Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:21, 30 September 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?

Possible sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 u

Hello I believe that this user New York from Flavor of Love may be this indefinatly blocked user Cute 1 4 u. Check this dif and talk page Leroyencyclopediabrown for the possible proof. If I'm wrong on this I appolize in advance but Cute 1 4 u does have a history of sock puppet and ban evasion. Æon _EA! 02:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition I once I commented on that user being suspicious the comments that were made by New York from Flavor of Love were removed. Æon _EA! 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but this looks somewhat similar (Cute 1 4 u did once create an account impersonating Raven Symone). I'd file a RFCU. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought about it, thanks I will should I post the findings here or will not not be needed? Æon _EA! 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Any findings in the RFCU should probably be posted here unless it comes back positive and she's indef-blocked right then and there. But it looks somewhat definitive, looking at the user's edit history. --Coredesat talk. o_O 02:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Coredesat. I caught one of hers last week and the writing style is VERY similar to here other socks. I will post the finding once they come in. Æon _EA! 02:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The account *could* be blocked per WP:USERNAME I think... "New York" was in fact the nickname given to a real contestant on the first season of Flavor of Love (generally only the nicknames were used on the show) and thus this name more-or-less falls afoul of the "Names of well-known living people" clause. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the userpage and what BoG said, I decided to issue the username block. User:Zscout370 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it absurd how much people-power is being thrown at stopping an alleged 11 year old female sockpuppeteer from "abusing" Misplaced Pages as a social network? --  Netsnipe  ►  04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it from your use of quotation marks that you disagree with the characterization of social networking as an abuse of Misplaced Pages? Choess 06:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, based on this diff and the message the most current IP placed on Leroy's talk page, it's definitely her. She thinks she can hide stuff by deleting it. Ryūlóng 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just call me Ed.=) I apologize to everyone who has been trying to contact me overnight. I (obviously) was sleeping. Anyway, I think that Cute 1 4 u should be given one more chance. Two reasons for this. First of all, she doesn't have to keep making new accounts just to prove her point. Second, it removes the hassle of blocking EVERY SINGLE account she makes. We all know she's going to make more and more accounts.--Ed 12:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, she was blocked for Sockpuppet abuse, impersation, Vandalism and the 11 year old part was just added ammo to the case. And the Check user came up possitive. Æon _EA! 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

New York from Flavor of Love and 75.34.176.105 have both been blocked indef as sockpuppets, although I thought that IPs shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. Was there an exception made? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You know that she's going to make a new account anyway! What's the point for all of this hassle? This is a complete waste of our time! If we just give her a second chance on Misplaced Pages, less time for us working on her case, and one more volunteer Wikipedian.--Ed 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u welcomed Starcare, who is likely a puppet of Publicola, who is likely a puppet of Pepsidrinka. Hard punt. Lots of socks involved here.--Scribner 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You see? The situation's getting worse. The only solution is to back off or get more admin power.--Ed 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Scribner obviously has something against Pepsidrinka, so I'm taking his comments with more than a pinch of salt. – Chacor 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's way too much of a stretch. Ed, sorry, but Cute 1 4 u has just done too much. Yeah, she'll keep coming back, and she'll continue to contact you, and we'll continue to deal with her. If she realizes that she's not helping, then we'll stop blocking, but as long as she continues to contact you and admit that she's who she is, then we have to block her. Ryūlóng 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong, I'm not the only one she might want to contact. Do you even realize that she could be lurking around Misplaced Pages right this moment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed (talk • contribs)

75.34.12.156 is another one. Posted on my talk page Æon _EA! 07:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this IP you found, but I think we should wait until she does something else before we take action against this IP.--Ed 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It was blocked it was her (The post admited it) Æon _EA! 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How long is the block? --Ed 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Possible one Prple space mnky@hotmail.com edited with the summary Got to keep it real on edit summary (Dif ) a phrase that she used many many times as her qoute. Caught this one while monitoring recent changes Æon _EA! 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is Cute 1 4 u. If I had any socks, I'd admit them. I already told you all of them. But Ed is right, I'm trying to prove my point. --75.33.230.133 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Prple space mnky@hotmail.com , User:Starcare, or User:Publicola. I swear, I don't even know them. However, to prove my point, all i can say is that i have a new account and I am much nicer on that account. Ed is right. --75.33.230.133 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I may have found another sock and I requested a check user (Came up again on Recent changes, edits article that were created by other socks with teh same grammer an such) Æon _EA! 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More or less confrimed the sockpuppet. Autoblock got it (See TV Lover) Æon _EA! 04:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Cute 1 4 u (or whatever) is going to get me a headache. I tried asking her why she's doing this on her talk page, but she said she's "going to commit 'suiside' ," or something. I don't know... I know this may sound stupid, but can't we block her IP address, so she stops creating these annoying sockpuppets? Cheers! The RSJ - 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

She's on a dynamic IP, SBC, I believe (according to the WHOIS reports). There's not much we can do but keep blocking her new accounts. She's not committing suiside any time soon. Ryūlóng 05:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please clarify your statement? "Committing suicide"? Is it literal or figurative? --physicq210 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Prob Figurative she is 11 years old and has a history of being overly dramatic. Æon _EA! 05:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

She'll be back tomorrow, probably recreating that article of hers. Ryūlóng 05:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any way to protect the page from being created, say, creating a blank article then fully protecting it? Shadow1 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the article she keeps creating? Æon _EA! 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation is getting nowhere. In fact, it's getting worse. She will keep making new accounts, and you know that. We must find a permanent solution to this.--Ed 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The soulition is simple keep blocking her. We can't block her IP with out cuasing other issues. Æon _EA! 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted SBC about this user? Letting them know that the misbehavior of one 11-year-old kid might lead to Misplaced Pages blocking their entire DHCP range could be an incentive for them to listen. -- llywrch 19:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must tell you something. I live in the same area as Cute 1 4 u (not the same suburban area, we don't live close together or anything, we both in Metropolitan Chicago, which is in the United States). Anyway, SBC changed to AT&T in Chicago. AT&T bought SBC, so I have no idea what you guys are talking about.--Ed 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me get my facts straight. Take a look at SBC Communications, which says that SBC was the one who bought AT&T. They then changed their name. --Ed 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm am not misbehaving. I had stress but it has gone away. Not creating any more accounts. If I have to come back when I'm 13, I guess i'll create another account then. Say what you want. Don't contact me llywrch, I don't know you. --75.34.176.207 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

With that begin said I may have found yet one more sockpuppet of Her. I have requested another check user. Æon _EA! 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Another day, another sockpuppet, eh? What's the newest sockpuppet called now? Cheers! The RSJ - _{The RSJ at the RS Wiki} 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But Crystal (that's her real name, so everyone would know) already said she's not creating any socks.--Ed 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And I don't beleive her. Check my talk page for the latest. Æon _EA! 03:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I'm not. That other sock was before i made my earlier statement. --75.33.249.5 05:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

on Aeon's page I met to say I wouldn't make anoter sock p. --75.34.185.51 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked Cute 1 4 u's block log, and I am very surprised that we banned a user for being a certain age. Either I'm misreading the block reason, or we have just banned an account because she was 11 yrs. old. I don't think this is right. If Cute 1 4 u was blocked because of many other reasons such as vandalism, then that should appear on the block log.

In addition, I'm beginning to question her block reasons. The sockpuppettering is already proven. (with all of the accounts that came up here on ANI. But vandalism??? Where's the vandalism here??? I think we should recover the supposed vandalism in question.--Ed 13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is enough to get her unblocked? If you think about it, the sockpuppeteering started just because she was blocked for being a certain age, the link to her block log is above. And there really wasn't any proof she was going to vandalise Misplaced Pages— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed (talk • contribs)

Well, the admission to being part of S-man's "vandalism project" on top of all of the other things that she did (sockpuppetry, MySpace treatment, personal attacks, civility, etc.) all led to her block. If she just sits it out and/or stops making evident that she is who she is, then we won't have to bother her about it. But the fact that its now starting to bother you and other users is beyond anything. Ryūlóng 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actally I just stopped that. And Ed's right. Why am I blocked for being 11? I can't change my age untill years past. He did the vandalism. I though about and said yeah but after that i was gonna sasy no but I was blocked. Now you think about it. Are you really being fair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

Then why does the edit summary state her age as the main problem? I suggest that the blocking admin unblock her and provide a better block summary. And in addition, where's the proof that she was vandalising with S-man? I don't see any proof anywhere.--Ed 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant block summary. =) --Ed 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

She has made some descent edits. I think we should re-enable her account if nothing else after a short break period of maybe a month or so. Anyways, that is my 2 cents. --Mattwj2002 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so, too. What I'm thinking is that we get her account unblocked and put her on a monthlong probation. During the probation period, we will be watching all of her contribs and things like that. If she does something questionable, we block her with no questions asked.--Ed 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I initially believed that this user deserved another chance. The behaviour since the block was placed between this user and the numerous sockpuppets, some of which were created after the block, has shown to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this user has no intention of becoming a good editor and has no compunction against blatantly flaunting Misplaced Pages's rules and regulations. While this is clearly an opinion, I am firmly against unblocking this user's account. If the user cannot even be trusted to behave while a block is in effect, what possible reason do we have for believing the user will act properly if unblocked? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me fifty times and I'm a moron. --Yamla 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)Please rephrase your last 3 sentences. They don't make sense. =) Anyway, why do you think that Cute 1 4 u has been sockpuppeteering? Maybe the block would have affected it. Even then, putting her on probation shoud do the trick.--Ed 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

She was being a sockpuppeteer long before her indefinite block. User:Raven Symone, User:Skittles Lover, and others that have been proven at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u, one of which was long before the block was imposed. I would not feel it wrong if Yamla decided to change the block summary to something else; something that just doesn't show that she was blocked on the reason of her age, but that along with the many other reasons I have mentioned above. Ryūlóng 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this situation is becoming corrupt:

• Cute 1 4 u was blocked for being a certain age, as stated in her block summary. As far as I'm concerned, whatever is in the block summary is the basis of her block.
• She wasn't going to vandalise Misplaced Pages. She planned to vandalise the sister projects, but not Misplaced Pages. There's a difference. The admins at the appropriate sister projects should have been notified.
• We're making wild assumtions that Cute 1 4 u keeps making sockpuppets. I know that she admitted to some of the socks, but what if the accounts were controlled by her siblings or relatives or something? At her original userpage, Cute 1 4 u established that she had siblings (I think).--Ed 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • She said she wasn't going to vandalise wikipedia. She's already shown a willingness to ignore our rules by creating socks. There are no wild assumptions when she's admitted to some of the sockpuppets. If one of those accounts really was a family member, that is unfortunate, but really too bad. Sometimes someone does something that ruins it for everyone. If the family is really that bent out of shape over it, they'll have to take it up with her. Maybe she'll learn something.--Crossmr 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • All I'm just saying is that we're just coming to conclusions about these sockpuppets. We're blocking accounts for sharing the same IP with a banned user. For instance, what if she's using a school IP? There are multiple users that might be coming from the same school. And what about the wifi connections that people use now? Wouldn't multiple users be using the same wifi connection?--Ed 02:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Family members getting blocked because of one bad apple? What a ridiculous notion! --Ryūlóng 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, we're not blocking new accounts for sharing the same IP. We're blocking new accounts because Cute 1 4 u comes out and says she's evaded her block, again, on some ridiculously named new account or one of us finds out through seeing suspicious edits and she hasn't admitted to it yet, and that pushes us to add an nth RFCU request on her. Ryūlóng 07:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm back. User:Shakim67 is not my family member and my family is not out of shape or whatever you wanna say. My point of createing sockpuppets is to show you my good edits. And i admit, I can be one evil bitch (if that's what ya wanna say), but I can also be a best friends and very nice.i don;t care what you need to say to me. Any way, i was planning to vandalize other wiki products, but decided not. I was gonna tell S-man i changed my mind but I was then already blocked. so thats my side of the story. --75.34.188.39 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we should try and view your side of the story and review this situation in an unbiased manner!!!--Ed 02:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Creating sockpuppets to show your good edits is calling disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, which is bad, mkay? Ryūlóng 02:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

SORRY, MY KEYBOARD'S GETTING STUCK ON THE CAPS LOCK KEY. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.--Ed 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rescinding that last comment, as you appear to be lying a bit. Ryūlóng 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

i didn't say shakim was my sockpuppet. He's a different person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs) .

That's not what your sockpuppetry comes from. It's from User:Christy06, User:New York from Flavor of Love, and whoever else you made. Those sockpuppets were used to solely evade your block and continue editting, and now, you just edit anonymously, bring attention to yourself, and impose another block on your IP for the day. Ryūlóng 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you've hit the mark, Ryūlóng... she wants attention! •The RSJ• 19:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not want attention. I just wanna go back to wikipedia. (The 1st block) I wanna know why am i blocked for being 11? --75.31.247.39 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your continued blatant abuse of Misplaced Pages (continuing to bypass blocks and continuing to create abusive sockpuppets) shows quite clearly why you should be blocked. At this point, I'm in favour of instantly banning any sockpuppets on site and providing long-term blocks of any IP address used by this user. Continuing to edit the Misplaced Pages while blocked is abusive behaviour. No ifs, ands, or buts. Additionally, we should consider additional steps to prevent the continued abuse from this user. I'm not sure what else can be done, though. Perhaps a block of the entire IP range, though that has a high possibility of hitting innocent third parties (in which case, it is clearly inappropriate). Perhaps contacting the ISP and having them terminate the abusive user (though I'm not sure if this is kosher). --Yamla 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Range blocking this user will result in a DoS of what may be all SBC customers in the Chicago area, and taking legal actions against an 11 year old doesn't sound too easy. Ryūlóng 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Placing a range block hinders the editing of numerous editors from Chicago. WE NEED ANOTHER SOLUTION.--Ed 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you're all in luck guys. There was a tornado warning in effect yesterday in the Chicago area. No, there was no major damage to Chicago (I think), but the Internet connections have been cut off. In fact, I haven't been able to edit Misplaced Pages until right now until my Internet came back. (I live in the Chicago suburbs). So...just sit back, and relax. --Ed 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To get through to you, a bit, Ed, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THIS CONVERSATION, AMIRITE? We are trying to figure out a way to deal with Cute 1 4 u, which may just end up getting her (and by proxy her parents') internet subscription cancelled for a period of time, and this would force her parents to input parental controls so that she cannot utilize Misplaced Pages, but this would have to be done at some point through legal actions, and I don't think Brad or any of the other Wikimedia legal reps wants to have to sue an 11 year old girl. Ryūlóng 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, although I believe Cute 1 4 u's abuse has gone way out of hand, I don't think it is realistic to seriously consider suing her. There's virtually no potential upside as far as I can see, and substantial downsides. Plus WP:LEGAL. Also, blocking all of Chicago isn't a good plan because it would affect editors like Ed, though if we could find a way to do so without affecting other users, I would strongly advise that action. I wonder how difficult it would be to contact the ISP and report the long-term deliberate abuse, and whether it would result in any change. Apart from that, the only other option I see is permanent bans on the sockpuppets and long-term blocks on any IP address used by this long-term vandal. Perhaps IP blocks of a month at a time, until and unless we block a legitimate editor accidentally (not just another abusive sockpuppet). --Yamla 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, legal suit was just the only thing I could think of (I'm a marine biologist/chemist/geologist/anthropologist, not a lawyer :P). The best we can do is just what Yamla has suggested. Indefblock registered users that are proven after either edits, an RFCU, or an autoblock, and long-term block IP addresses that she claims to use, which may sadly end up blocking the Chicago area's SBC users. Ryūlóng 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting, with edit conflict)Blocking Cute 1 4 u's IP range will affect all SBC users. In addition, SBC has better things to worry about than our problems with one of their clients. For example, almost all of their Chicago customers are cut off from the internet because of the tornado last night. With that in mind, SBC would consider Misplaced Pages one of their least problems--Ed 19:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, when the time passes, we will have to send an abuse complaint to SBC concerning Cute 1 4 u's actions in the various Wikimedia projects. Rangeblocking is certainly out of the question, for now, but IP blocks will help (even though it appears that a new IP edits every day). Ryūlóng 19:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I placed the banned user template on Cute 1 4 userpage, legal action for this is silly in my opinion. Jaranda 19:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  So now we just treat any edits as revertable, even if they pop-up here? Ryūlóng 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, revert and block Jaranda 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, then. Looks like I'm going to have to frequent AIV more. Ryūlóng 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? Are we going to notify SBC or deal with the situation ourselves.?--Ed 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Cute 1 4 u will be making more socks. In fact, she might have a sockpuppet going around Misplaced Pages right now! Do we have a category page where we can just put all of her socks? That way, we can look through all of them and try to predict what her next sockpuppet would be.--Ed 14:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any socks at the present time. I would have made a new account. But i'm interested in real life. :P Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

I think an indefinite block was a little much. I think if you give this user another chance she will be more careful in her actions on Misplaced Pages. Jecowa 19:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What's this based on? Her continuing stream of abusive edits since the initial block? The large number of abusive socks she continues creating? An editor who continues blatantly and deliberately abusing the Misplaced Pages and lying about her actions while a block is in place is not, in my opinion, someone proving themselves likely to "be more careful in her actions" in the future. --Yamla 03:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not being optimistic here. First of all, haven't you ever considered the fact that Cute 1 4 u made many USEFUL edits? In addition, she may have become angry, stressed, and upset after learning that she was being banned for a certain age. Even if her block reason was changed, she might have thought she was being blocked for being 11. In fact, review User talk:Cute 1 4 u and see the original reasons for blocking her.--Ed 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have found yet one more (User:Sweet Pinkette) and I fully support an indef ban Æon _EA! 13:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I checked the dialogue you 2 had, and you didn't provide a link to Cute 1 4 u's userpage. So how did she know anything about that? On the other hand, she as been editing since June 24, a date before Cute 1 4 u established socks.--Ed 00:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew the situation is going to end up like this months ago when I discovered the Raven Symone sock. Then Cute 1 4 U uses another sock User:Gemini to defend herself. I contacted Fred Bauder (who laugh it off) and discuss the presence of children on AN/I, no one took much notice/attention. Anyway this seems like a classic case of wikilawyering similar to the case of User:PoolGuy (creating endless socks and continue to push the the idea that he did nothing wrong initially). We don't even know if Cute 1 4 U is really 11 or not. She might faked her age so some users will be more lenient on her since she's a kid. Anyway, rules are rules. Age, sex, and other backgrounds are irrelevant. If we make a bad case by unblocking Cute 1 4 U, guess what? Next time all the vandals are going to disguise as elementary school kids. She should stay block indefinitely as well as any IP/accounts she alledgely uses (similar editing pattern etc). Gaming the rules and circumventing blocks are not constructive. She mess with the rule, she's staying block. it's simple.--Bonafide.hustla 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Who's Fred Bauder?--Ed 00:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder is an admin and arbitrator.--Bonafide.hustla 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have anymore. I already revealed them all. Just, I don't know, block me. This will probably be my last comment here. I already said my sorry but someone deleted it. If I do come back, it probably be when I'm 13, maybe... --Cute 1 4 u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.0.106 (talk • contribs)

Well that's just depressing.--Ed 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this comment is enough to warrant an unblock. She has apologized already. Go back to those days when you were in Kindergarten. Didn't the teacher always forgive you if you say sorry? Same situation here. In Misplaced Pages, Cute 1 4 u is a fairly young editor who doesn't know any better. She is at an age when they like to be licentious.--Ed 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This too-forgiving attitude is a reason why there are so many irresponsible idiots around despite forced universal education. —Centrx→talk • 03:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's better than the unmerciful nuns who would slap your hands with a ruler--Ed 03:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is biased in this situation now. Ed, Crystal has attached herself to you and you are starting to feel sorry for her, even when she broke way too many of Misplaced Pages's rules, and she has now become banned. We all have to get on with our lives now. Ryūlóng 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like to point out that Crystal is not even allow to edit here with her IP on the ground that she is indefinitely banned. The only place she is allow to communicate is her personal talkpage. Editing with her IP in order to gain sympathy and support is another violation of her indef. block. Another issue is that we have no way of knowing her real age, I remembered a thread from Fred Bauder back in early August saying Crystal claimed to be 15 on myspace and 13 on blackplanet. Age is irrevelevant in this issue. I highly doubt her "contributions" to the project will be missed.--Bonafide.hustla 03:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like she should have the right to defend herself in this discussion concerning her. Also she cannot edit her personal talk page because it has been protected. She apologizes many times. She is interested in continuing as a wikipedian here. A vandal would have just forget the discussion and make new accounts to vandalize with. She really wants to be here. She has already served a month of "ban" for her policy violations. Could you please let her come back? --Jecowa 05:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what a vandal would do and that's what she has done, over and over and over again. If she had served one month without vandalising, I'd be willing to support her coming back. But how many sockpuppets has she created in that time? How many edits has she performed? These numbers are so far above zero that I'm not sure it is fair to categorise the past month as "served". --Yamla 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I have unprotected the banned user's talk page. It was protected by another admin and was done so because the banned user was blatantly vandalising the talk page itself. I'm hoping that Cute 1 4 u has learned enough to refrain from vandalising that page any further, though given the large amount of abuse over the past month, my hopes aren't that high. --Yamla 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree with User:Bonafide.hustla:

"I knew the situation is going to end up like this months ago when I discovered the Raven Symone sock. Then Cute 1 4 U uses another sock User:Gemini to defend herself. I contacted Fred Bauder (who laugh it off) and discuss the presence of children on AN/I, no one took much notice/attention. Anyway this seems like a classic case of wikilawyering similar to the case of User:PoolGuy (creating endless socks and continue to push the the idea that he did nothing wrong initially). We don't even know if Cute 1 4 U is really 11 or not. She might faked her age so some users will be more lenient on her since she's a kid. Anyway, rules are rules. Age, sex, and other backgrounds are irrelevant. If we make a bad case by unblocking Cute 1 4 U, guess what? Next time all the vandals are going to disguise as elementary school kids. She should stay block indefinitely as well as any IP/accounts she alledgely uses (similar editing pattern etc). Gaming the rules and circumventing blocks are not constructive. She mess with the rule, she's staying block. it's simple."

As it says here, there is no way to prove that Cute 1 4 u is eleven! For all we know, she might be the world's oldest woman (or man, but let's not go there)! And if we do unblock Cute 1 4 u, other people will do the exact same thing! This is apparently the downside of having Misplaced Pages articles so popular on search engine lists on the top of search engine; random, WikiDestructive people that want to take advantage of Misplaced Pages join, and then vandalize just because they think it's cool that they can change a web site article that many people will see! And excuse me, Cute 1 4 u, if you really do want attention, you're getting it. •The RSJ• 02:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may, I will be merging all of Cute 1 4 u's sockpuppet talk pages and redirecting all of them into User talk:Cute 1 4 u. That way, all messages intended for Cute 1 4 u may be sent there, and she may respond on her own talk page without having to form any other sock. This procedure will remove any reason for Cute 1 4 u to make another sock.--Ed 21:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I already merged all of the pages except for User talk:TV Lover. It's a protected page. Anyway, I haven't noticed any activity with Cute 1 4 u. I'm beginning to think she finally was able to evade her ban and evade the admins.--Ed 23:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's frankly something much worse. Ryūlóng 00:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well let me make myself clear. I haven't made a sockpuppet before, and I don't intend to. But if I wanted to make one, I would:

1. First create a sockpuppet with no hint of relationship to the main account.
2. Make some contributions completely different to the main account.
3. Once the situation with the main account has died down, I would then make the edits the main account used to make. Editors working with this sock would then assume that this is a new contributor to their field, and seeing his/her previous contributions, wouldn't suspect a thing.

Just my input on possibilities--Ed 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u has sent a message, if anyone is interested, at User talk:Cute 1 4 u.--Ed 15:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I need an opinion on this: Does anyone think think Cute 1 4 u still lurks around Misplaced Pages?--Ed 20:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's just that she's been doing fairly well in not bringing attention to herself. Ryūlóng 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, except for this never-ending thread at the top of WP:ANI. FreplySpang 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism?

It is not clear to me why one administrator, Sarah Ewart, has created so much red tape over one short article. It appears as if she has intentionally complicated things. The subject I wrote about is published and very well known in the engineering field. She is identified on numerous webpages and websites. Misplaced Pages is an online Encyclopedia. There are numerous living and accomplished people from all over the world who are listed in Misplaced Pages. The subject of the article I submitted represents one of millions of these people. What is it about the subject that is causing problems for Ms Ewart and the team of administrators she has rounded up to review this... or maybe there are other elements that I need to now consider? Please let me know because her actions are truly inappropriate. I am trying to work with her, follow her suggestions, identify why the subject is important and noble, and yet she seems to escalate things without resolving them. She indicated that she now requires the advice of her peers when she abruptly locked and deleted the article. This demonstrates that she may not be qualified to be an administrator, let alone, a volunteer. In fact, it shows that she may have reacted too quickly and harshly in response to my earlier emails (in capital letters) and my lack of experience navigating the online communication of Misplaced Pages. The fact that she also called upon and identified an American and an engineer to further review my article demonstrates concern about anti-Americanism because the subject is an American. This was not an issue until she raised it and allied with Guinnog, another non-American administrator. Should I now be concerned that Ms Ewart and her administrator friends will go on a speedy deletion spree and remove every one or more of my contributions that I volunteered and spent countless hours on? Will I now face bans or scrutiny on Wikepedia? These are legitimate concerns that warrant formal complaints. Furthermore, I am amazed by the camaraderie among the network of administrators. I am posting this complaint because I cannot seem to get one impartial administrator (who is not associated with Ms Ewart and Guinnog) to respond to my request for a complaint on my talk page and for a resolution of this problem Ms Ewart created. This is not what Misplaced Pages is about. Misplaced Pages is a wonderful tool. Such administrators should not ruin it for the rest of us. Administrators need to respect all people- including Americans- who freely contribute to Misplaced Pages. We are *all* volunteers.

Hence I seek an immediate resolution and an opportunity to have my article unlocked and re-posted at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYer (talk • contribs)

Please see Misplaced Pages's policies on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:N Naconkantari 23:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you would say what the article is (admins can view deleted articles). I have read the messages on your talk page, and it seems the article has been deleted by three different admins so far as not meeting wikipedia requirements. There is are also considerable efforts on your talk page to help you by Sarah Ewart and Guinnog and I don't see anything at all to complain about in their conduct. I suggest you AGF and work with them. Tyrenius 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't tried to work with us. You have made demand after demand and refused to listen to any advice, evidenced here.

I asked for further input and review because of your behaviour and your insistence that User:Guinnog, User:Centrx, User:Joelr31 and myself are all wrong about the article. I think being open to the opinions of other administrators is a good thing.

I went to school in the US, have family still there and anyone accusing me of anti-Americanism is simply sensationalizing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the article is Sandy Straus, which can be viewed at google's cache if anyone without the mop is curious. And yes, it's pure vanity. --EngineerScotty 23:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was created by User:Sandystraus and now User:NYer wants it restored? Are they the same person? Joelito (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• An interesting question. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but if you read User talk:NYer, you'll see that it is Sandy Straus whom is being discussed. BTW, User:Sandystraus has been a busy little vanity-beaver; there also exist the following articles:

1. Dynamic Vision Assessment for Transportation
2. Automated Driver's License Test
3. Dynamic Assessment for Transportation
4. Vision Assessment Procedure for Transportation
5. Straus Pavement Damage Estimate

Some of these may be salvageable, encyclopedic topics if rewritten to be NPOV, V, and free of OR; as it stands the whole pile of them are pure sandy-love. They may not be speediable as blatant copyvios as was Sandy Straus, but as they are; I'm going to send the whole pile of them to AFD. --EngineerScotty 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty blatant sockpuppetry myself, and I endorse taking the matter to AfD. Mackensen (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, Scotty, that is the article. User:Sandystraus originally posted it and was cautioned against auto, then some time later User:NYer was created and reposted the same article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. --EngineerScotty 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User should have an explanation and warning about sockpuppetry, remembering BITE though. Tyrenius 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a few more articles (and numerous redirects) created by Sandystraus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the past day or so; including numerous redirects to the above, and at least one soft "see also" redirect to the above. Also, Ms. Straus appears to have uploaded some nature images such as Image:Skink.JPG, which contain references to her business (ESRA) in the upload summaries. This might be kosher, I suppose--the images are released under the CC attribution license--but it's an interesting way to spam the wiki. --EngineerScotty 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted a posting made here by User:NYer because it included the full name and place of residence of another User. I have warned NYer about stalking. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. And some thinly veiled legal threats as well. I'd encourage Sandy Strauss and putative pals to examine WP:NLT; legal threats put you on the short path to the exit here. William Pietri 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, someone might want to look at Automated Clock Drawing Test, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have warned User:NYer about the rather nasty personal attacks he/she has been making. I agree that these articles are of marginal notability at best and should all be subject to an AfD, which I'm glad to see Engineer Scotty has started. I think there are grounds for asking both User:SandyStrauss and the self-admitted meatpuppet User:NYer to take a break from editing Misplaced Pages. They have displayed a consistent inability to work with other members of the community, understand the basic rules of Misplaced Pages or to conduct themselves in a civil manner. Unfounded accusations of anti-Americanism and bullying have no place here, and are seriously disrupting Misplaced Pages and wasting everyone's time. Gwernol 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NYer is almost certainly Sandystraus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy 11:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Guy. They have the same IP (they've both sent me demanding emails). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NYer and SandyStrauss have the same IP because they probably share computers or networks in the offices. They are not the same person because I know of both. So it is astounding that everyone seems to be attacking them. So maybe one of you should try to work with them and put an end to this? It is possible they did not know the rules of Wikepedia. I certainly do not. Most people on Wikepedia probably do not know these rules. Has anyone thought of a nicer way to diffuse this matter?JPeter2 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We have "two" users making threats, personal attacks and accusing a well-respected member of the community of being anti-American for not allowing "them" to post their vanity pieces, and yet it's us that are being unreasonable? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm talking crazy here, but wouldn't the simple solution be for them to ask, rather than making bold and apparently unfounded accusations? I'd encourage them to start with Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers and then move on to WP:SPA, WP:AUTO, and WP:VAIN. William Pietri 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if we were to have an article called Sandy Strauss, it should probably be on this artist, rather than the self-promoting inventor and "authoress" of technical papers currently under discussion. William Pietri 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, calm down. There are no threats or personal attacks on anyone. You might know of some useful ways to help people on Misplaced Pages rather than waste time arguing. Answer the question instead: What can you do to nicely diffuse this matter?JPeter2 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I see she has been phoning User:EngineerScotty on the matter (). A nicer way to defuse the matter might be if she accepted our policies on verifiability and refrained from vandalising this discussion which she started. --Guinnog 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, I checked what you said and it seems that the IP is banned so any user would use a telephone if no other contact information is provided. That seems rather logical. I think the issue is with NYer who seems to have started this discussion. Not Strauss. This seems like a no-brainer to me, especially when IPs and computers are shared all of the time. (All computer savvy people know this.) The right thing to do is to lift whatever IP bans were put up and communicate directly with Strauss. I know I would certainly be upset enough to telephone EngineerScotty too if anyone anywhere wrote what he did about Strauss. He could have made his point directing it at NYer rather than Strauss. He did not need to totally identify and completely itemize everything associated with Strauss if he wanted to take issue with NYer. This is crystal clear, even if Strauss originally authored her own bio. Lots of people do it on Wikepedia or have others they know write it for them. You need to stop whining and work with others in a positive and productive way. You can't deny it or stop this type of bio writing. You can police it but how many of you are out there to police this? So what if two users made some mistakes by not reviewing or knowing all of the Wikepedia rules? So what? I am sure it took a long time to learn the ropes on Wikepedia. I don't see where Strauss and NYer were frequent or long-time users of Wikepedia. NYer seems to have just joined. Right? Strauss contributed a few articles and pics. Big deal. Then again, who cares? Do anyone of you get rewarded for any of this information? Stop wasting time and start helping people on this thing. Stop talking and start working. Do something positive. Make a difference. Now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPeter2 (talk • contribs) .

If you don't think its very important, why are you and your colleagues spending so much time and investing so much invective in pursuing this? A number of editors with long histories of making substantial and positive contributions to Misplaced Pages are being attacked without basis and in the most personal and vicious ways by Strauss and her cohorts, yourself included. Screaming "anti-American" and "bully" at every turn rather than trying to work with other editors is not making you any friends. Sarah Ewart and Guinnog went out of their way to explain the way Misplaced Pages works, and got hate-filled accusations thrown at them. Are you surprised that this was not welcomed with open arms? Try making any single contribution to the encyclopedia yourself before throwing around accusations about making a "positive difference". You have made none.

On a technical note: User:EngineerScotty can be contacted by email even from a blocked IP address, so the claim that a telephone call was the only way to contact that user is, like so many of your wild claims and accusations, simply incorrect. Gwernol 17:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone anti-American is a personal attack. Posting personal identifying information about someone is a personal attack. The nicest way to defuse (or diffuse) the situation would be for the people trying to post vanity information to understand our guidelines at WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO and WP:BIO and see if they're violating those. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe, this is old hat already about the anti-Americanism stuff. It is also an issue with NYer since he started this discussion. Thanks for the response though. I think that what you said needs to go directly to the two users and any others you find in the same boat. JPeter2 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have another question for all of you: This issue of privacy seemed a wee bit wobbly (if I may say that). Each of you except two women (Strauss and Ewart) seem to have aliases. Why not use aliases to protect their identities? This only seems fair. NYer should never have used Ewart's name but maybe there was no alias. Strauss seems to be an innocent victim here (apart from making the terrible mistake of writing an autobio and the having a colleague post it). Why not remove names of both ladies and refer to them under aliases? Each of you seems to have an alias on this and I think it is the right thing to do to help these ladies. Let's all pitch in to patch things up. JPeter2 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, these socks are getting tiresome. If I wanted to be referred to by an alias, I would use an alias. I cannot understand why you keep adding to this thread, stating your name numerous times, and then emailing me repeatedly demanding I delete it because "mentioning of name" is not permitted. You say you feel stalked by various people here, imagine how you'd feel if people started calling you at home! It's completely unacceptable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, Sarah, but I only noticed this now. Judging by your reply, it seems that this was probably asked before. It just seems so logical that almost everyone on this thing has an alias. So you may not mind having your name referred to but maybe others do. About the home calls, all I can infer from this is that Strauss was unable to reach EngineerScotty. Not everyone knows how to send emails through Misplaced Pages, especially when there are obstacles to navigating through the site. The fact that many of you know shows that you have experience that others on Misplaced Pages do not. I agree with you though. These threads are getting tiresome. Rather than continue to discuss Strauss and NYer, why not try to work with one or both of them now? (I'm starting to feel like a moderator or advocate now but I am not.) Or end this thread or case? (If there is such a thing.) That seems like the right thing to do rather than to waste so much time digging up old news, old accusations, files, and defenses. Why is there such a need for each of you to continue to defend your actions? It's over. Just do something positive and help people on this thing already. Why is that so difficult? It's the right thing to do on and off Wikepedia. JPeter2 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, please, settle on one account and stop creating new socks. If you don't want to be known by your real name, then don't sign up for an account in that name. It's not that hard. As for Scott, you went off and looked up his phone number and then tried to call him. He did not give you his number or consent to you calling him. What you did was completely inappropriate, whether you can see that or not. Agreed, not everyone knows how to send emails through Misplaced Pages, but you sure don't have that problem. You've sent me numerous harassing emails containing defamatory imputations against me, Zoe and Scott, emails to the board, the foundation...you don't have a problem with your ability to send emails. Please stop this behaviour, it is enough already. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote to have all names of businesses, business owners, and products deleted at once so that we do not promote the very people and things that we define as wikispam. This should be a very easy and quick task for any administrator to undertake now and within this article because we are definitely promoting several products and businesses and business owners here whether or not any one of the authors realizes this. Any names identified in this article, "anti-americanism" appear in search engines and generate interest in businesses, products, and peoples. It is to the benefit of the very people we do not want on this website. WikiklEnr 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this newcomer for trolling and for vandalizing this discussion. See WikiklEnr (talk · contribs) for his "contributions". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you want to remove all names off businesses? How are you going to have information about Enron? Or Microsoft? Or MCI? Or about all those characters at HP and their recent antics to control people's lives? Certainly a bad idea to have the name of, say, the American Cancer Society (they are an incorporation after all). Would anyone in government, say Al Gore, who takes a position in Business be deleted from the Misplaced Pages? Have any of you actually read any of the previous nonsense in this discussion? It reads like a bunch of Narcissistic ADHD children. Information is being shared and all you want to do is go on a witch hunt against each other? Huh? Take a deep breath. Exhale. Another breath - longer this time. Exhale. Now ... Think about the concept of sharing information. Now think about the wiki being for that purpose. Now think about the deletion of such material. Makes no sense. And what's this using a wiki page as a threaded discussion; someone write an extension that makes sense with automatic dates, threading, etc.

The above was posted by 70.195.250.239 (talk • contribs). User:Zoe|(talk) 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have spoken with Sandy Straus extensively on the phone yesterday. Given her attitude towarrd using Misplaced Pages for self-promotional purposes, her suggestions that this discussion was a "hate crime," her use of meat puppets after she was warned that this is unacceptable, her calling of an admin at his home, and her utter disregard for the norms of our project, she, NYer, and JPeter2 should be banned indefinitely. I have already done so with JPeter2. Furthermore, her request that her user name be changed so as too protect her reputation was and should continue to be rejected. We do not reward spammers by changing their user names to make it easier for them to strike again. My suggestion is that all contributions by them, including innocuous ones in which their company name appears, be removed from Misplaced Pages. Let's not open the door to yet another subtle form of advertising. Danny 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a very one-sided view represented by a majority of administrators who are freely attacking three people (NYer, Straus, and WikiklEnr) WITHOUT allowing one of them to respond to these preposterousaccusations. Soon no one will want to fund or support Wikepedia. I completely support the request of WikiklEnr, who was also just banned and mislabeled as a vandalizer. I now vote to have all names of business people, products, and company names removed from this entry and only this entry, titled “Anti-Americanism” IMMEDIATELY in support of the three people who these administrators are unnecessarily attacking (NYer, Straus, and WikiklEnr). Straus is especially being viciously and maliciously attacked by the above administrators due to a bio she posted and then had NYer, a colleague, post when it was removed. NYer also started this entry- not Straus. Wikepedia also refuses to change her username and she is the only one on this entry whose name, products, andbusiness are being published. Everyone else has an alias. This is beyond unacceptable behavior for any online encyclopedia.

                                    TedDay 18:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is funding Wikepedia and do they know about this abuse of power? Listing the name and also the location of Sandy Straus on this page is breaching her security and every woman’s security. Just change her user name too if you have the authority to do this. Revise this page to reflect these changes, since you do this all of the time, and stop marketing the company products on this page (see products listed by EngineerScotty and Zoe) and stop making false allegations of sockpuppetry, meat puppetry, and spamming when there is common knowledge that IP addresses and computers are always shared between users (as JPeter2 said before he was banned with a few others on this website). Stop adding fuel to this fire. And stop silencing and banning people who want to rebut these false allegations about Sandy Straus, USer:NYer, and User:JPeter2. Stop abusing administrative power on Wikepedia. Be calm and realize such hostility is simply detracting from the contribution the wikipedia could offer. Folks, just be above it all and make it right.

Sethny 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

SethNY

Please Note, as a physician who has experience with patient care , The automated clock drawing test can have benefits to patients , doctors , hospitals, as well as The Department of Motor vehicles. Patients with cognitive impairment as well as students will benefit, please put the articleAutomated Clock Drawing Test back on the site. It is very useful and the information is very important. Thank You

                 Sethny

Sethny 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon

Dear Sirs,

I got a message for my wikapedia that they thought i was vandalizing. However it was an experiment and i further read after i recieved your message. Our professor dropped a groups presentation grade because of citing wikepedia because the site can be changed. I was experimenting with the nonsense page on feces to see how long the content was aloud to stay. As i read on it was only aloud to stay to view for 5 minutes. I do not know much more other than your comments on stating it cannot be guaranteed for it content. I myself use it to look up words and appriciate it. When i asked the teacher again today he said he does use it but tries to use it as a spring board and then research on for reputable sites. Sorry for the inconvienience this may have caused you. As a college student i know i should have read first but i am extremely busy. Thanks and sorry again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.21.185 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems the administrators are right on this one.

                    TedDay 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Google Web Accelerator

Hi everyone, I'm starting to see more and more unblock requests coming in for autoblocks from IP addresses in the 64.233.172.0/24 range as it seems like a few vandals have started abusing Google Web Accelerator as an open proxy. However, there are also innocent users using it as well. A block of the vandal Xdrakemanx led to 5 autoblocks and innocent person being suspected as a sockpuppet as well. So does anyone think we should treat Google Web Accelerator as an open-proxy and block it down for good? I can foresee a lot of future pain dealing with puppeteers who'll abuse it too. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, I thought we were allowing access from proxies that support X-Forwarded-For? --FOo 07:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If we know that the XFF information is reliable. --Carnildo 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we had XFF support up and running -- hence the whole AOL blocking farce we have these days. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do AOL proxies really support X-Forwarded-For? From the data I have, it looks like they only include a Via header, but not XFF. But I haven't looked at this exhaustively; I'm just pulling AOL-ish lines from my logs, like 207.200.116.14 or 64.12.116.139. William Pietri 14:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

AOL is one of the cases where XFF information isn't reliable. Sometimes it works, sometimes it just gives the proxy. --Carnildo 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ick. How reliable is XFF for Google Web Accelerator? --FOo 02:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If somebody can give me the IP range for Google Web Accelerator, I'd be glad to check the info I have. In another context I've been dealing with open proxy abusers and so have about 30m hits with various proxy-related headers recorded. William Pietri 04:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I use GWA (though have disabled it for Misplaced Pages and other sensitive accounts) and encourage affected users to see the talkpage Misplaced Pages talk:Autoblock. Perhaps a Google Web Accelerator specific message could be added to the autoblock template? It's not a terribly big deal to disable it for Misplaced Pages, especially as after the first loading it's rather image-light. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose that we rangeblock all known IP addresses used by Google Web Accelerator because it is in effect, an open proxy. There's been a noticeable increase of unblock requests over the last week coming from people who've been autoblocked for vandalism by accounts using the accelerator. I've started a page at Misplaced Pages:Advice to Google Web Accelerator users (WP:GWA) which I hope to add screenshots and instructions detailing how users can exclude wikipedia.org from their accelerator settings soon. Perhaps we can use a link to this webpage as the block message? --  Netsnipe  ►  07:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC) cross-post: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_on_open_proxies#Google_Web_Accelerator.

The thing is it isnt an open proxy. In fact many sites seem to disregards use completely and show the users real IP. http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/aboutyou.ch for example, when using GWA, shows Googles IP in the first section thus registers GWA as being in use, but states my real IP under real IP, with my real country and says no open proxy used. What are they doing that we arent? Glen 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I just checked that page using GWA and the XFF info is correct: It shows my normal home IP addy. It'd be preferable to use GWA's XFF ip when selecting the ip-edited-from for a user. GWA, while annoying at times, isn't a simple open proxy, nor does it perform anonymizing services: It's designed to accelerate your internet connection. I imagine the best solutions would be either 1) allow passing of Google's XFF to Misplaced Pages (the devs would have to handle this) or 2) block all GWA IP ranges, preferably with very large and obvious note explaining why, pointing out the security vulnerabilities, and explaining how to disable GWA for Misplaced Pages. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Another vandal account on Google Web Accelerator Michael0 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) today got 8 users on 72.14.192.48 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) autoblocked today. And I think the collateral damage got so bad that NawlinWiki had to relift his indefinite block on Michael0. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ecological economics external link

First, I'd like to say that this post wasn't my idea (blame Nicolas Mimsy Porpington Nichola Mimsy Propington some guy), but I'm doing it anyways.

Swedenborg (talk · contribs), who has spent the last year trying to promote a non-notable (and possibly non-existent) NGO calling itself the Global Resource Bank (three AFDs so far, though I'd swear there were more) has been persistently inserting a link to its website into Ecological economics, despite it failing WP:External links.

So others can judge for themselves the reliability/non-notability of this thing:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank Initiative
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global Reserve Bank (where he tried to sneak it in by changing the name)
• 1St DRV
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Global Resource Bank Initiative

As far as I'm concerned, this is linkspam, and a) should be removed and b) be treated as simple vandalism (per WP:3RR: In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute (e.g. graffiti, link spam ), the three-revert rule does not apply.).

So, am I off-base/off-track/beyond the Pale/<insert idiom of choice for wrong-headness here> to continually remove it? And yes, I left a note at WP:RFC three days ago, but no real response. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Next time he linkspams - post appropriate warnings on his talk page and if it still continues report it on WP:AIV — Nearly Headless Nick 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Continuous reversions/NPOV

Regarding Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive137#NPOV violations

The user in question, after what was already reported, has continued to revert the page. The user requested a "mediation;" after aforesaid "mediation" and my enumerating exactly what was wrong with his/her edits and the exact reasons for my reverting each of the NPOV edits, and editing two of the comments and inserting them into the article myself, the user again reverted the page, again ignoring other article improvements made by other users, calling my reversion in the edit summary "inflammatory." -Shannernanner 08:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

After aforesaid incident (diff), the character section was forked by another user to a separate article (it was rather large); subsequently, I reverted this article to the previous version and then instead added in the user's text which had been edited to NPOV, as had been agreed upon on the talk page (diff). Harlequin212121 then reverted the page again, again ignoring previous edits, including the agreed-upon compromises (diff). -Shannernanner 03:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

After I posted on the talk page the exact reasons for reverting the page, as I detailed above, the user again reverted the article, which was subsequently reverted by another user. An administrator, a mediator, and I have all tried to explain to this user why his or her edits do not constitute NPOV, but it does not seem to be effective. -Shannernanner 07:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin Jayg Inappropriate ban of User:Tit for tat

Jayjg is EXTREMELY out of line with this block - first it must be proven that this user is a sockpuppet as Jayjg claims. Furthermore he must actually harass User:Jakew before he can be blocked for that. This is an EXTREMELY inappropriate action by Jayjg and very improprietous as Admins Jayjg and Avraham were already suspected to be "in the pocket" (ie biased) of Jakew. forgot my signature Lordkazan 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Tit for tat is an editor who has appeared here solely for the purpose of harassing User:Jakew, by placing spurious WP:SPA tags on User:Jakew's Talk: page comments. In User:Tit for tat's most recent previous incarnation he egregiously insulted and harassed User:Jakew, was blocked for doing so, and then evaded his block. User:Lordkazan himself has been insulting User:Jakew (e.g. ), which might help explain his reaction to this. Jayjg 16:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Jayjg is a checkuser, and therefore has more information to help idenitfy sockpuppetry than most of us do. The contribs of User:Tit for tat don't inspire a lot of confidence that the user is here purely as an encyclopedia hobbyist. Jkelly 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And blocking him indefinantly without warning of evidence doesn't give him the chance. Generally you take a user aside before accusing them of being a sockpuppet, without presenting evidence, and telling them to behave.

Sure i've gotten in heated arguments with Jakew before - that's because he's gaming wikipedia rules to censor information he doesn't like. which is something I already have another admin looking into Lordkazan 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In this thread alone, you've already accused two admins of being "in someone's pocket" as well as accusing someone else of "gaming the system"...not very civil yourself. --InShaneee 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

who ever said the truth is civil? from everything i've seen of them it's absolutely true that Jakew is gaming the system, he's even been warned by ArbCom before for pov-pushing edits. Avraham jumps to Jakew's defense in a moments notice, often half cocked - including improperly accusing me of putting those SPAs (see my talk page). Jayjg always walked the line of suspicion in my mind until today when he unilaterally and arbitrarily came down on tit for tat without sufficient justification. In my expirience what I said about them is true - and in my book the truth comes before being civil. Lordkazan 16:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages's book, you're required to do both, and if you can't, you don't belong here. --InShaneee 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Lordkazan, if something is, in his view, "true", then it cannot be a personal attack. The WP:NPA policy, of course, does not agree. Jayjg 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

that is a straw man. The correct statement would be "According to kazan, something that is true, and that he can backup by citing evidence such as wikipedia diffs, cannot be a personal attack.". The Truth is not an attack, it is the truth. Lordkazan 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the diff you cite is about my opinion of an ACTION.. ACTION. I recommend you consult WP:NPA yourself. Opinions of an ACTION are not personal attacks. It is an opinion about an action. I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to use wikipedia to enforce their personal viewpoint and abusing the rules to do so. My purpose here is to improve articles and keep them nonbiased. I express my opinions on the talk pages, I only put non-biased information into articles (to the best of my ability). Current Jakew is, by intimidation mostly, driving off editors and frustrating the persistent ones who would undo the bias of articles like Circumcision which is completely ignoring many of the significant health and physical effects that Jakew doesn't like to talk about because they challenge his position - i have no problem having my position challanged, and i have no problem presenting the other sides argument. I want controversial articles to represent all viewpoints, and ones related to medical issues should CONTAIN ALL MEDICAL INFORMATION, not just the medical information that favors one side of the argument. Lordkazan 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was "Truth cannot be libel". Anything can be a personal attack.--Kbdank71 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

President Bush is a warmonger. That's the truth, but it's also an attack. What's key here is that there's both no need to say it on Misplaced Pages, and if the need arose, there's more tactful ways to address the subject (it has been a staple of Bush's precidency to use military action more than has been seen in recent american history). I'd suggest you learn to do one or the other, and quickly. --InShaneee 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Semantics. I could say "Administrators Jayjg and Avraham, have in my expirience, shown a significant amount of bias in Jakew's favor in all my interactions with the three of them. In all my interactions with Jakew and my research of his past interactions with other editors I find there to be a consistent theme of him intimidating other editors (by improper citation of the rules) into not adding well-cited information to articles that challenges his position and that he has been warned by ArbCom in the past for this.". You would prefer it that way, I prefer to be terse. Lordkazan 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally you take a user aside ... and telling them to behave I guess it all depends on what the user is/has been doing. If you come into my living room and start flinging poo, I'm not going to ask you to behave, I'm going to throw you out on your head. --Kbdank71 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And even with an indef block, there are recourses if they claim they want to reform. --InShaneee 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of the user in question "flinging poo" - if it was a 24 hour ban i wouldn't have said a thing, but a permaban is way out of line. Lordkazan 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion. However, there is such a thing as 'discretion', and as you'll notice, there's not a single admin here who thinks there was any wrongdoing on the blocking admin's part. --InShaneee 17:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And we can agree to disagree - it has been my expirience that Jayjg seems biased in Jakew's behalf mildly, and that Avraham is blatantly so (see his jumping on my case presuming i'm the one who put the SPAs without bothering to look at the diffs!). Lordkazan 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Indef. blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

At last. I was beginning to think I had to do it myself. And thank you also for your comment. 87.78.157.236 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user.

Apologies. My bullets weren't sufficient. I meant that I had blocked User:Tat for tit. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You were banned because you created an account for the purpose of harassing another editor, which is what you were doing as an IP address as well. That sums it up. Jayjg 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you have no right to continue this discussion if you are going to remove content from it from the person you are suppose to be discussing things with. Quite an abuse. --NuclearUmpf 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Jayjg is enforcing a ban. That's not an abuse. Your interpretation of policy bans is, not surprisingly, less complete than that of an arbcom member. Settle down. – Quadell 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Try to be more civil when talking to your fellow editors, can you please describe what you see coming of a discussion if noone can argue their point because Jay says they cant since they were banned? ITs kinda pointless, he is having a discussion with himself. Maybe you should go settle down and relax and be more courteous. --NuclearUmpf 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Banned editors are not allowed to edit, and abetting those banned editors is, in fact, an abuse of your own editing privileges. I am not "supposed to be having a discussion" with a banned editor, and certainly not here. Jayjg 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Then do not continue the commentary if they cannot comment back, you are also not suppose to bait them? I believe you were the one who posted that on my talk page. Continuing the debate after removing their comments is surely not ending the discussion with people you cannot talk to. --NuclearUmpf 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He, as someone who ISN'T indefinatly blocked, has every right to respond. --InShaneee 20:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

According to policy you are not suppose to bait banned users. --NuclearUmpf 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Let it go. All you are doing is making things worse and nothing is going to be resolved by your repeated interference. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quite the same situation isnt it. If you want the last word then just say so, if you are not gonig to address the point and instead just threaten, what is the point of saying anything? This idea of posting a threat and not expecting a response is quite silly. The fact taht you threaten action to prevent the other person from responding is exactly why many users feel AN/I is ran by watch-my-back-ill-watch-yours admins. Makes you wonder if they are truely paranoid, I will wait for the Rogue admin link now. My participation here is done, because some admins cannot argue a point, even when there own policy says otherwise from their actions, so they just threaten. --NuclearUmpf 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

An odd sentiment coming from someone who's been here a month, yet has half of their edits to AN:I. --InShaneee 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your intelligent response. There is a topic, its appreciated if you stick to it. --NuclearUmpf 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NuclearUmpf, you've made 103 edits to articles and yet you're expending considerable energy trying to tell several experienced admins and an ArbCom member that you know better than them. Banned users aren't allowed to post. That's the end of the matter. SlimVirgin 01:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was reciting what they posted on my talk page and the page on ban. Try to be more civil, its called a discussion. --NuclearUmpf 01:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This has no place on ANI. ANI is for important matters requiring the attention of administrators, not dispute resolution. — Werdna talk criticism 01:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack, possible sockpuppetry etc.

Great mess at Talk:Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest. I was called to mediate there but people were more interested in hurling insults, accusing one another of bad faith. One of the editors has provided evidence of another being a sockpuppet of a banned user. Basically there's loads of wikiviolations going on and I don't have the power nor the time to wade through it. Dev920 (Tory?) 17:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was coming here to leave a request that someone take a look at what is happening there. Looks like Dev920 beat me to it. If someone can tell me how to confirm or deny that GST2006 (talk · contribs) is the same as banned user WikiWoo (talk · contribs), that would be a great way to start cleaning up the mess. Thanks. --Stéphane Charette 18:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was originally going to say that this didn't look like WikiWoo's work, having followed that discussion substantially, but after reviewing some of GST2006's earlier contributions, it does seem to be at least in his geographic sphere of interest and some of the early articles do discuss procurement, which was his big soapbox through most of his career. However, the tone of this editor and the method of argument looks to me like it's somewhat different, and the sudden shift of topic seems illogical - if WikiWoo was going to dig into the sock drawer and get right back to work, one would have suspected he would go back to the articles he targeted originally, and not jump over to a school board dispute. I'm not sure if there's enough for a checkuser case here or not, but that might be the way to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we can't do a checkuser if one of the users hasn't logged in since a while back? I'm biased, but the identity seems fairly obvious to me, and he didn't exactly react innocently to my direct question as to whether he is WikiWoo. (Should have asked if he was WikiWoo, my bad. And yes, I do know it is no proof either way.) Also note how the editor seems to be falling into a WikiWoo cycle of first losing it ("neo-nazis", the board being uninterested in educating students) and then regaining composure and asking to work together. This happened earlier, when he said he was satisfied with my wording (back when the article spoke of only one issue with the board...) only to "add content to expand Wiki" (cough) the next day. Your call. --Qviri (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to make a point here: I'm not an admin, so I'm just offering thoughts. I just find the sudden change of personality and target as somewhat out of his character. It sounds like you folks have enough to do an RFCU, and WikiWoo's last edits are likely not old enough to be a problem for a checkuser. That'd be the right way to go here if you seriously feel like he's a sock. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. --Qviri (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should also take a close look at the license for all the penis pictures that are on WP. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nudewoman.jpg

Per the descision to delete the publicgirluk photos, I think this should be deleted too. It is a new user saying she took a picture of herself nude and released the Image under the public domain, just like Publicgirluk. Any thoughts? — Moe Epsilon 21:04 September 27 '06

Well, I've deleted it. Feel free to overturn it. --HappyCamper 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also Image:Sexuality pearl necklace.png which I deleted too. But I think that's all I'll do today. --HappyCamper 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No consensus was formed about what to do in regard to the PGUK photos and from my discussions with Jimbo it does not seem that deletion is mandated by him. Therefore, what basis are these deletions occuring under? JoshuaZ 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, have either of you two gentlemen bothered to contact the uploader? Moe, I noticed you posted to HappyCamper's talk page, but based on a review of your latest user talk contributions, no sign that you contacted the uploader. That strikes me as a very uncollegial means of dealing with the problem, if a problem exists. I'd like to point out that Misplaced Pages has been mocked mercilessly over the last half week or so over the handling of the Publicgirluk situation... turns out that they probably were good-faith uploads after all. Oops. Captainktainer * Talk 22:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Replying to both JoshuaZ and Ck: No consensus was formed what to due with the publicgirluk photos, but were they restored? I don't believe they were. The reason they were deleted in the first place was because it was possibly a hoax. If they were good-faith, I'll be the first in line to ask for the undeletion of the photos. But it's sort of risky to assume good faith that a user whose first edits are uploads of "themselves" nude, and then they never edit again. Ck, I didn't bother to contact the uploader, true, but the two uploaders User:Nnixon and User:Cp79 have left Misplaced Pages or they aren't bothering to come back. Nnixon only made two edits, the upload and adding the pic to an article. Likewise with Cp79, who also engaged in some talk page discussion, but left the following day. Why leave a message to a user telling them of thier Image deletion if they are apparently not coming back? If someone gets in contact with the users' and it is 100% certain that they are the models in they photos, we can readd them, but it's too risky otherwise. — Moe Epsilon 23:31 September 27 '06

I've seen a number of users who start out by making a few edits, don't edit for a while (even a month at a time), and then start editing regularly again. I've got several on my watchlist at the moment, actually. A couple of them started off by making rather controversial edits. It was also around the time of the users' creation that a Wikitruth article on the topic went up, and a number of Wikipedians read Wikitruth. Anyway, it's worth it to at least make an attempt. If it has to be after the fact because of potential legal problems, then it has to be after the fact, but in the meantime not bothering to inform the original uploader strikes me as very problematic. Captainktainer * Talk 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I find it laughable that anyone respectable would mock wikipedia for removing a nude picture that was uploaded by a person who outright refuses to provide any sort of evidence that they are really who they say they are. It seems obvious that the entire ordeal was either a hoax or someone either making a point or trying to get wikipedia in trouble, and the people who defended the user mainly seemed to be doing it out of excitement of the possibility of having contact with a intelligent and beautiful woman who likes to post sexual pictures of herself. I should clarify that I don't have any problems with the pictures themselves, but the fact that the user was possibly not who they said they were really made me worry about the possibility of legal issues.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good time to point people towards Misplaced Pages:Verifying unusual image licenses, which is a draft of a policy to address this and similar issues. Dragons flight 00:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a good title because unusual image licenses could mean things like CeCILL which we don't see much.Geni 00:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've undeleted both of these. The publicgirluk situation is by no means a precedent we ought to automatically repeat. If anyone wants them deleted, they should at least take it to an WP:IFD debate, give the community a chance to comment on it.. and at LEAST contact the uploaders and double check. I'm going to contact them myself. Mangojuice 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd also raise Image:Bride-two.jpg, a not-very-useful image of a woman in her underwear doing something silly. On the more general point: I don't think we need to be too keen to have images taken from life to represent various sexual topics, and nor do we need to represent 'ordinary' topics in a sexualised manner. Nudity has the balance right but woudl probably benefit from more naked photos of old ugly people. The Land 19:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We are also discussing this in a proposed guideline (for the sexology and sexuality project, not all of Misplaced Pages) at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines. Template:Sexology-project-guidelines-notify

Misplaced Pages:Private photos of identifiable models is relevent to this issue as well, developed in response to the publicgirluk debate. Hbdragon88 04:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Publicgirluk

The woman in the photos is porn model, Anna, aka "Linda Lust". You can see photos on http://galleries.anna19.com/lollyanna/n/1022766 and (large download) http://www.babeindex.se/showthread.php?p=1661#post1661. The latter site includes the photos submitted to wiki.

Both Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikitruth have made much of the Publicgirluk incident to mock Misplaced Pages in general and Jimbo Wales in particular. Interestingly Wikitruth claims, "We contacted her and got her permission to put up these photos", so either they're not so truthful after all, or else they knew the source and still went ahead to castigate Misplaced Pages, which is also not very truthful, but worth recording in Wikitruth. No doubt both these sites will be withdrawing their remarks and offering an apology.

Anna is stated to be Swedish, and Publicgirluk claimed to be English, so one of them's telling porkies, and, in the likely event that the model did not upload them, they are a copyvio. It all points to the need for strict verification of authenticity.

PS Linda Lust on Swedish Wiki.

PPS Wikitruth state in their article talk page that it is indeed Linda Lust, whom they had asked permission from and that they were "pirvate (sic) photos taken by her boyfriend".

Tyrenius 02:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (back to wikibreak)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Tyrenius. It would be nice if those editors who yelled loud and long about how people who felt these pictures were likely not suitable for use were probably just sex-hating fascists would take note of this. Maybe next time they could extend a little more good faith to us, instead of just to the trolls. Nandesuka 04:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are 345 photos in that session. That also suggests that this was a professional shoot, and not "a couple of snaps taken by my boyfriend." Nandesuka 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tyrenius. This has clearly been a learning experience for all of us. That said, I'm not sure given the evidence we had at the time that it made sense to act as we did to the user in question. JoshuaZ 04:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good detective work. This justifies being careful when evaluating claims of copyright release. —Quarl 2006-09-29 06:10Z

I agree with JoshuaZ, Nandesuka you miss the point, see my comments here. grendelsmother 07:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research Tyrenius. Thank you. AnonEMouse 12:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed - all of us 'Puritans' who, out of sexual panic, wanted to 'bite the newcomers' are very glad to see that their copyright concerns regarding these images were valid. Seriously though, I am relieved that this is indeed (as suspected) a copyvio, and not a case of 'boyfriend's revenge', the darker possibility. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out here, there was nothing in the edit history that I could find that was definitive as to the user's bad intentions. Furthermore, we still have no definite proof that it was not the model who uploaded them. Wikitruth claim they have contacted the model and gained permission for the photos' use (and also that this particular set were "out of hours" pics by the boyfriend, though that is not necessarily of any import). They managed to discover the model's identity, so maybe they do know something. Some students work as escorts and also make porn. She wouldn't be the first porn actress to contribute to wiki. I don't know for sure whether Linda Lust is Swedish as nationalities are easily fictionalised. Publicgirluk said she didn't have a website (but then she doesn't as PGUK). Per the current discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons, we need to exercise restraint on what we do say here. If someone cares to contact her, then that would be definitive. There is also a discussion on http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Wikipedia_tells_naked_girl_to_get_lost

For our purposes, all of that is irrelevant anyway. I wouldn't like the new information to (re)create divisiveness. Users on both "sides" were genuine and had serious concerns. Let us respect each others' motivations, and find a place to meet in the middle in order to work together to resolve such situations harmoniously. This involves both better and earlier dialogue with such uploaders directly, as well as the need for verification of origin before such images are used.

Tyrenius 14:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (still trying to take a wikibreak)

Possible block evasion

I believe that User:Zandvoort is a block evasion sock of User:Burneville who is currently on a 48h for 3RR violation at Jim Clark. The reverts are identical as each others as well as prior socks (User:Pflanzgarten & various anons). Please consider block of the sock and extension of block on Burneville (or whatever you feel is appropriate). --After Midnight 02:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind - This was also posted by another userr on 3RR and I missed it the first time I looked over there. Oh well. I'm off to RFCU now.... --After Midnight 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Pflanzgarten is back - with the identical revert. He's still blocked as User:Burneville and User:Zandvoort. -- Ian Dalziel 01:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Indef block on Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have indef blocked Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His talk page is filled with warnings and he has been blocked repeatedly. His replacement of a vandal edit on the talk page of the George W Bush article was the last straw. Comments welcome of course.--MONGO 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this guy ever since he created a userbox congratulating Osama on a job well done. Just a complete troublemaker, support block. Grandmasterka 20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Same here, ever since I speedy deleted his offensive praise-of-9/11-attacks userbox. In fact I was debating slapping an indef block on him just before MONGO did. He has a long and colorful history of vandalism, trolling, and disruption. Fully support block. Antandrus (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have protected Frogsprog's talk page, as this indef blocked user is leaving personal attacks there. --Aude (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikidates

I am totally at a loss to find anything at all professional in this edit. I'm really not in a position to argue with ArbCom members. Could I get another pair of eyes on this, please? --Jumbo 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Although Jayjg probably should have explained himself in his edit summary, it's generally accepted to not wikilink dates unless they're accompanied by years. For example, you would wikilink "August 13, 2006," but not just August 13. WP:DATE has more information on this. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No. "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. For example:

• Month and day

o ] → 17 February

o ] → 17 February"

--Guinnog 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Jumbo should probably leave dates alone for a bit. Guy 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Will do. But for how long should I have to wait for busy ArbCom members to come up with a consistent position? Is it a case of de minimis non curat lex or minima maxima sunt? --Jumbo 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There's plenty to do. Leave dates for a while and find some other useful tasks. You're not the only one involved in conflicts over date linking, I know. Guy 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a better sentence in the prose. We shouldn't try to shove in awkward things like "It will happen from 11 October to 21 October", repeating October just to get date preferences to work where they aren't necessary. —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the date linking issues are recent and a bit heated - probably best to not jump into that pot of boiling water yet :). Oh wee, I used a metaphor. Cowman109 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the best course is not to get heated up over such a trivial issue. Centrx's comment above intrigues me. Is he saying that Jayjg changed

• In 2006 the festival will take place from 11 October to 14 October.

to

• In 2006 the festival will take place from the 11th to the 14th of October.

because it looked better in the prose? I find this very hard to swallow! --Jumbo 23:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Centrx. It looks and reads somewhat awkwardly to restate the month. Danny Lilithborne 06:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to see the advantage of de-linking any dates, but as far as I know, there's only a general agreement to de-link solitary years, e.g. ] → 2006. Month'n'day pairings should remain linked whenever possible, exceptions being if it's part of a proper title or direct quote, etc. where a particular format is intentional. —freak(talk) 14:44, Sep. 29, 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I'm reading here, maybe we should keep this on w-pedia

TedDay 18:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all above for the comments. Looking at the Manual of Style, I see the following under the heading of Incorrect date formats:

• Use consistent date formatting throughout an article, unless there's a good reason to vary it.

• Do not use ordinal suffixes:
  • Incorrect: "February 14th" and "14th February"
  • Correct: "February 14" and "14 February"

• Do not use articles:
  • Incorrect: "the 14th of February"
  • Correct: "February 14" and "14 February"

The only exceptions are for direct quotations, disambiguation pages and section headings, none of which apply. The opinions of Centrx and Danny Lilithborne above that the change was for reasons of prose style therefore carry no validity beyond personal preference.

As some will have noticed, Jayjg's edit was one of a series of reversions of my edits, in which I changed date formats in articles related to British subjects from month-day-year American Dating to day-month-year International Dating, as specified in the relevant Manual of Style section. It is my understanding that rationalising date styles in accordance with the MoS is acceptable, along the same lines as changing measurements in articles dealing with American subjects to feet and inches, or metres in French subjects. Blanket changing styles to personal preference against MoS guidelines, such as in the Jguk case, is clearly unacceptable. I have raised this matter with him, but he has not yet responded to some points, and on others I think he is mistaken in his views.

With all due respect to Jayjg, it looks to me like he's dropped the ball on this, and rather than have policy determined on the run via user talk pages, or left undetermined in the hope that it will go away, I'd like to get some advice as to where I should turn for the next step in the resolution process. Mediation? RfC? I should also stress that I am quite happy to abide by a formal ArbCom finding; I merely want the situation clarified to the point where I do not have to depend on contradictory comments made by individual ArbCom members on random user or article discussion pages. --Jumbo 19:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

New spambot

• 24.20.254.222 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log)
• 208.102.130.55 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log)
• 172.215.125.237 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log)
• 66.61.38.192 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log)

Perhaps there are a few open proxies in this bunch? Ryūlóng 22:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That achieved them an entry on the spam blacklist - possibly not what they had in mind :-) Guy 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Was also:

• 130.13.58.62 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 82.254.105.7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 68.102.71.108 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 69.253.135.59 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Among no doubt many others... /wangi 23:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Blacklisted. And made a feature request. MaxSem 14:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

June 2

Don't know if this is the right place, but someone wiped out all the events of June 2 on http://en.wikipedia.org/June_2 Thanks - --Broux 23:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; it's already been fixed. In the future, feel free to revert such blatant vandalism yourself. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Broux 00:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruption from User:ClairSamoht

Hi, I'm unsure what to do. Recently there has been a lot of controversy on Misplaced Pages talk:Good article candidates about the appropriate way to provide references for certain articles which are standard textbook material. I have been trying, without much success, to mediate an informal compromise.

User:ClairSamoht seems to have gotten a bee in his or her bonnet about this. First the user is adding noncompliant tags to (featured!) articles like big bang with edit summaries of "vandalism" , , , , , , (and more). This is clearly in violation of WP:POINT. Moreover, ClairSamoht is encouraging seasoned users to leave Misplaced Pages for disagreeing which seems to violate basic standards of civility (not to mention that Misplaced Pages already seems to be having a problem with experts getting frustrated and leaving). Look, there is a genuine disagreement here, and peoples hackles are getting raised, but this is unacceptable in my book. Can someone have a look at ClairSamoht's contribs and comment? Thanks. –Joke 00:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I should also point out that Good Articles are being delisted by the user , without a review. –Joke 00:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked ClairSamoht why he/she tagged "Creationism" with an "unverifiable" template, as the article has copious references and footnotes, and he/she responded that there were certain sections which he/she thought should have references but didn't. IMO this is a clear mis-use of the tags, and is in the end not helpful — if an editor has specific complaints, there are ways to indicate the area of problem with far more specificity, and in any case blanket tagging without taking the time to explain the complaints is lazy and ineffectual. It does not help the project to indiscriminantly tag articles without real explanation, and I don't think posting a generic and inspecific template to a talk page counts as explanation. --Fastfission 00:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Verifiability policy says that "any reader must be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source". Yes, I have placed tags on several articles I've run across recently, for the reasons that the tag was created:

1. the tag warns readers that the articles do not meet Misplaced Pages quality standards, and the articles may have untrustworthy content
2. the tag recruits editors to work on the articles, and bring them up to Misplaced Pages quality standards
3. the tag asks readers not to form a bad opinion of Misplaced Pages on the basis of the deficient article.

The verifiability policy allows any editor to challenge or remove unsourced content. In some of the articles I've tagged, there have been stretches of paragraph after paragraph without a single source being given. I have not disrupted Misplaced Pages by removing that unsourced content, but instead challenged the content with a Template:unsourced or Template:noncompliance tag, as official policy states I may do.

In the Creationism article, for instance, there aren't "copious" citations. Most paragraphs have NO citations at all. Adding one tag that applies to the whole article is substantially less disruptive than applying a hundred {{citationneeded}} tags.

In a number of cases, others have removed the dispute tags, in violation of WP:VAND, and I've reverted the removal with a note that removing dispute tags is vandalism. In more than one case, my posts to talk pages pointing out the requirements of WP:V have been deleted by others, leading users such as Joke to think that nothing had been posted on the talk page.

When others have argued that they should be allowed to write whatever comes into their mind, and ignore the policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, that they probably would be happier writing pages at GeoCities, where they could do that, or that they avail themselves of the WikiMedia software, and start their own site. When others have argued that it's unreasonable to expect anyone to write complete articles, and they should have a bunch of external links to make up for that deficiency, I have pointed out that Dmoz does that, and they're always looking for editors.

The problem with "experts" getting frustrated and leaving is that "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog" When Encarta hires someone, they vet that person's background and credentials, and if they get caught diddling the data, they not only lose the Encarta job, but they can find themselves unemployable. What are the consequences for misfeasance or malfeasance as a Misplaced Pages editor? There are none. Rufus923 can sign up again, ten minutes later as Jasper911, and the editor doesn't miss any mortgage payments, doesn't even have to blush, because nobody need know he's actually a border collie living in Boise Idaho.

Articles that do not meet Good Article standards are supposed to be delisted. The ones I've delisted haven't even been borderline; they have serious deficiencies. ClairSamoht - Help make Misplaced Pages the most authoritative source of information in the world 01:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a good topic to bring up on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check talk page, maybe get some activity going in those moribund pages. Everyone knows there is room for improvement in the good and featured articles—is this the best way to accomplish it? delisting them?EricR 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you dispute any of the actual claims? That's what WP:V is about. If you dispute a claim, add the {{fact}} tag to that claim. What you're doing right now is disruptive and not helpful. --W.marsh 02:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Every page needs references, but not every page needs prominent boxes warning readers that the content is problematic. In the absence of an actual dispute over content, the warning boxes should go. Further, templated messages saying that an article needs more references is not a helpful addition to a talk page. Every contributor can see whether or not the article has appropriate citations without the need for blanket reminders. If you have something specific to add to the discussion, or particular facts that you dispute, then talk about them. Better yet, go look up some sources and add more citations. But just adding unnecessary warning boxes and templatized reminders is disruptive and not helpful. Dragons flight 02:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason I put those tags on the articles is because there IS a dispute with content. It's untrustworthy. If I used google to research a topic, I could at least "consider the source", but with these articles, I can't tell whether the authors lined their hats with aluminum foil. And WP:V says that any reader MUST be able to check whether the material has already been published by a reliable source.

Isn't WP:V considered official policy any more? Shouldn't someone be editing that page to say Write anything you damned well please. Think of us as GeoCities, only easier to use.

Also, I suggest you delete the {{noncompliant}} and {{unsourced}} templates so that other users will know that articles should be peppered with scores of little tags instead of one big one, because they are less disruptive. ClairSamoht - Help make Misplaced Pages the most authoritative source of information in the world 03:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Every page has a community of people who care about it (especially prominent ones like Big Bang and Creationism). Those people generally work to ensure that content is accurate and trustworthy. If you have a problem with what they have written talk it over with them. Misplaced Pages is still a work in progress. Yes, WP:V is policy, and yes some of those pages could benefit for more citations, but we don't add warning boxes to pages unless the content is likely to be inaccurate or misleading. You've provided no evidence that there is anything actually inaccurate with the content, and merely stating the truism that more citations would make the pages better doesn't help anyone. Dragons flight 03:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dragons flight. {{unsourced}} is intended for articles like Antacid that don't have references, not articles you feel are insufficiently referenced. {{Noncompliant}} seems to be intended for articles violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT; if you are really asserting this, you better put a detailed explanation on the talk page showing just how the article violates each of these. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I just added some references to Big Bang, mostly by going to the daughter articles which are themselves well referenced and using copy and paste. I suppose that improves the article somewhat, but if I had, say, wanted the correct references for oscillatory universe, I might have just clicked the link. (WP:SS seems to agree that this is OK – not that I'm claiming that all the daughter articles are thoroughly referenced.)

The real point I want to make is this. A bunch of science editors are trying to get a clear picture of what an appropriate standard for referencing is, particularly on uncontroversial topics. We certainly think that a page like Lancaster County, Pennsylvania is both excessive and unrealistic, as is the failure to reference anything in recent article I wrote (not yet finished) structure formation. Some things people did earlier in the week got a few people, myself included, riled up. But User:ClairSamoht is doing this to make a point – it is obviously to make a point, because otherwise he/she wouldn't be selecting only articles User:ScienceApologist edits – is counterproductive and likely to prevent a consensus from being established on this particular issue. Now, I realize that as far as he/she is concerned we can all fuck off to GeoCities, but I don't think the rest of the Misplaced Pages community agrees. Please stop this little crusade. –Joke 03:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Having encountered ClairSamoht recently, I have the impression that he or she means well, but that all would benefit if ClairSamoht worked with a gentler touch and demonstrated more respect for fellow editors' feelings. William Pietri 04:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed here. I reverted one of him/her (noncompliant boilerplate)s that had been added to Creationism with NO reason being given on the talk page, putting in my edit summary that the addition of such warnings should be discussed on the talk page first. It got reverted with an edit summary of "reverting vandalism". I'd like user ClairSamoht to understand that editors may differ in opinion, but that discussion should be used as a prime resolver of disputes, and that plates such as those that she liberally sprinkles on Misplaced Pages should only be added AFTER they are discussed. Finally, I'd like this user to understand that good articles really shouldn't be delisted without a review.--Ramdrake 12:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Gardner

I think I deleted the first part of an article on Alexander Gardner (the Soldier) while adding my own brilliant thoughts.......have no idea how to deal with this <e-mail address removed> sorry

No problem; it's been fixed. Misplaced Pages:Revert can show you how to restore old versions of pages; you can copy and paste your changes to that next time. Let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Alaska

Alaska's received a fair bit of vandalism lately. Keep an eye on it. DRK 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a sock puppet to me

User:AtLLo was created and immediately began changing my edits. And that user has done nothing but change my edits since. I strongly believe that this user is actually User:TJ0513, because AtLLo is making changes TJ said he would. AtLLo isn't exactly doing anything wrong -- but it's pretty obviously a sock puppet.Noroton 02:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking up on Sock puppetry on Misplaced Pages. Not all sockpuppets are disallowed, you may want to see if the sock in question would be violating any of the rules on those pages. If so, then we can do something about it. I've personally got several "segregation and security" puppets and find them quite useful. Hope that helps! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the contributions list for the sock puppet is made up entirely (well, 99 percent) of edits of my stuff. I don't know if, under "Forbidden" section of WP:SOCK the section on avoiding observation from other editors applies here because I'm not sure what's supposed to be "legitimate" and not legitimate in these circumstances, but it seems to me that the sock puppeteer is trying to get around my watching his edits of my contributions. We've had an edit war in the past. I guess I'll continue watching puppeteer and puppet.Noroton 04:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate usernames

Hey, can someone please block DOES ANYONE HERE HAVE ANY FUCKING MILK????? (talk · contribs) and Antidisestablishmentarianizeyourass (talk · contribs)? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 06:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! While we're on the username topic, what are we doing about userpages and user talk pages of names like this? Can we delete them if they've no encyclopedic content? hoopydink 06:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Best thing, in most cases. Guy 10:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, your signature is whacked. I'm removing the crazy CSS from it. 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem with admins blocking accounts

Freakofnurture just blocked somebody, and FoN's edit summary was "fuck off and die". I'm not requesting any kind of punishment or investigation. What I am requesting is that admins stop "talking" to indefinitely blocked users in their block summaries. I don't think this kind of behavior is consistent with WP:DENY or WP:CIVIL. Chicken Wing 06:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that WP:DENY isn't policy nor guideline yet, and hence people don't have to follow it if they don't wish to. However, that example is probably a breach of WP:CIVIL. Daniel.Bryant 06:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Put yourself in the shoes of a vandal though. Being told "user..." all the day long has to be pretty boring. I think you'd get tired of it. But if someone is telling you to "fuck off and die", you've clearly struck a nerve. (And just for the record, I completely agree with the block and am in no way defending that kind of username.) Chicken Wing 06:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Block summaries should stay civil, not because of the user who sees them when blocked (I have no problems with admins insulting username vandals), but because other users might see that block message due to an autoblock. For private communication with the vandal, use the vandal's talk page, not the (more public) block message. Kusma (討論) 07:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether WP:DENY is policy or not, turning this into a game with vandals, or making them feel like it's a game, could have rather negative consequences. And this is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and just common decency to autoblocked users.--Konst.able 10:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. You know what I say? We're admins. We're supposed to above the fray, not as bad as the people we are blocking. --Woohookitty 11:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never cared for the "user..." 'explanation' as it is meaningless to the occasional user who had no idea their username was similar to someone else's. That said, meaningless beats vulgar any day of the week. Actual explanations, like "confusing/misleading username, not a Misplaced Pages administrator", are vastly better. --CBD 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why there's suitable talk page templates ({{username}} anyone?) for advising the reason of a block. Far too many admins fail to post those advisories, leaving a bewildered newbie wondering... If you've got the time to force a block, please consider taking the time to provide a reasonable explanation for doing so to obvious unawares.-- Longhair\ 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well ya, woohoo... but this is FoN we are talking about. That phrasing might well be a term of endearment, just about. :) (no, I'm not saying he should get a special pass... actually I agree, that seems a bad block summmary) Also, in context, if you are just about the only person on the newusers channel and the bad ones are coming fast and furious a standard answer is all you have time for, but when it's slow, the temptation to amuse yourself out of boredom is large. I know I've succumbed (answering questions the user name asks in witty ways, etc) which, really, isn't a good idea but hey, people do it. I'd rather a witty block message than no block at all, if it came to that. So... food for thought. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think witty can pass sometimes though informative is what should be strived for. As for the comment that was left, I don't think tis particularly witty. Maybe if there names was PopNFresh and they were told "Back to the oven you go", that would be witty, but the comment left was actually quite abusive. I think if Misplaced Pages wants to earn a greater respect from those on the outside they need to present a more mature and educated front for those looking in. For someone to think "yeah editing an encyclopedia sounds like fun and educational", to be met with people running around calling eachother trolls and telling others to "fuck off an die", is not really the image we would want to present. Especially if as the worry goes, someone else with the same IP, if its dynamic, may get struck with that on their very first attempt to visit/edit the site. --NuclearUmpf 12:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I apologise in advance but why dont you either fully investigate the situation before you start going off at us, or just leave us to do our job.

• That block happened at 5:04am (UTC) and the user's name was "" (DakotaKahn is an existing Misplaced Pages editor)
• Freak also blocked him under a minute later with no block summary with the username
• However just one minute before Freak's "controversial" block summary I also blocked the same guy with no block summary (I often just leave it out when dealing with complete trolls - tho sometimes I dont depending on what I feel is going to be most effective), this time as .
• 4 minutes before that another admin blocked the same guy, this time as with the block summary "..."

Now, given that the "WP:DENY" summaries (nothing and "...") did zero to slow this clown I think Freak acted perfectly in trying another approach. It is ludicrous to state such summaries can look bad as almost no one sees them except the vandal (especially true if a soft block allowing user creation is used - and I have checked the autoblock logs and no one else has been affected by that block some 6 hours later - and no one will be autoblocked by it either). Also, this particular troll is with AOL he generates new users the immediately creates another one (often not even waiting for the first to be blocked) - and given that a new account was created just moments later he wouldnt have even seen the summary.

All I'm saying is in the greater scheme of things this is not even close to being a big deal - we do know what we're doing Glen 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are replying to me, but if there was a summary stating "fuck off and die" then its quite juvenile no matter how many times they were blocked before. I realyl don't get your arguement if you are attempting to counter that people should act like adults in order to show Misplaced Pages as more professional and not discourage others from participating in it. When a location such as this, an official channel on Misplaced Pages, is reported to have admins, people who are suppose to be helpnig Misplaced Pages, running around cursing cause they cannot maintain composure, it does not reflect well. I find it odd anyone, any adult at least, would argue that its ok to run aroudn cursing and blow their composure. This is not work and you are a volunteer to this project, just like everyone else, and as a volunteer you should not do anythnig that makes Misplaced Pages look bad. If you volunteered for Red Cross and ran around cursing and blowing your temper, you would be asked to leave. So again my point is that people should act like adults and "fuck off and die" is not very explanatory nor an educated reaction to a situation. --NuclearUmpf 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Glen is right, more context would definitely have been good. In this case I support the block as written. Harassing female (or male but strangely I never get harassed.. funny that) admins is Not On and multiple harassments can well justify an escalating response. I might have answered with more like "you wish" I guess but ... support. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the usernames in question; they provide context, but they also encourage trolls to create these names (remember also that these pages, but not the various logs, are indexed by search engines). The point is, this was a particularly ugly troll who deserves no sympathy.--SB | T 14:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This entirely miscontrues the issue. Nobody is giving ANY "sympathy" to the blocked user. No one disagrees with issuing the block to the slightest degree. However, if you think that "fuck off and die" is ever a good way to communicate you are seriously mistaken. No matter how annoying someone is, sinking to that level just makes the situation worse all around. Calling such an acceptable form of "trying another approach" or "escalating response" is dead wrong. It's inherently detrimental and there is just no reason for it. Making excuses about 'oh but they deserved it' or 'why are you taking their side' are either complete failures of understanding or deliberate avoidance. It doesn't matter how much 'they deserved it'... doing it is bad for Misplaced Pages. As clearly stated by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You'll note that we don't have a 'times when it is a good idea to tell someone to fuck off and die' guideline... because it is never a good idea. --CBD 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, feel free not to have an opinion on every issue. Especially when it's obvious what your opinion is going to be. -- Steel 16:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That is completely disrespectful and uncalled for. Try not to be so dismissive of people who do not share your views. Instead offer your view in a thought out manner and help continue the dialogue. --NuclearUmpf 16:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure what that has to do with the issue at hand. I don't see any circumstances where "fuck off and die" should be see as a good edit summary or defended, frankly it does not favours to wikipedia when admins leap in to defend each other on all and any issue regards of the merits of the case. --Charlesknight 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Steel, I tell you what... people stop making the claim that it is 'allowed' or even a 'good thing' for admins to violate civility standards and I will stop pointing out how hypocritical it is to do so while blocking users for the same thing. --CBD 13:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems we've done the rude language isn't really rude language dance a time or two already... Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editor on policy pages

I would like some advice in dealing with a tendentious editor on policy/guideline pages. He doesn't understand that guidelines are prescriptive and thus keeps editing them to reflect what he thinks should happen instead of what actually does happen according to consensus. He makes arguments for this using spurious logic, misinterpreting other policy or guidelines, ignoring evidence to the contrary, insisting on straw polls to "prove" him right, and personal attacks. He reminds me of the ill-fated Zen-Master (no, he's not a sock, he just acts similarly). Basically, he is starting to show all the signs listed on Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing, except it's in Wikispace and it's not out of hand (yet?). I tried talking to him but that doesn't help; other suggestions would be welcome. >Radiant< 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is it, or at least which policies? Guy 10:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sift through the Radiant!'s contributions and it will soon be clear. --Doc 11:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A clue might be good, he's edited a lot of different good stuff. (man am I glad he's back!) ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I should be less obtuse :) It's Fresheneesz (talk · contribs). This has been going on for about three weeks now. Among others, he has claimed that style guidelines aren't guidelines, that there's a difference between guidelines, "full guidelines" and "official guidelines", that the GFDL isn't policy, that numbers aren't verifiable because addition is original research, that policy pages may not link to non-policy pages because of a status conflict, that AFD is a vote and therefore Misplaced Pages uses polls whenever desired, and that it's proper (or even possible) to make a guideline to force editors to stop a common practice. Oh, and a bunch of personal attacks thrown in, and calls for people to "fight" others.

His main agenda appears to be opposition to WP:DDV (formerly VIE) and WP:N - however, confusingly, he makes a somewhat nebulous difference between notability and votes (which he opposes) and significance and polls (which he approves of). Anyway, while he has every right to his opinion, the above practices are not at all a constructive approach. These two diffs pretty much sum it up: .

>Radiant< 12:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts... ignore it. Seriously, the changes he is suggesting are significant and the number of people who knew of them insignificant (though 'advertising' like this may change that). Generally major changes like this happen because alot of people want them to happen. One guy and a couple of people who say, 'yeah I can sort of see some benefit to that but what about these three problems?', don't seem likely to amount to much. Even if he holds a 'poll' and five out of the six participants support him... a reason to significantly rework Misplaced Pages policy it is not. If he tries to change policy without widespread consensus it can be dealt with then. If it develops widespread consensus... well then it is a reality of what users do and could then be recognized as such. --CBD 12:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Radiant seriously misconstrews my actions and my thoughts. Many of the things he complains about me are old news - for example, I did claim that "style guides" weren't guidelines - but I have seen that I'm wrong, a looooong time ago. Also, he misinterprets me, for example - AfDs using polling, they aren't pure votes. Misplaced Pages *does* use polling, as i'm sure all of you know. Radiant is under the perception that polls shouldn't be used on wikipedia at all - and hes making his case by tagging his pet proposal WP:DDV as a guideline without any clear consensus. Hes actually gone so far as to delete a poll I was trying to run - saying that I "just don't get it".

I can't disagree that radiant has a very many good edits, but almost any time i'm dealing with him, its somthing disruptive and agressive (probably because I don't bug him when he does stuff well). Frankly, I find his actions abusive. Fresheneesz 01:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't pitch in then, as I have had a long-standing disagreement with Fresheneesz over other issues. In fact, I think Fresheneesz's non-notability policy may have been a response to the aggressive pruning of articles on personal rapid transit subjects, particularly the UniModal concept by Douglas Malewicki, which currently has no prototype, no funding, no customers, no test track and no similar installations in use anywhere in the world but is being pitched all the time. Personal rapid transit is a transportation technology which in several decades has yet to achieve a single real-world implementation, although one very small installation quite unlike the wide-scale urban schemes described in the article is currently being constructed in the car park at Heathrow Airport. Heaven forfend that we should say so, though, as that would be bias of the most appalling sort :-) User:Stephen B Streater may be a good person to ask, he has more patience with Fresheneesz than I do. Guy 09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You never miss a chance to get back up on your soapbox, do you Guy? Face it: you tried to you tried to slant the article to reflect your POV, and failed, then tried to suppress verifiable fact that you didn't happen to agree with, and you failed on that count too. We've all moved on, and the articles haven't significantly changed in months. Maybe you should let it go now? :-) ATren 12:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz has established a clear pattern of disruptive editing on policy pages. It is not so much his opinions, though to be clear his view on voting is completely mistaken, but his method of making them. You can't change policies you don't like by modifying the tag yourself, and trying to round up others to revert for you, and concocting votes where there is no dispute, and being rude to others, and especially not when you are simply wrong. I feel like our time is being wasted for no discernable reason. I am ready to suggest a community ban from policy pages, at least for a bit. Opinions on that? Dmcdevit·t 04:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that Fresheneesz has been primarily engaged in policy edits by the contributions. There's a patter of a response to a Misplaced Pages talk: page, followed by editing of the policy in question. The responses of the user on the talk page are not very combative, they are tearse though. I think Fresheneesz is meaning to do good things, but in an improper and inappropriate way without discussion. Proposed and official guidelines and policies must be hashed out with appropriate channels. Fresheneesz, post to the talk page what you'd like to change, or make a user subpage. I'm not for community banning a user for taking a part of policy or process, just watch your steps and consider the whole community before editing a policy or guideline. Stay within bounds to play ball. Teke 04:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not proposing a community ban, per se (as in, by block), but just a probationary restriction from policy(guideline/essay)-related pages. I agree with Lar's proposal below. Dmcdevit·t 05:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a bit of a saunter through his contribs... changing a guideline that we've been using since forever to a guideline . Threatening Radiant: and just generally arguing about whether the sun rises in the east or not: I don't at this time support an indef ban from all policy/guideline/style/proposal/essay pages but a ban for a while to get this user to realise he's not being constructive might be a good idea. How about a week for starters? ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How is a threat on Fresheneesz's part? ATren 12:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The guideline we've been using "since forever" has been a guideline for one week, the opening words of his "threat" are "that was not meant to be a threat", and the last citation isn't a problem in any way. This user has 4989 edits. 360 of them are to project space. Let's take it easy with the flaming torches. —Nate Scheffey 12:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see what Freesheneesz has to say first, but that's not too shabby. Teke 05:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Users should discuss on the talk pages and gain consensus before making major changes in policy/guideline pages. I am not suggesting a ban here, but user should take this seriously enough and not engage in what would amount as disruption. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, I second DMC's and Lar's suggestion. Let's just give him a time-out for a while. By the way he's now asked Jimbo to step in :) >Radiant< 11:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The appeal to Jimbo: Misplaced Pages's version of Godwin's Law. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's good to avoid unnecessarily hostility. Fresheneesz has put a lot of work into developing a view of how Misplaced Pages should work. His generous view of notability is out of line with consensus, but OTOH the notability article is less than a month old and has not yet completely settled down. Whether such an article in flux should be termed a guidline or a proposal shouldn't be allowed to cloud the bigger issue - whether there should be a guideline at all. I started the rationale section to show how the guidline relates to policy, and Centrx and others have refined this. The article is becoming tied down to official policy. In the mean time, I suggest Fresheneesz raises his more general points about notability - perhaps on the mailing list. Stephen B Streater 11:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on this discussion on AN/I and the numerous comments on Freesheneesz's talk page, I support an one week community probation that prohibits Freesheneesz from editing all pages related to the Misplaced Pages policy, guidelines, essays. Additionally I suggest an one week community probation that prohibits Freesheneesz from editing Policy/Guidelines talk pages. For the duration of this probation, Freesheneesz is restricted from editing places that these discussions occur and starting policy discussions on another user's talk page. After the probation ends Freesheneesz is encouraged to limit his discuss of his ideas to the talk pages of these policies and other customary places for these discussions. Freesheneesz is counseled to avoid spamming his opinions across multiple user and article talk pages.

This restriction on talk page discussions is necessary to remind this user that we are here to write great articles not great policy. His tendentious focus on writing and discussing this topic makes me believe that s/he does not understand this point. Freesheneesz talk page has feedback from a variety of users that he encountered while editing policy/guideline pages and talk pages. Very few are supportive of his approach to this topic. The suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Freesheneesz's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 12:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse FloNight's suggestions. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for any kind of block/ban here. Debate over policy is normal. —Nate Scheffey 12:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I browsed the talk page, and there were several people on both sides of the debate. It was not just Fresheneesz. In fact, a quick look at the history of the page shows two editors other than Fresheneesz changing guideline back to proposal. Also, I am new to this debate, but Radiant's argument seems dangerously circular: he says Notability should be a guideline because that's what is currently done, but he ignores the fact that what is currently done is controversial (isn't notability one of the most hotly debated topics in content disputes?). Shouldn't there be a more rigorous process for accepting a controversial guidline than "Well everyone's doing it these days, so why not?"? The Notability "guidline" was still listed as a proposal just two weeks ago, so this is far from a settled issue.

Back to the question of Fresheneesz, I've not seen any evidence of behavior that would warrant a probation (what does "community probation" mean anyway? Does that mean he's blocked but not really blocked?). Radiant's original complaint was vague, and the evidence presented by others seem to prove nothing more than a minor dispute. Perhaps before any action is taken, someone should document here exactly what edits he made to deserve this probation? ATren 13:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

These two remarks are a sample of some that go beyond simply debating the policy. Freesheneesz is ratcheting up the discussions past the point where a civil exchange of ideas is going to occur. This topic ban is preventative not punitive. Freesheneesz needs to learn the boundaries for productive editing related to policy changes. FloNight 14:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. The first is a relatively polite plea to Jimbo to intercede (certainly not unusual or in violation of anything), the second is a single revert of a rejection of the policy proposal - and note that he did not re-revert after that. Was consensus reached on rejecting that proposal? It's quite possible that the other editor was jumping the gun on rejection. In any event, he did not re-revert.

I still see no evidence of anything more than a spirited debate. Let's not overreact here. ATren 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some poking around on Non-notability talk page, and it seems there was an extended debate over whether to have a straw poll - Fresheneesz wanted one, Radiant didn't; when Fresheneesz started one, Radiant deleted it, which angered Fresheneesz. Regardless of the merits of straw polls, there is no policy against them, so was it appropriate for Radiant to delete Fresheneesz's edits? Now, if Fresheneesz was misusing the results of a straw poll to, say, change the proposal to a guideline, that might be a different issue. But just calling for a poll doesn't seem to be like that big a deal, and deleting it was unwarranted. So I believe this just is a spirited debate with some minor transgressions on both sides -- and we shouldn't be singling out one side or the other. In fact, Stephen B Streater has a good solution below: they should both back off the notability pages for a few days and let things cool down. ATren 16:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite his comment here , Freesheneesz continues in the same manner. He needs to take a break from policy making until he sorts out a better way to go about it. FloNight 14:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see what the problem is. He is polite and he offers rationale for his position. The examples of some sort of egregious edits on his part do not seem worse than others I have seen. There is no evidence of any violations of policy here. It seems like folks are piling on. I think ATren said it very well and I am troubled that this fellow is being given threats and bans for extremely vague reasons that seem to amount to "I don't like him". --Blue Tie 15:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Stopping the discussion will not resolve the underlying issues. The problem seems to be between Fresheneesz and Radiant. Perhaps they should both refrain from editing the policy pages for a while, and leave this to more mainstream editors. In the mean time, I am happy for the discussion with Fresheneesz to continue on my talk pages. WP:NOTABILITY is developing nicely. Stephen B Streater 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Um. Anyone who wants to claim that Fresheneesz is polite clearly hasn't even looked at what is being discussed here. He's calling others' edits vandalism, threatening someone with "If you don't replace my poll, I'm going to arbitrate against you. You are the most abusive administrator I've ever come in contact with.", soliciting help by calling Radiant a "very abusive and violent editor", and just generally calling him abusive at every chance. I would remind you that incivility and edit warring are two of the strongest policy violations you can make. I find it hard to take this comment seriously. Dmcdevit·t 18:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Fresheneesz should have another look at WP:OWN. He has got a bit close to these particular policies. He is not the only editor to implement strong opinions in this dispute though. Stephen B Streater 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Fresheneesz clearly lost his temper a bit here, but Radiant also deleted Fresheneesz's poll on the talk page. If you are going to condemn Fresheneesz for his hostility, then Radiant cannot be excused for his actions either. Frankly, I consider removing someone's talk page comments (that's considered vandalism, isn't it?) a more serious offense than the incivility shown by Fresheneesz. Once again, I would also repeat Stephen's suggestion that both these editors should back off from the policy page temporarily and cool down. ATren 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised this discussion all developed in 12 hours. I'm also surprised that a great many people think my actions are worthy of a ban. In the last few weeks, my faith in the wikipedia community has been dwindling.

One interesting thing I see is that peoples main grudge against me is that they think i'm taking policy/guideline into my own hands - and changing tags without discussion, etc. The funny thing is, that is exactly what i'm combating. A select few editors have been trying to change old guidelines into non-guidelines, and new proposals into old guidelines - without consensus. I've come in contact with a larger group that agrees with Radiant than I expected to find - and these people all agree that guideline is basically someones description of what already goes on. Personally, I find that view of guidelines to be very inefficient, because rather than giving us the ability to better wikipedia, we are at the mercy of what people already do. That narrows our option a bit.

If you want to ask me and Radiant to step back from policy pages for a week or so - I'm all in agreement. It'll give me more time to get started on some actual content pages (now that i'm starting school, I'll be editing pages that should but don't help me with HW).

Seriously tho, I'm not concerned with a ban against me - but i'm very concerned with what happens to our guidelines and policy here on wikipedia. I'm also concerned with the way people seem to preach consensus, but are scared to find out what it actually is. I don't want wikipedia to turn into a giant beuracracy, or some oligarchy of abusive admins. I'd like wikipedia to stay as a place based on consensus, with a common goal of helping people.

Lastly, I ask you all to just look at how you contribute, and see if you discuss with others enough, or if you actually know that you're doing something that is endorsed by more than one or two people. Please utilize the discussion pages, for eveyone's sake. Fresheneesz 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Spambot attack on talk archives

My talk page archives had been the target of a spambot attack for quite some time now. The latest wave includes this and this. I am posting this here for future referance primarily. --Cat out 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The links are now on the m:Spam blacklist. Naconkantari 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

More links have appeared. See . Reverting is pointless since the bot will repost the links, I believe it is only targeting my talk archives... --Cat out 06:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think it would be prudent to delete the spam from histories... --Cat out 07:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Faust (talk · contribs)

This user — who has received numerous warnings about his struggle with maintaining civility — has been repeatedly blanking his user_talk page (which consists of little but warnings). Would somebody mind peeking in on him and seeing if his actions are on the up and up? Many thanks. – ClockworkSoul 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Users are permitted to blank their talk pages, its just not preffered. The preffered action would be for them to archive their talk page. Is there a template that can be left advising this? I don't want to elave a message that understates the importance or overstates the preffered method. --NuclearUmpf 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that one should not delete warning messages, but I'm uncertain if there is an offical policy regarding this. If anybody knows, would you please point me to the page? Whatever the rules are, it looks like DMacks has taken care of it nicely. Thanks, D! – ClockworkSoul 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There are templates exactly for this: {{wr0}}, {{wr1}}, {{wr2}}, {{wr3}} and {{wr4}}. --Abu Badali 16:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe those are linked to outdated procedure. I normalyl go by Talk page etiquette

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.

Is there some other method, my udnerstanding is this is a constantly fluctuating(sp?) topic. --NuclearUmpf 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is, very much so. Traditionally, users control their talk pages and If a user blanks a warning it is OK to assume they've seen it and you are justified in going to the next level if there is further difficulty. But if it's a different admin that comes along, not knowing, they may give the first level warning again, confusing the issue. In the cases where I leave warnings for particularly obstreperous editors, and it's already not the first time I say "and if you remove this warning right away I'll block you for it" which may not be exactly right, but it's what I do, because while I recognise the tradition of a user controlling their page (within limits, this is a wiki and no one owns their pages) I think it's more important that other admins not have their time wasted. It's a trade off... busy admin vs. troublesome user... I come down on the side of making the admin's life easier. Myself, with a user I've not been working with before, I try to remember to look at the history of their talk page looking for warnings. Which is why admins ought to use good edit summaries like "3rd warning for incivility at mumbletopic" so you can spot them quickly. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, perhaps a time limit is needed, like "warnings should not be removed within 24hours of them being issued", something that will allow particularly disruptive users to not skate away with multiple first warnings, yet still retain some basic idea of control over their userpage. This isnt really the place I guess for that discussion however, but I again thank you for clarifying that. --NuclearUmpf 16:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It would also help to use verbose edit summaries when leaving warnings. Thatcher131 16:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Veronica678

Veronica678 appears to be a single purpose account , focusing on Almeda University (a diploma mill) and Life Experience Degrees. Her contributions to the latter read like a prospectus for people who are considering getting shady degrees "in 5 to 20 business days" (probably the whole thing is a copyvio), while her edits to the former have settled down into simple whitewashing after language about accredited school nepotism was removed. User has refused to heed several warnings. A.J.A. 18:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Belginusanl

The purpose of this account seems to be to upload pictures of identifiable minors and put them into Misplaced Pages articles. I've deleted one instance of such a picture that I found and blocked the account indefinitely, pending review. I urge restraint and caution in reversing either of these actions. This is a very, very sensitive subject for Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed this users contribs on Commons, an indef on both makes sense. Commons:Little girl at one point contained over 100 images of a similar nature to the one Tony deleted. I've blocked the user from Commons in conjunction with the en. block.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the suspicious and similar behavoir here from a user who was already blocked from commons, in the case, I'd endorse the "block and review" concept. I suppose that a single IfD for the whole lot of images seems like a good idea here.Voice-of-All 19:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:A.J.A. Launching Unprovoked Attacks Against Almeda University

User:A.J.A. Has launched an unprovoked attack against a legal entity that operates within the law, presents all proper disclosures on its website and maintains a very high customer satisfaction record. S/he refuses to allow both sides to the argument of Life Experience Degrees claiming that simply the word "Life Experience" implies diploma mill. Whatever personal issues and concerns User:A.J.A. has with Almeda should not be presented in this forum. User:A.J.A. has searched the Internet seeking out anything s/he can find that is nagative about Almeda and uses it as "ammunition" refusing to post any of the valid praises that so widely abound. User:A.J.A. lists news stories that cannot be corroborated as evidence of facts. I am not writing a prospectus. I am defending Almeda from false and damaging commentary by User:A.J.A. Veronica678 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

He's got verifiable sources, which are needed. You're removing them, which is vandalism. --InShaneee 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is not a forum, this is an encyclopedia. (of sorts) Homestarmy 21:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not "of sorts". This is an encyclopedia. I'm curious: What would make it "of sorts"? -- Tenebrae 22:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We aren't as good as we want to be. We are becoming a great encyclopedia (release 1.0). We are currently useable but not vandalism free (release 0.5). "of sorts" reflects our aspirations. The fact is that no encyclopedia is perfect and no source of information should be accepted without question. WAS 4.250 00:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We're also probably the only really good encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so i'd say we're not entirely a normal encyclopedia heh. Homestarmy 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The only unprovoked attacks are against AJA. Stop removing cited claims. Arbusto 08:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Unblock

Template:Unblock is broken. JBKramer 21:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How? Seems fine to me. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's eating anything with markup. Not to cast a lot of attention but - . I probably bobbled something.JBKramer 21:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt

If a admin has a moment could they pop over to Ron Wyatt where someone is intended on adding all sorts of ranty nonsense about evil wikipedia. I'd rather not get blocked for 3RR. --Charlesknight 22:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing talk page warnings (yet again)

I just intervened in a spat between three users who escalated a content dispute into a "Vandalism" dispute by warring over content warnings on talk pages. They justified it through the language of {{Wr1}} and {{Wr4}}. Now, {{Wr0}} is reasonably friendly, but Wr1 and Wr4 (and Wr2 and Wr3 which are redirects to 1 and 4) are often inflammatory and not in keeping with the current definition of vandalism, or Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings.

Can we maybe tone down those templates, or even drop them on MfD? Thatcher131 23:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be blocking for people removing warnings in most cases anyway - it always remains in the history. I don't think those should follow the similar vandalism warning layouts either. Cowman109 23:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I pulled a complaint off of AIV in which user A was accused of vandalizing user B and C's talk pages, which he did, but only after they all edit-warred over the placement and removal of warnings on user talk:A. Which B and C justified by referring to {{wr}}. I gave them all a stern talking to instead, but this is going to come up over and over again. The current vandalism policy on user talk pages does not agree with the template language. Thatcher131 23:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hacked account?

I moved this from WP:RFP as it seems to be complicated - Cowman109 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Old Account was hacked, so i had to create a new one. i wish to request protection, just how my old account was protected. I'm not sure if this is the place, but can that old account and its sub-pages be destroyed/banned to prevent it from being misued, and thought of as me? RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 23:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

One of these users should probably be indefinitely blocked, though there would need to be evidence that one account really has been hacked and that one is not the real person, so I bring this issue here as I'm not sure what to do with it. Cowman109 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't want to end up being thought of as a sock-puppet or backup account, and banned if the person who hijacked my account starts causing trouble. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 00:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have proof of being repeatedly attacked on wikipedia, if it helps:

Vandalism History: User:Raccoon_Fox

User_talk:Raccoon_Fox

• - User:Silicondirect
• - User:64.228.208.198

The reason i'm asking to have my old account (User:Raccoon_Fox) banned and its page and subpages rendered unusable is so that if someone (the hijacker) ends up using it to harm others or disturb wikipedia, i fear that the other contributors may think it's me, or that i'm a sockpuppet or backup account of the hacker. I simply wish to avoid these scenarios. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection requested

Could some kind soul unprotect my user page, please? I'd like to tidy it up as it is (obviously) out of date. --Pete 00:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for protection instead. Cowman109 00:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, on second thought - it's not October 26. I'm a tad confused here. Cowman109 00:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My block expired 27 minutes ago. The fact that I'm able to edit this page is proof enough of that. Pete 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This may be an example of the blocking code failing - I don't think you were supposed to be unblocked until October 26. It seems a bit futile to reblock you at this point since the message is already clearly done, but that just seems a tad odd. It's probably best for this to get cleared up through arbcom, though. Personally I don't think you should be reblocked. Cowman109 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a failure of the code. I discussed early unblocking offline recently with Jimbo. I suggest anyone thinking of reblocking me get in contact with him. Pete 00:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I left a note on Jimbo's talk page requesting clarification. Cowman109 00:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an earlier block was never undone before resetting the year, so the earlier block overrode the later one. Dmcdevit has reblocked. Thatcher131 01:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Man I love blocked users who name drop. :) But yes, sometimes a new block will not overwrite an old block. --Woohookitty 05:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Highways poll concluded

The WP:SRNC poll has concluded (with the exception of one state, and this minor dispute has nothing to do with article name). Therefore, mass page moves pursuant to WP:USSH will be taking place. Please do not block any of these users, as these moves are not controversial. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rschen7754
• TwinsMetsFan
• Poccil
• Northenglish
• Jeff02
• Pedriana
• Master son
• Seicer
• Xxpor
• Physicq210
• Vegaswikian

Banned user Daniel Brandt back yet again

68.89.136.174 (talk · contribs) claims to be him. *Dan T.* 03:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be, but in any case that IP has been blocked and the edit reverted. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 03:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats against Carnildo by Spockman

Spockman (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) linked an external PDF file that seems to amount to a legal threat against against Carnildo (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) for "denying his constitutional rights" or some such, aparently related to various deletions and protections related to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/True v United Services Automobile Association. I know trolls throwing legal threats around are usualy blocked per WP:NLT, but this guy sounds dead serious, and while I doubht he have an actual case a touch of diplomacy might be in order to save everyone a lot of grief, or am I overreacing? --Sherool (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your not overreaching, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Just block him anyways, since there is no "First Amendment" on Misplaced Pages. The only rights we got is the right to leave and the right to fork. User:Zscout370 09:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To add more to this, Carnildo deleted the recreated material at that said page, so he was in the right for protecting that page from recreation (Carnildo is not the only admin involved in previous deletions, he just happens to be the more recent, so that is why he got that PDF letter). User:Zscout370 09:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So why is a letter addressed from Riga, Latvia, with phone numbers in New York and Long Island? sigh. I'm surprised he didn't mention Trenton. --Golbez 09:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That was one of my concerns about the validity of this, but regardless, me and a few others are combing this over. User:Zscout370 09:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind me, but haven't there been problems with a user identifying himself as a "Mr. Koenig" recently? Ryūlóng 09:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That I do not know, but regardless, I know we had issues in the past with USAA related articles, so I think that if someone can email me off-Wiki and explain the whole thing to me, I might be a little better think than I am right now (3 AM, RFOwned and tried). User:Zscout370 09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My lay opinion is that Carnildo should point the Foundation's counsel – Brad Patrick – at this letter. I further suggest that any editor who makes such threats should be blocked indefinitely, and that aside from that we can comfortably ignore this raving nutter person. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be some comments in the letter in question that intimate that Jimbo, or the Wikimedia Foundation, are possibly getting bribes or kickbacks of some sort in payment for suppressing "the truth" about a matter. That might be considered libel or defamation against those parties. *Dan T.* 14:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I sent an email to User:Danny last night about this PDF file, and I still think Brad is on vacation (from what I last heard). User:Zscout370 19:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Serious criminal threat by user Sahands

This user threatened me with violence after I just nicely commented that a certain picture should be kept. The exact threat is: "You're a motherfucking retard, if you ever insult me again I'll break every bone in your useless body.". It can be found on My user talk page. He has been blocked for 1 week, but I think this kind of threat deserves a more serious punishment. This is a very serious criminal threat. I am considering taking legal action and reporting this to his local police.

I have no knowledge of the Canadian juridic system, but my lawyer will find out.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 13:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) This isn't really "vandalism" but something more serious. I recommend taking it to WP:ANI to get a consensus of admins. Newyorkbrad 13:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 13:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make legal threats. It is degenerative for the encyclopedia. Consider this as a warning. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a legal threat against the encyclopedia, but against a user who has used the encyclopedia to perform a criminal threat. Why should I be punished for it?

At least in the Finnish juridic system, even though it is the Internet, threats of violence will be dealt with seriously. A minimum punishment would be a fine, but if he happens to be felon under probation (for example), he will go back to prison.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you're lucky you're not also blocked for personal attacks .

Second of all, the No legal threats policy states that you can not make legal threats on Misplaced Pages against Misplaced Pages or other users. You can either deal with the problem here through the normal dispute resolution process, or try to take legal action offline, but you can not post legal threats online here. Regarding the attack, a 1 week block is about all you're going to see for a first offense. See the blocking policy. If after the block he makes similar attacks against you or other users, he will be blocked for longer. But you need to cool it too. His opinion about your photo is as valid as yours, and your comments, while less offensive than his, are also unacceptable. Thatcher131 14:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I read your legal threat policy, and I understand. My bad. I do refrain from legal threats and trust that the dispute resolution system, which I am writing into right now, will deal with the matter. Please help me out here. And I deleted my above-mentioned comments immediately after writing them, cooling off.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that I'm very new to this encyclopedia and just wanted to contribute things, and then was pretty shocked to get criminal threats of bodily harm for no reason whatsoever. So please cut me some slack on the legal policy, I did not know about it.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that given the nature of the threat, your reaction was understandable. I might also suggest that, although it's probably just rhetoric (if only for geographical reasons), Sahands be asked by an admin to withdraw the physical threat. Newyorkbrad 14:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

After Sahands was supposedly banned, this is what is now on his personal page: User Talk Sahands Death threat Quote: "Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com><---the most fucking retard on earth, your location has been tracked down, my boys will come for you now and kill off you and your waste of a family..."

So now it has become a death threat. A DEATH THREAT to me and to my family. I think additional action is required.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to need Sahands IP address, ISP and log information. Could some admin please provide this to me?

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If the police require that information, they should contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. See their web site for more information. William Pietri 18:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely based on these edits:; I will protect the talk page if necessary. If there is another admin who is more familiar with the dispute and thinks I've overstepped, please comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Update. I have protected User talk:Sahands after Sahands used it for childish vandalism/PA and then followed up (after being reverted) with blanking the block notice.

I have also warned Jk-bmw that taunting a banned user is entirely inappropriate behaviour on Misplaced Pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Admins don't have access to that information, only the foundation do. The terms under which they'll release that info are defined at Misplaced Pages:Privacy policy#Policy on release of data derived from page logs. So you'll need to raise an ORTS ticket by mailing to info-en@wikipedia.org or you may wish to contact your local law enforcement service. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So any admins still think it's a bad policy to take any legal action against a wikipedia user who uses wikipedia for death threats against another person? In this case I think wikipedia itself should take legal action against the user who made these criminal threats!

Your thoughts please.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In two and a half years here, serving as an admin a lot of that time, I have received at least five separate death threats. I ignore them. Doing anything else would waste too much of my time. You are free to have another opinion, but I think that calmly ignoring them, and not responding in an inflammatory way, is generally the best policy. Antandrus (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The WP:NLT policy doesn't say that you can't initiate legal action as appropriate, through the proper authorities, though it doesn't venture an opinion as to whether such action might or might not be a good idea at any particular time for any particular person (only a qualified attorney should be giving you legal advice). The policy just says that you shouldn't be using threats of legal action (against Misplaced Pages or other Wikipedians) in order to attempt to influence activity on this site (like to get the upper hand in an edit war). *Dan T.* 18:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fethullah Gulen page

Hi, I am trying to contribute to Gulen page. The page is reverted back to an ancient version by a user barouqque. S/he is reverting back to his long discussed and corrected version as documented at this link. All corrections and discussions are getting lost for about a year.

The people doing this are using a tactic to keep others away from the article. They blame others being a puppet. Unfortunately some admins are not checking the histroy page carefully and being part of this game.

I would like to raise the issue to the attention of community. Please help to keep a version of the article long discussed, corrected and neutralized.

Thanks. 128.101.254.126 19:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My presumption is that this is a sock of indefinitely blocked user rgulerdem. Watch out for the tar baby. Nandesuka 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

81.104.164.160

Someone needs to block 81.104.164.160. This user has a history of random vandalism and has been warned repeatedly, but for some reason no one has blocked him. DRK 19:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism in recent history. Can you show me some? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards