Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:12, 16 July 2006

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

== teh n00b. Kickaha Ota 14:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What does one do about a problem user who bombards one's user talk page with false warning templates? Ste4k has been doing so, making false accusations of personal attacks (an example of what Ste4k classifies as a personal attack can be seen when she selectively quotes a sentence beginning "What is a problem is you trying to make that decision for everyone else ..." as "What is a problem is you...") Ste4k has also falsely accused me of vandalism (for removing, as mentioned above, a set of twenty links she inserted into the "See also" section of the article on rationales as vague as "Hell - Related to Religious Figures") She also claims that I "Remov direct quotes from a cited source supplied by Nscheffey (talk · contribs)" when in fact, the source she refers to is not directly quoted at all, and responds to the fact that I had to restore information she removed on incorrect pretext, twice, by informing me "Please refer to policy listed at WP:3RR." What can be done about an editor who abuses Misplaced Pages and attacks other editors by misapplying the mechanisms meant to deal with actual wrongdoing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this analysis. Ste4k combines a stubborn nature with an incorrect interpretation of policy, along with an infinite capacity to be "offended". The drama she has caused over her talk page alone is amazing, but she has wreaked havoc in many other areas of Misplaced Pages. I have witnessed many editors have unfriendly and bizarre interactions with her, and am considering opening an RfC on her behavior. Her current activity is removing comments from her talk page as "personal attacks." --Nscheffey 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well of course you with your personal issue agree with him, after all, you invited him to start stalking me like you do. Ste4k 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And now false accusations of stalking, too. This really can't go unchecked. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Community ban on User:Hogeye

User:Hogeye was blocked for a month for disruption on anarchism related articles. Since then he has been consistently and almost on a daily basis (although with notable and lengthy lulls) been using open proxies to evade his block. Ideally I'd like to see a ban and indefinite block put in place, but I'd settle for something that we don't have to reset the block every couple of days :)

20:15, 7 July 2006, Sarge Baldy (Talk) blocked Hogeye (contribs) (expires 20:15, 7 August 2006) (Unblock) (resetting due to ban evasion)

See the category here. Note that most of these are not sockpuppets in the conventional sense, but just open proxies that are being used to circumvent his block. - FrancisTyers · 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I spent most of my time on wikipedia yesterday reverting Hogeye's sock edits at Anarchism, so I am fully supportive of this proposal. Their socks also reverted changes I made to other articles recently, including this page, making three personal attacks in the process: , , and . This user constantly evades blocks and edits disruptively, and it's about time they get banned permanently. The Ungovernable Force 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As the one who protected the Anarchism article for a month while trying to make Hogeye discuss his changes (before the first month-long block), I would not oppose it. --cesarb 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

They have a new sock: User:Drowner.--The Ungovernable Force 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• <sarcasm>Oppose; useful method for finding more open proxies to block.</sarcasm> Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: They will still use open proxies even after they are banned permanently, so it won't keep you from finding more. The Ungovernable Force 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, sorry. It's sometimes hard to tell sarcasm in type. It was funny though. The Ungovernable Force 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Soul – Now you see it, now you don't

I recently moved Template:User soul to User:Rfrisbie/Userbox/Soul per WP:GUS. While I was in the middle of bypassing the redirects, Template:User soul disappeared! At the end of the process, I recreated the original page with a soft redirect. I would like to know if anyone here can explain to me how Template:User soul disappeared. I also would like to know if any policies and/or guidelines were violated in the process. Rfrisbie 14:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde deleted it after you moved it away (and that was his cited reason); probably would have been wiser to wait until after all the redirects were bypassed, but you'd have to ask him for more details on his reasoning. --Nae'blis 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So, is this a violation of policy/guidelines or not? --Rfrisbie 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't think so. Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre. Admin behavior like this certainly falls into the category of “Lacks civility and etiquette" for me. I hope you all don’t wonder why there’s a lack of admin credibility by “rabble” like me. --Rfrisbie 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do wonder, given the outstanding work done by hundreds of admins every day. This kind of blanket assertion based on the behavior of one sysop is extraordinarily unhelpful. It seems from your posts that you came here looking for a fight, and I think that's sad. Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here to report an incident. Which seems to have been pointless. --Rfrisbie 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a whole range of users haven't seen a problem. I'm sorry if this isn't what you wanted. Mackensen (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You moved the userbox to userspace. The remaining link was removed from template space. What was the incident, again? --Tony Sidaway 20:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Cyde deleted the templatespace redirect before he (Rfrisbe) was done changing all the references to it. I'm not sure if he knew that Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:user soul would still work, or not. Seems to be largely moot, now, as I only see one remaining transclusion there. --Nae'blis 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I knew how to finish off bypassing the redirects. I was just surprised (among other things) the original disappeared before I could even finish. Rfrisbie 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of respect for a process on a sensitive issue. Many people have been putting soft redirects in place after the hard redirect is bypassed. Cyde has ignored and undermined such efforts. If you don't see a problem, then I'm saying that's part of the problem. Do what you will and I'll just move on. --Rfrisbie 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Respect for process? If by process you mean hanging on to links to templates that shouldn't have been created in the first place, fuck process! --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for another demonstration of the quality of adminship here. --Rfrisbie 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's something he likes to say. Humour him. Haukur 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we should "humour" Tony when he bites people (someone without background on his views of "needless process wonking" could take it as an attack, or at the least incivility). --Nae'blis 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's never to early to learn that process for its own sake is evil. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also never too late to learn that treating people with dignity and respect for its own sake is good. Rfrisbie 00:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I like to think of Tony as the lone Vulcan forced to work with a bunch of illogical, emotional humans; we tolerate each other in order to work together. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Vulcans aren't mean-spirited. Enabling Workplace bullying is hardly an acceptable administrative behavior. Rfrisbie 03:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing about wikipedia is that sometimes we have different conflicting processes. Especially things like the german userbox solution, which is at 90 degrees to certain interpretations of speedy deletion. Confused? It takes a certain kind of getting used to. It looks like you've found such a conflict.

Best move is to discuss with Cyde and find a decent mutual consensus through compromise. After that, don't forget to update the guidelines! Kim Bruning 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. --Rfrisbie 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this all could have been handled much better. No one has even bothered to contact me regarding this; I merely chanced upon it just now. What is the point of going to ANI and userbox talk pages and complaining if you haven't actually taken any steps to resolve the issue? --Cyde↔Weys 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I should have contacted you directly when I learned it was you. I apologize. Rfrisbie 23:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I've seen no evidence of you using soft redirects in the past, why would this case be any different? Given Phil Boswell's in-my-face action, I consider this to be a hostile environment. Once again, why would I expect admins to work out a mutually respectful process? This is really quite a sickening experience. Just do what you want. --Rfrisbie 22:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Really, honestly, why are we coddling these templates with "soft redirects"? Obviously we're going to delete them in the end, but why coddle them for a single minute? Those are templates that should not have been created. That they're being userfied is a courtesy. That some people choose to create soft redirects, and the rest of us tolerate them, is the icing on the cake. But don't expect this kind of treatment for non-encyclopedia content, particularly personal expressions of religious belief and the lik that have absolutely no place in template space, to be provided as a matter of course. Administrators are not required to collude in the abuse of userspace. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Right… {{user soul}} is now redundant under WP:GUS and I have therefore nuked it. If you want to use something like it, find a WP:GUS equivalent and use that. The idea was NOT that the templates would remain sitting around in the template namespace forever, that kind of cancels out the point of the project. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Although process is important for things where people tend to disagree, there was no breaking of process here. The deletion of the left-behind redirect is a part of the process of userfying a template. Zocky | picture popups 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Comanche cph

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

This fellow has been blocked three times, the last time was for a week, and he's still making himself quite difficult to get along with. He has some opinions which he's very passionate about. One is that Rollo of Normandy was Danish rather than Norwegian, another is that Scandinavia must not include Finland. Here are some page-histories and diffs:

Persistent revert-warring:

Revert-warring to get a copyright-violation in:

Uploading a very dubious "GFDL-self" image:

Being "funny":

To be fair there he has showed some agonizingly slow improvement. He is slightly less aggressive than he was and seems to have gained some minimal understanding of our copyright policies. He's still violating the 3RR (on Scandinavia today) and he still calls any edit he disagrees with "vandalism".

I think it has come to the point where he needs either a very good mentor or a long block. Could someone not involved in these articles help step in? Haukur 12:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I endorse blocks for any 3RRvio or personal attack without further warning. Editors cannot be expected to coax this sort into "agonizingly slow improvement". In my book, he should get a week's block for the "funny" edits alone. It is extremely unlikely that anything worthwile will come from this account anytime soon. dab (ᛏ) 12:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with dab, this isn't helping the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

I was about to report this. I just want to add that Supermos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), all of whose edits are on Scandinavia and its talkpage, could possibly be a sockpuppet. Tupsharru 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is slowly exhausting the patience of many dedicated and respectful users, and keeps ignoring all attempts to reach consensus and engage in dialog. I reported him for 3RR violation on Normans some time ago, and this is the fourth block for assorted disruptive activities he earns. I'll try to reason with him once again, and I'll keep my eyes on him. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We may be up against yet another crusader. People who want to correct all the other reference works here are barking up the wrong drainpipe. If they're really passionate (and Lord knows most are), they're willing to be martyrs to their self-appointed causes, and that means that we end up holding the spear of destiny or driving the nine inch nails. The one critical point is whether he recognizes that we're not supposed to be "true" if no one else is. If he understands that we repeat secondary sources and digest them into a tertiary account, then he could come around. If he doesn't -- if he thinks that these are matters that simply must be true and must be reported -- then we ought to be reaching into the bag of blocks. Geogre 14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

He's back, edit-warring and page-blanking (that could possibly be unintentional, but it has happened several times before). Tupsharru 10:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SirIsaacBrock threads moved to User talk:SirIsaacBrock

WP:AN/I is not a discussion forum -- Drini 05:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, except it was a discussion of whether he should be indef banned by the community? Thatcher131 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Can a community block proposal be carried out on the home page of the person being proposed to be blocked? Just seems wrong to me. - TexasAndroid 12:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to bringing the text back? (→Netscott) 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparent SEO/Linkspam to Scientific American articles

Someone or somebot (this is debated) at the Scientific American owned IP address 208.241.19.100 has been adding links to Scientific American articles. When active, their contributions for yesterday and today have been adding one link per article about every 3-5 minutes. This has been discussed primarily at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics#Massive insertion of Scientific American links, secondarily at User talk:208.241.19.100#WP:EL (tertiary at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam#Scientific American --Femto 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)). The group discussing thus far lacks agreement on what to do about it, and thus I'm requesting investigation and decisions from the larger community. GRBerry 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm powerfully against any link adding on this scale, from what I can tell the links are actually pretty relevant. --InShaneee 19:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has also been brought up on the village pump: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Scientific_American_linking --AbsolutDan 05:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

New VaughanWatch Sock

• 64.228.151.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a clear sockpuppet of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who would therefore be evading his own indef block. His only edits have been to revert my edits to Michael Di Biase and give me his own "vandalism" warning based on his own PoV pushing. To avoid restarting this whole nonsense, I'd appreciate it if someone could remove the false warning from my page, indef block the VW Sock and revert the edits to Michael Di Biase. Thanks -- pm_shef 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ummmm hi? The above user is still evading his indef block! - pm_shef 04:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin User:Tony Sidaway

Moved to User talk:Tony Sidaway/The Ungovernable Force.

WP:AN/I is not a discussion forum. -- Drini 05:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

203.54.186.125

This person using IP: 203.54.186.125 is removing stuff in the Talk page for

Let me get this straight, you want a talk page semi-protected because one anonymous editor deleted one paragraph, giving a reason in the edit summary. Before you ask for an administrator to get involved, you might want to start by discussing with the user. -- JamesTeterenko 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

see 2 sections below (Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin Stalking) - there has been plenty of discussion with the user and from the user - different IPs but very certainly same person--A Y Arktos\ 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why I have different ips is because I have dial up so my ip changes each time I log on. Why I have a dial up Internet connection is because I cannot afford asdl. Note above how Artkos appears to suggest there is some nefarious reason for my IP changing. I have not registered for wikipedia as I start back at uni on Monday and wont have time to do any regular posting on articles. I did initally put up a 'new' Aboriginal massacre that contains highly significant content. It happened in 1830s but its been so hidden and has so many other connections it is highly highly important to Australia's history. Its been me found the verifying links re this event but those references can tbe put up right now as offical investigations still underway. They now cannot ever go up her ebecause of the dreadful atatcks on me by an admin etc.

The material that I posted, was removed as it wasnt verifiable by me then the admin began to attack me over that then stalking me. The admin then began changing the factual content of material I had posted which made it lies. Even 'bullets' that the above mentioned robert myers inadvertably moved so they were out of line that I put back, got edited so they were out of line again. The above mentioned robert myers made false claims online about a highly respected aboriginal Elder, then told lies about the coolac bypass by repeating incorrect abc news reporting, but did not cite that as abc news reporting. They are altering the veracity of a very important topic then attacking me re it and given it is me knows what is happening re this topic and am the one with the verifiable references, I have had to remove material so that it wasnt lies, but then along came these editors and put highly incorrect stuff back. Why do some admins and others have to atatck people who put content up then remove sections when they realise it cant stay when it cant be imemdiately verified? There is no need for that to happen and it strikes me its dog and bone stuff that is totally abusive, but the (demonstrated) stalking is also dangerous and none of it puts this site in a good light. I have been stunned by admin antics. There has been no need for any of it and the obsessive nature of it is a concern

I have did not make false claims online about Neville Williams (A Aboriginal Elder) and ive never lied about the Coolac Bypass. I stated on what the local media have said on the issue and the only online story i could find was on ABC. -- RobertM 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reggae Sanderz, possible sock of banned user

Reggae Sanderz (talk · contribs) may be a sock evading a block. Some of his contributions have just been strange, like a lame attempt to turn a prodded dicdef into an article , categorizing an indefinitely blocked user , adding a ridiculous internal link , and quasi-trolling . He discovered RfA awfully quickly , tried (not very hard) to replace an imposter vote in one . He asked a question that provides the only clue about who he may be (and the most damning evidence of what he's doing). also provides some evidence of who he may be. Hopefully someone who follows ArbCom can handle this appropriately. Thanks.--Kchase T 08:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as sock by Consumed Crustacean. Thanks!--Kchase T 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed

Consumed Crustacean's posted content. I see he's offended by what i did, but he never left any comments on my talk page. Reggae Sanderz 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning User:haham hanuka

I removed part of this users userpage becuase,imho, it violated the guideline at Misplaced Pages:User page (Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages) ; please also have a look here. I consider a block. Any comments? Lectonar 14:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the translation (which I had been waiting for before taking further action on this), I strongly support the removal of the material. There's no need for a block at this time, but the user should definitely not re-add the material. -- SCZenz 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The content has just been deleted through a formal procedure and he readds as if the community wasn't here. He should be blocked, as he has done this many times before and he was warned about his disrespect for our community decisions many times before. gidonb 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the was deleted at his request, not because of the MfD—and he hoped that adding it to his user page instead would be a compromise. It's clear the community wants it gone, even from his user page, so that isn't acceptable. But at this time, it has been removed from his userpage by Lectonar and not-readded; as long as he doesn't restore the material anywhere, no further action is necessary. -- SCZenz 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SCZenz: a block isn't appropriate at this time. There is a difference between re-adding because he's in a fight and re-adding after he's gotten multiple sets of administrative eyes. In the former case, the slow-ish dispute resolution process would need to take place. In the latter case, it's sort of a different set of offenses that can justify a block more quickly. (No, I'm not lawyering. I'm suggesting that the user can misunderstand some things, but not others.) Geogre 14:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam or not?

66.130.88.90 (talk · contribs) has been adding links to www.watchmojo.com videos to a few articles. This is slow (only a few a day), and the videos appear to me mostly pertinent. Not too sure if I should issue a warning or something. Circeus 15:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide diffs to any additions that you think might be improper. Johntex\ 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Individual diffs are not improper, but the fact all edits seem to involve inclusion of a link to some Watchmojo.com video is rather disturbing. PLease note that I am listing here all edits by this user, all but one include WatchMojo links.

• Cantonese (linguistics)
• Russian language
• Amanda Congdon
• AskMen.com
• Long Island Iced Tea
• Caesar Cocktail
• Yngwie J. Malmsteen
• Tom Collins
• Irish Coffee
• (this one should be at Salsa (dance))
• Mark Tewksbury (only non-WatchMojo edit)

Circeus 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

66.130.88.90 belongs to Le Groupe Videotron Ltee, Montreal, a video on demand company. It is adding video links to www.watchmojo.com, registered to Groupe iWeb Technologies inc., also Montreal. I say linkspam. Femto 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Vidéotron is much more than a video on demand company, actually. Circeus 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, missed that it's also an Internet provider. Still looks fishy though that both linker and linkee are from Montreal, and that it's several links to the same site. This seems like one good reason against the links, was there any for them yet? Femto 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's what makes really iffy: the links I've looked at (salsa and irish coffee) whee relevant and actually helpful. If they had been really mindless, I wuld have gone and reverted everything already. Can we block for linkspam if the links are genuinely appropriate? Circeus 22:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a nice long talk with the user with respect to what "unique resource" means, but a block seems premature at this point. - brenneman 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Drowner

Drowner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) denies being a Hogeye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppet and wants to be unblocked. I would like to request a review of my block of Drowner. --cesarb 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely. - FrancisTyers · 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The disruption block (by Tony Sidaway) is more than appropriate to me, but I am not sue about the Sockpuppetry. Hogeye seems to never have touched Anarchism in the United States, on which Drowner is concentrating. Are there common trends in their editing? Diffs would be useful. Circeus 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Although having said that, could be an RJII sock. - FrancisTyers · 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out User talk:The Ungovernable Force for some ideas he put out about the identify of Drowner. I seem to recall that he suspected either RJII or Hogeye. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally didn't think it was RJII, (that was Francis). But I have to admit that after talking to Francis over email, more in depth analysis and in light of the style of their recent messages on their own and Hogeye's talk pages, I could have been mistaken with regard to it being hogeye. I am starting to agree that it could be RJII. Either way, I am certain this user is a sock of one of these two blocked/banned users. Brand new user's rarely end up on such obscure pages as the ones he did and start pushing that pov. Anyways, their first edit was a revert, which seems highly unlikely for a new user (I didn't learn how to do that for at least a week or two, maybe longer). And although Hogeye never edited that page, as of June 30, four open proxies suspected to be socks of hogeye have edited it. Their edits on American individualist anarchism (which currently redirects to "anarchism in the united states") were reversions to pov forks supported by other suspected hogeye socks. The Ungovernable Force 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Drowner has complained about this on the unblock-en-l list. Could someone please substantiate the allegation of sockpuppetry in more detail, including a checkuer or specific article edit comparisons? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 06:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User's very first edit was to revert to a revision by an open proxy IP, which is tagged as being used by Hogeye. Other users who are more used to Hogeye's edit patterns also have said it's either Hogeye or RJII. Checkuser probably will not help, since Hogeye is known for abusing open proxies to evade blocks (he also seems to have come back in force last week; Sarge_Baldy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked a number of the proxies and sockpuppets he used). Also see The Ungovernable Force's comment above. --cesarb 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• He has sent another e-mail to the unblock list stating that he is "4.156.27.205 according to the screen that comes up when I try to edit." Drowner has added "Also I did not take part in disruptive behavior. Someone blocked me for

"edit warring" but I did not do any reverts at all in the article in question that I am aware of. Someone else was simply deleting everything I put in the article because they were claiming i was a "sock puppet". Capitalistroadster 02:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Accusation

Hey all, I've recently been accused of being racist,

I am British you racists person, there are many of us in the UK, irrespective of our ancestry. I suggest you move on to another site preferably backed by the National British Party. I would be greatful if you could email me your remarks with your full name and address (you do not have to, of course). Thank you.Politis 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (from Talk:Macedonia (terminology))

Normally I wouldn't object, just smile and move along, but I also noted this:

Sorry, your racist remark has been noted (yet again, I think) and hopefully acted upon (unless you apologise) Politis 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (from User talk:Politis)

I don't think that this could be construed as a legal threat, but considering he also mentioned "...You could be taken to court, or at the very least reprimanded." and "I am afraid I cannot let this one down and will return to it, this week, next or whenever." I'd like to get other peoples opinion. Needless to say, this is my real name. - FrancisTyers · 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't want to say anything more, but would take advice gladly. - FrancisTyers · 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat. he seems to have a bee in his bonnet. I cannot see why he has taken such offense but perhaps he's suffered racist comments IRL so is extra sensitive. Who knows? What I would do, in your position, is nothing. He may calm down and cool off. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that's what I was intending to do :) - FrancisTyers · 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If it recurs, if he decides to fixate upon you and the "racism" that has not yet been fixed (by your premature removal, etc.), then I'd suggest calling up the mediation cabal folks to take him in hand, figure out whether he misreads everything or just you, and try to help. "Racism" is one of those rhetorical nuclear charges. The most important thing is not to debate it, I think, as that maintains the focus on some demand that you please someone else, but rather to acknowledge the feelings as a practical matter only. Geogre 02:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of racism qualify as a personal attack and incivility. Warn him off. If he continues, give it a NPA warning, and ask someone else to remove the attack. If you can avoid him, do so. If you don't wish to escalate the matter, go to WP:MEDCAB or perhaps WP:GMN, if they're anywhere near operational by now. --Avillia 03:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and issued a warning, but he hasn't edited since, so no response just yet. --InShaneee 03:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and the advice, I also see User:Jtdirl has removed the other mention. - FrancisTyers · 15:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, things are being dealt with in private e-mail and are unlikely to escalate further, I'd say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 again

Having looked at this issue (see WP:AN/I#Serial_unblocking_of_Giovanni33), I think there's a reasonable solution. On the one hand Giovanni33 has been sockpuppeting and editing in a very combative way. On the other hand, some people believe he is willing to edit in a positive way going forward. The main issue I see is that he has not admitted his sockpuppeting; without this admission of wrongdoing, it is unlikely he will cease from doing these behaviors. My recommendation is that he be blocked until he admits all of his sockpuppets, uncluding User:Professor33, and promises not to use sockpuppets again. Once he does so, he can be unblocked, and given a fresh start. Comments? Jayjg 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think G33 especially disruptive, besides the puppetry and the arguments which follow. Nor are his puppets generally disruptive, except insofar as they're used to ignore 3RR (always). His puppets should be indef blocked, and he should be allowed to continue editting from his main account without prejudice. Edit-warring should prove less appealing without the capacity for limitless reverts.Timothy Usher 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this, it's a reasonable compromise. Taking responsibility for past transgressions is a good first step to earning back the community's trust. FeloniousMonk 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable request. Until he has acknowledged his sockpuppetry and pledged not to engage in further sockpuppetry, I support a block. After that, he should have a chance to earn a place, if his behaviour merits it. Guettarda 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that unless someone is willing to admit that their past behavior has been inappropriate, they are very unlikely to be reformed. The user must be willing to acknowledge that his past actions were in violation of Misplaced Pages policies, and be willing to give his word that he will abide by policies in the future. Otherwise he should not be allowed back. --Elonka 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I trust that any admin doing either blocking or unblocking is going to commit to staying on top of the situation. Jkelly 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He should be able to edit Misplaced Pages, but the socks need to go. User:Zscout370 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that as there have been some clearly wrong allegations together with some possible allegations that it would be wise to get some final desision on what are his socks or not by some that are not involved in editwaring with him, and then take things from there. Agathoclea 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There have not been "some clearly wrong allegations", Agathoclea. There was, I believe, one (not some) wrong allegation — that of User:Deuteronomy2000. I never made that allegation, and when I asked the two users who had tagged that page to stop, they both stopped. It was not a crazy assumption to make, though, as that user account was clearly created specially for the purpose of trying to get blocked someone who had blocked him, as he has a history of creating puppets, and as he drew attention to himself by reverting my removal of Deuteronomy's post. I would strongly oppose any suggestion of blocking Giovanni until he admits that Deuteronomy is his puppet. But I do not think that a brief accusation (against someone who has violated WP:SOCK again and again), which I never supported, should be allowed to weaken the case that he has used numerous puppets.

Regarding the "possible allegations", on the cline between absolutely excluded and absolutely certain, I think the word "possible" comes far too low when referring to Giovanni's puppets. I might include FionaS as a "possible" puppet, but that account is of little interest as it was created just to support Gio, after he was caught redhanded in puppetry, and did not attempt to revert to his version afterwards. But there is no way that Kecik is a "possible" (meaning perhaps, perhaps not) puppet. The same goes for MikaM. Think of it. They both registered around the time that Giovanni was meeting with opposition. They have both edited while logged off, and then acknowledged the edits, from IPs that were geographically close to Giovanni. They both share linguistic idiosyncrasies with Giovanni. They both began to revert to his version soon after arriving. They both follow Giovanni from one article to another, in order to revert to his version or to support him on the talk page. Kecik's seventh edit and MikaM's sixth were votes on the transubstantiation talk page, supporting Giovanni, who wanted to put in stuff about Transubstantiation being based on earlier pagan rituals with cannibalism. Note that the Transubstantiation article was not being discussed at the pages where they started their wiki-life, that no message was left on their talk pages asking them to show up, and that they did not have e-mail enabled. Note also that they would frequently show up when he had run out of reverts, and would just revert back to his version without discussion. Kecik has 40 reverts to Giovanni out of a total of 45 article edits. He was nearly four months at Misplaced Pages before he made a single edit to a page that wasn't one where Giovanni needed support. And he only did that after I had repeatedly pointed out his record of doing nothing except reverting to Giovanni. MikaM has 32 reverts to Giovanni out of 42 article edits. How could those accounts be anything other than puppet accounts? AnnH ♫ 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree to indef block all sockpuppet accounts. If he continues edit warring with the G33 account, it can be dealt with existing WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good approach, and support Jayjg's decision. Proto::type 12:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I support Jayjg's approach. Guettarda and Elonka have it right: until he acknowledges his inappropriate behavior, there is no sense in turning a blind eye to his disruption. KillerChihuahua 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds downright inquisitorial. "Admit your guilt!" Sheesh. The fact that there is disagreement on which accounts are actually his socks and which are not makes Jayjg's approach difficult. It also suggests that wikipedias policies do not work, and that administrators just make stuff up on the fly. If you are dead set on this action, please make it part of the blocking policy first. Otherwise it will come off as arbitrary. ^^James^^ 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't disagreement. Giovanni has never admitted to deliberately violating our policies in a devious way. Nobody who has seen all the evidence has disagreed about any particular account being a puppet. The accounts are BelindaGong (confirmed), Freethinker99 (confirmed), MikaM, Kecik, RTS, NPOV77, HK30, Mercury2001, and Professor33. Apart from RTS, whose IP is not known, they are all known to be geographically close to Giovanni33. RTS appeared suddenly one day and reverted seven times to Giovanni's version — as a brand new users. Brand new users don't normally know how to revert. Within minutes of his blocking, NPOV77 jumped in and reverted back to his last version. AnnH ♫ 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some disagreement, but the point is, this idea is a bad one. Surely there is a better way to resolve this. ^^James^^ 02:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• He's not going to admit to wrong doing, and some of them may not be puppets, so should he admit to something he hasn't done just to get unblocked? What has that accomplished. I applaud the attempt to avoid arbitration, but don't see how it can really be avoided. Wikibofh_(talk) 23:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is community ban material. His sockpuppetry is blatant, obvious and an insult to the intelligence. He's here to push a POV and will sock frantically to do it; he's not here to write an encyclopedia for anyone else. I strongly suggest shoot on sight. - David Gerard 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Will comment more fully tomorrow, but just before I go to bed:

• Rebecca said she was going away for a few days, and asked that things be put on hold until she got back.
• Giovanni is very unlikely to admit to any wrongdoing that can't be proved. Even when it can be, he's not given to admitting things. For example, he has claimed that his only edit warring was at the very beginning when he "didn't know the policy at all", despite the fact that there are numerous diffs to show how he was told about the 3RR over and over again, and was not reported until he had carried out numerous violations after the warnings.
• I think we should try to discuss things here before any blocks are implemented (other than blocks for new offences), and should also avoid unblocking without full discussion. His block log is, I would say, rather embarrassing to administrators.

I have e-mailed a full account of Giovanni's puppetry, with evidence, to members of the ArbCom. Or, to be more accurate, I e-mailed it to a senior Wikipedian who is able to access the ArbCom mailing list, and asked him to forward it. AnnH ♫ 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Rampant Self Promotion

While going through some AfDs I noted a musician Joseph Patrick Moore for deletion, particularly due to the horrible formatting of one of the contributors to the AfD and the sole contributor to the article, Bluecanoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Looking through Bluecanoe's contributions led me to see that the only edits from this user are to insert a link to Joseph Patrick Moore's article into wherever he might fit, pushing notability in the smooth jazz and/or bass player areas. The user's other contributions include Blue Canoe Records, which is identical to the user's userpage, and is mentioned as being founded by Joseph Patrick Moore, and similar linkings to this article in other articles/lists to assert notability, and Decade 1996-2005 as the only album released by the record label and recording artist, with similar linkings in other articles as well.

The only other contributions are to Joseph Patrick Moore's AfD, and it is very likely that other contributions will be made to the AfD I made for Blue Canoe Records. Something needs to be done with this user as a self-promotion/vandalism only account. Ryulong 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The user also claims to be the executive producer for the Blue Canoe label, a Ms. Karen Frieske, and as predicted, she has contributed to the AfD for the record label. Ryulong 04:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dalek Cab (talk · contribs)

Anyone else think there's something just a bit odd going on here?--172.149.233.183 00:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Just reverting vandalism. Probably an RC Patroller. --InShaneee 00:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, but look at these earlier edits and tell me there isn't something odd about this--172.149.233.183 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

he's obviously been having fun with his edit summaries. And so? Which aprticularedit are you ojecting? Circeus 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, all I'm saying is it's a bit strange, not vandalism or anything, just strange--172.149.233.183 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting massive quantities of vandalism can be boring. I would say this is an experiment that Dalek likely will write up in his paper, "Investigating silliness as a remedy for boredom." -- llywrch 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

IP evading block

On the List of religions page an IP keeps adding Matrixism with a link to a Geocities site. Matrixism, as an article, has been deleted twice as non-notable, and yet a couple IPs keeps adding the link even after the discussion on the talk pages (See the archive as well). One IP (User:71.139.66.105) was blocked by User:UtherSRG, but he has evaded his block by using another IP User:69.226.105.161. Secondly, I've tried, as a compromise, to leave the bulleted item in place, but remove the link to the geocities site, as it is a linkspam, but the IP keeps reverting that as well. Can the page be semi-protected? I have reached by three-revert limit for the day, so I cannot do anything anymore today. He, on the other hand evaded 3RR by using multiple IPs. -- Jeff3000 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that WP:3RR provides an exception in the case of clear vandalism. I'm not an admin, but I really doubt admins who read this will disagree: go ahead and revert him for now. I'll help out too. 3RR is not meant to straitjacket legitimate editors faced with sockpuppetry. It is only meant to enforce a sort of equality between editors who have varying amounts of time they are able to devote to the project. Kasreyn 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

After User:71.139.66.105 and User:69.226.105.161 were blocked , the user is using another IP (User:69.225.13.17). The consensus on the talk page is that the addition is linkspam and non-notable, yet the user, through multiple IPs has violated 3RR and keeps on adding the link on the page, in addition to other pages. I would suggest a semi-protect. -- Jeff3000 20:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins, please take note that the "Matrixism" linkspammer is approaching 3RR, refuses to discuss the issue of notability, and has begun to engage in personal attacks against other editors, in this case User:Jeff3000. I am beginning to feel that the user has no intention to work with others constructively at this encyclopedia and seeks to own List of religions. Kasreyn 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: that was fast. The user is now in violation of 3RR. I have continued to revert him beyond my own 3RR limit, in cognizance of the "clear vandalism" clause of WP:3RR. I understand that revert wars are undesirable on Misplaced Pages, but I also strongly feel that blatant vandalism and attempts at ownership of articles should be firmly repudiated. I will immediately desist reverting the vandal if anyone (other than the linkspammer) asks me to on my talk page. Thanks, Kasreyn 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection for Bangladesh

I know today's featured articles are not normally semi-protected. However, Bangladesh has been hit with a slew of vandalism from several different new usernames, but with essentially the same blanking pattern. If a block doesn't take care of the vandals there, perhaps a semi-protection is needed. -- joturner 02:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright; it looks as though someone has taken care of it. Thanks. -- joturner 02:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A chain of at most 114 copyvio articles

I recently looked at opentasks and stumbled on this. The text seemed curiously blocky, so I inputted the text into google and found a summary, verbatim, at TV.com. Now, this would be a simple matter if it didn't appear that just about every other episode summary was a direct copyvio of the summary at TV.com. The copyright policy on TV.com here clearly states, "All materials published on our sites, including, but not limited to, written content, photographs, graphics, images, illustrations, marks, logos, sound or video clips, and Flash animation, are protected by our copyrights or trademarks or those of our partners. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or in any way exploit any of the materials or content on our sites in whole or in part"

This may be a long term thing, but each episode is possibly a copyvio. Looking through List_of_Scrubs_episodes, episode 1 does not appear to be copyvio, but 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all are blatant copyvio. This leads me to believe it is likely that each of the... *gulp* 114 episodes could be copyvio. I brought this up in IRC and it was suggested I bring this here, so here you go. What should be done, heh? Cowman109 04:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuke all the proven copyvios. With fire. —this is messedrocker (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good news; it appears that I did not look through the entire list of episodes, and it seems about two or three entire seasons don't have articles about the episodes, which means we may be dealing with only about 60 articles. Cowman109 04:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You should probably check User:Thricecube's other edits and warn them that failure to respect copryrights is a bannable offence. You don't need to list them all on WP:CP, just revert to the version before they added huge chunks of copyrighted text.--Peta 04:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that one user created the pages. I have left a note on Thricecube's talkpage and asked him to see the discussion here. The problem, however, is that many of them don't have information before the copyrighted text. Cowman109 05:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Scanning through his contributions, it appears that his Star Trek Voyager episode pages are similarly lifted mostly from TV.com. - TexasAndroid 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned out the violating material out of the Star Trek Voyager and Next Generation episode pages. I have also left a note at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Star Trek asking for people to rewrite some of the removed material into a non-violating form. - TexasAndroid 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am now bringing the copyvio discussion here, as the matter doesn't seem to require administrators. I have removed the copvio from the first season, and I will get to work on the others. Cowman109 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tor blocks

Since the implementation of anonymous-only blocks, I think it's time to review our policy of blocking Tor exit nodes. I believe that we are better off removing all Tor blocks and replacing them with anonymous only blocks with no account creation. It has also been suggested by User:Gmaxwell that we use a bot to update these blocks based on the list provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Comments are welcome. Werdna (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• yes, well, your "anonymous only" blocks seem to also be preventing account creation/use--172.144.86.145 06:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I support the unblocking of Tor, as it's the only way those in Mainland China can access Misplaced Pages. - Kookykman|(t)e

I'm ok with unblocking tor under previous access restrictions, the anon blocks and no account creation must me on in my books, though I wouldn't want to be the poor person who goes thru and does all of the blocks, I'll let someone else run a bot to do it -- Tawker 04:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd do it, but I don't have the sysop bit. Werdna (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Holy crappy educational comics, Batman! Fire the Curps-Signal! Will (message me!) 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Elonka Dunin

I have temporarily semi-protected the Elonka Dunin article due to an "anonymous" 172-based AOL IP editor stalking her and her edits on Misplaced Pages. If another administrator wishes to overturn this protection for any reason, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, I will be unprotecting it tomorrow afternoon when I have time. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no stalking going on. I'm not sure how someone can even come up with such nonsense. I went to that article last night, noted wayyy too much vanitycruft for an encyclopedia article, noted that Elonka herself was making suggestions on the talk page of what to do and suspicious edits. So I removed some of the fluff to make it more lean. Then I looked to see what linked there and found that some more strange edits managed to namedrop this individual across a lot of articles, many of which were really not at all appropriate. So I removed them. Today I noticed that my edits had been reverted by an account that was a clear sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Elonka's, and a Google search on the name provided there in combination with "ELonka" confirmed that the two people were friends. So I reverted the meatpuppet's edit, placed a warning on his talk page, and then suddenly the admin above accused me of stalking. So, what, anyone who makes a couple of edits is instantly a stalker? He then used this rationalization to lock the page against policy and to make false threats of vandalism. This is not how things should work here. 172.144.114.109 08:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection has been removed, but if a few folks would kindly add this article to their watchlist it would be appreciated. P.S. we're up to 423KB on WP:ANI right now, we might want to consider archiving some of the older incidents.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding context: the set of anon vandal edits almost certainly has to do with a popular cyberculture webcast called "Binary Revolution". I was a co-host on the program this week, and in one segment I was very vigorously defending Misplaced Pages . Evidently as a result, there's been an increase in anonymous attention/vandalism and attempted blanking on all of the BinRev-related articles, such as: Binary Revolution, Stankdawg, Strom Carlson, Black Ratchet, Digital DawgPound, my own bio, Elonka Dunin, and further activity on multiple pages which link to my bio page, such as my high school, birth city, and so forth. Sorry for the additional hassle! --Elonka 07:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh... nice idea, but, again, none of that is vandalism. I just feel that these articles for extremely minorly notable individuals were getting articles that seemed several levels above what was justified for encyclopedia articles, so I made the edits. I redirected minor personalities involved in those groups to the group page, with the thinking that the same info, pared down to more on topic information, would better meet notability requirements. Naming off a bunch of nicknames of hackers and extremely trivial bits of information on people hardly anyone has heard of was a bit silly. No vandalism happened. There was no special targeting. I did not listen to any radio show. I think the true context here is that Elonka and some friends of hers are treating the Misplaced Pages more like MySpace than an actual encyclopedia, and are stepping in to undo any attempts to make the articles they wrote about themselves more in line with how things are done here. It's unfortunate that there is a high level of paranoia going on that prejudges these edits as some sort of attack instead of needed and long overdue edits. I would suggest that Elonka here actually go read the Misplaced Pages:Vandalism policy before labeling edits as vandalism. 172.144.114.109 08:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate agreeing with anons I really have to say that he is right about this article. This is miles away from any of the subjects that I edit on wikipedia, and indeed miles away from anything that I am remotely familiar with, however it is obvious there does seem to be a great deal of self-promotion going on at the article. Since I have never heard of the woman there is no way for me to gauge her actual importance, but it is obvious from the way it is written that something fishy is going on, and I am sorry to say but the fact that she is even so involved with her own article really stinks of pretention. Since Can't Sleep, Clown will eat me is an admin that I respect, he is probably right that the anon was acting innappropriately as well, but I really think a few uninvolved editors really need to rewrite the entire article in question.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Urgent! User: DISH needs to be blocked ASAP

The user:DISH appears to be some sort of bot or malicious person inserting spam into Misplaced Pages articles and should be blocked immediately. This person or bot has inserted links to internet-scams into 13 articles (all dealing with satellites or satellite TV) within less than 2 hours. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/DISH

Roland1989 06:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put it here Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Alerts you usually get faster responses there.--Crossmr 06:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for spamming, link blacklisted. The username makes it pretty obvious they were here to do link addition for commercial purposes. Essjay (Talk) 11:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ste4k

I'm not sure how to handle this user. Also see the contibutions.
I'm just completely and utterly tired of this user and their "attitude". I just wanted to bring it to your attention. I'm on vacation, I shouldn't even be here. --mboverload@ 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been dealing with this user for a while without significant problems, I think she has a slight tendency to be paranoid about stuff on WP. I'll have a chat. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Off topic - why the scure link for the contributions? - brenneman 12:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I was over an unsecure wireless network =D --mboverload@ 21:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think JzG's interactions with Ste4k represent the exception to the rule. Look at her talk page (which she has repeatedly removed comments from) and her bizarre arguments on Talk:Endeavor Academy. User:Antaeus Feldspar posted a good summary of her actions on this page, but it was archived. I'm not sure what to do about her either, but something needs to be done. --Nscheffey 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:The Mad Bomber first ever Rfa candidate to be blocked during candidacy?

Hello everybody. I have blocked this user during his RfA after he made innappropriate comments which may invoke thoughts of the T word and also the R word. I previously blocked him for a week in June for the latter. Is this a proper process or a denial of justice for the candidate? Blnguyen | rant-line 08:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not the first blocked RfA candidate: HolyRomanEmperor was briefly blocked indefinitely after it was reported he had died. (The block was lifted and then the RfA was closed). That said, a bureaucrat or rouge admin should close this immediately. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Some diffs would be helpful BLN, thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Read his RFA. I don't think you'll be needing any further diffs. - Nunh-huh 08:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just read the RfA page ... say no more. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, Jesus on Wheels was also blocked indefinitely during his RfA. Anyway, an RfA shouldn't be a window of opportunity for trolling without consequence. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A message on the user's talk page saying they have been blocked (with some diffs) perhaps? Just for the sake of convention. - brenneman 08:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the RFA should be, in my opinion, for trolling, and not the personal attacks. The candidate's usage of "nigga" and overuse of profanity was probably a childish imitation of rapper talk, so NPA isn't really applicable on the RFA. However, it was a completely unserious RFA designed to troll, to give the candidate another opportunity to play. The RFA needed to be removed to not feed the trolls and because, under early removal, the pro/con voting was 0 - 15 after :30. There was no chance. As for the block, it's wholly appropriate for vandalism and trolling. Geogre 11:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been closed; my stated reason was that it was invalid, but it would have been closed early in any event as it had over 75% opposition, and I close any RfA that passes 75% opposition. Essjay (Talk) 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Similar nonsense bios

I'm currently doing CSD deletions and I came across James Wamble whose article looks very much like the one I deleted about Derny Bullard a few minutes ago. I think it's obvious the creators are sockpuppets or a group of people behind one computer having fun... Can someone else see if they can find more such articles? Should I request a sockpuppet check to avoid any new accounts from these people? Otherwise we may still be deleting next week. - Mgm| 09:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Creators: Jamesisnotbi (talk · contribs) and Yolkherring (talk · contribs) - Mgm| 09:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• And let's add Seatsbk06 (talk · contribs) to the list. - Mgm| 09:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• User:Dernybullard just created Brad Noland. - Mgm| 10:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who found these 3 articles by chance by checking what pages link to Regis Philbin. I also found Trapped in the Pantry and Josh Paisant yesterday. Plus they seemed to be reposted from the deleted George DeWalt article mentioned in the Pantry discussion. It's some odd behavior, indeed. Tinlinkin 10:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Derny bullard has just come up. Tinlinkin 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing it out. I've requested a checkuser to stop the creation of sock accounts from that IP. It is obviously the same person. - Mgm| 10:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'm anxious to see how this pans out. Tinlinkin 10:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• As suspected several users were sockpuppets. Although there were two distinct groups between which a relationship was inconclusive. Essjay banned the IPs behind the lot. (Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nonsense bios) -Mgm| 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dyslexic agnostic is banned from editing User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

User:Dyslexic agnostic is banned from editing User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow or any page in T-Man's user space for six months. He has been made aware that such edits to T-Man's page inflame a delicate situation between the two users and so I have taken this step in the hope that circumstances will resolve themselves whilst maintaining an even keel. The ban is issued per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. Steve block Talk 10:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Socafan

A bit of an issue with Socafan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Lance Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have a lid on it at the moment, I think, but the usual "OMG! CENSORSHIP!" reaction to removal of POV statement of allegations against a living individual is in evidence. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• User reported my removal of this content at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:JzG_reported_by_User:Socafan. Just zis Guy you know? 11:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin threatened to block me for providing factual information to an article, refused to use talk, and now added racism to this. Socafan 11:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think everybody here will understand the precise form that "factual information" usually takes in edit wars on biographies of living people. And this is no exception. Refused to talk? complete bollocks. Actually the very opposite is true: I toled you to take it to Talk, and there is ongoing discussion on your Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked 15 minutes for continued addition of factual content to an already overloaded and POV tagged Criticism section. Messages left on Talk and User talk indicating how this should proceed. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons appears very applicable in this case. (→Netscott) 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG blocked me while in a conflict of interest, after 5 reverts deleting factual information we even have in our own articles with many sources. Did not apologize for racist comment. Socafan 12:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying someone is demonstrating "racism" is a very serious charge. JzG's language was entirely and quite clearly (imho) satirical and in jest. (→Netscott) 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

He claimed the French would treat Armstrong differently because he is American and then called them "cheese eating surrender monkeys". Socafan 12:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not from the U.S. or England... but that is a well known comedic and satirical phrase in these countries. Besides look at this section of "French people". There is hardly an ethnicity (nevermind race) that is truly "French" these days. (→Netscott) 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Racism allegations cannot be countered by "there are no races". There never were. But there is racism. The comment clearly was derogatory towards the French, and the user repeatedly uses condescending language. Socafan 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What I pointed out was the absurdity of suggesting that the French-dominated Union Cycliste Internationale would allow the conservative American Lance Armstrong, a friend of Shrub, to evade a drugs ban. At the time there was much bad blood between the USA and France; the term cheese eating surrender monkeys is associated with this bad blood in the public mind.

What we have here is a simple case of Wikilawyering. Rather than coming up with the usual tripe about "suppressing information" (and believe me, we all groan out loud when we hear those words) you could instead have accepted my suggestion that you explore, on the article's Talk page, a properly neutral way of covering the issue - and indeed a way of fixing the rest of the section, which is POV tagged for reasons which are bliningly obvious. You might not care if the Foundation gets a call from Armstrong's lawyers, we do. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy does come to mind at this point. ;-) (→Netscott) 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin ignored wikipedia rules by posting at third opinion again with derogatory language, discussed and signed although this is expressly forbidden at the page: . The information I provided is well sourced, and removing it is POV. Socafan 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, might I suggest taking a bit of time out... Get away from the computer for a spell and come back with a fresh head. You seem to be in quite a tizz about nothing much, and if you think that's racism then you've had a sheltered life. /wangi 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well said. This person has now posted a heavily editorialised version of events at WP:3O, and is edit warring (who could have predicted that?) over any comment made to offset his editorialising. At the begining I thought this was just someone carrid away by zeal to include some fact they'd newly discovered. By now I am convinced this is a simple POV push. I think I will go over and rewrite the POV section myself. Just zis Guy you know? 13:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Making condescending remarks about nationals of other countries is unacceptable. And the main point is that this user removes factual information, violating several wikipedia policies (3RR, do not block when in a conflict of interest, NPOV, assume good faith, do not discuss or sign at Third Opinion). Socafan 13:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, instead of arm-waving and Wikilawyering, I went and fixed the article. Just zis Guy you know? 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, chaps. Socafan is now removing comments from his Talk page with an edit summary of "trolling". This includes replies, comments re editing of articles, warnigs etc. . I think it might be time for someone to wield a clue-by-four. Just zis Guy you know? 14:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly thinking that this person needs to "cool off" a bit, say for like 24 hours. (→Netscott) 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

His edit war with you at Lance Armstrong makes that a no-brainer. Just zis Guy you know? 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of blocking while in a conflict of interest, breaking the three revert rule and boycotting dispute resolution I filed an arbitration case. Crony Netscott is already informed. Socafan 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling a fellow editor a "crony" is a double personal attack. In that statement the first party is a "thug" and the "crony" is his accomplice. I suspect that User:Socafan will be blocked again before too long. (→Netscott) 00:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Of note: From my understanding of these events, User:Theresa knott, User:Tom harrison, User:JesseW and myself were in general agreement surrounding User:JzG actions relative to User:Socafan and the Lance Armstrong article. (→Netscott) 01:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott and JzG exchange derogatory comments about the French and me, JzG uses Netscott's revert war on my talk page to block me as suggested here by Netscott, and then Netscott complains if I call him JzG's crony? Socafan 01:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all a conspiracy and you are entirely blameless. Or not. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Frosites Kid page

Hi, I have as of late noticed that Wikipediatrix has been constantly changing and adapting ana rticle to suit her POV. After several attempts to reason with her by other users and myself in Talk:The_Frosties_Kid she has blatantly disregarded anyone's input and the fact that this article is based on a true subject. On top of this she turns the argument around by making everyone else appear guilty of being in the wrong. It is eveident that she has no knowedge no cares to learn about the subject that the article relates. Please could you take care of this matter in the best manner seeing as I have no other solution. Piecraft 11:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Article protected. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

137.158.128.106

The user currently running off 137.158.128.106 has an interesting history of revisions, it's pretty common to see the revisions as being very POV Special:Contributions&target=137.158.128.106 and are gradually being rolled back, piece by piece. Could someone perhaps lart? --Blowdart 12:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Rule Britannia!

Obvious sock of the torchwood vandal. --Quentin Smith 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Naconkantari 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

reposting of thread User:SirIsaacBrock

AN/I thread

Administrator's noticeboard is not a discussion forum -- Drini 05:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet when concensus is to do the not-so-right-thing... ;) -- Drini 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Exhausted the Community's patience Ban of User:SirIsaacBrock

The follow text is copied verbatim from User:Tony Sidaway's talk page:

Surprise, surprise. Look who's back: SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Now do we want to continue to assume good faith and say that User:Porky Pig/User:SirIsaacBrock wasn't outright lying when he denied the sockpuppet nature of User:Porky Pig? And what does he do now that he's back? Starts taunting yours truly about the "fact" that I'm an "anti-Semite". Tony Sidaway, given the apparent long term disruptive nature and block evasion of this individual shouldn't he be re-blocked for an extended period of time (preferrably indefinitely)? Thanks Netscott 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very complex issue and I hope you will seek out advice from people other than me. What follows is my personal opinion, but I won't get involved in enforcement on the basis of my own sketchy knowledge.

The return of this editor is a cause for concern. Ensure that he really is a sock of Porky Pig, and if so, and he's been as abusive as you have given me cause to believe, then you'll have no problem obtaining a community ban. In the unlikely event that the ban should fail muster, just take him to the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, given the further trollish commentary that he's posted to User:Tom harrison I think your view is 100% correct. Would you kindly make commentary corresponding to your view on the latest ANI post about his block evasion? Thanks. Netscott 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please copy verbatim and in full with my permission. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One sockpuppet User:Porky Pig (and corresponding lie) confirmed, three more to come. (→Netscott) 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He has returned to inserting crufty descriptions of not notable fights between dogs and what not into various article that were questionable when he first wrote them without sources. Shouldn't users on the return from long blocks be expected to have reformed somewhat? Is this a case for ArbComm? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Given his behavior, I think a nice long block would be in order here. Certainly his harassment of editors (for having been given particular barnstars, no less!) has to stop; whether he'd prefer to do so of his own volition is up to him. Kirill Lokshin 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Given his already demonstrated behavior and the associated behavior mentioned in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/WritersCramp with the corresponding block logs of the sockpuppets mentioned there below it is not unreasonable to enforce a community ban on this editor:

• WritersCramp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• LaLa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• LaLa1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Endurance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Willy_O'Brien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Elf-Masher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) note indefinitely blocked as an attack username against User:Elf mentioned on the RfC.
• Battlefield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• PigShit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• BionicBoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(→Netscott) 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Of these, Battlefield seems to be the only one currently contributing. The others are all dormant, and we don't want them any other way. Just zis Guy you know? 20:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SirIsaacBrock Fan Club Members

Did anyone notice that most of the individuals involved in this discussion are people I have debated at the Category:Anti-Semitic people talk page and might have the Islamic Barnstar image on their User Page ? It seems many of them have sour grapes that they keep losing the votes to close and rename the group and are hitting back at me "By any means necessary" -:) SirIsaacBrock 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• User:Hipocrite alias sockpuppet User:Hpuppet

Does this call for a life time ban too ? Would it be be hippo-critical to accuse someone of something they have done themself ? -:) Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I for one have nothing to do with Wikiproject Islam and do not have an Islamic Barnstar. I merely oppose your edits and support blocking you because I have seen few editors more disruptive than you in my time at Misplaced Pages. (I'd say Thewolfstar is the only one who tops you.) Your belief that anyone who opposes you on cat:Anti-Semitic people and related articles must be an "anti-semite" is an example of your demonstrated routine failure to assume good faith, and your neverending personal attacks, such as (incorrectly) calling netscott a "spammer" when the section heading he wrote was factually accurate at the time he wrote it, are the principle reasons why I support the idea of such a block. Your attempt to escape your past as User:Porky Pig failed, and so now you blame the poor reception your personal attacks has earned you on a past vote. I'd like to point out that none of the other editors who sided with you on the delete vote have been blocked that I know of, and many of them still participate collegially with those of us who voted to delete the category. The odd one out in this equation is you. I suggest ceasing the personal attacks, ceasing to assume bad faith, and working with us. Cheers, Kasreyn 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  Amusingly, another editor has come to almost exactly the same conclusion about SIB's editing style. Funny how two separate editors who've never met before could come to the same conclusions independantly, eh SIB? Don't worry, I'm sure it's all just a massive anti-semitic conspiracy against you. ¬_¬ Kasreyn 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Based upon the above evidence, short of an Exhausted the community's patience ban, this editor should abide by his own previous statement, "CLOSE MY FUCKING ACCOUNT NOW !!! I QUIT THIS SHIT-HOLE !!" and return to the "I QUIT" state. (→Netscott) 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely say "Not here to help build the encyclopedia". "Abusive sock farm" fits well, too. An indefinte block seems just right to me. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

• Brock has also used the administrator WP:AIV page to have me blocked when I was editing his high school article (I was adding an infobox to the school article). There are a few cases mentionned above of improper use of AIV, but my name was not one of the ones listed. I have in the past gone through a large section of Brock's contributions, and there are easily-detected patterns of:

1. improper edit summaries, with comments about reverting "spammer" or "vandal" if SIB doesn't like the previous edit
2. if SIB doesn't like a talk comment, he typically posts on that user's page telling them to "stop spamming" him, or tells users to keep "McOpinions" to themselves
3. abusive comments are typically signed "Cordially"
4. small bound of interest; does not edit all over Misplaced Pages, but typically acts like he WP:OWNS articles about dogs, baiting, some army/warfare, and an obvious fascination with the anti-semitic category

I would support a ban or action taken against this user from my previous experience with this user. In the 4 or 5 months in which our paths crossed several times, all incidents were negative experiences. My talk archive contains the details of my run-ins with this user. FWIW, I'd also look at User:Battlefield -- through this account is currently dormant, I suspect it is also another account for this same user (for example, ). --Stephane Charette 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen enough. I support the blocking of this user as an abusive sockpuppeteer. --InShaneee 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely. More than enough - I have blocked him. WP:ROUGE applies, as ever. I will also block the sockfarm. Just zis Guy you know? 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be too hasty; I'd like to maintain a balance between the users who call me an anti-Muslim racist and those who say I'm a pro-Muslim anti-semite. ;-) Tom Harrison 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very unhappy with his edits here, but content to allow you to modify or remove the block as you see fit since you have more experience of this particular editor. Please feel free to unblock. Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

From being familiar with the history of Tom Harrision's own blocking of this individual it is fairly safe to say that his comments are examples of sarcasm. :-) (→Netscott) 13:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was meant as sarcasm. Sorry, I'm not very good at it. Maybe I need to practice more. Block him, all his socks, and his little dog too. Tom Harrison 15:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See, even the arch-Brit can fire up the brain with the irony filter disabled sometimes ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New tools for everyone to play with ..

{{subst:User:AOL user/cab|{{PAGENAME}}}}--AOL user 17:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Which has now been worked into Template:Blockeduser (: AOL user 17:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ditto for Template:Indefblockeduser --AOL user 17:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• and also Template:Userblocked {{Userblocked|User name goes here}}--AOL user 17:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo

I've been thinking of not just reverting, but deleting, his contributions. Any thoughts? Tom Harrison 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo (talk · contribs), for reference. Powers 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.Tom Harrison 19:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Anon IP 82.133.83.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making legal threats here and here. It is a static DSL IP so a block or ban will not impact innocent users.--Isotope23 18:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User already was blocked 24 hours and has not edited since. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah so they were... missed that. Thanks.--Isotope23 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson reverting Kitty May Ellis stuff

Wjhonson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Hi guys, as a result of this deletion review, I changed my closure of this AfD (and deleted "Kitty May Ellis") and removed all quotations of her works from various articles. Wjhonson is reverting my edits. Now, I've already warned the user about revert-warring, but since I don't want to get into this revert war myself without knowing whether I'm in the right, I thought I'd make a note here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A deletion review that was not consensus. My article was a professionally-writen, complete and thoroughly-cited biography. A few attackers kept stating over and over the sources weren't verifiable, which is incorrect. Every source I used for the statements is verifiable and previously published in a reliable source. The deletion *review* came to an incorrect conclusion and there is no reason I should be penalized for trying to expand, valid and useful content on wikipedia. All the sources I used were posted to the article, and the quality was far superior, in my opinion, to the majority of biographies on here. And again every source is verifiable, the attackers took no attempt to even try to verify my sources. Wjhonson 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now, for the first time, been given the opportunity to read the this deletion review. I go to bed with KEEP, I wake up and everything I worked on for the past week — every single quote, every reference to this very notable person has been wiped by Deathphoenix. The sources are on wikisource, a sister project, and have been accepted there as documents of historical interest. Aside from that, I have posted portions of those quotes to various genealogical and history boards for the various communities and names mentioned, and each has expressed great interest in this source. And yet, one of the remarks on the review is that this person is not notable. It's relatively hard to reconcile the two positions. One person, a descendent of Chief Joseph wrote with profuse thanks that there is yet another source on her ancestor. The mere fact that a person is not universally known, is not a sufficient reason for stating that person is not *notable*. The notability page I would add, states that a person is also notable if they *should* be more widely known. If nothing else, this person should pass on that criteria. Wjhonson 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have some experience with genealogy. What are the links at wikisource so I can look it over? Never mind. This belongs on Wjohnson's talk page and DRV. Thatcher131 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Panairjdde blocked

I'm not clear just how this burr got under his saddle, but Panairjdde needs some time to cool off & reflect on his behavior.

History: As you may have noticed, he's been involved in an edit war at Montanism over whether the letters "AD" should appear in the article (after the words "second century") because they are redundant. He has also been removing this abbreviation entirely from many other articles apparently for the same reason. Panairjdde argued at Talk:Montanism that the Manual of Style gave him the right to remove this term; however, various editors who disagreed with this interpretation must have presented a good case, because he immediately proposed at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) a change in the guidelines that would support his interpretation.

(Warning: here I became involved, & pointing to Panairjdde that redundancy was not the most convincing argument justifying his deletion of "AD" entirely from articles, & pointed to the guidelines at WP:BEANS. I tried to keep my tone friendly & non-confrontational. I also asked him if there was another reason for his dislike of this term, but never saw an answer.)

Last night I saw that Panairjdde had announced that he dropping the matter, & thought that was the end of the matter. This morning, I noticed that he had made these edits to Honorius (emperor), adding "AD" before every appearance of a year. Here I felt he had stepped over the line & caused a disruption to make a point, so I left this warning on his talk page. (Afterwards, I saw that he had engaged in reversion wars over this usage at the article on Pope Stephen II, his third reversion in 24 hours, & at Pope-elect Stephen third reversion here in 24 hours. It had no effect, as shown by his response, & that he immediately moved to another article. I admit that in these examples he was stopping just short of a clear violation, but the intent overshadows his attention to the letter of the rules.

PS -- From this, it appears he might not be willing to listen to me. Anyone else want to attempt to reason with him? -- llywrch 19:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments (maybe even a scapegoat is allowed to present its own POV):

1. "various editors who disagreed with this interpretation must have presented a good case" They did not, since we kept discussing. But my point was never (never) disrupting Misplaced Pages, on which I have been working since 2002. Just because a lot of people did not like the way I was editing (and a few even said I was right) I asked for third opinion and a MoS modification to let the rule be clearer.
2. "I also asked him if there was another reason for his dislike of this term, but never saw an answer." I answered you, pointing out that my change proposal was against redundancy, not against AD (in the AD/CE diatribe, I am for BC/AD and against BCE/CE), so it included AD and CE.
3. As regards "dropping the matter", I asked to be allowed to apply the MoS with the same degree of liberty CodexSinaiticus (the user I started to edit war agains in Montanism, after several other "redundant Ad" removals found no opposition). Since this right was not granted, I decided to change position, and do what Codex Sinaiticus have been doing in all his edits, that is adding AD wherever possible (and note that CS adopts this policy because he want to push a religious POV, as you can see from his talk page and edits).
4. None of my edits disrupted anything. If anyone is able to show me that I disrupted anything, I shall disappear totally from Misplaced Pages. The problem is that llywrch did not find it good to point to any disruptiveness (I was just adding ADs in front of the years, as well as doing other uncontroversial edits). I also asked him why the same kind of edit was disruptiveness when I did it and not when Codex Sinaiticus did (no answer, of course).
5. It is also the second time, at least, that an administrator blocks me out of no reason. I was good the first time, waited for the block to expire, discussed with him, and in the end he recognized I was right and the block was wrong (User_talk:Panairjdde/Archive2#Block_for_violation_of_3RR, end of the post).

In the end, I did (not Codex Sinaiticus did, or any of those writing "settle this matter trough consensus" did) all I could do to settle this matter within WP rules. But, when I acted according to the "rules" set by a stubborn user (CS) and by the indifference of everybody to the matter, I got blocked.

If this will end without llywrch excuses, I kindly ask you to block me forever. Thanks alot.--151.47.126.70 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Panairjdde, out of block)

• Comment In the interests of honesty you should probably add that you have evaded your block by continuing to edit several of the articles as User:151.47.99.146, including Edict of Milan with the illuminating edit summary "I am Panairjdde, and I am not experimenting" in response to my level 1 warning. --Guinnog 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, because in no case I wanted to hide the fact that it was me who was doing those edits. I feel I was kind and nice the whole time, and got treated bad, by you, llywrch and others. Since being nice on WP does not pay, I feel free to act in the way I see best, taking my responsabilities, by signing my IP-address posts like in your case and in the comment above, because I feel I am right.--151.47.126.70 20:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Panairjdde, out of block)

See Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry. --Guinnog 20:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you even read my posts? Quote for some lines above "If this will end without llywrch excuses, I kindly ask you to block me forever".--151.47.126.70 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Panairjdde, out of block, and knowing this "the situation worse")

• Response: I just reviewed the discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Alternative proposal for section "Eras" & User talk:Panairjdde#Year dates just to be sure I didn't miss anything. This is your response to me at the MOS talk page:

Looks like my proposal got no support. Fine. At least acknowledge I am allowed to remove redundant AD is I feel like.

I read that as dropping the matter.

And your next words, before I had a chance to respond to the above were:

It seems like you are not realistic. All of these started because I removed ADs from an article in which all of the years were AD, and I ensured the sentences were clearly worded. See Montanism and Paul of Tarsus. Since there is no consensus in claiming that redundancy is a reason to remove ADs in itself, I shall play it safe and allow/add ADs wherever it is possible, even beyond 1st millennium.

That doesn't read to me as if you were engaging in a discussion. You threw down an ultimatum & started doing what you promised. And what is it with this black/white thinking? Your point seems to be that either there be no use of "AD" or it should always be used, despite style & convention. People were trying to convince you that there was a third solution -- that there should be some use -- but you were too impatient to listen.

And this is your response to me from your talk page:

(First paragraph snipped)

Now, how do you dare removing my ADs from Honorius (emperor)? In which your edit is different from Codex Sinaiticus' ones in Montanism? Why the same rule is applied liberally to CS, and restrictively to me?

In the end, if you feel like I am "disrupting" (but you should be sure it is a disruption, and I don't see why my version of Honorius article is disrupted), you are free to adopt whatever action you like. Being "nice" does not pay on Misplaced Pages, this is what I learnt in the last years here.

I have enough of retreating in front of stubborn editors like CS, who have their views only because they do not actually want to collaborate, but to make their POVs prevail: I am going to start being stubborn myself. Whatever it takes.

I removed your edits from the article because you were pushing your point ad absurdum -- which is the core of WP:POINT. Stop being disingenuous. Your edits are silly & you know it.

This matter is not about Codex Sinaiticus or what she did; at worst the dispute at Montanism would have ended up at WP:LAME. If you believe she's misbehaving, there's a wide variety of options to use to grieve the matter. But she dropped out of the picture when you announced you were about to launch an edit war, & editted several articles to prove your point -- & came close to a pair of 3RR violations. And now you are still making changes to Misplaced Pages as an anon.

I have tried hard to be nice about the matter, & to show some understanding, but it's obviously not working with you. I'll be blunt now: grow up or leave Misplaced Pages. I'll feel the same way about which of these two options you follow. -- llywrch 21:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I truly believe you are twisting the events to fit your POV, now you understood you were wrong on the matter. If this is absurd or silly, I would like to know why this is not. I already asked you this twice, but you forgot to answer, funny.

I looked for consensus, there was none, I applied the policy coming out, which says it is upon the editor. This is not black/white, this is either I am allowed to do what I see fit, or none is. Same rules for all editors.

"If you believe she's misbehaving, there's a wide variety of options to use to grieve the matter." I tried them all, and the result was that her behaviour was correct. I simply applied it (again, see this and this). The fact that you blocked me and not her means that the rules are not the same for both of us?

As regards "And your next words, before I had a chance to respond to the above were" bit, I got an answer to my preceeding post, which was sort of "do your edits leaving the article clean, and probably noone complained", a mockery about was happening in Montanism, don't you think? You forgot to put this too, funny. However, the result was that the style/convention is on the editor taste, and I applied mine.

As regards making changes as anonymous, it is because you kindly blocked my account. I could not do it otherwise.

As regards being nice, note this "nicenesses" of yours:

I'm asking you to stop this disruption immediately. Obviously, you have an issue with the style "AD" for reasons other than redundancy; I would suggest you spend your efforts on explaning them in the appropriate place. If you ignore this request, as an Admin I will be forced to take appropriate actions. I sincerely hope that this will not be necessary.

In a single post you are accusing me to do disruption (thing you still have to motivate), accusing me to have issues (thing you still have to prove), mock me after the long effort to settle this matter through WP means, menacing me. I hope you will be more nice when you "grow up" (thanks again).

I do care about this, otherwise I would not be here answering to you. But it takes two persons willing to settle the matter for a discussion, and in none of your posts to me (talk page and here) I see your will to settle the matter. --151.47.126.70 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And my alleged mistreatment of you justifies your use of three sockpuppets in the last few hours to circumvent this block? You were banned for throwing a tantrum worthy of any four-year old, & I gave you a timeout -- just like any four-year old would get. And you threw this tantrum because people did not approve of your deletion of "AD"! There might be sillier things worth risking a 24-hour ban over, but I can't think of one.

To repeat myself Panairjdde, why did you originally want to delete all use of "AD" in an article? And when people thwarted these efforts, why did you start inserting "AD" into articles as much as possible? Does a little redundancy truly offend you this much? I honestly can't imagine why these letters mean so much to you, so so there has to be more to this issue than what you are writing. If you don't want to tell me -- well, there it is. But to risk so much over such a silly matter? There is no way I can understand this as adult or mature behavior.

If you stop creating sockpuppets, & just spend the 24 hours away from Misplaced Pages & your computer, the block will be over. And if you do that, I'll offer you a deal: prove to me that I misjudged you. Do these things: for the next 3 days do not make any "AD"-related edits -- don't worry, the articles will still be there after that many days; during this time, make substantial improvements to 15 articles in Misplaced Pages: Cleanup. If you want to shame me & show how you've been wronged, improve twice as many articles -- or three times as many. Do that, & I will genuinely apologize for mistreating you & misunderstanding you.

But in any case, make this block into a wikivacation; the world consists of a lot more than Misplaced Pages. The way you are behaving, you are going to end up causing yourself even more grief & frustration, & you may be blocked for good from Misplaced Pages. Other Admins are reading this & forming opinions. -- llywrch 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know a thing. User:Panairjdde no longer exists, the password was changed to a random one, and noone can login anymore.

A side question: is it possible to be sockpuppets of a non-existing user?--151.44.36.230 10:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure somebody at wikitruth.info is laughing for this. =_= ridiculous --necronudist 23:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Jersykohttp violation of 3RR

User:Jersykohttp has violated 3RR at Sufjan

Those reports go at WP:AN3. Also, please sign your posts. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Guidelines for Editing Freemasonry Related Articles

In so much as the policies are in place, by "WPs", already, and generally applied to all Misplaced Pages - why is the Freemasonry articles page(s) seen as a "special case" - and upon what authority? If the WPs need amending, then why not use the channels of communication set out for that purpose? I see no "moral authority to chastise someone who violates it" behond that given to everyone by the general WPs - indeed the special policy - as set out and interpreted already - looks much like a charter for a Police State separated from the rest of Misplaced Pages. When would the "legal" vendetta murders" start? :( In short Why is the above needed? Why not in good faith point out the generally agreed Wiki Policy documents, and rigorously use the consensus "disciplinary" protocols set out therein? Mousescribe 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Could you give some links to indicate what you are talking about? --Carnildo 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To Carnildo. I do not know how to link to the specific section, but see Freemasonry current talk page section "Proposed Guidelines for Editing Related Articles". This is quite important, in my view.

My 42 is in (Base 13)

Probably related to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Imacomp and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Imacomp. Thatcher131 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Try signing your stuff , and no its not, I just do not want a Police State set up as a special area in Wiki. I am allowed to raise a question with Admin. My 42 is in (Base 13) PS Copied from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Imacomp, "In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, . The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with My 42 is in (Base 13) 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC). If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC). I'm not Imacomp. My 42 is in (Base 13) 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you registered your account 2 days ago and have never edited any article, much less articles on Freemasonry, you obviously don't have anything to complain about, do you? Thatcher131 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see also sock discussion.ALR 21:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

(Yes do, as I'm not a sock either - try getting a factual sign-on protocol for editors here, "Witchfinder" with checkuser is no use.) So you agree officially with a Police State setup? It is not a complaint, it is a question on Wiki policy. Also if you are linking me to "Imacomp" you have done a "covert" checkuser to show I have the same IP address. Why not just ask? I feely tell you that I Have, "He" is my Grandpa, and the IP address a/c is with Blueyonder, under Grandma's name. Also Grandpa "Imacomp" is a Freemason, as is my Father "mousescribe" - and I am not. OK?. If you "like" the proposed special case @ Freemasonry, then I think I'd better look for a more direct route up to Jimbo Whales? My 42 is in (Base 13) 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any particular viewpoint on the discussion there. If you feel the other editors there are creating special policies that differ from normal wikipedia policy, the best place to bring it up is the Village Pump, for starters. Admins can delete articles and block users, but with respect to article content, they're just editors. There's no point in bringing the issue here unless you want someone blocked or something deleted. Thatcher131 23:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell it to Jimbo, I'm "Just a sock"(?) right? You could have just directed me to the “Village Pump” in the 1st place (?) I just cannot be bothered wasting any more life here, now  :( Lucky I did not use my real ID here. (Are the CIA goimg to track me now?) I would not want to be "murdered" by the so-called "Freemasons" (and not counting My family, I do not think any REAL ones actually Edit here, except the German "Irregular" one) This is a very sad place. Bye, and I'm sorry that "Jimbo's" idea has been so corrupted :( My 42 is in (Base 13) 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking?

While looking up information, I found myself "blocked". I'm not affiliated with Misplaced Pages or an editor, so I guess I don't understand what this means. I have looked up things with Widipedia before... and I wasn't blocked. I have no idea what this means... any help with clarification would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs) .

We can't help much, due to the way this page is structured, unless you sign your posts by typing four tildes (this character ~). Then we can see what IP you're using and find out why you got blocked. The most likely scenario is that you are an AOL or Netscape ISP user who was blocked as part of "collateral damage" when a vandal was getting stopped. If that's the case, people here will unblock you, but we have to know where to look. Geogre 03:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've signed for the anon user. From the block log, your guess about AOL vandal collateral damage appears to be on the money. Kasreyn 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

More inappropriate usernames

Someone needs to get around to blocking non-roman alphabet usernames filling up the new user log. Judging by the repeated hangeul characters, I'd venture to guess it's the same IP. For example:

• 드드드드드드드드드드드드드 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 가가가가가가가가가가가가가가가가가가가가가 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 상상상상상상상상상상상상상 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are a few more, too.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just done those three, and I'm currently looking for any more. Raven4x4x 00:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator provoking 3RR problem with bad behavior

This incident troubles me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive22#User:Xombie_reported_by_User:Mailer_Diablo_.28Result:_8h.29

Mr/Ms Diablo, who is an administrator, inserted a derogatory personal opinion regarding the subject of the article, more than once. Xombie, who was policing the article for such comments, since it involved a current event drawing much attention (the World Cup final) properly removed the Diablo posts, as well as those from other users. Diablo then complained about Xombie, listed as 3RR violations Xombie's clearly correct removal of inappropriate posts as well as some that were more debateable. William M. Connelly then blocked Xombie without giving him a chance to respond. The comments Xombie removed often bordered on vandalism. More important, the deletion of derogatory unsourced information from the biographies of living persons is an exception to the 3RR rule. The comments Xombie deleted either violated that directly or were derogatory personal opinions, which are even worse. He did not delete any appropriate, purely factual, sourced comments. One or two of the deletions were partially sourced, but the text went beyond the sources. I think this is an example of an administrator acting out of pique and ignoring the fact that his own postings violated Misplaced Pages policy. He should at least have been warned about the derogatory comments/living persons and edit warring involved. Xombie deserves an apology. VivianDarkbloom 23:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you Xombie? It would be a lot easier for you to be honest about your interest in this subject, and you relationship with these users.

And as another note, it is forbidden to use a sockpuppet for voting purposes, as you have. Perhaps we could make an exception if you identify your master account, but you have not done so, therefore your account is liable to be blocked.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On looking at the history, it appears to me that Mailer diablo acted correctly, and the material repeatedly removed by Xombie was not inappropriate. It also seems that many editors to this article grapple with spelling. --Jumbo 00:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

207.69.139.6

This user has continued to add in spoilers from the SmackDown tapings(specifically a title change) despite being warned over and over not to. He has several warnings on hig page but continues to add the title change before it airs tonight. TJ Spyke 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Spoilers" are not a concept that we shy away from. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. --InShaneee 20:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem at Lordi

81.153.160.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is removing the real names of the band members, and has declared its intent to continue doing so until it succeeds. As far as I can see this has happened a number of times before. Perhaps a block of the IP + semiprotection of the article may be appropriate. Tupsharru 00:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute. I've warned the IP about WP:3RR, and he will probably merit a block if he reverst again. Please read WP:VAND, Tupsharru, as this is most certainly not vandalism. --Sam Blanning 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We're up to the 18th or 19th time the same (presumably) POV pusher (two IPs and one username) removes the names of the band members in contrary to the the consensus version. I wonder when some admin is going to realize that this person isn't going to give up (and he will probably come back with new usernames or IPs). I would again suggest semiprotecting the article now and blocking UKLFC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for a day or two. Tupsharru 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- ChrisO 16:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

user:skull 'n' femers evading block with an army of sockpuppets

Can an admin please check out for the evidence of user:skull 'n' femers (a banned user by arbcom) and user:imacomp's army of sock which have been tormenting freemasonry. Also please see the Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Imacomp against Imacomp to see the huge amount of problems we have had with him, not including his army of socks.

it's user:Skull 'n' Femurs, check your spelling. and please sign your posts with ~~~~ so that we may see who is posting them without looking in the page history. ~Chris 11:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Complete removal of history of user page

This page history used to be huge. Someone completely emptied any history in it. Can someone explain this? --mboverload@ 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"View or restore 91 deleted edits?" Raul654 01:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Users may ask to have their pages deleted. See Misplaced Pages:User page. -Will Beback 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I didn't realize that included the history. --mboverload@ 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Raul, only Admins can see erased histories....or perhaps you thought mboverload was an admin? A user, as well as an anon, sees a very abridged edit history.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but anyone can see the log. Misplaced Pages was designed so everything would be logged, and no one is out of the loop. There is an exception to this fundamental rule, with oversight. Honestly, although I understand why, I don't like it. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Prodego 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS aside, stop and think for a moment about what is user-specified, could contain personal information, and showed up in the oversight log before it was made private. If you can't figure it out, email me and I'll explain. Really, there isn't sinister intent to *everything* that happens around here. Essjay (Talk) 07:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Right...bwa ha ha.....the cabal wins again! No, seriously, I support this idea, anything that protects users from snoops at Hivemind and Wikitruth can't be evil...and with Essjay at the wheel, I'm not really worried about oversight. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu is back

Just popped up as NightmareChase27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Circeus 02:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the user Leyasu is in England and the NightmareChase account is in America, it seems somewhat ridiculous. Circues has also banned people from Brazil, Argentina and France claiming they are Leyasu as well. This is getting beyond a joke with this admin. As unless Leyasu is mystically hoping all around the globe, then Circues is abusing his admin powers. After checking his contributions as well, it isnt just articles relating to Leyasu that he is banning people from editing when they make an edit that doesnt agree with his own POV on a subject. Someone needs to do something about this admin. Metal Maiden 676 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the above user's second edit. Isopropyl 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hum... My Leyasu sense is tingling. Metal Maiden 676 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is displaying an incredible knowledge of the history of Heavy Metal pages (Even I have no idea where exactly is the poll she is refering to here). Also, MetalsMainLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a similar username, has been blocked as a sockpuppet back in June. Observe also that this new user can already tell who blocked another user she apparently has no connection with. I rest my case. Circeus 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And you know the locations of these editors ... how? User:Zoe| 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Damburger Personal Attacks

The user has been making personal attacks to other users.

I understand how someone as ignorant as yourself is desperate to silence those with contrary opinions, but now you are being fucking pathetic. Every time I post something to that page you remove it and are now threatening me with a block merely for voicing my opinion. Congratulations on being a Fascist. Damburger 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "common knowledge" at all, outside of your Rambo fantasies. Damburger 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The user who is being harassed is an admin but will likely be attacked as "abusing his admin privleges" if he attempts to give a temporary block to this user. So I suggest that a neutral third party enter this.--Jersey Devil 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. Naconkantari 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I spoke to him on IRC yesterday and tried to explain that, yes, he was making personal attacks and the admin wasn't being abusive by removing the comments. He didn't get it. Concur with a slap on the wrist, since it seems to have persisted Shimgray | talk | 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Satris

User:Satris is repeatedly removing 'wikify' and 'unreferenced' tags from several articles, and reinserting commercial links and endorsements into Laser hair removal. He is on the verge of violating 3RR (if he hasn't already, by now) on several articles. I have left several messages on his talk page, but he has not responded, and has not changed his behavior. I've reverted him enough for tonight, and I want to go to bed. Could someone keep an eye on him, please? -- Donald Albury 03:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't issued a warning, yet, but I'm about to. He does seem to have very narrow interests -- something called Ten O'Clock Classics, which he bolsters a great deal, and laser defoliation. The removals of tags seem to be a very naive form of OWN, too. If he continues after the warning (I won't watchlist him), please flag the mediation folks to see if he'll respond. If he doesn't respond and keeps going, then he's probably not here to help the encyclopedia, but rather to advertise. Geogre 03:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I now see he's in the time-out corner for 3RR and blanking an AfD page. Repeat offenses will up the blocks (and he has 4 warnings). Geogre 03:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, all. It looks like we had a good community response on this. -- Donald Albury 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:216.143.138.153

216.143.138.153 (talk · contribs)

POV-pushing troll, possible repeated libel , general purpose persistent disrupter. Phr (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given him his last warning, if he continues he'll be blocked. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Charhally

Charhally (talk · contribs)

Spamming Misplaced Pages with unencyclopedic articles about Wake Forest University (such as Wake Forest Study Abroad Programs, Wake Forest Greek Life, Wake Forest Undergraduate Student Housing, Four Years at Wake Forest) at a rate that reached one new article a minute. Many of these are likely copyright violations from offline print sources (possibly promotional material from the school), and those that aren't are likely OR. He also spammed Wikimedia with 50+ Wake Forest images, all unsourced. He was blocked on Wikimedia for repeatedly uploading unsourced images, and after the block expired he "corrected" the problem by erroneously tagging all the images GPL (which only applies to software), and still did not add any source info. I've alerted the Wikimedia admin that blocked him the last time, but I'm sure they could also use some help tagging the images as unsourced. He may just need some help at this stage, but unless he puts on the brakes long enough to actually notice what this site is about, he's just going to be disruptive. Postdlf 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

Sussexman

Unless you can positively prove that Sussexman has any real input into actually issuing legal proceedings against anyone on Misplaced Pages this block is out of order. Blocking someone for pointing out that others are possibly breaking laws by what they are saying here is wrong. In fact it should be encouraged. Why not lift the ban and see how matters progress with Sussexman himself. 213.122.87.43 08:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 13:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NLT. Will (message me!) 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that Sussexman appears to have close links with an entire kookhive of anon-IP users, two of whom I've had to block for making some quite vicious personal attacks, I think I'll pass on this too... -- ChrisO 17:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik at it again (delinking of dates)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Igor_Stravinsky&diff=63935100&oldid=63723629
• Bobblewik (talk · contribs) has been warned before not to delink dates on the Igor Stravinsky article (21 May 2006 - this prior warning led to Bobblewik being blocked for a week

Afaik, Bobblewik never showed any commitment to stop delinking of dates in places where this is perceived as contentious. Afaik, Bobblewik continues to be clueless when such delinking is perceived contentious and when it isn't.

Further, Bobblewik ignores the consensus reached on the current guideline formulation (WP:MOSDATE#Partial dates):

Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader. Some advocate linking to a more specific article about that year, for example ].

Requesting a block that is more significant than the previous one. --Francis Schonken 10:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That particular piece of text states what different people believe, as for as I know that's not a concensus. - Mgm| 14:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month. - Mgm| 11:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The speed he edits with suggests he's using an unauthorized bot. You can't find and delink the dates in over 4 articles by hand in a single minute even if you use tabbed browsing. - Mgm| 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone with tab experience help with reverting his contributions where needed? - Mgm| 11:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• The trouble is, 90% or more of his edits are good ones. The way dates are indiscrimately linked in some articles is very hard on the eye and adds no functionality. What would be wrong with 'letting nature take its course' and only restoring the (very few) dates which have any value to the articles whatsoever, rather than reverting?
• Francis, you didn't warn Bobblewik in any way before bringing this here (or at least I couldn't see any sign on his talk page that you had). Is that proper? Is repeatedly calling him 'clueless'? He may be many things but clueless probably isn't one of them. Please, be WP:CIVIL. --Guinnog 11:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This user has a very long history of following his own agenda with regard to standardising articles according to his perception of Misplaced Pages MoS guidelines with regard to dates, weights and measures, country names and other similar matters. He usually does so without regard to whether the prior text is contextually useful or accurate and has a long history of upsetting users by continually re-changing the text on pages that have been reverted by major contributors to those particular pages. Jooler 11:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to those specific points: he's been repeating the removals on multiple passes through the same articles, even where the edits were reverted previously (as in the Stravinsky case). As for warnings, it's not as if he doesn't know this is a problem for many editors. And given the speed at which he edits, speed of response is probably of the essence. Henry 11:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate what both of you are saying. I chose this edit at random as a sample of what he has been doing.

He has delinked three years, one of which was linked twice (!) for a total of four changes. As (without, admittedly, having checked) I very much doubt that the three year articles contain any information relevant to the Red Hot Chili Peppers, to my mind Misplaced Pages is four useless links better off for this edit. In fact, if I had been copyediting this article I would have delinked the years too. (There's an argument that an article like this should link to the "xxxx in music" instead.) I do appreciate your concern and I have read into the background on this, and I still fail to see why "speed ... is of the essence" here. It's not like he is vandalising anything useful after all. Is it because he is (presumably) using a bot to edit? Surely there must be a better way to sort this out than a block! And why (other than to make a WP:POINT) would you want to revert these edits en masse?

I notice with relief that Bobblewik seems to have stopped editing for the moment. I think that would be wise while this discussion takes place. --Guinnog 12:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

He's stopped editing because he's been blocked. ;) Henry 12:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? Then why is there no sign of this on his user page, nor any sign of a warning? It still seems a terrible shame when he is clearly trying to improve the encyclopedia!--Guinnog 12:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mgm announced a month long block above. Another warning might have been appropriate, but this is an issue that Bobblewik clearly knows there is no consensus for, and has been warned about (repeatedly), and blocked for several times. He should have learned by now that this is not acceptable editing behaviour. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "you didn't warn Bobblewik in any way before bringing this here":

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABobblewik&diff=54359508&oldid=54336621#Date_delinking - this notice was specific about the Stravinsky article.
2. Also note that there had been a recent warning regarding delinking of dates on Bobblewik's user page (posted 30 June - 2 July): http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABobblewik&diff=61640276&oldid=61412469#Dates (archived less than a week ago, 9 July 2006). --Francis Schonken 12:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the one dated 20 May 2006, but missed the one from 1 July 2006. All the same, I think a more productive approach might have been to specifically warn him this time rather than relying on the warning from two weeks ago.

Re: "Can someone with tab experience help with reverting his contributions where needed?":

1. Usually, with Bobblewik, the whole series of date delinkings is reverted, leaving it to the usual editors of these articles to add or remove date links as they think appropriate, in accordance with the MoS. I quoted the relevant MoS section above. Seems like Guinnog has a problem with what is currently in the MoS too, because this editor gives a reading of style recommendations that has disappeared from the MoS for some time now, after a discussed consensus that took several months to achieve.

You'll have to explain what you mean to me here. If you're referring to my stated preference for not linking date fragments, I am guided by , although I think the policy is a mess now as it allows for the sort of ambiguity whose results seem apparent in this dispute. I would hate to think I could be blocked for a month for delinking years which I don't feel add anything to the article I am editing. One often sees many dozen links, many of them repeated, in any one article. I must have removed hundreds, just as I routinely remove any link I judge to be of no value to the project. Many of our articles are ludicrously overlinked with these low-value links. As with any edit any of us makes, other editors are free to put them back as or if they wish. --Guinnog 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1. The last roll-back-reverting of Bobblewik's delinkings was, as far as I know, performed by Rebecca, earlier this month: "I've rollbacked the lot this time, but please let it be the last of them." 1 July 2006, notice on Bobblewik's user talk page --Francis Schonken 12:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, best to put a "you have been blocked" template on Bobblewik's page. Mgm? --Francis Schonken 12:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I probably should have put a template there. Anyway, even if some of his edits are good, the speed with which he edits suggests unapproved bot activity. - Mgm| 13:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template placed. The text Francis quoted doesn't really appear to be a guideline or consensus. It specifically states that there's different groups of editors believing different things. Anyway, I think suspected bot editing and ignoring talk page messages after multiple blocks validate a 1 month block. - Mgm| 14:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mechanismtongs and friends

Could I ask for some advice for what to do about Mechanismtongs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and friends? Mechanismtongs has been blocked twice for personal attacks, yet is still continuing with this kind of behaviour. I bring this up here rather than elsewhere as there seem to be a number of puppets involved, including JediMasterHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Major18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Major18's revenge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bryn Horsefield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a bunch of AOL addresses. (I make no comment on whether these are sock or meat puppets, although note Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mechanismtongs). Cheers --Pak21 11:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you specify which of the suspected sockpuppets made legal threats and did the impersonations, we can have them blocked. As for M-tongs, a few warnings should do the trick. - Mgm| 14:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe all the puppets are currently on indefinite blocks for one reason or another. As for M-tongs, a whole bunch of warnings in the past and two blocks don't appear to have done the trick... just for the record for anyone following this discussion, my username is not intended to be racist in any way (as has been asserted by Mechanismtongs, Major18 and possibly others). "PAK" are my initials (Philip Alan Kendall, for anyone who cares). The "21" originates from the fact that "pak21" was the username I was assigned when I first went to University, and it seems to have stuck (being reasonably unique). Cheers --Pak21 16:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Xed

Since this user was reblocked by Jimbo for his continued trolling and he has continued on his talk page including attacks on other editors I have protected his talk page. --pgk 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Need help on contininuous IP vandal

Hi. I have reported 24.12.158.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) about half a dozen times already on WP:AIAV or WP:AN, he has been blocked thrice, but continued vandalism as soon as his blocks expired. I am requesting a permanent block. Here are the details:

• He was registered as User:Atticus765, but blocked indefinitely in May 2006, for vandalism, block evasion, etc. No CheckUser test was run, but the pages vandalised and the vandalism style are the same, and the timing matches the time Atticus765 got blocked. And even if this isn't the same person, after three temporary blocks that all showed no effect, I think a permanent block would still be justified based on just the IP's vandalism alone (over 150 edits; all vandalism) and not counting Atticus765's edits.
• He has during his blocks used several sockpuppets, which have all been blocked.
• He has continued vandalism, despite multiple warnings from me and other editors, under his IP.
• Most of the times I reported him, however, admins told me he had either stopped or not edited in two days (), both of which definitely not true, as his edit history shows. Other reports led to short-term blocks, shortly after which he continued to vandalise the exact same pages as before.

I consulted User:Mr. Lefty about this, who told me to come here. I feel that every admin I've reported this to only saw the most recent edits he made, not the whole spectrum and history of edits by this guy I revert every week. Regards, HarryCane 13:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, indefinite blocks are never used for IPs (in time, a particular IP could be used by anybody). In exceptional cases, one might block for a period of months. Secondly, I have a hard time seeing how this ip's edits over the past few days are vandalism. Can you explain? The Land 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact, said IP is sadly only used by currently this one vandal, at least obviously by nobody else editing Misplaced Pages (according to the user's edit history, which includes not a single contructive edit). If he was blocked, and somebody else with the same IP wanted to edit Misplaced Pages, there would be ways to do so. Also, even a half a year block may be enough time for this fellow to cool off. And secondly, it is vandalism, because he continuously spams Misplaced Pages articles with his opinionated conceptions of musical genres applying (or not applying) to bands — despite being warned multiple times by multiple users that these genres were discussed, decided upon by consensus or professionally determined by music journalists — and refuses any kind of discussion, while at the same time showing no form or remorse, insight or acceptance for his obvious misbehavior. I know it's not strongly blatant vandalism (such as blanking/moving pages or spamming profanities/gibberish on articles), but given its sheer continuity and this user's lack of will to follow Misplaced Pages's rules and policies, he certainly deserves to be blocked. It's not easy and takes some time to get into this case, but it certainly is vandalism. --HarryCane 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Comanche cph again

After having served out his most recent 3RR block, User:Comanche cph has again reverted to his preferred version on Scandinavia four times today. He's also revert-warring on Normans where he's learned the clever new trick of marking a revert down as a "minor edit" and giving it the edit summary "spelling". For those just in the user has diffs like these on his record and has been blocked four times already. He now says he is starting to lose his patience with Misplaced Pages. I think the feeling may be mutual. Haukur 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. If he does it again, the penalties escalate. Will (message me!) 17:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What was the block length, Sceptre? I should imagine 3 days would be up from the 24 hr for 3RR, then a week, then 2 weeks and ArbCom. Geogre 18:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 48 hours. Will (message me!) 19:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comanche cph immediately evaded this block through his sockpuppet Supermos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which has still not been blocked. Tupsharru 08:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Or at least it looks exactly like a puppet. Maybe someone could run an IP check to make sure? Haukur 09:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin Attention requested

Please note and keep under observation contribs and history of user DON and discussion at Sahaj_Marg and Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission. Do not know if admin action is appropriate yet, but I feel this must be brought to Misplaced Pages attention and hope this is the appropriate place. (FYI: I have read and tried to follow all Misplaced Pages policy, and exhanged private emails with admin Jondel regarding 4d-Don situation and have tried to follow all suggestions)

Beyond me now. I give up. Thank you in advance for any help or advice.

-- Sakha 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo impersonation account

Please indef block TomHarrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who's impersonating User:Tom harrison and vandalizing pages. Thanks. (→Netscott) 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. (→Netscott) 21:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Tom Harrison 01:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Repmart

User:Repmart was making personal attacks on User:The JPS in several different locations, which I reverted, and he kept re-adding, so I blocked him last night for 24 hours. Note that the attacks were not merely about The JPS's behavior on Misplaced Pages, he was making comments about illegalities supposedly being performed by The JPS off-Misplaced Pages. He kept coming back with anon accounts to replace the attacks, and I blocked those, as well. I have now received an email from him threatening to create a website repeating his attacks on The JPS and on me, as well, although what he plans on saying about me, I cannot imagine. I have warned him that if he does so, I will permanently block him. I strongly suspect that Repmart is Tramper Price, who is more than unhappy that The JPS nominated the nn bio about him for AfD. User:Zoe| 21:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Kosher username?

This username seems like an ad, or at least a company account:

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

Is this a company? It seems like it. Should they get indeffed?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't block just on the spam angle, since I would think it to pretty poor spam/advertising since it could be just about anywhere in the world. As for a group account, not sure. If it starts inserting links for carpetcleaning services then of course that is a different matter. --pgk 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... could be, but as this is their only edit, I'd say let them be for now. Could be a productive contributor. Just watch out for creation of Advantage Carpet Cleaning or any link spam. </BEANS> --LV 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pgk—as a company name, it's so generic that there's probably one in every large city, so even if they intended it to be self-promotional, it simply fails at that. Postdlf 22:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ikiroid; generic or not (there are 134 Google hits from here), this can be nothing other than the name of a business and, per WP:USERNAME, "Usernames intended for spamming or advertisement: Accounts with usernames that advertise a particular website, company, etc. (e.g. "visit " ) are discouraged and may be blocked." In my view, simply using the name of a company is advertising for a company, and I've blocked it and left {{UsernameBlockedCompany}} on the talk page had I seen it in UC patrol. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

are discouraged and may be blocked Doesn't have to be, and as this seems a productive user, why not ask them to change usernames before you fire with the block button? Seems like it would be the sensible thing to do. -M 23:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's been exactly one contribution, but I dropped a note on the user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment

The following is an unsigned comment left on the "2006 Israel-Lebanon" Talk Page in section 2.1: "...There was outrage in the congress, but Teller, himself a jew, intervened with Reagan and the incident was glossed over in the west..." I find this to be a snide anti-semitic remark and offensive to many people. The article was unsigned, but you will find that the I.P. address is 195.70.32.136. Thank you for your help. Jack30491 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

I ask for unblock on User:Panarjedde. The indefinite blocking was decided by User:Llywrch, who told me to come here.--151.47.76.121 01:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let your original 24 hour block expire, don't create sockpuppets, and those sockpuppets won't get banned. There is no reason to unblock Panarjedde, you were only using it to get around your original block. User:Zoe| 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I told him to go to Misplaced Pages:Changing username to change his username, because I placed an indefinite block on the user name he wanted to use. He wants to use a new user name because I put a 24-hour block on his original one, Panairjdde; an Admin there is welcome to perform the necessary acts to change matters if they felt I behaved unreasonably. (Although I advise anyone so inclined to research his history of behavior both before & after the block. I also told him not to petition Tony Sideway or David Gerard for help, because they aren't as nice as I am. My apologies if he has ignored my advice & contacted them.)

BTW, I had to block this IP address because it was used for edits to Misplaced Pages unrelated to the business of his original block. Why don't you stop digging your hole deeper? -- llywrch 01:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

PS - Since he says he closed his "Panairjdde" account, I put an indef block on that one. He has also stated he is going to leave Misplaced Pages countless times -- yet keeps coming back. Any Admin who believes he will stay on Misplaced Pages -- & trusts him to make useful contributions -- is welcome to undo those blocks. But if you do this, I expect you to mentor this user (or find one for him) & assume responsibility for his actions. -- llywrch 02:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said countless times, User:Panairjdde account is closed. Nobody can logon & it is no longer "mine" or of anybody else (now also User:Panairjdde is blocked indefinitely). My account is User:Panarjedde, and is blocked indefinitely, not for 24 hours. Why are you blocking my account indefinitely? What is the reason?

Furhtemore, User:Llywrch blocked two accounts indefinitely. On what basis?--151.47.99.159 09:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Elitism article, and the creation of a fake AfD

It seems that a few vandals created some new sockpuppets in order to create a fake AfD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Elitism (3rd nomination), thereby deleting the article Elitism. It seems that in the confusion of a fake AfD, the article was actually removed and replaced with a {{deletedpage}} tag. As of now I have fully protected the article and reverted it to the version prior to the first vandalism. The account that seems to have been behind the orchestration is Jake Berkeley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is likely a sock of either jake remmington, or some other long term vandal. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Likely a combination nickname of Jake Remington and Jeb Berkley, nicknames which are listed to be associated with the WP:NCV. For those who saw the AfD page before it got deleted, humorous things like "# delete article was craeted by NCV." are listed. The AfD, from what I can tell from my left-open window on the now-deleted AfD page, it was replicating many of the post-closure edits to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Elitism. There's probably more interesting stuff also at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Elitism (2nd nomination), but it is deleted. There's also a recent post to WP:AIV which notes many more socks used to try to 'vote-stack' the original AfD post closure. Kevin_b_er 02:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Socafan's edits

Would someone who hasn't already been involved with User:Socafan kindly take a look at Lance Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This user has replaced all of the information that User:JzG was insisting be discussed prior to its inclusion in the article. In particular he's been adding information that amounts to "guilt by association" to the article and I have made efforts to remove such information in accord with WP:BLP but I have been repeatedly reverted. This version of the article is the pre-attempts at discussion version. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also please note Socafan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s double personal attack here wherein he's referred to me as User:JzG's "crony". Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The alleged attack has already been discussed above. There is an article talk page to discuss article content disputes. Refusal to do so shows there is no intention to find a consensus. Instead there seems to be a desire to silence another user. Socafan 02:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

From looking at this editor's contributions one get's the impression that he's on a bit of a "doping" smear campaign when he makes uncited and unsourced edits like this one on Santiago Botero and this one on Floyd Landis. (→Netscott) 03:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Barack Obama

Barack Obama (talk · contribs) is using the name of a real person and doing nothing but vanadalizing pages. --waffle iron  04:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been blocked. --waffle iron  04:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:GvvernoI

This user has created a username that is very similar to User:Gwernol's (this user here uses two vs instead of a w and a capital i instead of a lowercase L). On this user's userpage, it says the user got permission to use the name from Gwernol (which, judging by the user talk page, isn't entirely true). However, even if Gwernol gives the user permission to use the name, I feel that permission ought to be overriden. The fact of the matter is the username will confuse many editors into thinking it's really Gwernol when it's not. The user, despite his intentions (I have yet to fully understand what they are), ought to be asked to create a new username and (on this current account) indefinitely blocked for impersonation. -- joturner 05:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As the user GvvernoI has a whole ten (surviving) edits to his name, and has been warned for vandalism and personal attacks, I've just plonked the account. If he wants to create a new one, he can. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ive nuked the following created by this user: Category:Administrators requiring discipline, and {{Template:Blockabuse}}, both of which are intended to be put on the blocking admin's page. Coupled with List of unruly Admins which User:Gwernol deleted, methinks this wannabe is a sock of someone disruptive and indefblocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting sprotection for article and own userpage/usertalkpage

South Central Farm was recently hit by vandalism by Cumbuj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked. Then, 152.163.101.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and then Roxeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit the page with the same reason, trying to sprotect their own vandalism. When I reverted their edits and warned Roxeco, my userpage was vandalised with the anus picture. I'm requesting that South Central Farm, my user page and my talk page be sprotected from these morons. Ryulong 07:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

After looking through edits, I've found out I got hit by User:WatchtowerJihad. Please help me. Ryulong 07:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My user page has been sprotected now, but I still think South Central Farm should be sprotected if it keeps getting hit by WatchtowerJihad (not sure if my talk should be sprotected, though). Ryulong 07:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Matter resolved - User page deleted to remove vandalism, recreated and sprotected. --Alf 07:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(Article is now requested protection at relevant page and Ryulong's talk page is on my watchlist for any further vandalism). --Alf 08:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 82.35.24.169

Please consider blocking the user with the IP address 82.35.24.169. He continually vandalizes Wiki pages such as H. Bruce Mitchell and Maria Kanelliswith mentions of "hen fap," and has had numerous warnings, many of which he removed from his user page. He is a simple nuisance and I'm getting annoyed by watching over him. Please consider blocking him/her. Thank you. Chad1m 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h abakharev 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:True tibet

Transferred from WP:AIV:

True tibet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See talk page - that should be self-explaniatory. Politically motivated username with derogatory spam about Misplaced Pages on it.  Killfest2  09:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we are allowed to be POV on our own talk pages, not sure about the username. abakharev 09:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if it's inflammatory (which the Nepal incident is)  Killfest2  09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I have immense empathy for Tibetans in their current situation, the problem this user has is the same we all have with history in that to a large extent it's written by the winning/dominant side, put this alongside the need to be able cite verifable sources for data and I'm not surprised by the views expressed on their talk page. --Alf 09:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan again

Socafan (talk · contribs) is intent on ensuring that a section of the article on Lance Armstrong paints him in the most unfavourable light possible. Bear in mind that Armstrong may well be the most tested athlete in history and repeated drug tests and an official inquiry have all exonerated him. Here's Socafan's latest update, which is indistinguishable in tone from the ones for which I blocked him briefly before. . Note thast the last para, which was neutralised from some heavy innuendo, has been deneutralised, and the guilt-by-association has been reintroduced. I need a second pair of eyes here.

He has filed an ArbCom case at WP:RFAr#JzG.

I have protected the article to prevent his repeated reversion to his preferred version (and to keep a spate of drive-by anons off); it is arguably better to block the problem editor and leave the article unprotected but that would prevent him taking part in the arbitration. I wouldn't like to call that one myself, please feel free to swap the article protection for a block and unprotection or possible semi-protection if you think it right. I feel very strongly that until Socafan at least acknowledges that there might be some merit in the idea that, for example, emphasising WADA's view over that of the official inquiry by the former head of the Dutch anti-doping agency which was strongly critical of WADA, might violate WP:NPOV, it would be unwise to allow him to edit the article. Socafan appears determined to assert his point of view, and to WP:OWN his Talk page; look in the history since many pertinent comments have been deleted as "trolling". Just zis Guy you know? 11:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Racism on Nostradamus talkpage User:Davkal

While I admit that the conversation between User:Davkal and myself has been barely civil, I will not tolerate racism.

To wit "Excellent argument dude, how's the homies in South Central. (emphasis added) Diff: . &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Need article protection now - weeks long edit war escalating (Situation has been fixed - page full protected)

Situation has been fixed - page full protected
A user has been continuously adding insults about American International School and how everyone thinks it sucks, even saying that it's not verifiable in the insult section. It has been explained at least 10 times to this user but they continue. Has used personal attacks, multiple sockpupets and has vandalized by userpage. I really couldn't care less about the personal attacks or vandalism, just please get this page protected without the slander. See article history --mboverload@ 11:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be better off at WP:RFP. Still, if it's only one user, you might want to file a user conduct RfC instead of full-blown protection. Isopropyl 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:RFP page, I totally forgot about that. This user has used like 5 sockpuppets now and refuses to even discuss anything. It has been explained many times. --mboverload@ 11:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just added another sockpuppet --mboverload@ 11:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just used ANOTHER sockpuppet. That's 5 DIFFERENT user account not counting IP edits --mboverload@ 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Protected. If you'd like to tag the socks I will block them. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  Here they are:

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

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

  Sarc1pedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

  Their main account: Pediamedia1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  --mboverload@ 12:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• When this user has decided which account to use I will reduce the block on that account to 1 week. Just zis Guy you know? 13:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

FA vandalism

By User:64.12.116.10. See this. Several times... speaks for itself. EuroSong 12:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There were no warnings for awhile, gave him t4 abakharev 12:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG (talk · contribs)

misfired this time. I made a stupid edit here as I was responding to uncivility, but cooled down and removed the attack myself 10 minutes later . Some three and half hours after I have removed the attack, without being told to do so, JzG placed a warning on my talkpage about a thing I already undid. Warnings, blocks etc on wikipedia should be preventive, not punitive, whereas this is purely punitive, and could also be perceived as bossing. I have kindly (with Please) asked JzG to remove the warning from my talk page. Anyone please back me up on this. Azmoc 12:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't even responded to you on his talk page yet (which was only 14 minutes before you posted this). Please try to get in contact with a user before comming here. I'm not commenting on your case. --mboverload@ 12:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• My two cents, I don't think your modification was enough - the contributions from you on that page seemed generally to breach what I would look for in civil discussions and I think the warning should stay.--A Y Arktos\ 12:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Zoe's original comment that Azmoc responded to with his original personal attack: Yet again the case of a supposedly brand-new user, who has yet to make any edits to article space, trying to tell us how to run Misplaced Pages. Yawn. User:Zoe| 20:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (→Netscott) 12:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • I didn't think Zoe's contribution was edifying either, but the discussion point is, should the warning be removed from Azmoc's talk page. I don't think so. Should a reminder be placed on Zoe's page? Possibly, but separate issue.--A Y Arktos\ 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • What I said, what I did was a personal attack, but I cooled off and removed it myself, long before someone placed a warning on my talkpage. This directly contradicts the preventive not-punitive common sense in which admins should use the blocks and warnings. Moreover, the sentence I left there is (quote): I find your stated belief that you are running wikipedia more than the other (yet inexperienced) users unbelievable. It doesn't say anything about Zoe him/herself, it just says that I strongly disagree with his/her beliefs, unless we live in some environment in which disagreeing with an admin is a personal attack. This admin-cabal argumenting like well, well, you are right here, but this other thing you did is wrong anyway so we will do nothing against our co-admins is really driving me nuts. Azmoc 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's a pro-forma warning. The mature response is to accept the criticism, as you partially do (even with the modification it is still unacceptable to accuse an admin of abusing privileges in a content dispute unless you can cite solid evidence) and not do it again. Wikilawyering about exactly how incivil you were is not the way to go. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, instead of responding to my original proposal, JzG made yet another "I would like to see your full history" comment, then said "The cabal rejects this proposal. That is all. Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)". What I did, what was the original IP I used to edit before I registered etc. is no bussiness of JzGs' and if he didn't want to respond to the proposal, and came there only to make comments on me and my edit history, he shouldn't have said anything at all. Azmoc 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we do. How else are we supposed to establish the context for your proposed policy? Just zis Guy you know? 13:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos (talk · contribs)

I have just been harshly treated (erasing two weeks of research) by the user "AnonMoos". This is my first addition to Misplaced Pages, and was apparently not in accordance with the style guide. I can understand a correction and brief instruction or hints on how to complete it, but not the casual erasure and harsh "you got it wrong, do it like this".

This is at total discord with the Wikipedian / community approach that I'd come to think Misplaced Pages stood for. Frankly, I'm now wondering why I should bother to extend it, rather than being excited (as I was) at the thought of participating.

Frankly, this user's attitude to newbies is more than likely turning every person away from Misplaced Pages that he "corrects" in such a harsh manner - in short: hindering more than he helps.

If he 'corrects' 10 articles each week, but turns 10 people away from contributing - he's simply preventing growth, rather than aiding proper growth by helping newbs.

I'm annoyed, and frankly very angry at such treatment - I appreciate his "help", but NOT his attitude.

I'm happy to be corrected - but not smacked down like a little child.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards