)/Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs) has, over the past few days, posted to this page and to several others a series of hostile, highly personalized and paranoid screeds. The common theme is that selected editors, and Christians and Jews generally (now joined by Anglos), are joined in conspiracy to attack Muslims and defame Islam, and are out to get him in particular. His most recent comments are illustrative,,, as is this remark made just before his last block.Timothy Usher 05:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency is requesting an opportunity to add to this report. In lieu of this he's written a response relative to his use of the term "bigot". Netscott 07:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

His "response" is just an ongoing personal attack, for which Misplaced Pages probably should not be providing a platform. The "bigotry" to which he refers consists, first, of the unforgivable failure to rationalize and excuse Muhammad's treatment of Jews, and, second, of the assertion that Misplaced Pages - and scholarship generally - is best served by a non-sectarian environment.Timothy Usher 07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm imclined to support the indefinite block, as the user makes ever more attacks with every passing minute and blocks seems to make no impression upon him. Pecher 08:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm? I don't see him doing that, Pecher, I see him on the contrary "removing heated remarks made in frustration". Netscott (above) directs me to HE's block log, suggesting that what's to be seen there is the actual reason (?) that Tom blocked this time, and asking rhetorically whether those blocks weren't justified either. I don't know. How could I? Two of them were for personal attacks: one recently for a week, by Tom Harrison, one in January by Bratsche.( I'm not in this context so interested in all those 3RR blocks, though they certainly show unacceptable edit warring.) I guess I won't bother Bratsche, since it was so long ago, but if it's significant here, as Netscott implies, perhaps Tom would tell me what the recent week-long personal attack block was for.

Meanwhile, I'm going to shorten HE's block to three days, for the following reasons:

1. HE's defence, posted on his page. He compares his own indefinite block for calling Timothy Usher a bigot with FairNBalanced's week-long block, just now expiring, for hair-raising racist and religious slurs against Islam. Many administrators above argued for an indefinite block of FNB (I was among them), but nobody actually set such a block. I find this comparison cogent, and note that the contrast is likely to make HE feel yet more beleaguered as a Muslim editor.
2. An indefinite block is an indefinite block. The notion that HE will remain blocked until and unless he apologizes to Tom's satisfaction is new to me, and unpleasant. It's humiliating.
3. The general situation between HE and Timothy Usher (the presumed victim). I regret that I can't realistically research all the contributions of HE and Timothy Usher, as they both produce a lot of text and I do have a day job. But just looking at their input on the FairNBalanced thread at the top of this page, the impression is of two users in long-standing conflict. They speak aggressively to each other, but Timothy Usher IMO definitely sounds more aggressive. Mediation would surely be more appropriate to such a situation than blocking one of the parties--has that been tried? I would caution against getting too technical with the NPA policy. Where two people are at loggerheads, blocking the first party provoked into calling an actual "name" isn't a good idea. There are many ways to offend without name-calling. See for instance where HE civilly voices his opinion that FairNBalanced merits an indefinite block, and TU (who was not being addressed) jumps in with "Be advised that User:His excellency is the new username of User:Amibidhrohi, who has amassed an impressive block log for 3RR, personal attacks, harrassment, disruption and incivility." Having just viewed that block log, with it's two blocks for personal attacks and the rest for 3RR, I consider that a highly exaggerated description (and not especially relevant to the discussion where it was offered, either). That's just one example, but it represents my over-all impression.

Tom points out that he won't re-block if somebody undoes his action. Well, of course not — what are we, wheel warriors? I won't re-unblock if my action is undone either, but I would expect any re-blocking admin to bring the issue here and engage with the arguments I have offered, as I have engaged with Tom's and other people's. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

Needless to say, I concur with Bishonen's action and would have probably just unblocked until the proper steps were taken. This is not a condoning of the actions of HE. All I saw, though, were people clawing at each other and one of them had the block button. That is precisely when we cannot use the block function. That's when mediation (through whichever of the processes you prefer) or RfC is needed. We need to reserve blocks for fairly specific things so that users in general know what to expect and cannot legitimately accuse administrators of caprice or bullying. Geogre 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, I hope your action works out for the best. Maybe your block will show him that personal attacks aren't tolerated, and he'll come back as an effective and civil editor. The best thing now might be to let everything cool off for the three days remaining. Tom Harrison 12:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi/His excellency has offered no apology, and Bishonen hasn't asked for one; indeed Bishonen is concerned that it would be "humiliating" that he should be expected to offer one. As Bishonen seems to think he has a point, I post some excerpts here so readers of this board can see just what this point is:

• • "'O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.' Although I have my own differences with the teachings and history of Islam, the truth in this little gem proves itself time and time again."
  • "You're a fool to trust an anglo to do anything other than stab you in the back. As the Quran clearly tells you, you should not put yourself in a situation where you are reliant on them, in even the smallest way, on their consideration. Don't associate with them; don't work with them; don't make your actions (and in this case, words) subject to their review."
  • "...I know better than to expect that much from some anglo orientalist."
  • "The Jews took note, and have taken every measure to stop me. They're an active bunch of snots."
  • "To be honest, I think Muslims do tend to stand out as the most apathetic and cold hearted people amongst religions and nations. They're pathetic."
  • "Muslims used to rule over nations. Now Muslims carry on as if they'd been castrated by the West."
  • "His butt buddy, Tom harrison..."
  • "For god's sake, fuck off...At best, you're stupid, at worst you're both stupid and a hypocrite. And yes, that's a personal attack."

And I haven't even gotten to the parts where he attacks me, by name: I've no interest in reposting these, as I'd only be joining Bishonen in facilitating my own libel.

Bishonen's characterization of me (although Tom harrison and Netscott were also attacked) as "the presumed victim" suggests that Bishonen endorses the substance of these attacks, and has unblocked Amibidhrohi in the hope that they will continue in places other than just his user page. As a result of his decision, Misplaced Pages will continue to host and disseminate them.Timothy Usher 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have unblocked in the hope that personal attacks on you will continue? You know, that's as clear a personal attack on the integrity of an admin as I've seen in a long time. You ought to be ashamed. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

"I do believe the selective sense of offense shown by Tom harrison here and Netscott is equatable to racism,of course save that Muslims aren't in fact a race." The above is what remained after his "Removing heated remarks made in frustration." Do you agree with me, Bishonen, that those remarks are a clear personal attack on the integrity of an admin? Tom Harrison 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I have no sympathy for the user, only an objection to blocks for personal attacks that are made by the one attacked. If he was removing the attacks, isn't that what NPA says should be done? I know that it may be gaming the system, but being attacked makes any of us, in fact, the wrong person to do a block. We're supposed to hand the matter off at that point. Your mischaracterization (certainly, I think it was) of Bishonen's efforts suggests that you're too close to the matter. When someone conducts so many attacks, as Bunchofgrapes says, that they're disrupting the project and exhausting community patience, the blocks should come after community assent (and not lack of dissent). Geogre 21:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's claiming HE hasn't made personal attacks. Three days is a substanstial PA block. If you're arguing disruption, and want to see HE permanently blocked, make a clearer case that the community has lost all patience with this user, or take it to ArbCom. Timothy Usher, if you think really Bishonen hopes he continues his attacks, I believe you have misread the situation very, very badly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen's statement above, “Hmmm? I don't see him doing that, Pecher, I see him on the contrary "removing heated remarks made in frustration"" sorely misrepresents the situation, as immediately after the referenced diffs, the attacks resumed, .

It is additionally absurd to suggest mediation with a user who has made the statements referenced in these diffs, , as I'm already judged as unworthy of cooperation or trust due to my ethnic and religious background; there is clearly no way to address such objections.

His excellency's talk page has become a platform for denouncing me as a bigot, and remains so even after the attacks on Jews, Christians and Anglos in general have been removed (though the casual anti-homosexual slur remains). The phrase "presumed victim", according to its most natural reading, suggests that I am not in fact a victim, that I deserve these attacks, as does the "caution against getting too technical with the NPA policy." Bishonen did not see fit to ask that he apologize for or repudiate one word of them - that would be "humiliating" - or that he refrain from similar behavior in the future, indeed this unblock notice carries a tone of friendly understanding.

He's now been invited to "make his case" on ANI, entailing a suspension of WP:NPA - which contrary to Geogre’s statement above, is a policy not a guideline - as the only case he's ever made is a series of viciously sectarian, racist and homophobic attacks and his defense of his right to make them.Timothy Usher 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you really need to read WP:NPA more carefully. If it has gotten to policy status, that has happened without the usual approval process. Secondly, I encourage you to read up on mediation procedures. I understand that you are angry, but being angry is the best reason to step back and stand well clear of this matter. Above all, your anger is a reason for you to be totally uninvolved in the blocks. If you are unhappy after the community deals with the situation, then that may be something you will have to live with, barring new offenses from the user that can be pursued through proper means. However, your anger appears to be leading you to make some very strained readings of Bishonen's involvement and comments. I agree with her actions entirely in this matter, although I probably would have simply unblocked and requested that the blocks be done by someone else altogether and afresh. It is policy that no one should make a personal attack, but it is not policy that there is any particular penalty for having done so. The armies have long since marshalled on this issue and the battle was fought long ago. However, I do hope that you'll simply take a break from this issue for a few days and then re-read your comments. I hope at that point you will be able to apologize to Bishonen for biting someone who was trying to be charitable toward you. Geogre 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

NPA and an apology

I made a mistake in alledging that Tom Harrison blocked for attacks on him. He didn't. He was called in and then made the block. Not to mitigate the apology in any way, but I would reiterate my stance that NPA is a policy only insofar as it is our general policy not to insult folks. However, what actions to take after an insult is open. It is impossible to define an insult in any way that's reliable, and there is no way to ensure proportionality in responses to insults. Finally, blocks are not part of a punishment scheme, and therefore they really should be nearly blind. Users need to know what to expect from administrative action, particularly when it comes to blocks. As blocking is a defense mechanism for Misplaced Pages rather than an instrument for discipline, it should be invoked only when there is a danger that rises beyond displeasure. Finally, there is a slippery slope involved in blocking for personal attacks or allowing the severity of an attack to be weighed, as we start to decide which insults are worse than others, and that's no position for any of us to be in. If we allow ourselves to even once take that position, we start measuring the "attack" against the "taunt" and the "hate speech" and the "hate crime," and all of those are so valuative and denigrating (both in terms of which sector is protected and in what it means to be so weak as to need special shelter) that it's the devolution of Misplaced Pages's founding sentiment: the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Geogre 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451 objects to personal attack warning by Tony_Sidaway

I reported a personal attack from Terryeo. Sidaway threatens me with a block on the accusation that I falsely reported a personal attack, which was "User:Fahrenheit451 uses personal opinion, "published" on personal websites freely. I had referred to this user as a banned user as he is banned from editing Scientology articles. Sidaway evidently warned me on an article discussion page, but not on my user talk page and claims that I have been warned before, then gave me a "final warning" on my talk page. I would like this situation looked into. --Fahrenheit451 22:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse banned user Terryeo. Publicly accessible websites and newsgroups are published, per the definition. --Fahrenheit451 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty sleazy backhand --mboverload@ 22:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Learn how to use diffs. I'm not doing your investigation for you. And mboverload, seriously. --Cyde↔Weys 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

...Now I'm just confused. Anyway, I came across this diff, I'm not sure how they relate. 1 --mboverload@ 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here but this guy hasn't presented his case coherently at all and I'm not about to do his investigation for him. My default position is to side with Tony Sidaway, who I know rather well. --Cyde↔Weys 23:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. Without a clean presentation or evidence there is nothing we can do for you Fahrenheit. However, it doesn't seem as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Please present the whole story along with diffs. --mboverload@ 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I confused you, I incorrectly interpreted your comment "That's a pretty sleazy backhand" as an attack on Tony Sidaway. --Cyde↔Weys 23:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. np. --mboverload@ 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've warned Fahrenheit451 twice to stop referring to Terryeo habitually as "banned user Terryeo". As the first warning was on Talk:Patter drill I've corrected an earlier statement that I had already warned him. Apparently he left that discussion before I replied.

Although Terryeo is banned from certain articles, Fahrenheit451's use of that term in addressing and referring to Terryeo is clearly prejudicial and has the nature of a personal attack. Terryeo isn't perfect but his current relatively civil behavior should be encouraged and I'm warning Fahrenheit451 off because it is important to rehabilitate Terryeo as an editor and his activities are prejudicial to that. I have warned Fahrenheit451 that he will be blocked if he persists in addressing or referring to other editors as "banned user". --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think calling someone a "banned user", even if it's true, shouldn't be done if it does not have a clear relation to a conversation. It looks like he used it as a debate tool rather than bothering to present his case, an ad hominem if you will. --mboverload@ 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I waited for fifteen minutes on irc for your reply. A warning must be communicated to the intended party to be valid and you left it on an article discussion page. I left the patter drill discussion as I found further dialogue with Terryeo to be unproductive. --Fahrenheit451 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The personal attack from Terryeo was here: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Is_an_opinion_on_a_personal_website_a_.22published.22_opinion.3F I made the complaint here: User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Another_personal_attack_by_Terryeo Sidaway responds with this: User_talk:Fahrenheit451#Personal_attacks_on_Terryeo I chatted with Sidaway via irc and this did not resolve anything. --Fahrenheit451 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He gave you a warning which you saw and told you he gave you another on the talk page. Why not just accept that and realize that your behavior is not appropriate? --mboverload@ 23:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Falsehood. He did NOT give me an initial warning. He evidently put it on an article discussion page. I did see the second warning on my user discussion page. His conduct as an administrator was not proper in that instance.--Fahrenheit451 23:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, now you have been warned. You have not been blocked, so nothing much has happened to you yet. Could we drop this here? Kusma (討論) 23:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, could you please explain what was improper about warning you against referring to Terryeo as "banned user Terryeo"? --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you are loading the question, which should be: "What do you consider improper?" I consider your sticking a "warning" on a article discussion page and considering that it was valid, then giving me a final warning on my user discussion page, falsely stating you already warned me. Also, I object to what appears to be a hidden standard on what constitutes a personal attack from Terryeo. --Fahrenheit451 23:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if that's true, why not calmly inform Tony that you think he is in error, and even calmly ask his complete reasoning if you don't understand it. Why are you here? --mboverload@ 23:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And if someone gives you a final warning for personal attacks, STOP, HAMMER TIME. --mboverload@ 23:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL!--Fahrenheit451 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so Fahrenheit gets a final warning for stating that a user banned of editing certain articles, is in fact a banned user on one of the articles he is banned from's talk page with the claim that his statement was a personal attack, even though it is most definitely a true statement (See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo). And, Terryeo, makes the comment "uses personal opinion, "published" on personal websites freely" about Fahrenheit, and he actually gets a friendly message to tell him "I've issued a final warning to Fahrenheit451 for repeatedly attacking you, calling you a "banned user", and falsely accusing you of making personal attacks on him"

Does that seem somewhat (perhaps Very) unbalanced to anyone else?! - Glen Stollery 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know? No proper case was ever presented. --mboverload@ 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand when the diffs are above for each component

1. Terryeo is uncivil
2. Fahrenheit takes it to Tony
3. Tony posts a seemingly sudden final warning on Fahrenheit's user page, based on
4. Fahrenheit's uncivil comment
5. Tony then posts friendly "thought you should know" style comment about Fahrenheit's final warning to Terryeo.

Even if both users were uncivil surely both should be dealt with using the same yard stick? Surely? - GIen 04:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy with the outcome. The arbitration remedies applying to Terryeo, who has historically been a problem user, remain, but he is protected from undue harassment by Fahrenheit451. --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic here Tony when the arbitration closed months ago and Terryeo's comments were made last week It would appear the historically problem editor may not in fact be so historic... - GIen 04:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This presupposes that Terryeo's comments were personal attacks, a claim that I think you need to prove. It's all very well for you to present a slanted account of matters, but this will not be much use in persuading those whose view of what transpired is different from your own. --Tony Sidaway 05:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually above you'll see that in fact I used the term uncivil to describe both their comments: an opinion that I am was fairly sure you shared when writing, so no presupposition of that nature is was made at all. However, if it is your opinion (and it would seem from your last post that it may well be) that Terryeo acted in complete civillity at all times and the sole party causing disruption is Fahrenheit then, well, I guess as a sysop that is your call and that is the end of that. I was/am of the assumption (WP:AGF even) that perhaps both parties were maybe over-reacting somewhat, but the reason I actually made comment here was purely on the basis by which each was handled. Regarding your closing statement, I of course am well aware that if someone reading this has already made up their mind then my comments serve little purpose. However, with respect, I believe the whole point in a venue such as this is that those persons looking into these concerns most likely have not formed a view "different from my own" until after they've actually read all the commentary herein. Glen 05:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Is there any particular reason that you continue to remove the sole green 'e' from my signature? A signature which, I might add, which including the green e font markup still only totals a mere 3 letters longer in wikicode than your own. Seems strange you remove it from my 44 length sig yet are happy to leave the @ that also occurs in this section. Seems an odd time to demonstrate what seems to be two sets of rules for two users, but, again, I will ASF and wait for your reponse before making that call.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that my rejection of Fahrenheit451's complaint about a personal attack meant that I think Terryeo acts with perfect civility at all times. What I did see when I investigated the complaint, however, was a clear personal attack on Terryeo by Fahrenheit451. There are nearly 1000 administrators on Misplaced Pages, and if none can be found to treat Fahrenheit451's complaint as actionable, I suggest that it was probably not actionable. --Tony Sidaway 06:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly be false dichotomy if I assumed one implied the other - however it was not a sweeping statement on my part. Specifically my phasing was in line with how I saw the two being handled, final warning vs. nil. However even your edit above, the words "it was probably not actionable" does not seem to envoke the severity in levels of treatment each user received (or perhaps you were simply being polite in your wording). Well, I have no more to say, thank you for your time and look forward to hearing feedback from others. - Glen 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) PS: You forgot to respond to my PS too.

Jesus, is it just me, or is this noticeboard regularly used for lengthy discussions of Tony's rough admining style and signature crusade now? Somebody called a "partly banned user" a "banned user"? Are there no more pressing concerns on Misplaced Pages (I wish)? I honestly think some people here seriously need to take a step back. dab (ᛏ) 07:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like it, yeah. It's bothersome that incidents related to this one user are now mildly overwhelming this page.

In the present case, it seems to me as if Misplaced Pages admins are being used without their awareness to censor facts on the Scientology-related articles. It is a fact that user Terryeo is banned from those articles for specific conduct. Admins who are acting on requests or "warnings" posted by this user should be made aware of that fact. --FOo 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard will readily confirm my familiarity with the Scientology shenanigans. I am also very familiar with the Terryeo arbitration case, because as a clerk, I opened that case on April 3 and closed it on 13 May, and have had occasion to block Terryeo for repeatedly breaching his personal attack parole.

The current case arrived from a bogus complaint of a personal attack by Terryeo, made by another editor. Upon investigating the complaint, I found that the complainant, having repeatedly engaged in personal attacks himself in the past, was still at it. I warned him not to engage in further personal attacks. This is not "rough adminning", it's what any good admin would do in similar circumstances. All we're seeing her is the fallout of an editor who was dissatisfied with the outcome of his bogus complaint.. --Tony Sidaway 08:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Tony. My complaint about Terryeo was valid, and still is. You can attempt to intellectualize it and justify it, but it remains a valid complaint. You, as an administrator, failed to communicate the initial warning to me on my user talk page. Instead, you dropped it on an article talk page, at a point where I broke off discussion with Terryeo. As an administrator, you should know that if you want to be certain to communicate to another user, it needs to go on their talk page. Also, the issue was not the generality of "personal attacks" as you now state, but my epithet of banned user, which Terryeo is for Scientology articles. I think this instance of rough adminning is a result of your not taking the additional effort to properly contact another user with an objection, and, not recognizing or really knowing the scope of what constitutes a personal attack. --Fahrenheit451 15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If your complaint about Terryeo is indeed valid, then you should be able to find at least one administrator out of nearly 1000 to block him under his personal_attack_parole]. You falsely describe my warning to you as "rough adminning". It was not. It was a very serious warning to you that you must heed: stop engaging in personal attacks on Terryeo. --Tony Sidaway 18:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My situation now is with you, Tony. It is far more important than Terryeo who is a known commodity. Your improper warning procedure was indeed "rough adminning". Also, you editing Glen's signature is very bizarre. What are your motives for doing that?--Fahrenheit451 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering is never pretty, and it's not clever. You've been warned. The only rough thing about it is that you seem to think that an experienced editor is entitled to more than one warning.

The signature? Oh it's just a habit I have. In this case editing the signature made the username more apparent (he's GIen, not Glen) and so perhaps that's why I did it. Who knows? --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Is_an_opinion_on_a_personal_website_a_.22published.22_opinion.3F is supposed to be a personal attack? That's ridiculous. Fahrenheit451, what are your motives for wasting ANI space and everybody's time? Bishonen | talk 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

if you want to address tony's "habit" of editing other user's sigantures, there is always Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3

-- frymaster 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Bugman94 is continuing to create sockpuppets; two were created in one day

You may wish to review . This particular indvidual has created sockpuppets over the course of the past few weeks. All of them abuse the {{helpme}} template on their user talk pages, despite repeated requests to stop. In addition, they usually have the {{busy}} template at the top of their talk pages which reads "Michael is currently busy in real life and may not respond quickly to queries". A checkuser was run a while ago on the accounts which were suspected sockpuppets at the time (I currently cannot find this, but I assure you it was done), and they were indeed proven to be sockpuppets, and Essjay blocked the IP in question for one month; this was probably a few weeks ago, but I am alsmost certain it has not been a month since then. However, this user is still at it, creating sockpuppets (again, they are not proven my RFCU or anything, however, if you review the contributions from each account, the evidence is there) which all have the same pattern of abusing the {{helpme}} template, and just generally being annoying.

Long story short, Bugman94 is an indefinately blocked user, however, he is creating annoying and somewhat abusive sockpuppets. --Pilot|guy 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that someone "lost" the case when copying it from the pending to completed requests section (I won't go into detail, but his initials are S. J.). :-) I've tracked it down and it can now be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bugman94. Thatcher131 01:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Who, sj? --Cyde↔Weys 05:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares, it was an honest mistake. pschemp | talk 05:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Cyde was being funny because the link is there; I know I was trying to be funny. Goof ups happen, especially when you run 100+ checkuser requests a month. Thatcher131 11:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:MichaelIsGreat

This user has done nothing but attempt to write Bösendorfer to his satisfaction, and when challenged by others, he responds with heated, novel-length rambles, both on his own talk page as well as the talk page of the aforementioned making it difficult for many (including me) to understand what he's trying to tell us. Can someone deal with him? 05:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He's also being extremely rude in edit summaries and talk page comments. I've blocked him for a couple of days and advised him to read WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. --ajn (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The responses from MichaelIsGreat (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) to friendly advice on his talk page since his block, and his constant imputations of censorship, conspiracy and skulduggery, all lead me to believe this individual is a hopeless case, beyond reform. I have taken the bull by the horns in the hope of preventing any further waste of time and emotional energy, and am indefinitely blocking MichaelIsGreat per Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience. Any admin who contests this indef block please reinstate Andrew Norman's last block (which was for a week) and let me know you have done so; if any non-admin objects then let me know and I undertake to reverse it myself. If no-one objects here then I will list MichaelIsGreat at Misplaced Pages:List of banned users in due course. Disclosure: MichaelIsGreat has accused me, as he has baselessly accused every Wikipedian who has ever interacted with him, of being dishonest and having a hidden agenda (precisely what hidden agenda is unclear). --RobertG ♬ talk 13:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The hidden agenda is to suppress the truth about how great the latest Bösendorfer computer piano is, of course. Will you ever be happy, brats?!! I have no objections at all to this block - having had to block him for a further week this morning for threats, abuse and general ranting about everyone conspiring against him, he seems to me to be utterly unreasonable and unlikely to change. --ajn (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

All hail the hidden agenda to write an NPOV encyclopedia. I've been called lots of things since becoming an admin, but that's a first on "brat", LOL. Thanks to everyone who helped with this. Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

About the AOL image vandal...and me

I have given up. I'm not going to revert any more AOL edits like this one. I'm going to skip right past.

The feeling of hopelessness is immense. I'm sitting there with Vandal Proof watching edits by that user go by faster than I can revert them. I don't even bother leaving warnings. He will just change his IP with the next edit anyway. I just try and reduce the damage. It's a whole IP range. I jump the hell on IRC, yelling for someone to help me but no one does. An admin finally blocks it, but I see other admins seeing the same vandalism as me, reverting the same vandalism as me, and they don't do anything. What kind of climate are we living in when a sophisticated vandal with an efficient system (3+ vandal edits every 30 seconds, or an edit every 10 seconds) wrecking havoc with our encyclopedia gets to scare off our administrators just because he uses AOL? Even when the range WAS BLOCKED, it was ONLY FOR 15 MINUTES. The vandal promptly started up again and that's when I decided to throw in the towel. This isn't just some kiddie at his school putting in "omg lol" into articles. This is a determined vandal who knows our system with its red tape and silly rules can't stop him. He has the power and he knows how to exploit it.

"But mboverload," you say, "obvious vandalism is easy to revert and it only took a few minutes even if you had to look on in horror as thousands of peoples' work was being destroyed." Well, why don't we just let stupid criminals out of prison after 15 minutes? They learned their lesson. Stores can always get their money back from insurance and it's easy to spot them with the security cameras, right? Even if that were true in real life, it still wouldn't be acceptable. People hate being violated and they want to protected.

I don't know what's wrong with me. I'm supposed to be understanding about this. But maybe I'm just the cop that realises that it's a completely hopeless battle; we will never win. Every day we go back out there and we hand out warnings and we watch as they commit more vandalism and we hand out and other warning and then we watch them do it again, all in the name of due process. Criminals don't get 4 warnings. They get TASERed. Maybe I'm burned out. Maybe I need a wikibreak. Maybe I don't care enough about all the good that comes out the the AOL IP addresses with 8 blocks. Maybe I need to calm down. Maybe I need to think of the children. Maybe I need to shut the hell up and make a sandwich. --mboverload@ 07:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

if not enough people willing to spend their time reverting this are online, the entire range should be blocked. It's not like we'll get enough worth to counterbalance the damage out of the AOL range in the meantime. AOL either needs to collaborate in preventing this, or live with their IP range blocked much of the time. dab (ᛏ) 07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...tough luck I say...editing here is a priviledge.--MONGO 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious vandalism. Easy to revert and the collateral damage would be huge. Seriously, but you're the only one with this huge obsession with this vandal. I'm content with the edits being reverted. The good coming out of the AOL IP's vastly outweighs the bad, blocking that range would be more disasterous then any vandal could possibly be. Our ultimate goal is writing an encyclopedia, not being elitist towards anons and AOL in paticular. As long as those using AOL contribute towards that goal, we just need to revert the vandals. Denying millions of contributers access fundamentally diverges from the wiki philosophy. -M 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When I come across more vandalised pages by accident (i.e. while not on RC patrol or looking at my watchlist), I might get behind a block on an entire ISP, but right now in my whole time reading Misplaced Pages I can only remember coming across three vandalised pages by accident, and I can't even remember what they were, though I do remember all but one were very obscure. Sure, if you go looking for vandalism, you will, shock horror, find lots of it, but that's not the impression the average reader will get.

I'm fairly understanding of those who block shared IPs for long periods, but people who are blocked at school can just go home - when people are blocked at home it's a major inconvenience. Roll on WP:BPP... --Sam Blanning 08:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Any time the vandal's giving you trouble, mboverload, drop a note on my talk page, and if I'm on I'll block the range for 3 hours. I'm truly not afraid of blocking AOL one bit for as long as need be, and have blocked that range for relatively long times before (as far as I know, my blocks of this range have never once been undone), and I truly don't think that many users are that harmed by it, with a couple of exceptions for whom solutions are typically found quite quickly. I get the impression that AOL simply doesn't give a damn about abuse, and AOL users are typically quite used to getting shitty service from their ISP--they'll understand, or perhaps consider changing to a decent provider. If a few users are unable to edit from home for some time, I think it's well worth it. This vandal, and many others, are quite well aware of the effort we put into ensuring that no AOL user ever be unable to edit, and they just sit back and laugh at our wasted effort. It is absolutely absurd to expect anyone--mboverload, myself, etc.--to simply "revert and warn" this vandalism without blocking, and anyone who does not find this expectation absurd obviously has not been involved in the clean up (as mb stated, we're not dealing with the dumb schoolboy vandal here). Might I propose that we at least keep this range blocked between the hours of 5 and 15 UTC (midnight and 10am pacific time) when nobody except the few of us are available to deal with it? I, like mboverload, simply refuse to clean up this crap anymore, and why should we with that nifty block button there? By the way, we're not talking all of AOL, just the pacific coast branch. I would really like to return to editing... AmiDaniel (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your post AmiDaniel, thanks. I get mad at the regular vandals but I'm fine with that in the long run. It's just these people who take advantage of an ISP that doesn't care is what makes me mad. Even madder at someone who is this smart (I have heard that he must have found a special way to get a new IP address each time, it's not the regular behavior usually). And when we block a range he can just disconnect and call another number. God...I hate dialup. Maybe I'm madder at AOL than the actual user. It's just so awful that there is a stereotype of the AOL user, and they seem to reinforce it to me every hour. Thank you =)--mboverload@ 09:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One more time: blocks of AOL should never exceed :15. The bad outweighs the good? Hmm. Let's see: yesterday I wrote two full articles with references, cleaned out some CSD's, and added to four prosody articles. I mediated the behavior of someone about to get a block, and I tried to put the brakes on some overzealous blocking on this page. Sure, I can see why you might think that the bad outweighs that tiny amount of good. This is not a debate: our policy says that you will not block AOL for longer than :15. If AmiDaniel's block hasn't been overturned, that's just luck, because, although I've not before wanted to get involved in unblocking and wheel warring, the kind of attitude I'm seeing from you people is enough to pull me off the sidelines. If what I'm saying is changing tone too many times, just remember this do not block AOL for longer than :15. Oh, and you can put your prejudice aside. Your denunciations of AOL are as well reasoned as meeting drunken sailors and concluding that all the people of a nation are hideous. If you don't know who the AOL contributors are doing any good, it's because you're vandal hunting. Geogre 11:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocks of AOL should be based on preventing vandalism from AOL. It should be as wide-ranging and as long as necessary to accomplish this goal. Since AOL is making it impossible to lay a narrowly-targeted block on an AOL vandal, AOL users have no reasonable expectation of not being blocked. The problem here is with AOL's conduct towards the rest of the Internet, not Misplaced Pages admin's conduct. AOL's randomizing proxies are a big fat "screw you" to anyone who's trying to deter vandalism, harassment, or other abuse and criminality. --FOo 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this policy which says no more than 15 minutes? WP:BLOCK doesn't mention it, the block page says "Please keep blocks in these ranges to 15 minutes or less" that isn't a never. The reality if the blocking should be proportional to the issue, in this case it appears to be bot like rapid vandalism e.g. 20+ edits per minute, in which case a range block does seem in order. If initial 15 minute blocks don't stop it then increase in length does seem appropriate. --pgk 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, and here I thought the block page had precedence over zeal. You know why you think AOL users are a problem? You are vandal hunting. If you clean septic tanks all day, you'll be convinced that no one does anything but poop. Do you think Time Warner AOL will be harmed by your virtuous scourging of its users from Misplaced Pages? Do you think that the users will either gain the money or expertise necessary to switch ISP's? Do you believe that other ISP's will suddenly appear with dial-up connections in their areas? No, in fact, reverting vandals is not sufficient justification for wiping out an entire ISP. Do you feel free to ignore policy, consensus, and practice and block entire school systems? They do more damage by far. If not, then please drop the anti-corporate attitude when it means blocking innocent contributors. Geogre 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The semi-block idea sounds very interesting. Yes,something must be done about AOL vandalism, and waiting for AOL to do it seems a forlorn hope. I put my faith in the clever developers giving a software solution top priority now. Meanwhile, do you rangeblock enthusiast really know the situation of the good users being affected by the AOL blocks? And what the encyclopedia loses through that situation? Do you see, above, that the fine admin and exceptional Featured-article writer Geogre can barely edit at all nowadays? I know him, so I know his situation. I also know the equally virtuous and even more unfortunate User:WBardwin, who was invisibly pipelinked to in AmiDaniel's post above as one of "a couple of exceptions for whom solutions are typically found quite quickly". Really, a solution has been found for WBardwin? No, it hasn't. His polite, resigned unblock requests still pop up on my watchlist most days. This amazingly patient editor still tries, and to a certain extent manages, to edit Misplaced Pages--if I were WBardwin, I would have given up long ago. Take a look at his talkpage, and click from it to his special subpage about his AOL blocks: it's horrendous. So, just by accident I know two users who are hugely impacted by the AOL blocks. This suggests to me that there are many, many more. PLease keep AOL blocks to 15 minutes or less. And PLEASE work on a software solution for the vandalism! I find the pointlessness of blocking vandals or edit warriors when they come in from AOL as frustrating as anybody. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

I don't understand why logged-in users have problems with AOL blocks. I never do, I must just be lucky. User:Zoe| 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is luck, Zoe. (Gasp! Another admin using AOL? But, above, we were told that AOL is far and away more evil for Misplaced Pages than good!) I've been stuck with Netscape ISP for over a year and a half. Netscape is owned by AOL, so it runs my IP through its pool. For 10 months or more, I never had collateral damage. In the past 6-8 months, though, I find myself blocked at least twice a day. Being an admin, I can get around it, but the kind of shotgun approach to vandal fighting being actually encouraged in this thread is simply ignorant. Geogre 18:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

At a guess I would say it is due to not useing the AOL browser.Geni 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I use Mozilla and don't use AOL. I simply have an ISP (Netscape) that's owned by AOL. That means my IP's don't roll with every single page load, but they roll pretty darned often all the same. I don't like the practice any more than anyone else, but the answer isn't to go to scorched earth policies. We need that earth. Geogre 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

for the record, I never meant to suggest we should block the entire AOL range for long periods. I meant to suggest that if there is an auto-redialling vandalbot run on AOL, we should block AOL for :15 without remorse, and for another :15 if it persists, and for yet another :15, and another :15, essentially amounting to a permablock for as long as the wanker continues to run his bot. dab (ᛏ) 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's tedious and laborious, but I think you're right Dab. If it's an image popper, we can certainly make the image unavailable for the duration, as well. However, I think this particular vandal knows full well that he's causing collateral damage and is, in fact, using that damage as part of his vandalism. Geogre 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the software solution easy? Give MediaWiki the range of AOL proxy server IP addresses (these are well known), and if the IP address is blocked but the user account isn't, let its edits go through. This is a sort of "semi-block" that allows registered users to edit. Also, disable autoblocker on these ranges. --Cyde↔Weys 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote-Stacking?

User:Rangeley recently created a new poll to rehash some previous polls at Misplaced Pages:WOT. Rangeley then started placing talkpage notices on every single user listed at Category:Conservative Wikipedians. User:GTBacchus then asked User:Rangeley about this on his talkpage.. The total number of talkpage notices is over 30. Does all this constitute vote-stacking? If it does not would it be a problem if I added similiar notices to everyone listed on Category:Liberal Wikipedians? -- Mr. Tibbs 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It does constitute vote-stacking.

It is a fine thing to ask people who have expressed interest in a particular topic to weigh in on a discussion. However, it is never OK to selectively invite those who have identified with a particular viewpoint. For instance, on a discussion of religion, it would be proper to invite everyone who has identified as interested in religious topics; it would be wrongful to selectively invite only those who identify as atheists (or Christians, Sikhs, or what-have-you).

Vote-stacking weakens the credibility of the poll or discussion in question. Where it has occurred, it should be noted clearly on the poll or discussion page, so that people who interpret the poll results or discussion outcome are aware that it has occurred.

However, it is never OK to vote-stack in response to someone else's vote-stacking. To do so is escalation of bad behavior by worse behavior. It will not fix the problems that vote-stacking creates. It will worsen the bias by excluding a middle ground for compromise and consensus. It will foment incivility. It will even further invalidate poll results, and prevent discussion consensus. --FOo 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the category from the userbox and protected to prevent further abuse.. --Tony Sidaway 08:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What is important is not whether there is vote stacking or not. What is important is best summarized by Tony's post on the poll. He said that "You can't decide issues of fact with a straw poll". By responding to this offense of "vote-stacking", by removing categories and protecting pages, we tacitly give our approval to the process and encourage people to think that it is reasonable to vote on issues of fact. These actions give the appearance that we are protecting the sanctity of the voting process. There is no vote-stacking because there is NO VOTE. -- Samuel Wantman 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately those categories and things can be used to subvert the consensus-formation process by enlisting groups of like-minded people to overwhelm any discussion. We should obviously teach other less experienced Wikipedians that "You can't decide issues of fact with a straw poll" but we shouldn't underestimate the mischief that can be done to our system by these techiques. --Tony Sidaway 08:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Vote-stacking" is a misnomer, but the activity remains disruptive, regardless of the fact that it's not a "vote" that's being disrupted but a discussion. -GTBacchus 08:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What if everyone contacted in this case came and participated in a positive manner, and all the liberals were contacted as well? I bet with all those people one of them might figure out how to phrase things in a NPOV way. The problem is disruptive behavior, not the exercise of free speech. I created the Misplaced Pages:LGBT notice board because important decisions about deleting LGBT categories were being made by a handful of editors that were not involved in LGBT topics. Would it be alright if I informed one editor that a decision was about to be made? Is 5 too many? How about 69 (the current number of people signed up on the board). Should I not inform anyone because it would be vote stacking? How about if I just inform people I know are trustworthy? What if I don't know their entire history? Where should I draw the line? I don't think a line can be fairly drawn. What you can do is respond to inappropriate contacts. It is analogous to the difference between organizing a meeting and inciting a riot. Newspapers could possibly be used to incite angry mobs, should they all be shut down? Sorry that I'm going on and on about this, but I think this is very important. If AfD and other discussions are a mess, perhaps some other things need to be done to fix them. Let's have that discussion and come up with some creative ideas before we institute a police state. -- Samuel Wantman 09:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that vote stacking and prohibiting "talk page spamming" are both wrong. Part of the problem is how it is done, and I don't think it's too much to say that informing about an ongoing debate is different from soliciting support. "As a person active on issues of X, you might be interested in the debate going on at Location" is not solicitation. I oppose the use of any association or noticeboard page to gather votes, and I actually oppose interest or politically based associations taking part in such issues. Basically, if Misplaced Pages continues having "factions" and "parties," it's doomed entirely. If cranks want to perceive the place as a gay liberal communist project, the world won't care, but if the project develops the gay block, the TG block, the conservative block, the Roman Catholic block, the Democrat block, etc., then it very soon will be "ruled" by some group, and it will even more quickly disaffect and lose the "losing" groups. Providing information to the interested is something that, theoretically, I would oppose, if we didn't have IRC. Given its existence and the efficacy of it in getting a huge influx of "voters," and given the fact that no one is inclined to stop it, I don't think we can rule very strenuously on the subject of "talk page spamming," as long as it's informational, even if we must, I think, come down very hard on notifications that are political or designed to develop a faction of any sort. Geogre 11:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment but people are what they are, their views are also what they are. Removing affiliations just makes it so you may never understand why they have that view. You may argue for 20 days on wikipedia about an issue, for instance the war on terror issue. on the 21st day you find out that person is a staunch republican, wouldnt it have helped you to know before the 21 days began that this user was a republican? How about if they were a vet? These associations help users understand one another and their viewpoints, and help them relate to eachother and avoid saying things that may seem biased etc. It helps people get along and find a middleground. --zero faults 14:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This also helps in reverse now that I think of it, for instance I do not affiliate myself on wikipedia, but people have eluded they feel I am a republican because of what I support here. However I am not, perhaps a little info box on my talk page would have helped someone see I am not just being hard headed, or that I am not a Bush lover or those other kinds of ideas that run through peoples heads when ideas are being exchanged, and sometimes get heated. --zero faults 14:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not really on topic, you know, but people are what they say. I would prefer to believe that being a vet, a Republican, or a Martian doesn't make you hold views or limit your individuality, and I don't think that party lines are very accurate in any respect. If I argue with someone for 20 days, I hope I'm talking about issues, and not what the speaker is or is not, and I similarly hope that that person's words would be neither explained, lessened, nor endorsed by an affiliation. Geogre 15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a major dog in this fight, but just a heads-up on a few ArbCom cites: while researching a little bit to clarify the authenticity of the {{Canvass}} template, I found that the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice", but that aggressively worded cross-posting contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking. — Mike • 20:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to state that not everyone I contacted was in the conservative category, and instead had shown themselves to be constructive in their efforts in the past. I do however admit to doing it, and it was underhanded of me, however I did it with the knowledge that straw polls do not matter. Previous discussions I had found myself often debating with many more people then me, and it was not an enjoyable experience. Seeing a tool like a category including like minded wikipedians, I used this to have people who could possibly have helped alleviate some of the stress that had previously come with discussions on this matter. Obviously, it did not work and has shown itself to be quite counter productive on my part, as it could likely get me in trouble or the poll deleted - obviously avoiding no stress. If anything, I ask that the punishment goes to me directly. I strongly beleive that the argument put forth in Misplaced Pages:WOT removes any reasonable doubt for its inclusion, and this can go on without me. I have no defense for myself, and will not put forth any. Rangeley 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski, Serbian nationalism, etc. Again.

I'd appreciate it if another admin could look at this, and make suggestions. Bormalagurski had various links on his userpage associating Croatia with fascism, and a fair use image. He was asked nicely to remove them, didn't, and so I removed them for him, and protected his user page (see here). He's now complaining on two fronts - firstly that he wants his user page unprotected so he can leave Misplaced Pages (what?), and also that the phrase "Kosovo is Serbia" is not a piece of nationalist polemic about a highly disputed area currently under the protection of the UN, but an innocent statement of geographical fact. There are also veiled threats being made. --ajn (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish discussion posting

Some guy called User:Dfrg.msc is posting rubbish on the discussion page of the Tomorrow series article, as well as my own talk page. Battle Ape 09:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Y_not is back

Y not (talk · contribs) is back after being blocked a while ago (See WP:ANI#Ongoing sock warfare over Rajput_articles). He is again making the rapid reversions for which he was blocked. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Male pregnancy

The user User:Kizor has been edit warring the preserve original research at the page Male pregnancy, refusing to provide citations from notable sources or in some cases any sources what so ever.

I've corrected the tags and added {{citeneeded}} where I feel a WP:RS is lacking. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The author of this message, presumably the same person as the one with an identical posting style and focus, has not responded to three separate requests to elaborate on what he finds unacceptable, beyond repeatedly stating that it's ridiculous, nonsense, OR and the like. He seems to be ignoring the sources I supply and operating under his own, personal definition of 'notable'. He's called for aid multiple times but engaged in next to no actual dialogue with me. --Kizor 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, he apparently finds the statement that a male pregnancy would have to be an ectopic pregnancy to be unacceptable OR. An ectopic pregnancy is defined as one outside a womb. Men do not have a womb. In case that wouldn't be enough, I gave him a link where Lord Winston - one of Great Britain's prominent fertility specialists - specifically mentions this. Several days later he deleted the statement and several others with the edit summary 'rvv'. --Kizor 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, I am not the poster to whom you originally refer. A simple check with ARIN and similar sources reveals the original chap to be an American, and me to be British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

81, You're also responding to me and acting politely, so you can't be him. Sorry. Sorry. And damn; jumping the gun when my credibility is a vital issue! Here's my side of things. What I said earlier stands, except for the striked-through part - 74.136.222.198 has repeatedly edited the page to force his will through. He's answering no attempts at dialogue and accepting no version but his; communications from him have been limited to "Read this and become familiar with it WP:OR" and "ricidulous". He's snide and insulting in his few talk page messages and edit summaries. He's not elaborating on his problems beyond saying that what he doesn't agree with is nonsense, and has made no acknowledgement of the sources I've provided. There is no original research in the article, at least not by me or in the parts he's attacking and I'm defending. I gave an elaborate summary on his talk page. The sources used, Robert Winston and Snopes.com, are in the article as some of its external links. They are by no means the only sources with data of male pregnancy, but cover everything used in the article. If the page that hosts a copy of the Sunday Times article about Winston seems suspect, it's also hosted elsewhere. If the sources should be pointed out better, I'm all ears, but I'm not - repeat not - using OR. --Kizor 18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The snopes link you provided appears to debunk your entire article's human component.

Not really. It examines the present state and says that it's doable, not yet practically feasible - and the Misplaced Pages article agrees by describing it as doubly foolhardy. Snopes.com's description of how a male pregnancy would be done corresponds to Winston's statements on the issue. The Snopes link finishes by saying that it could become reality in the future. The article and the source seem to fit nicely to me. --Kizor 11:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Male pregnancy is not even feasible at current (as stated by snopes), the article's human component is merely speculative, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

Please take this discussion back to the talk page of the article. This is not the place for content discussion between editors. Sam Vimes 11:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, we have a need for other editors to go and look at the article in question and weigh in as currently Kizor has been tailoring it to his views, it seems there is a need for other opinions on these views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

The place to go then is Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment (more specifically: ]), since this discussion does not require administrator action, merely input which any editor can provide. Sam Vimes 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have copied the ongoing part of the discussion to Talk:Male pregnancy, which should be much better suited for talking this out. --Kizor 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Large scale DOS attack from 82.198.250.* range

Users from this range keep on vandalising as reported in WP:AIV --WinHunter 11:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The DoS attack is back apparently after the block has expired. --WinHunter 13:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As reported in WP:AIV

I've blocked 82.198.250.0/24 for 1 hour. None of the IPs have rDNS entries and the whois doesn't look like a school registration. Repost here if they continue after it expires and I will extend the block significantly with a request that the admin contact me via email. --GraemeL 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just keep blocking ranges as the vandalism happens. Not much else we can do. --Cyde↔Weys 13:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dfrg.msc

Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs) is consistently vandalising and misusing the article Tomorrow series and its talk page, as well as many user pages. Also vandalised Che Guevara article when it was featured. Shows no sign of acknowledging comments or warnings and is clearly intending to be a troublemaker. Formerly a suspected sock puppet of User:Carbine, blocked indefinitely for the same actions. --Scottie theNerd 11:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I left him a note on his talk page, but he seems to have a whole edit history full of weird talk page edits. I haven't seen anything bad enough to constitute a block, though. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested unprotection

Could someone please unblock User talk:Brasoveanul. The user is blocked, and is at meta complaining and is wanting to be able to edit his talk page to "appeal his block" like he was advised to do on WP:AN#Unblock. --Tēlex 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No. This is banned user User:Bonaparte. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the question was should his user page be unprotected so he can edit there while blocked. Thatcher131 19:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

His talk page is protected. He says he wants it unprotecting. While it is obvious that it is a sockpuppet of Bonaparte, I thought I'd let the admins here know. The link is above. --Tēlex 19:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He's indef blocked; I don't see why he deserves a talk page, especially considering his behavior. --InShaneee 02:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unatended WP:AIV

Backlog of vandal report for at least an hour. --WinHunter 15:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Natalya! ^_^ --WinHunter 15:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Locust43, Cola2706, and 68.113.77.49

I had unblocked 68.113.77.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which had been used by blocked user Locust43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on request from Cola2706 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Ip Problem. However, I have just been told (User talk:CesarB#A user you unblocked) that Cola2706 is a sockpuppet of Locust43; accordingly, I reblocked the IP address, and indefinitely blocked Cola2706 as a sockpuppet (User talk:Cowman109#Re: A user you unblocked).

I chose to block for 6 months instead of indefinite, since the DNS makes it look like a dynamic DSL IP address; should I have chosen a different block length? --cesarb 15:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As several old timers mention, IP's are never really permanent, even if they're static, as one can never be sure when that user will close down his account and the ISP sell it to a new user, and with IP's belonging to companies, a worker may quit, etc. 6 months is long-ish, as, really, 3 months is about as far in the future as we ought to imagine. Nevertheless, it's not an outrage. Geogre 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unethical Behavior and Possible NPA Violations

This complaint was posted here and archived automatically before getting any response. It has been reposted here by Karwynn on 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC). THe original two posts are shown with the times they were originally posted.

On the Laura Ingraham talk page, user Sandover has repeatedly cited a temporary block that I had to serve. This is not relevant to the discussion and is merely being used to fallaciously discredit me ,

On top of that, and mainly the reason I'm here, I've discovered some underhanded methods on the Keith Olberman talk page.

I have addressed this on the Laura Ingraham talk page for full disclosure .

I look forward to your input. Haizum 07:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this needs administrative action. I deleted my former statement, and replaced it with this; I realized I needed to be more concise and will bring the specifics up later. There have been numerous AGF, NOR and NPA violations as well as a refusal to listen to fellow editors' input. Karwynn 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, is this going to get any attention? Because if it's frivolous then I personally would like to know so that I can avoid such complaints in the future. Karwynn 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. I guarantee I wouldn't be able to get away with the described behavior without penalty. Do I need to dig deeper? Haizum 20:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into it, but I recommend you take it up at Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard for swifter reaction. Tomer 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have looked into this, and it looks like both of you need to take a deep breath; neither of you are being civil about this. --InShaneee 02:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

New IP templates

I created Template:Dynamic-IP, Template:RotatingUserIP and Template:FirewallWarning. These should be useful if there are any more DDOS attacks.

Hope this helps. --Sunholm(talk) 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

New user removing user boxed from user pages

The User:TheCooler has been removing a lot of Balkan related (Montenegro, Kosovo) political userboxes from several userpages, see his history: , has been unwilling to comply to stop: User Talk:TheCooler. Perhaps an Adminstrator can take appropriate action here? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Political and polemical userboxes are deprecated anyway. Good job that user! --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Woah now, we've got an admin condoning vandalism? Whether or not you agree with userboxes, no one should be going around deleting them from userpages! This matter needs a bit more serious attention, and it seems as though Tony's position needs some attention as well. Romarin 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OOh, I need re-education! Off to the gulag for me! --Tony Sidaway 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Its sort of suspicious that the majority of his edits seem to only consist of deleting userboxes , and he seems to have a lot of knowledge on Misplaced Pages for someone who just recently signed up a few hours ago.....--Tree Biting Conspiracy 19:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, he's removing "userboxes" that have already been subst:ed. Are we going on a policy of removing userpage content regardless of whether it involves any templates? (If we are, stuff like this probably ought to get axed, no?) Kirill Lokshin 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, some of the stuff he's removed isn't a userbox by any stretch of the imagination, or even meant to look like one. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts that Tony Sidaway responds so quickly and approvingly and both he and User:TheCooler have their user page redirected to their talk page could be interpreted as an indication that User:TheCooler is a sockpuppet of Tony Sidaway. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Obligatory calls to AGF aside, I can't really imagine that Tony would need a sockpuppet for this; he's had no trouble axing divisive userboxes under his own name before ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but for the avoidance of doubt I confirm that I am not the owner or operator of the account User:TheCooler. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith if someone approves of vandalism is a bit of a stretch for me :). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it is unwanted behavior according to Misplaced Pages:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. For the record, I am no fan of political userboxes, but as long as we do not have an official policy, this cannot be tolerated. Especially because the user was deleting specific political userboxes (mainly Kosovo) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And borderline disruptive. In my opinion, they aren't templates anymore, they're not transcluded. But I don't want a debate. But yes, it isn't vandalism. Sceptre 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly disruptive. It depends if he's just being bold or edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing substed boxes from user space is not vandalism? Particularly when it is repeated, and seems to be this user's primary goal? I beg to differ... Romarin 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If his primary goal is to remove material that obviously shouldn't be there in the first place, it definitely cannot be vandalism. . --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, its not vandalism, but it is still disruptive, inflammatory and unrespectful. Three reasons why any administrator should not approve of such edits. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's any of those, then it's wrong. But I'm not convinced that it is any of these things. Bold, certainly. --Tony Sidaway 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's so "bold" as to be stupid. It's ineffective, because it loses ground in the real struggle, which is convincing people that the boxes are inappropriate. It's also disruptive, because it causes disruption - it upsets people, it's inelegant, brash, boorish, bold, and unproductive. It doens't get the job done, and it appears to be a good-faith example of impatient, juvenile acting out, using a sock-puppet. Other than that, it's great. -GTBacchus 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wale oil beef hooked! You really think it's me socking, don't you? :) --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that. I think it's someone who thinks of you as a role model ;-) -GTBacchus 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It may not be you, but it is likely someone based on a new user account doing very specific edits. Your flippant dismissal of the issue shows you to be biased in a way very unbecoming to someone with your stature in the project. You as well as anyone should be concerned that this is somebody's sock who believes his edits would be likely to get his primary account blocked. --StuffOfInterest 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously this chap wouldn't have anything to fear from this administrator on that score. Indeed there seems to be a general air of approval of his exploits. Well done that user. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit that it's not completely obviously vandalism; we don't know this user's motives. But still, it is very biased, and you are showing an extreme bias as well by saying that these boxes "obviously shouldn't be there in the first place". What is your motive here? Aren't you supposed to be working towards NPOV with your adminship? Could you please explain to us why you agree with these POV, disruptive, inflammatory and unrespectful (if not vandalizing) edits? Thank you. Romarin 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Userpages are there by the grace of the project, and are not a right that people have. If content on them damages the project, then people should expect them to be edited. There is a tradition of not editing userpages of other users without good reason, but this might be construed to be a good reason. For people who want something more personalisable, Livejournal and proper webservers beckon. --Improv 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone could use Misplaced Pages for long and still use the Neutral point of view policy as an argument for keeping inappropriate content on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen these userboxes, and I don't have an opinion at this point as to whether or not I agree with their use. My problem is that there is no difinitive policy as of yet on whether or not they are "inappropriate", and so, I think that calling them such, and cheering on someone who is going around removing them, is a demonstration of personal bias. Romarin 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As a Wikipedian, I am definitey personally biased against introducing partisan political declarations of this kind into Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty on this matter. romarin 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Personaly I prefer people who admit any baises upfront. It's those who don't (in combination with AGF) that tend to be a real problem.Geni 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Geni, and yet I'm against political userboxes. I guess that's not what the issue's about. -GTBacchus 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness run amok. It's not the end of the world if somebody expresses some detail about their views on something not directly related to Misplaced Pages on their user page. Merzbow 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeesh, there's no requirement to be NPOV/neutral about the operations of the project itself. Articles should be NPOV. But if everyone was neutral about how things should work "behind the scenes," we'd never get anything done! FreplySpang 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that somebody should depopulate Category:Opponents of Kosovo independence, and I don't know why it shouldn't be this particular editor. Jkelly 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not Spartacus, but I'm about to do it. I've done some similar things over the last few days, so a few more angry eastern Europeans after my blood won't make much difference. --ajn (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Do I just delete the category page now, too? --ajn (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just blank it and have a look there every now and then to see if someone is trying to repopulate it. Deleting or recreating a cat page doesn't do anything to the category. It's the "Category" clauses in the pages themselves that make the category. --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd already done it in solidarity with ajn. If it makes more sense to restore it, go ahead. Jkelly 23:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So you guys are volenteering to redraw all the maps if Kosovo ends up independant?Geni 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't draw for the life of me, and that wouldn't be something one would want to be off on by even a little. Jkelly 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is why there is a theoretical legit internal wikipedia reason for being oposed to Kosovo becomeing an independant state.Geni 00:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can never tell whether or not you are joking when you come up with these things. Jkelly 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mostly jokeing although I will conceed my view on what areas should be nation states is now slightly affected by how simple their boarders would be to draw.Geni 01:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that this is unlikely to be Tony it is obviously someone's sock-puppet. The account is also obviously being used to perform disruptive actions not sanctioned by any policy. We have a 'general philosophy', possibly even a guideline, to avoid identifying ourselves as members of a particular (non Misplaced Pages based) ideology... but we have a policy against going out of our way to antagonize others. Excusing harassment and promotion of bias (removing statements on just one side of the dispute) in the name of 'promoting greater harmony on Misplaced Pages by avoiding statements of affiliation' is as inherently absurd as it is wrong. That some here have gotten in on the action by helping to wipe out the 'Opponents of Kosovo independence' category, but not the other hundred or so user categories expressing a political position is also troubling... don't just pick on one ideology because you can get away with it. Imagine what would happen if you tried to wipe out the 'Democrat' and 'Republican' user categories and then explain why it is ok to just 'beat up on the little guy'. You can't promote greater harmony by pissing people off. That should be obvious. "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." --CBD 12:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh the old "don't delete this one unless you delete them all" thing. It's inevitable that people will be pissed off, especially if they have somehow gotten the idea that they own their userspace and can use it as a private web page. Probably better to show them earlier, rather later, that it isn't so. This minimizes both the damage to wikipedia and the damage to the naive new user's expectations. --Tony Sidaway 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's only 'inevitable' when people violate civility policy / pillar four to act in ways disrespectful of others. If you discuss issues with people fairly and reasonably they will sometimes agree to just remove the ideological statement / userbox / fancy signature / fair-use only image / whatever. Granted, they often won't, but at least then you have proceeded in a cooperative, rather than inflammatory, way. If you think the reverse serves to 'minimize damage' I'd suggest that it isn't working. --CBD 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

CBDunkerson's right about it not being inevitable that you piss people off. It's actually pretty cool to get things done without pisssing people off, and it's entirely possible. -GTBacchus 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank those of you who've supported my bold actions but also express my concerns about some other people who have attacked my actions and made baseless accusations of harrassment and sockpuppetry. I have no hidden agenda. Just to make this absolutely clear I removed userboxes from "all sides", that being pro-independent Kosovo or against, pro-abolishment of Republika Srpska or against, pro-Chechnya and against. In all instances, these userboxes were divisive and inflammatory, in content and intention. I quitted Misplaced Pages just under two years ago for this particular reason (no, I was not banned or anything and this is my only active account). I'm sorry to see that many users are still harming the project with unencyclopedic political views. I just hope my pointless comeback exercise will set the right example. I am a busy woman but I wouldn't mind taking this all the way up to Jimbo. The spirit of the law's with me. Thanks TheCooler

User:TheCooler, these userboxes are already on their way out. I agree entirely with what you want to get done, but going on the warpath is a very foolish way to do it, and if you really want to achieve your goal, you should find a way to be smarter about it. Prick up your ears, sniff the air - there's stuff going on around here, and there are right and wrong places to push to help it go on more effectively. Political categories are up for deletion right now at CfD, for example - why snip at user pages, when you can go for the heart of POV-organizing? -GTBacchus 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks GTBacchus. What should we do with userfied userboxes? These won't come up as part of any category but are still there? TheCooler

I recommend patience. This is actually a mountain that needs moving, and there are good and bad ways to move mountains, but no fast ones. Jimbo said that our overall strategy is to get POV organization out of Template namespace, and then address users on a more cultural level about how they choose to present themselves on their user pages. This is because there's a bit of a cultural crisis going on here at Misplaced Pages right now, and some views are rather entrenched.

User Categories are another big thing to get rid of in large chunks, using CfD and building consensus. When Template space and Category space are clear of advocacy, we'll be presenting a much more consistent face when we argue that userfied userboxes are a bad idea, and by then, they'll feel even more out-of-place than they do now. -GTBacchus 18:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is obviously not intending to work on encyclopedia and only causes disruption. I think a CheckUser should be run on him so we know who is behind this sockpuppet.  Grue  18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your sense of the obvious is... tuned differently from mine. -GTBacchus 18:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/TheCooler.  Grue  18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it sweet, Grue; that edit summary wasn't necessary. I've seen the contributions log, and I've talked with the user, and I have no reason to disbelieve what she says about being away from Misplaced Pages for two years, coming back to seeing the same old unencyclopedic userboxes, and going on a bit of a bender. That doesn't mean the person is only here to cause disruption - it might mean they really care about Misplaced Pages, and figured grabbing a shovel and being bold about an important Misplaced Pages issue was a good way to contribute. -GTBacchus 18:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There were user boxes two years ago? I must not have been paying attention. I thought this thing flared up only recently during an extended Wikibreak I took. moink 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made comments on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#POLEMICAL_AND_INFLAMMATORY_USERBOXES and Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes. TheCooler 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

TheCooler, there's a lot of backlog you may find interesting - I believe WP:T1D is a reasonable place to dive in. It's a somewhat inactive project page that was for a while, along with its talk page, a nexus of debate over userboxes. -GTBacchus 20:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have found this: WP:UP#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages" TheCooler 21:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good one. -GTBacchus 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN Edit War (Not Involved, But Admins' Opinion Probably Needed)

Little bit of an edit war going on with regard to the WP:PAIN header. Might be good to get some third, fourth, fifth opinions in there so it's not just a user-on-user headbut. Coming from a neutral third party who just happened to notice it. — Mike • 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The full discussion is on the header's talk page. Paul Cyr 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL DoS vandal return immediately after range block expires

As reported in WP:AIV --WinHunter 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Range blocked. Prodego  19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal returns after range block expires, as in WP:AIV. --WinHunter 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nvm I just noticed range block by Sceptre. --WinHunter 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal returns on a different range - 152.163.100.* --WinHunter 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as well, for 15 minutes. Prodego  20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, do you think that a 15 minute range block really does any good at all? AmiDaniel (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to block a range longer then necessary, if (s)he switches ranges the first block will do more harm the good. However I do plan on blocking an hour if the vandalism continues from this range. This is 256 IP addresses remember. Prodego  21:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, blocking for :15 does do some good, especially for a rapidly moving vandal like this one: it cuts off the next spot the vandal will move to. If this is an actual vandal, rather than an attacker, then he or she is out for jollies. Note that setting fire to the woods to weed your garden is not wise. Geogre 21:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But building a fence around it to keep people from spray painting the walls is pretty good. User:Zoe| 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if there were a way to do that without also keeping out the utilities and groceries. This is a fence across the driveway. Find a better way. (Blocked 4 times today, but none on the range block.) Geogre 03:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:T800m101

User is repeatedy deleting wholesale blocks from 4th generation jet fighter: . User has been warned but persists. An anon has a similar edit history .

Requesting block of T800m101.

User:Hippo92blue

Repeatedly vandalised George_S._Patton. Has been warned , did it again. ackoz 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Withdraw, he stated on his talkpage that he was only experimenting.

User:Brandenpegg

Is building a nice personal album on his user page. I have to sleep so I will not be the one who will mark all this for speedy deletion. ackoz 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

deleted BrokenSegue 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WOT

Removed. Doesn't require the attention of an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ceiling cat vandal

Somebody needs to do something about those "ceiling cat" AOL vandals who keep inserting Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg. I've blocked 152.163.0.0/16 several times, but they just didn't seem to stick. Have I used the range block suffix incorrectly? In any case, they've been doing a lot of damage recently. -- King of Hearts 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving your comment to incidents. You'll get a quicker response, and it appears from your message that this is an urgent issue.--Ikiroid 23:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde blocked 152.163.100.0/24 for 3 hours at around 23:07 UTC, so it should stick now... Bornhj 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the image. Why didn't anybody do that before? User:Zoe| 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it a few times, showed it to my kids, and we all had a giggle. Was it a deletable image? If so, fine (and honestly I find it difficult to imagine that it had an encyclopedic use). If not, it could have been put into the bad images file. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't prove it but it had every sign of being a copyvio (user with few edits uploading an image that has serious circulation in internet pop culture).Geni 01:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, but adds no value to the encyclopedia, tempts the idiots to put it in articles, and is dubious copyright-wise as well. That says delete to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I seriously doubt that they are actually a "they", the thing that people don't quite seem to understand about AOL is that contrary to myth, AOL isn't actually filled to the brim with thousands upon thousands of vandals, there's simply a hand full of idiots, who unfortunatly get new IPs every page, so it seems like a much more prolific problem then it really is. I mean there are millions of registered users on AOL, if even 1% of them were actually vandals, AOL would be a MUCH larger problem then it really is--64.12.116.65 00:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL isn't actually filled to the brim with thousands upon thousands of vandals I disagree =D --mboverload@ 03:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Moderator3000 is back with a new username

I complained about Moderator3000 here and he/she was blocked. The new username is equally as bad and perhaps even worse. It is User:Systemadmin, this user is partaking in similar reversions like Moderator so I assume they could be the same person. User:Onestone is also removing the Moderator is no special admin (diff) notice, so I suspect they may be the same people. SystemAdmin is also misleading people, see in this diff. I think another blocking may be called for... Nobleeagle 23:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Systemadmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Please report back if this other guy becomes a serious nuisance. For now I'm going to Assume good faith and ignore his few edits. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it acceptable for a User to remove other people's Talk page comments, and not one person mentions it on his User Talk page? User:Zoe| 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

suggestion to my fellow AOL users

Just ask the blocking admin to make your changes for you. See my note on User talk:Kungfuadam. Hort Graz 23:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well 4 admins have been unwilling to help me at all despite polite requests. You dont want my contributions today, so I will leave Misplaced Pages for the day. Hort Graz 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Naconkantari

I asked User:Naconkantari to help me edit because of his block, but he didn't want to post my message for me. It was a simple request, shouldnt admins be helpful? Hort Graz 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First, you just stated you're IP is blocked, if it was, how could you be editing here? Second, his response was completly civil towards you. He requested you either wait to be "unblocked" or give him the IP address so he can unblock you. — The King of Kings 00:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Its AOL, a different IP on every page. Unblocking a few IPs at a time is a waste of time. And I didn't say anyting about his civility, he was civil. His solution was just not helpful. Its AOL, not a static IP. Hort Graz 00:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL is currently under several range blocks. Prodego 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That could explain a lot. — The King of Kings 00:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So is it not ok to ask someone to make edits for me? They can see that it is not vandalism. If you block a vandal, you should help the innocent users effected. Hort Graz 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is OK to ask in this case, but the content of your edit is not something I believe anyone will be willing to add for you. Prodego 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not, it was a civil talk page contribution under my own signature. Hort Graz 00:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Placing a talk page edit is not going to help the encyclopedia, while I am sure anyone would gladly make an article edit for you, talk page edits such as the one you request can surely wait until the AOL range block expires. Prodego 00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as that block is :15, sure. If it's longer than that, then the block was improper. Geogre 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User Googleyii

It seems that the account Googleyii (talk • contribs) is intended only for vandalism (disruption of Misplaced Pages, as for example a malicious AfD nomination of France, and adding of nonsense to other articles in general) as well as harassment of other editors. Why not ban this user permanently, instead of letting him or her return to cause more damage after each block expires, before someone adds another block? /Magore 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an editor who got off to a bad start editing articles about his home town and his school. He got into some wrangles about it with User:Adolphus79 and responded inappropriately, and it kind of spiralled out of control from there. I disagree that it's a vandalism-only account; more of an inexperienced and immature user who got burned and is lashing out. A friendly personal comment on his talk page might do some good; stop signs and stern warnings will only guarantee he continues along his current path. · rodii · 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? By the law of Userbox Ratios and Averages, where the likelihood of creating a valid edit is inversely proportional to the number of userboxes you have on his page, I don't really see anything good coming from this user. Not until he grows up and matures a bit out of this spoiled myspace mentality, at least. --Golbez 18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't deny he's created more disruption than value in his tenure so far. But he has tried to add good information to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania (see ) and Battle of Gettysburg. Not the highest-quality edits to be sure, but not what I would characterize as a "vandalism-only" editor either. · rodii · 18:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, his edits (and userboxes) betray some similarities to Griffjam aka Dormantsoviet, so who the hell knows? Maybe I'm a sucker. · rodii · 18:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe the question is what will happen when the current block expires. And as stated, this user has done far more to disrupt than to contribute, and although I might be wrong in my assumtion that this is a vandalism-only account (I didn't go that far back in the history of this account), that might be the only use from now on. I see no reason or gain in being lenient towards vandals, not when it's so obvious that the edits have been made in bad faith. /Magore 17:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jonas Salk (talk · contribs)

User is not Jonas Salk but is using his name as his/her own username in violation of username policy. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Salk died 11 years ago, is there really a concern about them mixing up? Would there be a concern if a user named himself PaulRevere? — Mike • 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No problems with me. I do not think that 11 years ago is a "recent death" so I am ok with the name. User:Zscout370 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Me either. It's not like he's new either. --Woohookitty 05:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably okay. -- Samir धर्म 07:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We can probably open this discussion up again should we ever get a legal notice from Zombie Salk. --InShaneee 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Salk = twice the mold of a normal zombie? -Hit bull, win steak 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Anirudh777

Sorry for being late in reporting. See this user's conributions for all his/her edits based on huge POV. Lot of his/her edits seem to be ridiculous. See Talk:Vedic religion and other Talk pages where he shows his hatred by saying -- HINDUISM IS NAZISM --. He needs to be banned. Babub 08:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:William Allen Simpson is mass-tagging articles for deletion in what I'd say is a bad faith manner. Please see the edit history of Jack Hensley, Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr., Seif Adnan Kanaan, Eugene Armstrong. There appears to be an agenda driven effort to stack the deck on the CfD regarding Category:Modern victims of Islamic decapitation. What should be done about this? Scented Guano 07:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you contest the deletions you can remove the prod tags, and is four articles really mass tagging? Tim! 07:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

While I wouldn't say this was particularly bad-faith, the reasoning for the prods was "not notable, one of thousands" which is hardly criteria for deletion, especially through the prod system. He can take it to AfD if he really wants them deleted. The articles have all been deprodded now though. --james_{(lets talk)} 07:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added {{unencyclopedic}} to the first, "not notable" doesn't directly hit it, simply delete might be also wrong, but it does belong to several "what Misplaced Pages is not". They had no wikinews back in 2004, or had they? Maybe a list (or several lists for the militant groups) with redirects to this list would do. The {{prod}} proposal was okay, removing it is also okay, I fail to see any bad faith. For a new event I'd propose to move it to wikinews, but this is old, tricky. -- Omniplex 08:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Angry editor at Shudra, Bhurabal, etc

Article histories:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shudra&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bhurabal&action=history

IPs

• 59.94.42.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.94.41.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.94.43.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• ...

and most likely

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

I don't have the slightest idea, whether he has a point, but in any case his behavour isn't acceptable.

Pjacobi 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK, you are an admin and you don't want nice people on the Misplaced Pages who wish to weed out false info from it. Please ban me for having such an inappropriate username (though I have applied for the chaneg of it to RemoteControlPatrol). Please block me for making the Misplaced Pages a harmonious place for all.

I would like to tell you that this user User:Holywarrior is mentally deranged and he is Shudra (actuall, a chandala / chandal) by caste as he has confessed on Khatri talk page. He is avenging the discrimination he might have faced from the upper castes of northern India like the Rajputs, the Bhumihars, the Khatris et al.

• Please note that I am the one who is fighting for something. He is just creating misleading articles like domkatar ( i got it deleted), dholbajja (it's being considered for deletionn) and bhurabal.
• Why dont you note that this page bhurabal has no real references? This user holywarrior tries to link it with the shudra page. By this, he means to claim that all the upper castes are actually lower castes and hence shudra.
• Please get him blocked for ever and remove these pages bhurabal and dholbajja.VandalPatrol 09:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  Please see and tell why vandal patrol sd not be banned.Holywarrior 10:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Aiman abmajid (talk · contribs)

This user uploads many images, without specifying the sources, such as Image:E5gh.gif and Image:Plaza toll.gif. He has been ignoring Orphanbot's image source notices, clearing them all without further action , and simply removing {{no source}} templates pasted on his images' description pages . If his images are deleted, he will simply re-upload them again (AFAIK the 2 images I mentioned have been deleted due to "no source" previously).

He has been unresponsive to notes on his user talk so far. I've dropped another note on his user talk page, but I'm not sure what actions if any need to be taken against this type of user, so I'm bringing it up here. Kimchi.sg 09:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have given him a {{Image no source last warning}} warning. If he reupload images afterwards, I will probably give him a short warning block. Circeus 19:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Editor deleting other peoples comments

I posted this at AV but it was delisted and the admin apparently did not contact the user.

Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing my comments from several pages. He keeps deleting other peoples edits despite me asking him to stop. Please review this editors behaviour.

Can somebody look into the matter, and comment on whether or not deleting comments by others in a poll is allowed. See previous question above regarding editors reframing a poll to suit their needs. Nomen Nescio 11:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Nomen Nescio 11:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

May I thank those that looked into the repeated delketion and manipulation of polls and decided no comment was needed. Nomen Nescio 15:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the poll, you cannot change the contents after people have voted. I dont know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Your political opinions are not what the poll is about and you have no right to attempt to make it about them after people have voted. WP:POINT. If you do not like the questions then simply state you do not, do not disrupt a process to make your political point clear. --zero faults 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If Nescio was commenting within the text of a poll question after others had voted, that seems like a no-no to me. However, you could have moved his comments to another section rather than deleting them. Thatcher131 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both users for six hours (3RR breach on the page). I think what is happening is that the Misplaced Pages:WOT poll is suffering from vote stacking (see my note about it on This poll suffers from questionable vote-stacking practices). So what Nescio is doing, is placing links to the old polls on these issues, while Zer0fault objects and reverts, and Nescio reverts in turn. But Zer0fault has also removed a link within Nescio's comment on the AfD (which I have rollbacked — it is a links to an article RFC that Nescio has prepared), calling it "linkspam." This leads me to think that Zer0fault has a rather poor grasp of WP:OWN. I don't have a great deal of time to deal with this, so feel free to step in. El_C 22:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

El, I haven't followed this very closely, but do you think it's a good thing that you did the block? You seem to have some involvement with that page. Arkon 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing. El_C 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Big time Vandal, just look at his talk page

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

His talk page is filled with warnings and vandal marks.

Davetron5000 14:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk just blocked him for a week, for the string of recent vandalism. --TeaDrinker 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP appears to resolve to a single user (certainly, the pattern of vandalism is the same) in Salem, Oregon, USA. Next time, this one gets 3 months. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy says a max of 1 month blocks for static IPs. Prodego 15:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have sworn it was 3... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, policy needs to be changed then ... one month clearly isn't long enough for habitual offenders. --Cyde↔Weys 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy is wrong then, I have rightly with community support blocked a static IP before for 24 months. --Golbez 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it means 1 month without having first received support for longer. Shall I consider this support? ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not an administrator, I do lend a hand with vandalism removal from time to time and agree that 3 months is a reasonable length of time to block pathological vandals operating from addresses that have been blocked repeatedly in the past. If it turns out that there is a collateral damage issue they can send an email to OTRS, the blocking administrator, or issue an {{unblock}} request on their talk page and it will be quickly reversed. How can our blocking policy be updated? Yamaguchi先生 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As per the discussion a couple of threads below, if it's habitual, and a static IP, then blocks in excess of a month are appropriate. Particularly as blocks can always be overturned later. Indefinite is not permanent. Proto///type 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bae Yong Joon and User:Fabshelly

Currently, I am discussing matters with this newly-registered user, who is rather hostile. His edits on this article, to my judgement, can be considered as vandalism, a charge which he denies. From the attitude of his messages, he has even reverted an NPOV notice (see history , which clearly reflects his NPOV behaviour Misplaced Pages:NPOV but currently he has refused to change for a better to edit in accordance to at least a near non-NPOV and wikipedian style. Unnecessary notices, such as "Information here is from his official website, byj.co.kr. Google is not a verifiabe source of information on Bae Yong Joon. " is pasted on the article, a behaviour reflected on Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Last but not least, this user has been accusing me of adding false information when I have given proper citations (See Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources and Talk:Bae Yong Joon). Also, while communicating with me on User talk:Fabshelly, words, amounting to abusive criticism, like "cowardly" and "doesn't make you morally superior." have been used against me. I have pasted a replica on Bae's talk page.

For more information, please refer to Talk:Bae Yong Joon. Admin help on Bae Yong Joon is greatly needed and appreciated. I need admin justification and judgement to User:Fabshelly's conduct on Bae, as I am not good at manoveruing my words against him, and work out a compromise eventually. Mr Tan 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have posted messages to User talk:Centrx in response to Fabshelly's second time of removing the "dispute" and "cleanup" templates while he pasted up the notices. Apparently this user has strong NPOV/non-neutral feelings while editing the article, which is against wikipedia's policy. Thus admin judgement and/or dispute resolution against him is necessary to calm matters down. Mr Tan 06:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(Allow me to interject) Fabshelly's edits is clearly an evidence of a violation of Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer, a segment page of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, which is official policy. Thus appropriate disciplinar actions enforced by admins is essential if he continues to violate policies and guidelines imposed by wikipedia. Mr Tan 03:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Editor violating user page

Removed. Was withdrawn. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Arvatov

User:Arvatov continues his campaign of trolling, near-fascist PoV and vandalism , , . I think permanent ban is in order. Duja 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Although most of those edits are now quite old, two are recent and, I believe, justify a re-blocking. I am loathe to go to a permanent block (though I acknowledge it may prove necessary in the end) so have placed a 1-month block on User:Arvatov instead. --AlisonW 16:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I provided the old links just to establish the earlier pattern of behavior, which sadly continues. Duja 09:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

62.171.194.5

Seems to be going on a vandalism rampage today. See the Contributions page at and all the notices at User_talk:62.171.194.5. As above, it might be that a permanent ban is requried -- going through and changing all these little things in so many entries is going to be a lot of work. -- Tenebrae 16:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits for that IP and also the related IPs (as per talkpage). Given that the long-term repeated warnings have had no effect on all the IPs I concur that, regrettable though it is to have an IP permablocked, there is no alternative. 62.171.194.4 - 13 and 62.171.194.36 - 45 have now been permablocked. --AlisonW 17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses should not be permablocked unless they are open proxies. See WP:BLOCK. Prodego 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. An IP is never eternally owned, so it shouldn't be eternally blocked. Geogre 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a difficult problem to conclude the best response to. Each of these IPs has been used for extensive vandalism, indeed that is *all* they appear to have done. Over many months many editors have warned them and given "final" warnings with short-term blocks. As such, and unless we want to be seen to be toothless, we have no further options left but to permablock. Yes, of course, the IP allocation should be checked at intervals to ensure it hasn't changed hands so "eternal" is inherently wrong. It is a bit like someone being detained "at her Majesty's pleasure". We shall review the blocks but setting a specified period is clearly not going to solve the problem. --AlisonW 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK, which states that "For static IPs, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month". Please change your blocks. Prodego 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a very selective quote from WP:BLOCK. I am sure you would agree that "should" is a fine word, but I'd point out that this isn't just about vandalism (where your brief extract is taken from) but also about the extensive and regular disruption that this range of IPs is causing to Misplaced Pages generally. Look in that section and you will note: "For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time." (my bold) These are static IPs and blocks of increasing length have been tried over more than a year and have clearly failed despite clear and many-times-repeated "final" warnings. The policies of Misplaced Pages are there to assist the project, they are not a bureaucratic straightjacket that prevents us dealing with issues however. I would really like an alternative to permablocking these addresses, but there just isn't one. We have to be realistic about that. --AlisonW 22:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, see discussion here and this related TfD. Prodego 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this, so long as each IP address has a note on providing reasons why the IP address is on a long-term / indefinite block, and the procedure to get the block rescinded if an actual contributor strays onto the IP address. Which at the moment seems unlikely, as those addresses have provided nothing but vandalism, but may change in the future. Proto///type 09:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman and legal threats.

On June 8th, User:Sussexman and User:Edchilvers had the following exchange:

*Comment Utter rubbish. GLF is not protected by the rehabilitation of offenders act and besides, the content of his Misplaced Pages article included a blatent falsehood in that it suggested he had been cleared of all charges on appeal. Seeing as the matter was widely reported in the national newspapers and has thus been in the public domain for some time I fail to see the harm in mentioning it as it is the truth.

- User:Edchilvers + User:Edchilvers.

• Comment: You're wrong Mr.Chilvers, as you will soon discover. Sussexman 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Today, Ed Chilvers received a letter from Gregory Lauder-Frost's lawyers threatening him with legal action. Sussexman's "as you will soon discover" would be a reference to this and should be taken as a legal threat. If Sussexman is not Gregory Lauder-Frost then he is intimate enough with him to be able to pass on a legal threat. He should be banned from wikipedia until the matter is resolved and until GLF either concludes or agrees to withdraw any threat of legal action. Homey 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How would they have gotten his mailing address? Paul Cyr 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By googling "Ed Chilvers" or looking his name up in a British database. It seems from Ed Chilvers' web page that he has been the target of legal threats from Michael Keith Smith, a friend of Lauder-Frost's, in the past so it's possible Lauder-Frost already had Chilvers' contact info. Homey 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Got any proof, like a scan of the letter? -Hit bull, win steak 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed Chilvers mentions it here - he sent me excerpts of the letter after I emailed him about it.Homey 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds pretty serious. I'd recommend blocking until this can be looked into at the very least. --InShaneee 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been in a content dispute with Sussexman over Gregory Lauder-Frost so I'm not the person to implement a block. Homey 19:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

He has now been blocked indefinitely. FearÉIREANN\ 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. Sussexman has been consistently disruptive over any attempt to include content not flattering to Lauder-Frost. William Pietri put in some tremendous work digging up newspaper reports and showed that Lauder-Frosts's conviction for theft was the single most widely reported fact about him; Sussexman and a couple of anonymous editors were determined to remove this or at least relegate it to euphemistic references. Just zis Guy you know? 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Glad you said "digging up" the dirt. Bit of agive away as to the agenda here, really. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And this post, which he intended for another user, is fairly close to a legal threat.

• That's just tripe and you know it. He is just stating a fact. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly believe that User:Sussexman is Gregory Lauder-Frost, given the similar tone found in the excepts of the letter Ed Chilvers received. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong beliefs seem to be only legitimate on your side of the fence. Pity its wrong. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Support, as the person who blocked User:Lightoftheworld, probably leading Sussexman to veil his threats. Be on the look out for meatpuppets. --Sam Blanning 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman is not Lauder-Frost. Preposterous. Sussexman has defended the vitriolic attacks made upon someone he knew years ago and liked and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Misplaced Pages which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For values of vitriolic which include stating in terms of studied neutrality the fact that he was convicted of a substantial theft from the health authority where he worked. As far as I can the most of the vitriol has been directed against those who attempted to fix the inaccuracy of the article, by supporters of Lauder-Frost. Just zis Guy you know? 08:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Here you go raving about the pre-1992 business as though it were last week and without the full knowledge of the matter. It was illegal to post details of this. Telling people this should be taken in good faith. Instead you ban people for it. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I give my absolute support to Sussexman. I too posted information on how this cabal of smearers were breaking UK law. Any normal person would be pleased for the advice. But this lot knew what they were doing and were absolutely determined to smear GLF all over the world. Sussexman appears to be the third person they have blocked for "legal threats", yet none of them appear to actually be the person concerned and so were not in a position to threaten anyone! Is it Misplaced Pages policy to block out everyone whom you get sick of arguing with? 195.134.6.202 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are acting as a proxy for someone else's legal threats, I consider it substantially identical to making them yourself. Misplaced Pages can't prove the relationship between the Misplaced Pages username User:Sussexman and the real-world individual Gregory Lauder-Frost, but I believe it does not really matter. Conveying threats from another non-Misplaced Pages party when one is not merely a messenger but an associate and clearly involved in an on-Misplaced Pages effort to suppress the same information differs little in actual effect from explicitly making them yourself.

I note also that GLF and/or friends and associates were quite happy to keep a lie on the page (that GLF was acquitted of theft on appeal) but are willing to sue on extremely flimsy grounds to hide the truth. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• All rubbish, I'm afraid. The only person on "flimsy" ground on these issues seems to be you and the little gang of demonisers. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to have to inform you that I bear Gregory Lauder-Frost no personal ill will whatsoever. I don't know him, have never encountered him, and did not even know of his existence prior to your first postings on this page about it. I am, however, interested in keeping an honest historical record, concerned about an attempt to censor relevant truth, and opposed to those who seek to chill discussion and publication of facts by using dubious legal threats. A brief, half-sentence mention of Gregory Lauder-Frost's criminal conviction in 1992 - which could not be considered any kind of "youthful indiscretion" or to be prior to his public life - is not unfair to him. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

HighwayCello (talk · contribs)

User:HighwayCello has engaged in personal attacks, harassment and vandalism (and possibly copyright violation), he has violated almost every policy and guidline in the entire encyclopedia. He has vandalized and attacks users, especially me, but some other users as well, and trying to gain ownership over Pokémon articles by reverting all edits that doesn't please him, harassing other users, and just doing anything that violates the policies and guidelines. He has been working hard to get other innocent users blocked from editing, by doing bad things, getting other users so angry as they do bad things back to him, sometimes just moaning at him, but sometimes other things. HighwayCello reports users, gets them blocked, using the thing they said as evidence, ignoring the fact that he got them angry, and then eventually getting them blocked. It got so serious, I had to change my username to Cute Minun (it was Iloveminun before). HighwayCello reported me as a sockpuppet, even though I had changed my account permanently. HighwayCello eventually got me blocked for what he had done. He also changed an image license HighwayCello changes an image license to something that totally does not fit the image.

He eventually got me blocked for a week for everything thathe had done, and now im reporting problems using my IP address. Please reply as soon as possible. 81.153.148.8 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for block evasion. --InShaneee 19:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for very much, I have an exam on Friday and this is a lot. Highway 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also reset User:Iloveminun block for a further week, for further block evasion. --pgk 21:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Megaman Zero (talk · contribs)

Good day, all. This user has been (for about a week now) unilaterally slashing out the "spoiler" tags from at least a hundred game-related articles. He doesn't use the talk page, and doesn't give any explanation in his summaries. His removal of the tags is wrong in all of the instances he's done it in (for example, in the Resident Evil 4 article it talks about the specific death of a main character during the course of the game), and there are elements within those storylines that a user casually reading the article might not want revealed to them without prior notice. Other users have asked him to stop repeatedly, but he hasn't listened to them, instead filing false "Request For Investigation" attempts and trying to get Mongo involved in order to "get his way". So far I've managed to repair the damage that he's caused via reversion, but trying to fix everything is getting to be really, really aggravating.

As evidence, I present the articles relating to Resident Evil 0, RE1, RE2, RE3, RE: Code Veronica, RE4, as well as pages directly associated with characters in those series, including Luis Sera, Osmond Saddler, Leon S Kennedy and Bitores Mendez. 24.19.96.143 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

, , , , , , , ,

This is a content dispute. Take it to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. --Tony Sidaway 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I've been doing it for quite a bit longer than a week. -Zero 10:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott

User:Ned Scot had been repetively opposing me on a range of articles lately. I find this to be most disruptive borderlining stalking if not crossing. Examples of behaviour:

• Air template revert war
• List of Air episodes revert war
• oposing the format I introduced to Naruto episode list with uncivil comments
• Fullmetal alchemist featured list candidacy oppose
• Opposing practicaly everything I was doing on Air

--Cat out 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather trippy Dutch alternative to my username... for a sec I almost thought that I was the one being discussed here. :-) Netscott 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I actually though we were talking about you...I should read closer....name is too similar... --mboverload@ 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me as a content dispute for the time being, especially since these reverts are being discussed, and are on similar topics. However, comments such as "I'm not required to follow guidelines and I don't unless I agree with them" from Cool Cat do make me a bit nervous. --InShaneee 03:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No a case of guideline enforcement. I will post a more detailed explanation of my stance on your talk page. --Cat out 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The account "Peter Snoufax" is making very bizarre edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonnzy (talk • contribs)

"Misplaced Pages is Communism" vandal impersonator. Indef-blocked by me. Jkelly 22:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As was Fonnzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made the report above. Jkelly 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL denial of service vandals

seriously, stop giving them so much attention, half this page is covered with AOL themed warnings, there are now daily wheel wars over range blocks, templates, categories, etc.. all devoted to what is probably one or two vandals.. in the same sense that you would never give a troll this much attention, you wouldn't want to do the same for a vandal. Hell, isn't that the reason Willy On Wheels was deleted? The problem is that prolific vandals become like folk heros around here, with daily tall tails, and entire articles devoted to them. When you get an attention seeking vandal, this is just counter productive--64.12.116.65 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

People don't think that stopping vandalism is important enough to block and it's better to offload it to the recent changes patrol. --mboverload@ 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, blocking AOL users at random almost never stops vandalism, but at least all the colorful block summaries let as many random AOL users know how easy it is to use AOL for vandalism--64.12.116.65 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention not being able to use my account for several days at a time does cut down on the amount of time that I can run VandalProof, but hey, it's only AOL--64.12.116.65 00:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't block random AOL users. There has been a massive attack by a skilled user exploiting how AOL works. Your block should expire soon. If you have WiFi you can leech off one of your neighbors...not sure how much they'd like that, though =D --mboverload@ 00:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the opinions of both anonymous up there and mboverload. The reason we get so many AOL DoS attacks is that all AOL users are frequent victims of collateral damage and thus recognize how easy it is to get all of AOL blocked. Then the DoS vandals read our posts here and go "Wow, that's easy!" It's much like how posting Charles Manson's face on the cover of Rolling Stone and making celebrities out of every serial killer and villain makes little kids wanna grow up to be murderers. Everyone wants their fame, and it's pretty damn easy to become infamous as a vandal. Thus, I see your point that we do seem to glorify vandals, but at the same time I see mboverload's point that we can't just do nothing. Unfortunately at the moment not much can be done--until the devs come up with some clever workarounds or AOL finally does something about this, our only real solution is blocking. It's an unfortunate truth that I hope will soon change, but I'm doing my best to just not let it get to me--truth is, it's not that big of a deal, and we will find a way to deal with it. (Btw, Willy on Wheels was deleted because it was a cross-namespace redirect.) AmiDaniel (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This particular vandal edits from IP's. Most of the collateral damage comes from vandals with accounts who are at AOL. The fact that this vandal remains only an IP is a good sign that he is intending the collateral damage. Now, our folks need to stop the vandal, but a range block of the ISP won't do much good. When you block an AOL IP, you're behind the vandal and therefore on top of an innocent. Blocking the whole range would be the solution, except that, if this is a -bot, and it seems to be, from its speed, the block of the whole range would only need to be a very short time -- probably :10 or even :05 would stop the bot, unless it has been programmed to not be bothered by the block page coming up. I'm glad to see AmiDaniel backing off from some of the more severe positions, above. If we can't stop the vandal with :10 or :15 blocks, then we sort of have to lay it off on RC Patrol, as bad as that is. Ironically, if the vandal succeeded, if he managed to make Misplaced Pages a place with "F4RT" scribbled on each page, it would be boring to him. He only wants to pee on a clean wall. Geogre 13:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

if I was to write a vandalbot, I would make it reconnect everytime it encountered the block page, thus walking through my ISP's IP range as quickly as people can block it. This is pointless. The only solution to this is allowing logged-in users edit even from blocked IPs (but disallowing creation of new accounts from blocked IPs). dab (ᛏ) 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be an answer, but the down side is that it would stop our sock puppet spotting and the times when the autoblocker catches a blocked user who simply creates a new account -- not that that was ever particularly robust. Geogre 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

<smacks forehead> that's the answer!!! To make the AOL vandal stop, Misplaced Pages just needs to put vandalism like 'F4RT' on every page! Someone, get a developer! KWH 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean it isn't already on every page? (My point was that vandals always attack resisting targets. It gives the scriptkiddies their warm fuzzies to "win." I think those who regard us as a challenge are particularly lame.) (If we could get them to go to harder targets, it would be nice.) Geogre 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy Camper

User:Happycamper has been reverting a persons comments off talk pages. you can see complaints on User_talk:Michael D. Wolok. Please take appropriate action. Geo. 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be on par with Misplaced Pages:Spam#Internal_spamming; no further action is needed. El_C 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Michael D. Wolok pertains to HappyCampers actions and decision to withdraw. -lethe 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Creation Incident

originally posted @ WP:VP/A

My log says I created User:Red Frog, although I did not. I asked earlier about what I should do, what effects it will have on me, etc. I know who created it, so if he changes his username, will it help anything? Green caterpillar 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Answered on user talk page. --pgk 06:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppet of User:NoToFrauds

User Terminator III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits the same pages, has the same uncivil behavior toward User:Hamsacharya_dan (putting a photo of feces on dan's userpage), and has the same style as indefinitely blocked user NoToFrauds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It seems he's evading his block. 66.132.130.15 01:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I see some similarities, but nothing conclusive. Have comparative diffs? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is odd; User:Terminator III claims to use "sockpuppets" (actually, two IPs that trace back to the University of California at Irvine). One of these, User:128.195.111.122, was the recipient of two somewhat incivil messages (here and here) left by User:NoToFrauds, and both IPs have been tagged as suspected socks of User:Hamsacharya_dan. Yet, 66.132.130.15 (whose only contribs are here) suggests User:Terminator III is a sock of User:NoToFrauds? Something isn't working... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki user06

Wiki user06 (talk · contribs) seems to be another vandalism-only account. /Magore 07:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV, please. El_C 08:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

DoS from AOL 207.200.116.*

As reported in WP:AIV --WinHunter 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford

Can someone please block this user for a while so that he can cool off a bit? Just take a look at this grossly inappropriate unprovoked personal attack. AvB ÷ talk 11:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours, personal attacks (and responses to same) removed. Provoked or not, that rant was really beyond the pale. Nandesuka 11:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly was. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 11:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know what I was expecting when I clicked the link, but whatever it was, that was a lot worse. Good job on the block. -Hit bull, win steak 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just 72 hours for that garbage? He should have been keelhauled for 3 months. - Merzbow 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looks like Brian might have been provoked here. But even so, that's one hell of an outburst. Remember, though, that Brian is generally a decent editor and Rdos seems intent on pursuing an agenda. I can see how assertions of this nature from a self-diagnosed autioe might be seen as groossly insulting by one who has been medically diagnosed. Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, no matter how spectacularly, I don't think a single case of exploding is punishable by 3 months' block! NPA is, one more time (with feeling), not policy in its sanctions. If the user is doing anything constructive as well, then being nasty should result in mediation and arbitration, not trampling by elephants. Send him to the time-out corner for a day, maybe, but anything more than two days for a single outburst is pushing it, if the user does constructive things as well, and this one does. Geogre 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Permanent deletion of malicious identifying information?

I know this can be done because I have seen it done. Basically one editor has abused the edit summary facility here in an attempt to maliciously post identifying information about me, I would very much like that permanently deleted if it is possible...no point sanctioning the user because he never comes back on the same IP twice these days. --Zeraeph 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Eugène van der Pijll 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :o) --Zeraeph 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rhotic and non-rhotic accents

Hi. Please move Rhotic and non-rhotic accents back to that title; it has been redirected to "Nonrhoticism on wheels!". It was moved by User:Y2K .. Also, the first sentence says "Please help me. I don't want to be blocked again. I am User:Hephaestos. Hephisis 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" -- Reinyday, 15:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's been moved. I'm going to remove Hephaestos' comment. -- Reinyday, 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Also, User:Sleehw added "Wheels wheels wheels!" -- Reinyday, 15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't Hephaestos. The real Hephaestos wouldn't be nearly as whiny. User:Zoe| 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of power?

(Moved from Collapse of the World Trade Center) As a consequence of this edit User:MONGO took the decision to block me for 24 hours. His motivation are explained here where he says that "my POV pushing days are numbered" and conclude the discussion threating to block me for a week if I will ever dare to revert him again. Now let's fix some points:

1. User:MONGO was not an "independent observer": he was taking part to a content dispute on the opportunity of describing the "controlled demolition theorists" as "conspiracists";
2. the dispute involved several people in both the parties as you can see looking at and keeping pressing "newer edit";
3. User: MONGO was supporting a change to the old version of the article while I was supporting the old version;
4. In the block policy you can read the following paragraph:

Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

So I think it's clear that User: MONGO did violate the block policy realizing an abuse of power. I ask you: what can I do to defend myself from this kind of abuses? Is there an authority that can prevent User: MONGO from behaving in this way? --Pokipsy76 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop pushing your nonsense POV and you won't have to worry about it. Stop reverting other editors for no reason and you won't be blocked. Two other admins came to your talk page and both left you blocked, so I suppose the concensus to keep you blocked should have been obvious.--MONGO 08:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that User:Tom harrison could be considered to be an independent observer? However: I asked for an authority to defend myself from your threats and from what I believe to be clear violations of the block policy, can you answer about this please?--Pokipsy76 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, Mr. Harrison did, User:Pschemp did, and when you wouldn't stop posting the unblock, she even protected your talk page.... This commentary doesn't belong here anyway as it has nothing to do with this article.--MONGO 09:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Why do you keep saying the same things ignoring my questions?
2. Are you suggesting that if the block policy disagree with User:Pschemp and User:Tom harrison then it is the block policy to be wrong?
3. This commentary belongs here because it speaks about a content dispute related to this article. Probably other editors would be interested to know that taking part to a content dispute against User: MONGO's POV may result in a block, wouldn't they?
4. I would be grateful if you suggest a better place to discuss about abuses of powers by the admins?

--Pokipsy76 09:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an administrator's noticeboard, or you can file a request for comment. Tom Harrison 14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear-cut to me. Administrators are not permitted to use their access to advantage themselves in a content dispute, for instance by blocking the person with whom they are disputing. The block is an unauthorized use of administrator access. --FOo 17:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But what can I do to defend myself and other users from these abuses?

Well, you can go to WP:ArbCom, the arbitration committee, and file a formal complaint. Which may or may not do any good, as I've yet to see ArbCom take action against an administrator for abusing an non admin editor, whether the admin violated policy or not. I have a case right now there claiming an admin violated at the very least WP:AGF with a indefinite block, and ArbCom has so far (yawn) asked if I could come up with any other violations. So I did. Silence. Similarly, I've seen people blocked by admins for violation of WP:CIVIL, but on this very page you will see an administrator label my comments as "assholery." A term which in the language has no purpose, AFAIK, other than incivility. Result, no action by anybody. So, good luck. Steve 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's like this: as soon as an admin steps in to control an edit war, they are asserted by the POV pushers to be "involved in a content dispute". If we accept that at face value, we soon run out of admins with any understanding of the issue. The loudest protests are usually fomr the most tendentious editors. Simply policing WP:NPOV is not necessarily involvement. I don't know what went on here, but there is little doubt that the people asserting the "controlled demolition" theory are conspiracy theorists and not "independent researchers". Just zis Guy you know? 21:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What evidence have you that this is the case? In the present case, we don't simply have an administrator wandering by and dealing with vandalism, then getting accused of conflict of interest. The admin in question seems to have been involved in the conflict well prior. In such a case, the accepted and respectable thing to do is to request that an uninvolved administrator investigate and take action. Nobody is claiming that a block can't result if one is appropriate. But in cases of apparent conflict of interest, admins are supposed to seek review -- not to use admin access while in conflict. --FOo 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How to identify a conspiracy theory in five easy stages:

1. It goes against the orthodox view and proposes some sinister motive
2. It is denied by all those involved; this denial is asserted as evidence supporting the theory
3. There is no credible evidence to support it; this lack of evidence is asserted as a cover-up and thus evidence to support the theory
4. An alternative, more prosaic explanation is available and generally accepted
5. Proponents reverse the burden of proof, requiring that the theory be disproved rather than proving it themselves.

I'm guessing that the "explosives" were detonated from a grassy knoll... The same five tests appear to apply to MONGO's actions as well. Just zis Guy you know? 07:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your (not so funny) joke on conspiracy theories shows clearly the *a priori* bias of your point of view on this case.--Pokipsy76 07:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories also violate Occam's razor immediately, as they call for multiplying causes beyond the necessary. Geogre 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The best advice I can offer is to be very calm and measured. Ask, on WP:AN (not here), for other administrators to review the situation. "Administrators" disagree with each other often enough, and there shouldn't be any special divine right to the position. You can also ask (not demand, not threaten, not accuse) MONGO to get another administrator to look in. I doubt he'd had any reluctance in doing so. However, when you come in suggesting that it's Us and Them, that the persecuted truth is being hunted to extinction by the evil cabal, etc., it's fairly offputting. Most administrators are administrators because they've been pretty carefully watched and assessed before getting the position, so there is some inherent trust there and a slightly larger benefit of the doubt, but the community is pretty quick to reverse inappropriate administrative actions. Geogre 03:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• No actually, MONGO pretty much blocks on sight when anyone questions him, come to think of it, he does the same thing when people agree with him--64.12.116.65 03:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you ask him to seek an outside point of view in this case? Again, step away from calling names. Geogre 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Then file arbitration if you can prove that slander.--MONGO 04:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't make legal threats such as accusing a fellow editor of a crime. --FOo 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First, it's not a legal threat. Second, you appear to be applying a double standard: you feel free to insult MONGO and accuse him of abuse of power but you are unwilling for him to defend himself. Just zis Guy you know? 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(following Geogre's comment) I'd also like to encourage any adminstrator whom has a claim raised against them to be "calm and measured." I know it's irritating to be villified. But when we snap back it makes it hard to sort out the "I'm cranky because this is silly" from the "I'm cranky because I got caught out." I've yet to see an accusation that could not have been well responded to with civility and tact. I might also hope that when staging a defence, the use of actual evidence be encouraged? - brenneman 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pokipsy76 here. MONGO, you were (and are) out of line. Calling them 'conspiracists' seems clearly derogatory and thus not 'NPOV'... which makes Pokipsy's effort to change it to 'some' or 'some independant researchers' look not unreasonable to me (despite agreeing the claims seem unlikely / far-fetched). However, let's assume for the moment that isn't the case... 'conspiracists' was a perfectly neutral, reasonable, and encyclopedic term to use and no other would do. You'd still be completely out of line. This was a content dispute between the two of you... pure and simple. Blocking someone for disagreeing with your version of what an article should say is an inexcusable violation of adminship... it shouldn't be done ever. He wasn't "trolling" as you said in the block summary or being disruptive, indeed you seem to have acted considerably more incivilly. You called it "trolling" in the block summary, but elsewhere you said it was for 'reverting you'... you can't block for that. Ever. And you certainly shouldn't be nasty and dismissive about it. Protecting someone's talk page to prevent them from requesting unblock (I realize that wasn't you) also strikes me as extremely 'not kosher'. If the request is groundless the next admin will see that... just put in comments on why you think the block is sound. --CBD 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The POV pushers that try to add nonsense to the articles related to the 9/11 events have been told repeatedly that the vast majority of their "contributions" to those article violated numerous policies. This doesn't seem to stop them. This editor I blocked routinely reverts those that support the concensus verison and yes, conspiracy theorists is what they are...they are not researchers. Simply put, and I won't apologize for this not being more civil, I will continue to block POV pushers that disrupt the discussion pages and the articles with nonsense. Two other admins responded to the unblock request and did not unblock this editor. I then moved the early parts of this conversation from an article talk page to here for all to see. It is ludicrus to assume that I was doing anything other than to ensure that the POV pushers of nonsense know that there is a limit to the level of disruption that needs to be tolerated.--MONGO 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a majority of people (including myself) agree with a characterization does not make it 'neutral point of view'. Isn't that obvious? Or should we rewrite the 'Hitler' article to say that he was a 'vile murderous bastard' because most people agree with that? That the people who argue for controlled demolition are 'conspiracy theorists' (or "conspiracists" as in the article) may well be the common view... but it ISN'T "neutral" or 'encyclopedic'. It's a deliberately derogatory presentation which should be changed to something more neutral. You say above that he has repeatedly been told that his edits "violated numerous policies". What policy did he violate by changing 'Some conspiracists say...' to 'Some say...' and/or 'Some independant researchers say...'? Edit warring? Weren't you doing that too? A policy which definitely was violated is the restriction against admins blocking those with whom they are in a content dispute. Indeed, you went so far as to say, "He's going to post an unblock request and I have told him that if he reverts me one more time, the next block will be for a week." What is that? 'If you dare to revert me I will block you for a week'? You think admins are supposed to act that way? I understand that you may be frustrated and annoyed, but that's a reason to take several steps back... not charge forward. If dealing with the craziness is starting to get to you go work on some other topic. I haven't touched political articles in months for just that reason. You say several admins approved this... well shame on them. IMO that's worse than doing it in the first place. I'm telling you that you 'crossed the line' not to get in your face, but to let you know that I think you need to get away from this for a while and reconsider your position. In my view those saying (effectively), 'yeah, admins should block people who revert their edits... we decide what is good enough for inclusion' are doing more harm to you (and Misplaced Pages) than my criticisms. --CBD 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Was this a 3RR? Could you have just rolled them back? My point is that the block, when you're involved, gives them fuel. I don't want to advocate a revert war, of course. (And I was up on 89th E. when the towers went down. Conspiracy theorists about the tower attacks are not only inventing where plain evidence is abundant, they're also highly offensive to those of us who knew people who died.) If they're horking you off (and they are, it seems), at least hand off the blocking phase. Geogre 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it was, in my opinion, vandalism. A great many of the editors that contest terms such as conspiracy theorists may feel insulted by the wording, but they have no concensus, after many, many kb's exhausted on the discussion pages, for removing the terminology used. It was not a content dispute and Pokipsy76 seems to do some drive-by reverts., removed information and templated references, again, as the last link, then spent several days arguing without concensus to alter the subheading in the same article , , , , , , , . You'll notice that he has reverted numerous other editors about this same phrasing, and done so without concensus.--MONGO 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal of community ban for Frater FiatLux

I propose that Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be banned from Misplaced Pages for being intentionally disruptive. Facts to follow. -Baba Louis 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Any such follow-up should be at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comments. Please follow our dispute resolution system. Thanks. Jkelly 17:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. The RfC is here. ---Baba Louis 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo

I was called to assist on Talk:Parkinson's disease. There have been serial reverts and a possible 3RR. I left a message on the talkpage of General Tojo (talk · contribs), one of the disputants, cautioning him that abrasive rhetoric and personal attacks were not contributory.

In response this editor has now been performing random reverts on articles I have edited recently. Evidence on his talkpage.

A simple warning may be enough, but I suspect short blocks may be necessary if this behaviour persists. JFW | T@lk 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Left a message on the user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lasted for 9 minutes, now refactored. JFW | T@lk 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A user is entitled to blank anything that's not a legitimately issued warning, even if archiving is preferred; it's still in the history. If the user edits in a disruptive fashion, however, that's another matter. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As a clarification: users in good standing are afforded the privilege of blanking stuff on their talk page. Users with, shall we say, "issues", are not afforded that same privilege. --Cyde↔Weys 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL well, let's just say the good General does not have a monopoly on issues ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, User:PaulWicks has offered an explanation for the above edit. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On Paul Wicks' talk page, Dan reveals what he believes to be RL information about Tojo.--Anchoress 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo simply carried on messing about, doing a "half-revert" on Parkinson's disease to subvert the 3RR and threatening on the talk page to finish the job tomorrow. I have blocked him for 24h for NPA, gaming the system and general WP:DICK. He seems to be a well-known troll from Braintalk. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit-warring aside, why has he been permitted to keep this username? Tojo was a convicted war criminal and such, after all. Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is an utterly unacceptable username. It must be changed. I dropped the user a note informing him that he must apply for a WP:CHU. As for the people who knew of this username and said nothing, I need to calm down before I'm going to say something I'll regret. Shameful. El_C 10:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See Hideki Tojo for details. The response to El C's request has been more trolling. I sense civility burnout. JFW | T@lk 12:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ceiling cat vandal: 2!

It seems we have a return of the ceiling cat vandal, this time in the 152.163.100.* range. Just thought everyone would like to know that. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He/she is also vandalizing from the 207.200.116.* range again as well. -Big Smooth 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been reverting a ton of this in the last few minutes. I'd suggest blocking the range for a few minutes. --Alphachimp 02:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 152.163.100.0/24 for 15 minutes. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry I was so angry, above. This is how to handle the situation, exactly, as those are (sigh) the AOL ranges. I even have a sneaking sensation that the vandal operates at relatively predictable times. I wish AOL didn't do things this way, but I also wish Microsoft weren't evil. Geogre 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Anger means you're passionate about protecting wikipedia. --mboverload@ 03:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User to watch.

Not sure where to post this, but User:Naveen Sankar had an infobox on his user page, which falsely claimed him to be an administrator. I removed it. Based on editing history, I suspect that this user and User:Aanand Pranav Sharma are the same person, and that the same person also uses many other usernames and IP addresses (e.g. User:Wiki Administrator of Physics and User:Austin Maxwell.) Amusingly, the user pages of the first two accounts I listed seem to have based their opening paragraph on the one from my own user page.--Srleffler 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I had a similar thing with User:Notanerd, which copied my user page in whole, and the talk page of another user.--Pharos 07:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Request blocking for User:Onestone

This user has been involved in a number of controversies and I now request that he/she be blocked for the following three reasons: A) They engage in blanking and vandalism (example example2 B)They engage in personal attack on talk pages example C) They have removed allegations of vandalism and other things on the now blocked Moderator3000. Which makes me think they could be a sockpuppet of Moderator. example Thank-you. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Twenty-four hr block, for now. El_C 23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Office Space

I'm having a slight disagreement with Leflyman (talk · contribs) at Office Space. Per provision 3 of WP:V and also Jimbo's comments therein, I removed some unsourced fan trivias and cite-tagged a couple of others. Leflyman has twice reverted me, the second with the edit summary "revert unwarranted deletions". I've pointed out the relevant policy on the article talk page and left a couple of (thus far unanswered) messages on his talk page. What to do? Deizio talk 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems we've come to an agreement. Deizio talk 01:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's not really necessary to rush to the notice board for minor disputes over verifiability of trivia. As noted at WP:AN, "Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour..."--Leflyman 01:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Biff_loman9 has been blocked indefinitely

I just blocked Biff loman9 indefinitely. This started as a personal attack case, so I blocked him for 24 hours. Almost immediately, he started using socks to get around the block. So I blocked him for 3 days. So then we got this, we went up to 9 days. And then he pledged to continue using socks. So I blocked him indefinitely. And this is just a small sample. All of the contributions of 67.71.143.54, 67.71.142.157 and a bunch of other IPs in the 67.71.143.* and 67.71.142.* ranges. I ask that others watchlist Thanos for sure. --Woohookitty 01:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The user in question just kept on trolling. The block is entirely legitimate given the circumstances, in my opinion -- Samir धर्म 03:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He uses a dynamic IP so stopping him is going to be a challenge. --Woohookitty 04:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:A Sister and a Lover

A Sister and a Lover (talk · contribs · logs) I'm concerned by this username and the edit summaries to some articles. Yanksox 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Me thinks this could be related to Incestuous amour (talk · contribs · logs), blocked indef, who edited these pages above. User:Zscout370 06:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit summaries are telling and sway the balance to indef block in my opinion -- Samir धर्म 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's him. Note the null edits, only changing like 1 space. --Rory096 07:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL Range block

Although I have no objections to raising blocks above 15 minutes for persistant AOL vandalism, the current block of 1 week seems extreme. Since I can't find any mention of this 1 week block I am loathe to remove it without knowing what escalation in problems caused it. And as I am not going to be around I can't unblock and monitor it. Can someone look into this. --pgk 07:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Already unblocked by Dmcdevit. If this was for the Ceiling cat dude, there's no need to block for a week, he's constantly changing ranges. (Oddly he usually waits the 15 minutes until the block expires, though.) --Rory096 07:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am off to bed, but I'd appreciate it if someone could watch User talk:WBardwin and make sure he's able to edit again. Range blocking AOL for any length of time is a seriously silly idea which will always prevent valuable contributors from editing. Dmcdevit·t 08:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever blocked for a week was way out of line. Vandalism is bad. Contributors are better. Geogre 13:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been times where I have been forced to range block an AOL range, though I only do it for 15 minutes (usually makes them stop) and only in an emergency. That time it was a person creating talkpages of pornographic spam, while constantly switching IPs. 1 week is excessive though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopediabaxter and Reecenelson sockpuppets

This edit together with the vandalism on William Clarke College suggests to me Encyclopediabaxter (talk · contribs) and Reecenelson (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of each other and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. Is a checkuser to find any as of yet undiscovered vandalism by other accounts from their IP appropriate? - Mgm| 11:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi. user:Nagara373 is persistently vandalising pages. User also seems to have an IP sockpuppet, although I'm not sure. Would welcome intervention. --Dweller 11:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've dropped a welcome template on his talk and tried to explain his information was inappropriate. Hopefully this gets the message across. He doesn't seem particularly malicious, just newbie-ish. - Mgm| 11:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Permanent deletion of malicious identifying information - AGAIN

For the second time one editor has abused the edit summary facility here in an attempt to maliciously post identifying information about me, I would very much like that permanently deleted...no point sanctioning the user because he never comes back on the same IP twice these days see: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Samvak(2nd). Thanks in anticipation. --Zeraeph 11:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Note that the anonymous editor seems to come from a narrow IP range, so perhaps an IP range block is in order. I'm not too familiar with that, though, so I will leave that to someone else. Eugène van der Pijll 13:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And once again thanks, for such a swift response --Zeraeph 13:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Constantine Conspiracy...Doc/Ril

I seem to have entered theAuthentic Matthew mess! I used http://pedia.nodeworks.com/A/AU/AUT/Authentic_Matthew/ (a big mistake)! I am not able to defend myself against DocUser:-Ril- ! Would an admin please look into this very bad situation --MeBee 02:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• What the hell are you talking about?--64.12.116.65 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • -Ril- (talk · contribs) hasn't posted on Misplaced Pages since being banned in March. In the last three weeks, Doc glasgow (talk · contribs) has a total of one post of one sentence. A little hard to see how they can be attacking you. Fan1967 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the subject of a current checkuser request. Thatcher131 13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL ] vandal

This vandal is back on User:207.200.116.0/24 range. As reported in WP:AIV --WinHunter 13:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone with appropriate rights just add Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg to MediaWiki:Bad image list? 68.17.14.126 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Added. I don't know if that'll stop the vandalism, but I'm willing to give it a try. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. He'll just use another image, and we won't be able to track it. --Rory096 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

blocked, i.e. vandalism

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO EDIT ANY ARTICLE OR PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA, NOR HAVE I EVER VANDALIZED ANY ARTICLE OR PAGE. I HAVE BEEN A READER ONLY. I ALWAYS LOG IN BEFORE LOOKING UP ANY ARTICLE, AND YET I AM CONSTANTLY RECEIVING ACCUSATORY MESSAGES, AND AM AT PRESENT BLOCKED - WHICH I SUPPOSE DOESN'T MATTER SINCE I HAVE NO DESIRE TO EDIT ANYTHING. BUT IT IS ANNOYING NONETHELESS. ANY SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE APPRECIATED.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShagT@aol.com (talk • contribs)

I've left a note for User:ShagT@aol.com, who is obviously an AOL user, pointing to Misplaced Pages:Advice for AOL users. FreplySpang 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First suggestion, please don't TYPE IN ALL CAPS, this is considered "shouting". Second suggestion, cancel your AOL (be prepared to spend 45 minutes on the phone as they attempt to deflect the request in every way possible) and get a real Internet Service Provider. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Third suggestion: don't patronise people! :) As it happens, in the UK AOL are one of the few companies to offer unmetered (unlimited) broadband on a British Telecom line making them a good choice for a lot of technically savvy users! It's generally people who think they know the score but who actually know very little that make the tired old AOL crack.

Anyway: just a note to say, this thread has been answered at User talk:ShagT@aol.com. --kingboyk 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

UK AOL? Isn't that a contradiction? --Rory096 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get into that. My point is that being "superior" doesn't help. I'm surprised he wasn't told to switch to Linux and Firefox at the same time! :) --kingboyk 14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC) (for the record: non-AOL user, has a Linux box with a handrolled kernel, uses Firefox despite its memory bloat)

So you didn't use a makisu on that kernel? ;) Syrthiss 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Demon, whom I use, also have unmetred access, and they aren't shit. --Sam Blanning 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

a loosely related question, why on earth do people see "you are blocked" messages before they even attempt to edit? It unnerves and angers readers for nothing. Block notices should only come up at the time a user attempts to do an edit, since, duh, they are blocked from editing. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't see the blocked message until you edit (except for talk messages, like test5, of course). What do you mean? --Rory096 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You do if you follow a red link, which of course is technically trying to edit it... --pgk 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User 213.232.79.149

There are multiple warnings and block messages on this users talk page. (I hope this is the correct place to put this note up) Again, this morning the user vandalized another page. This time another User's page. Not sure what is done to mulitple offenders but will place here to find out! Lsjzl 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 2 months (previous 1-month block failed to get the message over). In the future, please take these to WP:AIV. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mass category creation by Imthehappywanderer

In the last 2 days or so, Imthehappywanderer (talk · contribs) has created over 150 new categories. I don't know if that's a problem or not but I've never seen that kind of behavior before and it looks odd. New account too, about 14 days old. Thatcher131 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment See the user's talk page as well. Multiple other users have left comments on either recreated categories (previous deletes) or circular categories. Lsjzl 14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mywayyy wanting to have it his wayyy

Mywayyy (talk · contribs) was blocked tonight for a massive revert war on multiple articles, removing the Turkish placenames from geographical articles about Greece (Kalymnos, Kos, Samos Island, Simi, Alexandroupoli and others). AN/3 report here: . Now back continuing reverting under several anonymous IPs from the 88.218.*.* range:

• 88.218.55.223 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.46.114 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.42.195 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.37.205 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Can we have a range-block, and/or extension of block on the main account? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you run a WHOIS to see where the IP's resolve? If the guy is using a public library, kiosk, or school, we may have to be pretty delicate with a range block. Geogre 15:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now I'm having difficulties using the WHOIS. The WHOIS link in the checkip template above isn't resulting in anthing, and that in my popups has mysteriously vanished :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

- It's an ISP in Athens, Greece. 88.218.32.0 - 88.218.63.255 . —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Or 88.218.32.0/19. Saves space! Will (message me!) 15:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-static, then? I'd urge caution on any extended range blocks, but 24 hr can be a good starting point, and then we need to be very alert to collateral complaints. (Of course, if 24 hr goes by without collateral damage and the person resumes after that, going for a week would be logical. These nomenclature wars never end well.) Geogre 15:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Manipulating RFC

I already posted a complaint regarding the blatant manipulation of a poll. Nobody responded. The RFC I started was deleted, after restoring it the same editor is altering that RFC. Can somebody please interven, since when I deal with this vandalism I get blocked! Nomen Nescio 15:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not a RFC first of all, I have told you that numerous times. Second you are attempting to classify everyone vote on a semi-related poll to fit your interpretation. I removed your commentary on what you feel those people were saying with their votes and added the vote count + the questions. Which is more appropriate then you summarizing what you think those 10 people were saying into 1 sentence. You also removed the comments I added to that poll when you first completely misrepresented what was even being asked in the poll. The polls are about infoboxes not about the general question of if the WOT and War in Iraq are related, no matter how much you attempt to slant it to be about that. And stop posting your NPA / Vandalism tags on my page. --zero faults 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You also removed my comments from it You did not want to mention that did you? --zero faults 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is then me being called a zealot. --zero faults 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How can this not be a RFC when it is filed as such? Please somebody interven. This is ridiculous, this user is gaming the system, deleting every comment contrary to his political view in a RFC and I simply do not know what to do next. Nomen Nescio 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Its a straw poll ... --zero faults 15:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That right there is the problem with this user "contrary to his political view". Your political opinion does not belong on Misplaced Pages. NPOV. My political opinion is not what can be supported by facts, and so I do not force it on others. --zero faults 15:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If political view is not important than you sure3ly do not object on any RFC trying to ascertain the facts. Do tell why you nevertheless feel the need to rewrite the RFC to suit your political view. Nomen Nescio 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So, your complaint is that User:Zer0faults has been deleting your comments from Talk:Iraq War, thus: , claiming that they are "a straw poll"? Is that the issue? Deleting of other's comments from an article's talk page is almost never acceptable. FeloniousMonk 16:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That is why I post it on AV and here. Again Zero did the same several days ago (see history for my comments on it on this page) and got away with it since nobody feels it needs intervention. Interestingly I got blocked for 3RR when I restored my comments at that time. Nomen Nescio 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, looking over the Usertalk page of Zer0faults, here and here, it appears he has an longstanding and ongoing personal grudge against you. Viewed in that light his actions at Talk:Iraq War are petty harassment. That needs to stop. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Same discussion cross-posted to WP:AN and moved here

I already posted a complaint regarding the blatant manipulation of a poll. Nobody responded. The RFC I started was deleted, after restoring it the same editor is altering that RFC. Can somebody please interven, since when I deal with this vandalism I get blocked! Nomen Nescio 15:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not a RFC first of all, I have told you that numerous times. Second you are attempting to classify everyone vote on a semi-related poll to fit your interpretation. I removed your commentary on what you feel those people were saying with their votes and added the vote count + the questions. Which is more appropriate then you summarizing what you think those 10 people were saying into 1 sentence. You also removed the comments I added to that poll when you first completely misrepresented what was even being asked in the poll. The polls are about infoboxes not about the general question of if the WOT and War in Iraq are related, no matter how much you attempt to slant it to be about that. And stop posting your NPA / Vandalism tags on my page. --zero faults 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You also removed my comments from it You did not want to mention that did you? --zero faults 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is then me being called a zealot. --zero faults 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, when it is posted at RFC AND it is called a RFC, naturally it is NOT a RFC. Nomen Nescio 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont think Straw Polls belong on the RFC page. I think there is a seperate place where polls are put, especially considering your bias summaries of past polls. --zero faults 16:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this largely duplicates discussion above and adds nothing new, anyone object to my deleting it? FeloniousMonk 16:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton

vandalism - assistance required. I have just try to clean up this overlong article by removing DUPLICATED information (info that is included in the infobox) and some irrelvant trivia. I have also reorganized by the info box by breaking it down into admin and geography. I believe all these are reasonable edits and within Wiki guidelines but have all bene reverted by what can only be described as a possessive editor. I wholeheartedly believe my edits improve the article and would welcome intervention. I have been accused of being a "sock puppet" by a person who seemingly reverts every single edit not made by him user:Jhamez84. Assitance would be appreciated. Thankyou. Filmfan1971 16:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards