Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:42, 20 November 2006

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Promotion of Business

User:Mancation is using the definition of the word mancation to promote himself and his business.

Koavf (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely

Koavf has managed to rack up eight distinct blocks for 3RR, and 2 more for other disruptive behavior(block log). Note also edits like this.. I just extended his latest 3RR block to idefinite, as I think the community's patience is likely exhausted by now. He has had many opportunities to mend his ways. Having recently returned from a week-long block, he started edit warring again almost immediately. His behavior is unmodified despite the volume of blocks he has received. Of course, I put this possibly-controversial action up for review. Dmcdevit·t 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no note on his User or User_talk page? - Francis Tyers · 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He has lots of warnings on his Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the lack of note on his talk page regarding his indefinite block. A note has subsequently been added. - Francis Tyers · 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much possibility of recovery here. While I'm sure he's a nice guy, I don't think he has the temperament for editing here. I'm going to endorse this action, though sadly. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, harsher than we usually are. But then perhaps we are usually too soft. Endorse with the proviso that we put a note on his talk page indicating that he will be considered for a 'last chance' if he indicates that he 'gets it' undertakes to behave.--Doc 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that a long block of some sort is in order. Not sure if indefinite is needed, just yet (I'm not too familiar with the situation), but the long-term disruption and failure to learn from past transgressions is pretty worrisome. Luna Santin 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he deserves an indefinite block, but I think that some kind of length (maybe 3-6 month block) with the option of a "last chance" before indefinite would be appropriate. He has been a useful editor, and the disruption comes from edit warring rather than vandalism. - Francis Tyers · 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Justin is a nice user but w/ a temperament. It is this same temperament that leads him to edit warring non-stop. If you'd ask me i'd say i'd prefer a definite ban from editing Morocco/Western Sahara related articles where he got most of the blocks. -- Szvest 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Svest. - Francis Tyers · 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very strict block. I have edited on the Western Sahara articles before and I think that Kovaf has been struggling with some users who only have the aim to put certain viewpoints on Misplaced Pages. I'm not convinced by his neutrality entirely either, but I think the articles could become very unbalanced and that we would lose a valued contributor if he were indefinately blocked.

A block of a much shorter duration should be enforced here - 1 month, 2 maximum. I definately don't think he should be blocked from editing Western Sahara/SADR aritcles (but might support a block from aritcles on Morocco). --Robdurbar 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don’t want to interfere in your discussion guys but Robdurbar’s remarks justifying Kovaf’s behavior as just a "a struggle with some users" oblige me to do so. I think this is simply unfair from an admin.
• There are reasons why Koavf has been blocked (no need to list them again) and this has nothing to do with any "other users". Trying to Justify his behaviour in this way is simply wrong.
• The unbalance of the topic is an other wrong argument. He had the chance to cooperate with all and he clearly did not. Now there is a real chance that the topics will be more balanced and the atmosphere among the editors more co-operative and peaceful. All he was doing is (mis-) using Misplaced Pages for a platform to fight for the independence of a disputed territory and discouraging others with his obsessive reverts.
• There are rules, and they apply for all, so remember which message you will give if you unblock this user; it's like telling everybody "ok, just continue with your edit-warring and reverts, you’ll always find a nice admin to defend and unblock you."

Kind regards - wikima 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User Koavf has been reverting and edit-warring on many articles, and especially on Western Sahara related. Normal when he declares in his user page "I try to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR).", and on Wikime that "I will do my darndest to free Western Sahara". His talk page and contributions show that he resorts to personal attacks, and has trouble issues with a large number of users on a wide range of articles. After coming form every block, he immediately started by reverting all the changes done in his absence, even the articles he was blocked for. Short period blocks seem to "only make him bitter" as he made it clear. Koavf has not shown any change after all the successive blocks. He misuses AWB for increasing edit counts at the price of creating confusion, although he was warned and blocked for it.

As to Robdurbar's comment, I think that Koavf has made the articles related to WS very unbalanced, and in his absence you are urged to watch if the "some users" commit the same mistakes as Koavf or are the articles becoming balanced by giving both views of the WS conflict.

An indefinite block, or at least (as Francis suggested) a 6-month block after which a "last chance" is given to him to show he changed, otherwise 3RR loses its purpose and becomes a short vacation from Misplaced Pages before one returns to resume reverting and edit-warring. --A Jalil 00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to infer any bias from most users - including wikima - though I hope he would accept that he, like us all, has some sort of inherent bias. With there being so few contributors to Western Sahara pages, I don't think we can afford to lose Koavf. I appreciate this ban is over conduct, not content, but when banning we do need to consider what a user has contributed to Misplaced Pages. Equally, I agree, that koavd's contributions have been far from neutral but they have been in good faith. Can we agree to at least reduce this from an indefinate ban? --Robdurbar 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a fairly even split so far between endorsing and not-endorsing, is 50% sufficient for an indef ban to be upheld? - Francis Tyers · 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've only had bad experiences with Koavf. When things haven't gone his way, he has tended to run off to an admin, which has backfired on him each time (example 1, example 2). Lifting the block would be a bad move, in my opinion, which I'm sure will be proven if it happens. Several of his past blocks were reduced in length, only for him to pick up where he left off, which shows he disregards other people's good faith towards him. - Dudesleeper 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a rather difficult question, as he's mostly editting in territory which is *very* prone to POV-pushing. I'm fairly certain he has done it on occasion, too, and he's certainly revert-warred, but an indefinite block seems a bit harsh... Apart from all this, someone neutral should take a good look at all the Western-Sahara-related articles, as almost all of them contain either a pro-independence or a pro-Morocco POV. —Nightstallion (?) 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis, many others and me have been doing just that. We had experienced a very lenghty and hot debate at Talk:Morocco recently and i am sorry to say that among around a dozen of participants, only Justin was the most tendious. The participants had reached a concensus but Justin kept arguing against that. This is what makes Justin's case a bit torn. On one side, we need to keep all the articles free of POV and on the other side, we need no tendious editing and edit warring.

However, as i am not for a permablock, i'd still suggest a ban from editing Morocco/WS related articles as his POV pushing has reached limits. Szvest 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As Fayssal said, I would also oppose a permanent block. Koavf is an obstinate user regarding matters relating to his personal views but he has shown willingness to follow dispute resolution procedures. I know this is not the point but Koavf truely believes he's doing the right thing most of the time. Regarding a topic ban or a revert parole, these matters would have to be decided by ArbCom. If anyone wants to take this to arbitration, I am more than happy to express my views on the issue. Personally, I feel a bit guilty as I was informally mediating on the WS/Morocco articles but eventually left these aside because time restrains. Koavf has been with us for long enough to deserve a proper arbitration process instead of a fast-track community ban. Regards, Asterion 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Well said Asterion. -- Szvest 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Those opposing a permanent block are doing it out of good faith and kindness rather than out of rational and reality. This is a very clear case of someone for whom 3RR means nothing, blocks mean nothing, and edit-warring is a style. He has proven it again and again and again. There is no hope at all that he will change. I am quite sure many users have been indef blocked for much less than Koavf's record, and if this case were to end in a no-indef ban, it will serve as an argument for warring-editors, and as a blatant failure to enforce Misplaced Pages's most basic rules.--A Jalil 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering you have been here for under 3 months, I find it hard to believe that you've seen enough of Justin to make that call. Furthermore you have edit warred from the opposite POV to him. It is in your interests for him to have an indefinite block. Hardly the right person to be commenting on this. - Francis Tyers · 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If three months is a short period, I have actually seen during it koavf racking up so many blocks, using aggressive language, and disregarding Misplaced Pages's most basic rules, I have seen him promising admins he will obey by the rules but did not hold his word. I have seen 3RR losing its meaning in his case. A bad example for newcomers, like me, Isn't it?. Moreover, you can "see" all one's history of talk and contribs, even if you've been for just one week. So, one's opinion is not weakened (nor strengthened) by how long he/she has been on Misplaced Pages. You can't help Koavf by trying to redirect attention from his unjustifiable abusive behavior to other users, it is an insult to the admins' intelligence. You (Francis) have been recently blocked for edit-warring. As to my editing on WS, Koavf has reverted me , and would revert you , and everyone who writes anything that does not go his way. Is it enough that I support the WS articles to be filtered from POV by neutral editors (like you), as has been suggested above?.--A Jalil 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Koavf is currently a problem editor, but not a vandal. I suggest a long block to give him a chance to mellow out, but not an indefinite block. —Michael Z. 2006-11-14 16:16 Z

I'd agree with that. He has put a lot of time into editing up until now, so I wouldn't want to see all that negated by an indefinite ban. A time-out would suffice, in which time he'll hopefully expand his horizons. - Dudesleeper 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• From what I can see now, the topic of Western Sahara for instance is like recovering in his absence, already. There is a sort of peace coming back and the atmosphere is likely to become cooperative and productive again.

• I would prefer to see more people join and also feel encouraged to stay longer, than only koavf “owning” the pages and pushing others away with his possessive way.

• His obsessive, always instant and systematic reverts and his extreme edit-warring discourage anyone who wants to do the tiniest change that does not fit his POV.

• He certainly edited a lot (may be sometimes too much), but all his edits and article creations are POV and propaganda and it takes others always a huge effort to overcome his edit-warring and reverts in order to balance.

• Misplaced Pages is not about quantity. Articles that are shorter, neutral, concise, let say encyclopaedic, have much more value than long stories that are nothing than a fight in favour of an ideological organisation and against a country that is seen as enemy of this organisation.

• This sort of behaviour clearly damages the topic areas in question and it damages Misplaced Pages as a whole.

• He had many chances but he just ignored all and he didn’t care about using one single of them.
• It’s time now to protect Misplaced Pages and these topics and for their sake I would plead for keeping the indefinite ban.

Thanks and kindest regards - wikima 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Try not to make it a personal vendetta against him. His misgivings are clear to those who care to look. The admins will act as they see appropriate. - Dudesleeper 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Koavf is currently a problem editor, but not a vandal" - I think this describes the situation best, thanks Mzajac. This is why I think an idefinate block is counter-productive and a long-but-not indefinate one could 'solve' the problem. Of course, any user - myself included -who is arguing for a long-but-not-indefinate would be happy to endorse a full block if his bevahiour did not improve upon return. --Robdurbar 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. But i'd prefer that we agree on what problems we are refering to when we say a "problem editor". Are there many problems? Is there a particular one? I say this because i know for some of us or even for Justin, this may be debatable and could lead us to the same situation if he is back. Could we be more concise? Szvest ····> 13:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Dude, nothing personal, and I am most serious about it.
• Rob, of course we are talking about a problematic editor and not a case of vandalism.
• Koavf had already received the warning of an indef ban when he was blocked for a week and he ignored it.

Rgds - wikima 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The indefinite block should remain permanent. No amount of reasoning or disciplinary action has made Koavf alter his behavior, even if some of his contributions are worthy. BGC 12:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary

• Endorsing: 3 BGC, User:Kylu, User:Dmcdevit
• Not endorsing: 7 Dudesleeper, Michael, User:Asterion, Francis Tyers, User:FayssalF, User:Nightstallion, Robdurbar,

- Francis Tyers · 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for block

Please consider blocking SSS108 (talk · contribs) for repeated disruption related to Sathya Sai Baba. User began editwar by disputing references to Salon.Com in article, which led to a warning from user:Jossi (admin). User:SSS108 has continued to remove disputed references without gaining consensus among editors, leading to an RFA on the subject. Even after comment was obtained by ArbCom member (Fred Bauder), User:SSS108 refused to accept ArbCom decision on superficial grounds to the annoyance of several editors and admins involved in this dispute, for violating WP:POINT and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND.
User:SSS108 has been causing great disruption at Talk:Salon.Com by repeating invalid arguments and continually misrepresenting arguments of other editors, leading to great frustration and annoyance in a gross violation of WP:POINT. User has also been accused of partiality and bias in relation to Sathya Sai Baba, as article was subject of previous ArbCom dispute where User declared himself as an "advocate" of article's subject. User has also been observed to be involved in long and tedious disputes of Misplaced Pages policies in support of article's subject, removing controversial material on superficial grounds. User continues to repeat invalid arguments and disrupt. Request is made for 48-hour block or longer to allow for a cool-off period. -- Ekantik 05:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I came into the dispute only a few days ago as an uninvolved admin trying to sort things out. Since becoming involved my impression closely matches the above. This seems to meet the new guidelines on tendentious editing. A block might be in order. JoshuaZ 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User is continuing to disrupt, violating WP:3RR and WP:DE thus forcing another editwar that has brought about a third warning from an administrator. User is a repeat offender and has been blocked previously for disruptive activity on the same article. User is a single-purpose account as User's userpage displays clear partisan bias, bringing a potential conflict of interest in editing said article. Perhaps temporary block to allow cool-off for user should be enforced now? - Ekantik 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as no one is going to see this section way up on the page, I would suggest reporting to WP:AIV, pointing to this section. I'm not sure if it's standard procedure, but if user needs to get blocked, it needs to be done. That not working, try WP:PAIN and WP:AN/3RR. Patstuart 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is complicated by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. I will have a look at it. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, what we have here is a heated but legitimate difference of opinion between two editors in good standing. It's been to ArbCom but the disputed text is not really covered by that ruling (it's too content-specific). What it needs, more than anything else, is more eyes. I can't really pitch in because I have a pretty strong bias against the subject, plus I always tend to make things worse these days, so if any experienced pourers of oil on troubled waters want to take a look I think it will be appreciated by all concerned. It's certainly not straightforward. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Two users to banned

I've checked at the history of edits of North Korea and spotted in October two inappropriate users called User:DEATH TO ALL DIRTY FUCKING GOOK SCUM!!!!! & User:I FUCKING HATE GOOKS - PLEASE KILL THEM ALL!!!!! which are possible suckpuppets of User:207.200.116.10 due to the same style of vandalism they are not banned or notified for inappropriate usernames. Can we banned them? Thanks!--JForget 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked on October 11. -- SCZenz 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(Sixty Six (talk · contribs)/66.90.151.114 (talk · contribs)) - enough is enough.

Hello. Since the 11th of October 2006 a user generally just referred to as "66", or "Sixty Six" has been generally stalking me, insulting me, trolling me, being disruptive, being rude, etcetera, primarily I had put up with this as it was just directed towards me and it generally did not bother me because I believed he might eventually "convert" to a good Wikipedian.

Generally he has been disruptive blanking warnings people have given him to him on his talk page and leaving rude remarks. (and lots more.. on his IP) and on his account (tentatively named: User:Sixty Six): he then proceeded to move his talk page out of the User talk: name space to : Archived Crapola

He has generally been rude to me and generally harassing me (and recently (increasingly) rude to others)

He has the notion that I am a "Nazi"

66 has even devoted lots of room on his user page stating that I'm a Nazi, a "g00ber"

I could present lots more diffs and more rudeness etcetera but frankly I am to tired. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats and incivility on this user's talk page, including threats to take legal action and/or seek newspaper publicity based on the fact that some of our administrators (or editors the user believes are administrators) are minors, require immediate attention. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In defense of "66", I fail to see where he has "threatened to take legal action". He has mentioned that such a possibility exists, but mentioning said does not imply threat anymore than telling someone they have cancer implies that the cancer exists because they created the affliction. Also, I've noted that he's attempted to settled the differences via an e-mail dialog, as he notes on his Talk Page, but so far "Matthew" has refused to participate.

Note also that while I'm not really wanting to get myself into a war with "Matthew", I will however submit that he does possess an excessive number of complaints about the severity of his editing on his own Talk Page. This should be taken into consideration regardless of whether or not the complaints against "66" are valid. I submit that it's highly arguable that "Matthew" has brought this derision upon himself, although I'm also willing to accept that he may have done so unwittingly. His contributions to the Lost pages are considerable and commendable, but do the ends truly justify the means here? Geoffrey Mitchell 01:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The email I recieved told me to "admit I was wrong" — Doesn't state what I am wrong about. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 08:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. What was -asked- was that you be open to the possibility that you are wrong. If you'd like, I can post the e-mail contents verbatim, but that still doesn't explain your lack of response. An honest effort was made to open a dialog in hopes of resolving this in a mature, professional manner *without* unwanted interference from detractors/supporters of either side. If you're still willing to discuss and work out the issues we have with one another, the door's still open. I'm sure everyone here who's sick of the dispute would appreciate your participation. Sixty Six 07:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This thread you are responding to is from yesterday, and I believe the situation has calmed somewhat since then. On reading over the page in question again, I still believe statements were made that, at least, could reasonably be construed as legal or other threats and were therefore inappropriate. It is also submitted that your comments in the second paragraph of this edit are also unhelpful. That is irrespective of the merits of anyone's edits or editing patterns. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, no legal threat was made, period. Pointing out the possibility, or warning that someone else could take a particular course of action is *not* a threat of said. Claiming so is simply a case of "shooting the messenger", and if you want to play that game you'd better bring a pretty damn big gun :-) :-) Sixty Six 07:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Mujeerkhan's sockpuppetry

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mujeerkhan for background. This user, Mujeerkhan, obsessively edits Tipu Sultan, and has created several sockpuppets. Further sockpuppets have just been discovered after a new checkuser request to me. These include:

• Shezaad786 (talk · contribs)
• Gurpal z (talk · contribs)
• Geniusguy123 (talk · contribs)
• Mysorebhai (talk · contribs)
• Littlegem (talk · contribs)
• Aussiemite (talk · contribs)
• Indianpathan (talk · contribs)

I would appreciate if another administrator could look into this matter and take the appropriate steps. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 01:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

All tagged and blocked. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Robin Hayes

The Robin Hayes article continues to have the same user removing the text:

The 2006 election, a blue moon election, is still in doubt, since the vote totals of Hayes and Kissell differ by less than the number of provisional votes, which are counted ten days after election day.

The user seems to be coming from a static ip, and never gives a reason.

This is my first "edit war", and I don't quite know what to do, especially since this is an IP, not a user.

DRV on Cleveland Steamer

Cleveland Steamer recently went through it's 6th AfD (here) instigated only two weeks after the last one. The response was 'keep', and in all previous AfDs it has either been Keep or No Consensus. It was brought to Deletion Review here (where the nominator essentially tried another AfD, pretty much in the wrong place) and consensus was building to endorse closure when User:Improv deleted it out-of-hand. He's entitled to his opinion on the matter, but he can't ignore process (which involved support from other admins to keep) and delete it like that. I would welcome opinions on the conduct of the decision (not so much on the content of the page). Trebor 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the most current DRV was initiated by the sockpuppet of User:Brian G. Crawford to boot, and that Improv is the same admin who found it prudent to delete articles such as Teddy Grahams and Famous Amos as spam. I have a feeling, but no evidence, that User:Guglielmo Clintone, the 6th AfD'er may be a sock of Crawford too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't let process get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. I hope nobody restores this. Tom Harrison 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Too late. WarpstarRider 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't process meant to help improve the encyclopaedia? I've got nothing against debate on the merits of the page, just against admins making decisions unilaterally. The article has been restored (the talk page hasn't) now. Trebor 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Process (i.e. the rule of law) is the only thing that keeps wikipedia from descending into a Hobbesian state of eternal wheel warring. An admin that shits all over process - whatever the Cleveland Steamer of the moment - thereby demonstrating pure disdain for fellow users who are participating in good faith in the process, should not be an administrator. An administrator who becomes convinced that his judgement is more worthy than the collective contribution and thinking of hundreds of other users no longer has the self control to act as an administrator. This event was a good example of why all admins should be open to recall. --JJay 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Now now, I don't think we should be recalling Improv because of this. He's a good admin and deserves to keep those responsibilities. Does he make bad decisions now and then? Sure, but so does everyone. A bad decision once-in-a-while doesn't mean we should take away a person's admin duties. Here, just like with the cookie fiasco, I believe he was acting in good faith. He might have made bad decisions, but he was certainly editing in good faith. - Lex 20:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, in the real world you don't get too many shots at fiascos before you are ousted. Just ask Patricia Dunn, Mark Foley or Nick Leeson. In the real world, the issue is competence, good judgement and the impact of decisions, not good or bad faith. This is not this administrator's first fiasco. Since in his remarks below, he indicates strong opinions on who should and should not be an administrator, let him show good faith by adding his name to Category:Administrators open to recall --JJay 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You might note that a website encyclopedia is quite far from the state of nature, and that Hobbes was a bit mad. —Centrx→talk • 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus can't override foundation issues. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a slang dictionary. This should have been left deleted. Friday (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And we've been through all those issues ad nauseum, and they have not gained a lick of traction. At best, they don't violate any "foundation issues," at worst it's a judgement call - which is why consensus should rule the day. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You cannot assert that it overrides foundation issues, it is not clear-cut. If it was, there would not have been nearly so much debate. It was an issue with experienced editors arguing coherently for both sides, and in these cases consensus is the only way you should decide it. It is not up to the discretion of a single admin. Trebor 23:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I must say, though Improv might have broken process, that seeing it go would have been very good riddance. To give my nasty opinion, it's a shame that humanity would even think of such an awful deed, let alone practice it and glorify it with an article. One thing Misplaced Pages does not need for publicity is Jon Stewart standing on comedy central and quoting directly from this article. Granted, I can't support this with rule (hence the reason I didn't vote in the last afd), but wow, this is pretty low. -Patstuart 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't at all clear to me that this should have been deleted. The matter is sourced at this point and I see no obvious foundation issue. As for Jon Stewart, I think Misplaced Pages can survive ribbing from Comedians. I could very well see someone see this as a reason to get rid of BDSM or some other sexual article that offends people's sensibility. Personally, I find this topic disgusting and revolting to the point where I almost have to work to suppress my gag reflex. However, none of that is a reason for deletion and is certainly not a reason for an out of process deletion.JoshuaZ 03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely with JoshuaZ and JJay above. I don't see "Does Jon Stewart find this article amusing? (YES/NO)" on our list of inclusion criteria. A) I don't understand why this is a Foundation issue; B) It is inherently outrageous and anti-wiki for an admin to blatantly overide consensus; C) It is deeply offensive (far more offensive than the article itself) that anyone should seek to censor the encyclopaedia because they don't like the information it contains- see e.g. this, and many similar, for some examples of how and why this is done. 6 AfDs is enough. Badgerpatrol 04:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that people don't like it, but that the article consists of a dictionary definition, some original research, and "pop culture references" (aka cruft). There is nothing encyclopaedic about this article. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say to censor it, I said it would be good riddance if someone did. But, in any case, my personal opinion (not Misplaced Pages policy, so I can't ask for it to be enforced), is that sometimes we take free speech, which is supposed to be a means, and make it into an end. Free speech is supposed to help people become more informed for a useful purpose (a means), help improve something (a means), etc.; becoming offended at the lack of free speech (an end) does not fit into this category. It's proper to become offended at the lack of free speech where it's used repressively, or in order to hurt content. Do you see my point about free speech being a means, not an end (I'm not sure if I'm communicating it well). Even Misplaced Pages says Misplaced Pages is NOT anarchy, meant to test the limits of free speech. Again, I don't think it's policy, so I have no right to enforce it or call for its enforcement; just my opinion, as we all have opinions. -Patstuart 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The "useful purpose" is knowledge. Full stop. Badgerpatrol 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, too bad. Don't read it. We are not the morality police. RFerreira 05:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• For reference, my deletion had nothing to do with finding the subject disgusting or anything of that sort. I am libertine when it comes to such things. I deleted it solely because it was very clearly a dictionary definition. Consensus is not about voting, it's about discussion, and good arguments. This is an exceptionally clear case of when loud users who don't understand our project goals lead a bunch of fans away from them, ignoring everything our project is about and confusing consensus with democracy. I don't intend to redo my deletion (although I would encourage other admins to do so) because I don't wheel war, but I stand by it entirely. Wiktionary and Misplaced Pages are not the same project, and process is not sacred. People who would never go against a "vote", no matter how ill-informed and ill-conducted, even when it stands in the way of project goals, are people who should probably never be either closing discussions, nor should they be administrators. --Improv 07:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So although you have no intention of engaging in a wheel war personally, you encourage other admins to do so? Take a bow my friend. RFerreira 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I encourage other admins to delete it, not to wheel war. This is how we reconcile project goals, IAR, and a desire not to wheel. As you say, I shall take a bow. *bow* :) --Improv 07:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But the way you deleted it implied it was something you would have happily deleted on sight, seeing as you deleted it in the midst of a DRV (which is about process, not content), which was endorsing the previous decision anyway. If it is so "exceptionally clear", how come admins support both sides? Should the admins who closed the 6 AfDs on the article all step down? I would say that people who will happily delete something, out-of-process, against consensus from experienced editors and admins, because of their personal opinion of the arguments shouldn't be an admin either. Trebor 07:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Look at the AfD. Half of them don't even address the article, merely saying "abuse of AfD" or something, and are invalid on their face because they ignore the question of if the article should be deleted. None of the other arguments adequately deal with the fact that a definition and a few references that the term is indeed used does not make it anything more than a dictionary definition. Neither consensus nor AfD consist of taking votes. I am not proposing that anyone step down, merely that people had mistaken ideas about what AfD is about. We all make mistakes, and we all come to understand the project and its goals better as time goes on - demanding "justice" for an inadequately thought-out position would be a bad idea. I should note that what actually happens always comes down to judgement, whether from one person or from some combination of people - there is no shame in "personal opinion/judgement". --Improv 07:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The reason they don't address the article is because there were five previous AfDs. The issue had been discussed at length and every time no consensus formed to delete. And no, you didn't ask anyone to step down, but you did say they shouldn't be administrators (and the only way for that to happen is via voluntary desysopping or arbitration). Of course the issue comes down to judgement, but when many users have the same opinion on something it is called consensus. Your opinion is not worth more than anyone else's, and where there's disagreement you shouldn't take action on it alone. Trebor 16:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Or, alternatively, they could come to understand what's needed to keep the project working. I'm not a big fan of removing admin bits from people - if it becomes too common, then the project will fall to rabid populism and we'll see even more use of the resources of the project by people doing unrelated things. I'm not saying I don't believe in consensus, but I have a very different understanding/definition of it than yours, and to whatever extent yours means "let people vote and give them whatever they vote on", I think that's a recipe for killing Misplaced Pages. Long-term users should be educating less long-term users, and having discussions on where the project is going and how to interpret/apply policy. This is very different than voting, and it's what's needed to keep the project healthy. Previous AfDs don't give one a blank checque to not contribute to the current one. AfD is about judgement, not voting, and people pretending that they're voting while not contributing to the discussion should be ignored. The case is clear, most of the people aiming to keep are people who have never shown a significant understanding of policy (newbies), and previous people who closed the AfDs were not doing their job (as is anyone who goes by numbers rather than argument). --Improv 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • My opinion isn't so much "let people vote and give them whatever they vote on", but I don't think that this applies in this case. You say previous AfD closers weren't doing their job because they went by numbers, not arguments, but in this case I don't believe that applies. Do you honestly think that the decision on this debate was clear-cut, that it should be deleted beyond a doubt? Because that means there are a lot of experienced editors and administrators who are seriously misunderstanding policy, which is not encouraging for the project as a whole. I think this is a judgement call. Trebor 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • You have it exactly. I believe that the decision was clear-cut, and that the project as a whole is not in a good state. What we need, I think, is a very hard push against voting and towards discussion with a strong reliance on project goals. As a thought experiment -- what would need to change about the article to make it a dictionary definition? --Improv 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I needed to find out what the term "Cleveland Steamer" meant. I looked at WP first. Now I know.... Knowledge isn't always pretty. Hamster Sandwich 22:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Not a great deal, I admit, but I think it has the potential for expansion beyond that (plus I generally think it is a useful article on a topic which won't be covered in a dictionary). Can I ask you what you think of Dirty Sanchez, Teabagging and Donkey punch? Do you think they should be deleted? And if so, should you/would you delete them on sight as in Cleveland Steamer? To be honest, my concern is not so much about the merits of this specific article but the deleting of it in such an out-of-process way. You essentially speedily deleted it based on a dicdef argument, which is specifically listed as a non-criteria on WP:CSD. Under what grounds did you think that was justified? Trebor 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I haven't looked at them, but if they're nothing more than a dicdef, then I'd delete them on sight if it became clear that Wiktionary did not want them. Very few "processes" on Misplaced Pages are hard rules - they're guidelines that, as per WP:IAR, are ignored when they lead to problem results. That naturally causes trouble/conflict when people notice (and in situations like this, people are bound to), but when people arn't so caught up in rules that they lose sight of the project, sometimes the right thing happens despite the rules and the people who are sticklers for them. Process is not sacred here, and out-of-process is not always a mark of something bad happening. I felt it was justified based on the content, the fact that we have a project specifically for that stuff, and that having talked with some representative folk for that project, they don't want it there either. Misplaced Pages is not a "rule of law" type community. It's a bit more cowboy, and involves judgement, give and take, a certain amount of oligarchy, and a lot of messiness. People who attempt to simplify it *into* rule of law generally find their stay here disappointing. --Improv 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
          • At this point, those first two articles are even more dicdef-y than this one. WarpstarRider 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree very much with your last 2 sentences, and I think I now understand your reasoning behind your action. The problem with WP:IAR, however, is that it can be invoked in either direction (and if I recall correctly, someone used it as an argument in one of the AfDs). You could say delete it on sight per IAR, because it violates policy. I could say keep per IAR (because it's useful and not actually gonna be found in a dictionary), and don't delete on sight because that violates policy. The result? A mess. I don't think you're going to change your mind and say it's useful and should be kept anymore than I'm going to say it should be deleted - we both have our views. I would merely ask you take more care over using IAR on an obviously contentious issue (and, I suppose, state explicitly that you're using it). Trebor 01:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The big problem with IAR is that it might encourage people to ignore all rules! The end result? Either a) complete chaos (likely) or b) domination of the project by an elite "superclass" of users (i.e. admins) who, despite making up, what- 0.01% - or less- of the project, can take action in spite of clear consensus. Depressingly, I often see comments by certain admins that come very close to actively agitating for the latter scenario. This article has been nominated for deletion 6 times, survived every time, and yet I do not hear trumpets sounding or the walls of Wiki-Jericho crumbling. Is there any scenario that would justify ignoring consensus in such a blatant fashion. By the same token, I'm not necessarily arguing that the admin concerned was acting in bad faith- but it was, IMHO, a bad, bad call. Badgerpatrol 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Ignore all rules does not mean ignore all people. HighInBC 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it means don't follow a rule that will result in the wrong outcome. Ignoring people who want the wrong outcome may be a side effect. In fact, that's a desired side effect. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • But then you have to decide which is the "wrong" outcome. Which in a contentious issue is not agreed on. So how do you decide which is wrong? By looking at the arguments made by the people. Which you can then choose to ignore...it's a circular argument. Trebor 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CHILD

Can someone scrub the page history for User:Evan Finney, please? He identifies himself as an 11-year-old child, and he's posted a signficant amount of personal information on his user page. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it, in accordance with the WP:CHILD policy, as being too much potentially identifying information. (Antandrus (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I also speedy-deleted an article the kid created with basically the same information, and told him on his talk page to refrain from posting personal information about himself. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, of course, that there isn't a "WP:CHILD policy" -- it's a proposal under discussion, without consensus. Not saying it's a bad idea to remove this stuff from Misplaced Pages, but you're doing it on your own, not as a matter of policy. --FOo 05:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. But whether it's an official policy, a proposal, or just simple common sense, an 11-year-old child shouldn't be posting his full name, city of residence, school name, names of several friends, and other personal information, including a description of his house. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 06:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder: Several of these "I'm very young, here's my photo and personal information" accounts cropped up recently that turned out to all be from the same IP. One theory is that someone was either doing basic trolling or looking for a perverted-justice style incident. Now back to our regularly scheduakled programming. - 152.91.9.144 05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• However, we should also not be WP:BITEing newbies, and comments such as "We cannot allow you to post personal information about yourself" could have been worded a bit more tactfully. Perhaps we should create a template for this matter. (Radiant) 10:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Radiant. Looking back on it, I could have found a slightly gentler way to phrase that. A template would be a great idea. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I went back and rephrased my comments on User talk:Evan Finney to be a bit more tactful. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Working on the template idea, I've hacked this up. Edits/moves to a different location/name are welcome. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's right. Make a template so pedophiles can just search for all the pages the template is used on to find young kids easily. That's not a good idea folks. Neither is posting the information here, where now in the archives for all time, people will know how old that user is. Be smart about this. Find an admin and contact them priavtely to get info removed. pschemp | talk 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I still think the user posting said information should be told directly what happened (The deletion) and why to prevent them recreating the content because it disappeared without a trace and (for them) for no obvious reason. 68.39.174.238 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The anti-chuq/longhair/ScottDavis vandal

Hi...been noticing many different IP's all with the similar "Biased Moderators" vandalism. Is there a special place to report these (I've been currently reporting them immediately to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism)? Also, just curious, what's the background behind this? Or is it just purely random? Gzkn 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unhappy that his edits to a couple of articles were reverted. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive146#that guy with a grudge against Chuq and Longhair. He should be blocked on sight—if AIV wants to warn him 4 times first, point to the previous discussion. Also, most of the IP's he used turned out to be trojan-infected zombies or open proxies, so it might be useful to list them here anyway. I can run the easy checks and any that aren't obvious can be submitted to WP:OPP. Thatcher131 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Heare are two IPs he has used:

• 217.22.54.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 67.185.179.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Hello all, you still haven't found many of the pages which have been defaced. I will continue to do so until some sort of compromise is reached in relation to administration of Internode_Systems. Lots of proxies to go and plenty more random pages to edit. Love, Chuq/Longhair Vandal aka Guy with a grudge. :P 66.45.235.132 06:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute." -Hit bull, win steak 02:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Return of NLP sockpuppetry?

It has been some months since the mentorship has finished. Various sockpuppets have been banned for sockpuppetry Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. When I started doing a cleanup, and fact and reference check, a new editor, popped up and quickly made a revert. This editor has made several reverts since. From the start I assumed good faith with this editor until now. This editor shared a similar POV, and has began insering disputed text from the history that had been written by the banned editors. Some of the edits and comments from AlanBarnet‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did appear to be in good faith, however, now this appears to be a carefully planned entry of a sockpuppet to avoid the ban.

I believe an early intervention is needed to avoid a fork in the article, and to stop this user from reverting. I am trying to clean up the article and do a fact and reference check. The reverts are not making it easy. Especially when my personal belief in "revert only when necessary".

During my fact and reference check and cleanup to repair some damage done by months of sockpuppets who insert misleading statements into the article. AlanBarnet‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted me several times when correcting these errors. And now states that he will revert on a daily basis claiming that my edits were biased. My personal policy is revert only when required so it is difficult to work on the article under those conditions. I have been very careful to "write for the enemy" and check the sources carefully. I have asked the editor to avoid reverting, and simply mark the disputes with "fact" or or "quote_required" tags. --Comaze 17:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a complex issue because there have been a number of editors banned on this page, and this editor could just be taken a hard nose skeptic to the article. My suspicion, however, stems from this editors "blanket revert" then edit. Also, there has been a number of sesible edits mixed with the blind importing of edits written by banned users. This were both characteristics of the banned editors, and a behaviour that led to months of circular discussion, failed mediation, failed mentorship, and bans. The banned editor had create a complex network of sockpuppets that work together to evade arbcom rulings. This editor, AlanBarnet‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a carefully planned attempt. Either way, we'll need to continue to monitor this page and discussion. I will make edits that are entirely within policy to see if this user reverts blindly again. --Comaze 01:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The CheckUser, tenatively, found the user was unrelated to banned users and requests additional information. Also CheckUser suggested that if there is enough behavioral evidence then an incident should be posted here. I'll collect the behavioral evidence and post it here. --Comaze 08:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians

I feel that this article has been deleted wrongfully.

• No vote was made on its content or name at the time of its deletion. The vote having been made on Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar which was completely different to Spanish Gibraltarians both in name and in content.
• The article is NPOV, well sourced, provides only information which is absent on all other Gibraltar related articles and simply refers to a community of people (Gibraltarian Spaniards) explaining who they are and a bit of their history. No POV related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute on Gibraltar is even touched and thus is non-controversial. The article was deleted in with a very small number of votes and in a very short time (5 days?).
• A copy of the article is on my talk page.--Burgas00 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that this issue got be posted at WP:DR WP:DRV. But, Burgas and I thought it would be a good idea to inform admins that Burgas is planning to recreate the article under a diff title and NPOV. What didn't look fine at the AfD process is the duration of the discussion. It was closed after 5 votes and after only 5 days!

Anyway, i believe that after the article is freed from POV (in case there are), it can be recreated under the new title. Apart from the duration of the vote, the nature of the votes are also unfounded (most voters talked about POV -which not a valid reason to delete an article), the nomination was based on that "there exists articles on Gibraltar and Demographics of Gibraltar" is also questioble and not convincing at all as there exist people caled SPANISH GIBRALTARIANS. Any comments or feedbacks? -- Szvest → 17:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean WP:DRV? - Francis Tyers · 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, correct Francis. Thanks for the note. -- Szvest → 18:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask user Gibnews to stop deleting or requesting speedy deletion of the copy of the article on my talk page. He already got it deleted from the talk page of Spanish Gibraltarians and has now requested speedy deletion from my talk page (??) This seems like an attempt to disrupt the current process of undeletion. Thanks. --Burgas00 15:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was deleted through the AFD. The original title was Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar, which was moved to Spanish Gibraltarians. Please use WP:DRV if you found the AFD process to be incorrect. Naconkantari 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

TheBigDirtyBastard

I saw a piece of vandalism from TheBigDirtyBastard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and rolled it back. I then checked his contribs to see if it was a vandalism-only account, which I would have blocked indefinitely. It doesn't seem to be, but it is a fairly new account. In that case, I'd just give him a warning. However, I'm wondering should he be blocked for his username. My feeling is yes, definitely, but I think I would tend to be less tolerant of such names than other people might, and I'm not actually experienced in username blocks. I may have done one or two, but if so, they were really offensive names. As it is, I haven't even warned this user for his vandalism, because it seems a bit silly to warn someone for vandalism if I'm going to block him two minutes later regardless of any possible change in behaviour. Can someone please advise? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The name doesn't offend me, but I do suggest he should be pointed to Misplaced Pages:Changing username; He seems to have made good contribs so there's always room for change rather then a block. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as an opinion, there have been a lot of requests for uName blocks recently for names which are really fairly inoffensive, and it seems to me a trend is starting which may be ill-advised. We're not Disney, after all. This one could offend some; however it is not "profane" - bastard being a legal term, and dirty having several meanings - and may be a semi-witticism on the part of the editor. I applaud Ann's reluctance to block precipitously for uName. KillerChihuahua 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he is a fat guy who works on a farm and gets dirty, and was born out of wedlock. This may be really funny to him, and not profane at all. Or perhaps it has less meaning. HighInBC 19:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Smyslov

I don't know where exactly this belongs, but User:Smyslov made an extremely rude comment about recently deceased person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.4.28 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Even as it is ostensibly essayed jocularly, the comment is untoward, I suppose (and I say that not just because I had a man crush on Milton Friedman), but it doesn't seem particularly to disrupt the project, such that the best method by which to deal with it (and other similarly-styled user comments) is probably to refactor (in this case, to remove rather than to strike out) and to suggest that the user refrain in the future from offering about articles commentary irrelevant to the pursuits of the project, especially where such commentary will serve a disruptive or inflammatory purpose. In this instance, Intangible quite properly removed the entire section that focused on the sentiments of users surrounding the death of the subject rather than of the article itself; as Help:Talk page and {{talkheader}}, which serves atop talk pages to recapitulate the former, make plain, talk pages are not for for general discussion about...article subject. Joe 03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert war over interwikilinks to the siberian-russian wiki

Recently a Siberian-russian wiki was started and there is currently a motion to get is closed down again .

Nevertheless it has some articles and bots are starting to add interwikilinks to articles here but they get reverted by the people, that want that wiki gone. I personally have no preference as to the existance of the wiki, but I think while it is alive it would be a violation of WP:POINT and a disription to enwiki to remove the interwikilinks. See Talk:Ingria#Ru-Sib for some of the arguments involved. The User I came accross on the Germany article doing this is Mikkalai (talk · contribs) but apparently there are more. Agathoclea 22:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

iwiki link removal

Archived thread removed, see /IncidentArchive147#iwiki_link_removal. El_C 13:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue hasn't really been resolved either way. None of the above answers the question whever there is some policy that would allow the removal of interwiki links. The debate on meta seems very heated, and despite the fact that the "discussion" is of extremely low quality and heavily politicized there do seem to be some genuine problems with the Siberian Misplaced Pages (though the POV argument can be also be called of many others, and from what I could read of that page, there doesn't seem to be anything really terrible on sib like for example genocide denial). I think this might be a cultural issue, with our Russian partners not understanding that in European culture there is an assumption of innocence. Therefor it has to be first determined if the Siberian Misplaced Pages violates the rules of the Wikimedia Foundation and only then, if it does, should the iwiki links be removed. --84.16.230.249 12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi, i've question. If i'm thinking that an admin is unilateral and not neutral, what should i do? Where should I complain about this?..--Karcha 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Open, informal complaints about admins can go here. Trebor 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing this thread is the issue in question. It's no longer "unilateral" as I agree with InShaneee. --Ginkgo100 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is inshanee, how do you know that i'll complain inshanee? i didn't say a name about this? Who are you?--Karcha 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

All communications on Misplaced Pages can be seen by anyone. There are notes on your Talk page from InShaneee, and notes on InShaneee's Talk page from you. Fan-1967 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, it can be seen. However i didn't give a name here. I could give a different name. Who is Ginkgo100? --Karcha 23:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you click on my name at the end of this sentence, you'll see my user page, which will tell you a bit about who I am. --Ginkgo100 01:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you could... But please do not waste our time! /wangi 23:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i have a complaint about user InShaneee he/she always acts unilateral about me and turkic related articles. Turkic related articles are sabotaging by iranians. InShaneee don't see iranian's personal attacks, he only sees me. Please look his actions in the last 4 hour. When i posted my complaints about them he warns me urgently. Please have a look; Aren't these personal attacks? Why doesn't he ban him?

This was deleted, i wonder why?

As soon as Korshid joined Misplaced Pages in May 2006, s/he launched into edit wars accusing anyone who disagreed with him/her - even mildly - of racism, while making claims regarding others' ethnicity: , etc. Yet, this user has not once received a warning or a block over his/her behaviour. Is this constructive to Misplaced Pages? Isn't it time to deal with this kind of disruptive activity?--Karcha 23:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tu quoque isn't a defence on Misplaced Pages for making personal attacks. "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them" (emphasis in original, WP:NPA). Daniel.Bryant 23:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something? This whole story seems to have been triggered when Karcha misspelled Khorshid's name as "Khorshit", and InShaneee obviously saw that as alluding to the English 4-letter word. From Karcha's incredulous response, I find it possible that this had not been intended or even thought of, and was an honest misspelling. Karcha is Turkish, and in Turkish there is some frequent variation between name spellings in "-d" and in "-t" (like Mehmed/Mehmet etc.), and "Khorshit" seems to be a possible, legitimate name form (). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

See the long list of diffs - this was far from isolated. Whoops, wrong section (page, even!) Now that I'm here, I might as well comment - that is a fair point, but if Karcha had have come out and said this was whathappened, I'm sure it would have been a much better. Daniel.Bryant 10:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but what with Karcha's poor English, and the rapidly escalating confrontational tone of that whole encounter with InShaneee, I can imagine he never even understood what he was being accused of, so he had no way of defending himself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting since Karcha had attacked me before and I had given him warning and then he calls me "Khorshit". You are saying this is mistake made by him? What is this, playing devils advocate or what because from what I have seen is that this user (now admin) always points fingers at Iranian users while indulging Arab/Turkish users. What is this??? Khorshid 11:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And I think you should leave InShanee alone. He has been harassed and singled out enough! Khorshid 11:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fact Finder

Fact Finder (talk · contribs) is doing some weird things, like attempting to continue discussion on an archived page (Misplaced Pages:Help desk/Archives/2006 October 22) which isn't intended for use for ongoing discussion, and also is making what borders on personal attacks on me (accusing me falsely of deleting his comments and lying about being a member of Mensa). *Dan T.* 00:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is he still allowed to edit? I've not seen him do anything productive, he appears to be here purely to spam his company. --Sam Blanning 00:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

He's continuing to add commentary to various archive pages, trying to get the last word in various long-dead discussions. His comments include accusations that Wikipedians are sending e-mail viruses to his company, among other things. *Dan T.* 14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Devout Christian

Same MO as indef-blocked Devout Christian (talk · contribs) posting from 83.14.195.250 (talk · contribs) and 212.51.199.173 (talk · contribs). Apparently he has moved to Poland. Please block STAT. --Ideogram 00:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. --Sam Blanning 00:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked them for 24 hours, but on second look the IPs seem pretty static. If they continue after the blocks expire we can consider a longer block - or we can consider it now, in fact, I don't really mind if someone else decides to lengthen my blocks. --Sam Blanning 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very strange. If you look at the talk pages for these two IPs, you will see that Devout Christian is apparently being stalked by someone at IPs 70.52.75.25, 70.52.64.186, 70.52.64.194, 70.52.73.244, 70.52.73.108, and 70.52.75.213. Is there anything we should do about this? Is there anything we can do about this? --Ideogram 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by E104421

I ran a CheckUser on Karcha (talk · contribs) on request, since this ostensibly new user has gotten right in the middle of edit wars and existing conflicts from the beginning, and is obviously not new. It is very likely that Karcha, who has been used for reverting to E104421's revision frequently, is the same user as him based on both the IP evidence, and the editing pattern. Dmcdevit·t 01:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I reported the sock/main 3RR's to WP:AN3, and strongly urge the admins to block the sock indef - only intention was to avoid 3RR. Daniel.Bryant 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The sock has been blocked indef, and I've extended the block on the main (which was already blocked for a 3RR violation) to 6 days. Any admin is welcome to change that duration (longer or shorter) at their discretion. -- Steel 02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the sock's edits and crossed-out his votes at AfDs & TfDs as well. Khoikhoi 02:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've received an email from E104421 insisting that he's not a sockpuppeteer. He says he mainly edits from his office but sometimes from a guesthouse (which I assume is public). I'm not sure what people want to make of this. -- Steel 02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

E104421 and Karcha both edit exclusively from the same university IP range. Dmcdevit·t 02:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Steel: Sure we haven't heard that one before... Daniel.Bryant 06:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Gimme an hour or so to investigate their edits further. From what I saw during the last days, I had the impression the contents and profile of their edits was sufficiently dissimilar that I wouldn't have supposed sockpuppetry. In particular, Karcha had some particular issues that didn't seem to be shared by E. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked into their contributions a bit more, let me express some doubts:

• IP addresses/checkuser: In his e-mail, E declares that his main IP is a stable non-shared address at his workplace, while others he's used are from a public pool. Dmcdevit, could you perhaps check if that stable IP has also been shared by Karcha? (I'll forward you the IP from E's e-mail).

• Temporal patterns: E and K have sometimes been editing simultaneously, in ways that only a very skilled sockpuppeteer could fake. For instance, 17 Nov, 10:16-10:17: 3 edits by K (, , ), one simultaneous edit on an entirely unrelated topic by E (), all of them substantial. 16 Nov, 21:34-21:42 two edits each by K (, ) and E (, ), alternating with only a minute in between.

• Language: While both accounts are clearly not native speakers of English, K's English seems substantially poorer than E's.

• Editing interests: K has a bee in his bonnet about removing historical Ottoman spellings of Turkish names. E does not seem to share this obsession. Examples:
  • On Khwarezmian Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Karcha insisting on removing the Ottoman spelling: , ; no such interest by E: , ,
  • Similar on Mughal Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): K ; E ,
  • On Ak Koyunlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Karcha removing Ottoman name , E shortly later reverting to Khoikhoi's version (with the name), not Karcha's
  • On Hephthalite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Karcha rewriting , , , E shortly later reverting to a different, pre-Karcha version:

What do you guys say? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hate to butt in, but I just would like to point out that even new users have a right to jump into the middle of edit wars.. Hasn't the possibility that K is a friend of E, and E told K about Wiki and his contributions, and when K joined wiki, he automatically went to articles that his friend E told him about, but later found his own interests, crossed anyone's mind? I am not vouching for the guy by no means, but let's just not be so impulsive and not slap six-day bans on users before a detailed check had been done, as was the case for E104421. So let's not assume.. If u assume, u make.. :)) Baristarim 10:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is too suspicious - even ifthey aren't the same person, the nature of behaviour (3 reverts, then the other account/person kicks in) is at least meatpuppetry. And a "detailed check" has been done - the most detailed possible - Checkuser. Daniel.Bryant 10:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, tag-teaming revert wars are quite common on these articles, everybody seems to be doing it, and it's not really evidence of planned coordination. And about the reliability of the checkuser, I've only heard Dmcdevit saying they were using the same university's IP range. However, we are dealing with particular, stable workplace IPs, so I've asked Dmcdevit for clarification if he's also checked that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, what u say doesn't make sense: there are tag-team reverts happening by the masses by people who live in the farthest corners of this planet. I don't even know if E knows K, and the link that you gave doesn't mean anything, the fifth edit in question is 12 hours after the fourth one, how is that tag-team revert meatpuppetry?????? Such things happen in the space of tens of minutes. There is nothing wrong with a number of people who feel strongly about a subject to edit insistenly, without being part of a planned conspiracy. The six-day ban was given for sockpuppetry, and unless you have more evidence about meatpuppetry than a fourth and fifth edit spaced by a period of 12 hours, this ban should be annulled and these editors re-instated, and their revoked edits undone. The fact that their IPs are similar doesn't mean much, pls read my post below about that issue. Baristarim 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

People doing these edits believe in what they do, that's why they are doing those edits. We are not talking about vandalism here, the edits in question are legitimate edits. I also exchanged emails with E on this, he says that he goes to university in METU, a university in Ankara that has 50,000 students, and that teaches in English. So it is extremely probable that there are other wiki users in the same campus. And generally, big organizations like universities have computer centers that assure their Net liasion, and as such they dish out range of IPs. Your temporal check was particularly enlightening, nobody can simply switch back from a computer to another with 60 sec intervals. A six day ban is extremely unfair, since, even though not an administrator, I am not at all convinced by this evidence that they are the same person. I just think that it is not too fair to slap such a ban, without more concrete checks like the one you had done.. That's all.. Baristarim 10:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: In addition to what I pointed out above, I have forwarded some further evidence to Dmcdevit which, I believe, establishes with sufficient certainty that E104421 and Karcha are in fact two different individuals. They just happened to be both at the same university (which is one of Turkey's largest) and shared certain opinions (which are likely to be shared by 90% of all Turks). Contrary to all appearances (which, I admit, were strong), Karcha seems not to be a sockpuppet of E. E has plausibly explained to me that he doesn't even know K.

Unless there's some strong objections here, and pending ultimate confirmation from further checkuser details, I'd propose lifting the indef block on Karcha and reduce both blocks to something appropriate to "normal" 3RR offenses. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose lifting the indef block on Karcha. In his short time here, he has been nothing but disruptive, with 90% of his edits being reverts, and the rest being personal attacks like "Kill Persianism". I don't see what good to the project we'd be doing if we unblocked him. He is essentially just another version of -Inanna-. I have no problem with lifting the block on E104421, however. Khoikhoi 18:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken - in fact, I have no doubt Karcha is pretty disruptive (just like many of the people he keeps warring against). Just a question of whether he's disruptive enough for an indef; I haven't watched him closely enough for that. But I'd like to cut back E's block to normal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I echo Khoikhoi. If you're confident they're different users then I have no problem with lifting the block on E<numbers>. Karcha has been edit warring quite a bit but I'm also unsure whether s/he's done enough for an indef. -- Steel 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Watch what you say about "other people" Lukas. Keep it cool. Indirect remarks like that by a new admin is terrible behavior and can be seen as personal attack. See WP:CIVIL. Khorshid 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose to lifting both blocks. Karcha has made personal attacks against me and Iranian editors and has called me "Khorshit". No way thats just wrong Khorshid 18:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Even this other guy E112312 whatever his name is, look at his edit summaries. You trying to tell me that This is a productive user????? Khorshid 18:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with Khoikhoi; Karcha should remain blocked, as he is an extremely disruptive editor. As for E104421, while I can't help feeling something fishy in what seems his coodination with Karcha, I think we should always in doubtful cases assume good faith, so the unblocking is OK for me to.--Aldux 18:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Dmcdevit is the only admin here with the checkuser tool, his findings indicate that Karcha (talk · contribs) is indeed a sockpuppet of E104421 (talk · contribs). Since then, User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise has been campaigning/Wikilawyering for User:E104421, and now he's unilaterally overruled User:Dmcdevit's checkuser of User:E104421 by unblocking him, caiming that "sock-puppetry accusations have been disproven" when User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise is a new admin who has no access to checkuser, and hence is in no position to "prove" or "disprove" anything beyond doubt, and User:Dmcdevit's position has not changed. I find this whole thing very disturbing, especially considering User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise's history, under his previous username, and the fact that he unblocked Zaparojdik, a freind of E104421, and another problematic Turkish user only last week , or how he tried to justify Karcha addressing an Iranian user as "KhorSHIT". There is a trend here, and it isn't good. --ManiF 23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Problematic Turkish user".. Well great.. "Problematic user" would have sufficed since there are many "problematic" users of all nationalities. Please let's all take a chill pill.. Baristarim 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also this issue: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee#Comment_by_Fut.Perf.. Again for a new admin he is quick to criticise and single out others and speak on "admin authority". I can respect motivation but for a new admin he is too familiar with the "admin style" and technical parts and also as Mani says above its kind of weird for him to be so quick to step over Dmcdevits finding and make an unblock on a clearly troubling user. To me this all seems like playing games and WP should not be about playing games or backdoor politicalisms. Khorshid 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No backdoor what? Please stop attacking other admins because they don't agree with you. FPAS' check was thorough and in good faith. Please be more respectful. In any case, how is this any relevant? FPAS's comments in an RfC in a totally different issue has nothing to do with the case at hand. And I don't understand your beef with FPAS either, just because he made his own investigation, that doesn't justify such ad hominim attacks. Gees, what the hell is going on? Baristarim 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised, to say the least, to see that E104221 had already been unblocked. (Especially since we exchanged emails afterwards still discussing this without Future Perfect at Sunrise telling me he'd already unblocked.) The "further evidence" he sent me was not very strong, and he shouldn't have unblocked over it, without consensus. Keep in mind tha "CheckUSer is not a magic pixie dust" works both ways: seemingly vague CheckUser results are not proof that two users aren't the same person, especially when the behavior is proof in itself, and the CheckUSer only serves to confirm it. As I replied in email, Many of FPAS' objections seem oversimplification: remember that both were on many common shared IPs. The behavior is just too coincidental to be believable: hardly ever do two users on the same IP range, much less the same university, edit the same articles at the same time. But editing the same articles at the same time, both involved in the same dispute, reverting to each other, and doing it in such a way that each avoids 3RR by the other's reverts? I think we may be grasping at straws here trying to find a way to demonstrate their distinct, when the opposite is much more obvious. Please remove blocks without consensus in the future. I've reblocked E104221 since the sockpuppetry was in no way "disproven". Dmcdevit·t 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, they can be two friends in the same university. Did that cross your mind DMC? And how do you know how this university dishes out its IP addresses? avoiding 3RR blocks by tag-team reverting is done by people who lives tens of thousands of kilometres away, are we going to block all of them too? And besides there are many software tools and web-sites out there to escape such IP identification. This guy goes to Middle Eastern Technicla University in Ankara, the best technical university in Turkey, so I guess he would have been much smarter if he wanted to engage in sockpuppetry instead of just jumping into the computer next to him and typing away. There is no question of coincidence. So you are basically saying that I have no right to tell a friend at office or university "hey, why don't you check out wiki, these are some of the articles that i have been involved in"? I don't know that guy, and I don't know how anything happenned, but he told me that he doesn't even know Karcha. And escape 3RR in a period of 14 hours? You gotta be joking. In the case that got E suspended in the first place, there is a period of 14 hours between the fourth and fifth revert, how is that such a blatant case of tag-team reverting? Baristarim 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I don't think that calling another user "Khorshit" are the grounds for an indef. Bans should increase with every other offence. First give him smaller bans, and see what he will make of it. Maybe he continued being "disruptive" since nobody warned him that he could get banned for doing so. And he continued since he never got banned. Baristarim 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:72.199.253.207

Harsh Response by User talk:72.199.253.207 after i've warned him for POV vandalism --JForget 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism would go to WP:AIV. I've given him another warning; this IP appears to only be trouble though; report to aiv if any more problems. -Patstuart 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at AfD

The following users are confirmed by CheckUser to be sockpuppets used by Ivygohnair (talk · contribs) for multiple votes at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ivy Goh Nair and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of famous Nairs (3rd nomination):

• Chandrannair (talk · contribs)
• Justice4us (talk · contribs)
• 81.249.80.83 (talk · contribs)
• 83.204.202.150 (talk · contribs)

I would appreciate if some admins could look at this. The AfD should probably be re-run. See also other sockpuppetry involving users at this and other related AfDs at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#Sockpuppetry at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion.2FList of famous Jats. Dmcdevit·t 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've indef. blocked Chandrannair and Justice4us, and blocked Ivygohnair for 3 days. Khoikhoi 04:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Quebec Vandal"

Ok, this is just getting to be enough here. The guy has used 51 sockpuppets now on a regular basis. Multiple checkusers have been done and the latest one has found that it's a dynamic IP. The latest vandal was User:134.173.56.219, which according to one of Essjay's tools belongs to Claremont Colleges in California. It follows the regular pattern displayed by these users. So, can I propose some kind of community ban of IP's or something? I know we're the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but this is just getting ridicules. It's not just this guy either. Quebec is regularly vandalized, some IP's showing up in the midwest, some on either coast. One was an open proxy (reported to WP:OP). Is there really anything that we can do here, short of protecting the article for all time? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

134.173.56.219 doesn't appear to have made any "unconstructive edits" to Quebec lately - his/her most recent edit to that article was to revert vandalism. BTW, 134.173.56.219 is not a dynamically assigned address; it's a statically assigned address in the 134.173.56.0/21 HMC student range. It's probably a student editing from their desktop computer; an open proxy is highly unlikely. - A Concerned Mudder

Concur with above, you're misreading that latest edit it's undoing the vandalism. I'd say at the moment this is a classic WP:RBI, don't feed the trolls etc. incident. The vandalism is obvious and reverted quickly, if someone is sad enough to want attention by damaging things don't reward them with what they want. By all means continue the checkusers but if our checkusers can't find a consistent enough pattern to do something more permenant no amount of talking about it here or in any other forum will make any difference, nor will it make the vandalism any more obvious than it already is. --pgk 09:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just re-checked that. I must have been looking at the wrong edit or something. Nothing to be done I guess. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Violation of good faith by user Shamir1

Palestinian Exodus is the scene of a long-running content dispute (but that's not what this complaint is about). Admin User:Steel359 protected the article on Nov 12 for this reason. However, User:Shamir1, one of the main warring parties, was unhappy about which version was protected so on Nov 18 he claimed on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection that the dispute was over. Since the argument was continuing ferociously on the Talk page, with Shamir1 involved, this claim was a deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article. And in fact Steel359 unprotected the article in good faith, only to be forced to protect it again soon afterwards. I respectfully request action against Shamir1 for this dishonest behavior. --Zero 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history, User:Shamir1 has not edited the article since November 11. Do you have the wrong user there? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The article had been protected since Nov 12 except for the brief unprotection on Nov 18 that I mentioned, that's why he didn't edit it. Look on the talk page to see his continued involvement in the dispute (8 edits since Nov 12). --Zero

I think what Zero is saying is that he had the intent of doing so, and ought to have action taken against him. An attempted crime is almost as bad as a crime itself. -Patstuart 07:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article" is a crime. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note:User:Isarig did similar thing to Neo-Fascism. he requested unprotection, deleted the section in dispute, and then had his version protected. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 08:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

About Shamir1, if you look at his contribs he requested unprotection several times this week. He kept coming back each time after unprotection was declined , and yesterday (his third or fourth request) I decided to AGF and unprotect. It was promptly reprotected when the edit warring started again. I can't say I was surprised. -- Steel 12:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I say they should both at least get a severe tongue-lashing, and, if it checks out on Isarig, the version should be reverted. If it happens again, they should be temp-blocked for disruption. I would do so myself, but I'm not an admin. Patstuart 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If anybody acted in bad faith it was User:Zero0000 himself. Note that this is not a content dispute per se - it's simply Zero0000 deleting mass sourced material. Amoruso 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not debating here the legitimacy of the changes, we're debating the fact that this user seems to have made a bad-faith request to get the page unprotected, so that he could get his own version back before it was reprotected. Regardless of the legitmacy of the claims, that's breaking faith if it was true. Patstuart 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts

• Resident1fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continuous vandalism to Resident Evil 5. Has been given final warning. -- moe.RON 04:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Prof Bukksksdf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalism-only account. John254 04:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: These reports were removed from WP:AIV by Tariqabjotu. Though it is a common practice to block vandalism-only accounts even if they haven't received final warnings or haven't edited quite recently, I am making a report here to avoid an edit war on WP:AIV. John254 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked both indefinetly. Still think this a WP:AIV matter Alex Bakharev 08:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an AIV matter to me also, if you think the admin who removed them missed the point somewhere you can always ask them on the talk page. Similarly you can always issue a final warning/blatant vandal warning, if they are vandlism only, then it won't be long before you'll be able to re-report, for the amount of vandalism we get, delaying slightly (albeit just to jump through hoops) shouldn't be a big deal. You can always then discuss it further later in order to avoid similar misunderstandings later. No matter how much I agree with your assesment of the situation the last thing we need is people getting turned down in one forum and just moving it to another... --pgk 09:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Unjust block

Despite my efforts to dialogate with User:Thulean and try to be constructive with the infamous disputed article White people (see talk page and mediation page, and despite having only one single warning (and a totally clean historial before this awful conflict), I have been blocked by administrator User:Shell Kinney on very unclear grounds.

She wrote (sounds very emphatic but there are no grounds):

You've been asked multiple times by many people to stop being incivil, stop attacking other editors and especially to stop harassing Thulean. Unfortunately you've now continued this both in the mediation and on my talk page. I've given you a short block - please stop the behavior and try to approach the mediation in a civil manner - without attacking and belittling other editors whom you disagree with. Shell babelfish 20:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (there's no PAIN case, no diffs, no nothing) she could have been decided that I was making a persona attack on the following items (all based on what is written in her talk page)

1. My comment inside a large discussion (almost unilateral teaching by my side) on European genetics (as per the diff provided by Thulean in Shell's talk page) that read:

Aditionally, I think you should check this map, from a previously sourced paper, where it does make a rather conclusive division between Neolithic (Near Eastern) and Paleolithic (Basque) ancestry. It's probably better than going around Cavalli-Sforza's maps, as it is a much more modern paper.

You want to play with geneaologies... like the Jewish skinhead of the BBC article, you may get burnt. --Sugaar 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

2. My attempt of protest at his abuse on this kind of accusations that read:

LOL - that's not an attack. I'm just saying that you really have no clear idea of where your ancestors may ultimately be from (and this is only in realtion with European genetics, a discussion on which you have shown very poor understanding).

Stop whinning for everything (this might be a PA, who knows?). --Sugaar 13:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (diff)

So where is the personal attack? I wonder. There's no such thing anywhere.

I am a little angry and sarcastic, maybe. But there's not a single personal attack in all those sentences (nor in anything I've written in a good while).

There are also no such repeated warnings that Shell talks about. I just have only one warning from Shell herself and surely two dozens of pseudo-warnings (harassment) by Thulean. Nobody else has said anything about my behaviour, much less in a formal manner.

The first comment must be contextualized in a longer debate between Thulean and I on European genetics (Talk:White people#Just for the record), where Thulean made also despective comments like:

• LOL. By your "logic", the "European genome" is found mostly in Saudi Arabia...I dont want to dignify your other claims with more responses but I suggest you to read about this subject before making absurd claims.
• What part of this can't you get into your head?

And I was patiently replying in length, providing sources and all that can be done to reach an understanding, exposing carefully my understanding (based in many genetic studies) that European and West Asian genomes are strongly linked and that is dificult to find what is specifically European if anything...

He just made those short disdainful claims, no sources, no ideas... but specially no constructive attitude at all.

And then I bring up another source that suggests that Scandinavians are 50% West Asians and make that comment about playing with genealogies and the next I know is that he's writing to Shell to complain.

I protest and what do I get? A block.

...

I request:

1. To find out wether any of those comments actually constitutes a PA and why. I just don't see it. I was trying to be pedagogical and hoping he might learn something of all this mess.

2. If nothing is found that the block is reverted retroactively, just for the record.

3. To recuse permanently Shell Kinney from any future case that I may be accused of. At this point I have not the slightest trust in her ability or neutrality and I am doubting seriously of her good will.

...

Additionally I have disconnected myself from the White people article, discussion and mediation. This has crossed all red lines and I just can't bear this anymore. The article is a collective responsability of Misplaced Pages (that means in abstract: all wikipedians) and I have done much more than my share, getting as reward only an unbearable witch-hunt and some scars that will take some time to heal.

And I am not the only one, I believe. This one-sideness of Shell Kinney is causing problems to all wikipedians of good will, as far as I can see. Soon that article will have only one editor and that one will be Thulean (and maybe ideologically akin Dark Tichondrias too). I have done what I could but I can't keep that push if the Wikibureaucracy, impersonated as Shell Kinney, is so hostile against me and other veteran serious editors. --Sugaar 07:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this kind of complaint is better suited at request for comment. Daniel.Bryant 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited slightly so you can see better where the request is. The first part is basically explainatory for unaware admins to understand what happened (as far as I can understand it myself) --Sugaar 08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, on first inspection of your pages, the mediation, and Shell's talk page, Shell is right that you have been crossing the line into personal attacks. You seem to be extremely resistant to hearing that, but please listen: it's not ok to attack people on Misplaced Pages. What you're doing is beyond the limits of what the community feels are ok. The things that the people you're arguing with are doing aren't going across the line. Please, calm down, and listen to people in the mediation and elsewhere. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 07:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the PA? I am not attacking anyone, at least not since the warning.

And I'm not getting again in that rat-trap of White people article. I fell in that by accident and is not my area of interest. If it is of your interest, you can join the discussion and the mediation yourself and feel in first person how it is like. --Sugaar 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there's no PA anywhere. But more important: there are not the many warnings that Shell claims. I have just one warning and, as far as I can tell, I have not just not repeated the error but also tried to be as constructive as possible (with no results but disdainful comments and this unjustified block).

Block is according to WP:NPA a measure against extreme cases:

In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial.

Obviously there's no such grounds in this case and all the procedure is highly irregular and unclear.

I am also worried about ALWAYS being judged by the same administrator and precisely by the one who seems most heavily biased against me. I hope not to get involved in any more PAIN cases now that I have detached myself from the conflictive article but you never know and, just in case, I request that the next time the administrator judging my hypothetical case is someone different. I think it's a very reasonable request. --Sugaar 08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the admin who declined your unblock request. I'd say that comparing someone to a skinhead ("like the Jewish skinhead of the BBC article, you may get burnt") is a personal attack. I for one would have been quite offended, had I been the subject of that comment. At the very least, it's a serious breach of civility, especially in a content dispute in such a contentious article as white people. Additionally, you actively mock your opponent's knowledge of genetics in your second comment, and even admit that it may be a personal attack. That right there shows me that you know exactly what a personal attack is, and that you know when you're making one. For my part as a neutral, uninvolved party, (I don't think I've ever edited white people in my life) I must support the (now-long-expired) block. ♠PMC♠ 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a PA and that's why I feel that this is a witch hunt. It wasn't meant to compare with an skinhead but I mentioned the case earlier in the conversation (what seemed funny to Thulean, as he replied with one "LOL") and I thought the comparison was appropiate not because I may think this or that about his ideology but because the skinhead that found out that he was Jewish seemed a good comparison for a person who is claiming that Scandinavia has no West Asian heritage (my documentation suggested it is c. 50%), hence the "Nordic Semitic" irony.

You can't decontextualize the phrase in such manner. It's absolutely out of place.

Also you said that my unblock request was wrong because "I had many warnings" what is not true. Check it. --Sugaar 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Its very disappointing to see this come up again. When Sugaar was first calling Thulean a nazi, he opened an Arb case, tried mediation and finally posted here complaining because I had warned him. He was told every place he went that it was a personal attack; he continued the attacks on the mediation page and was warned there by the mediator. He refuses to accept that warnings from the aggrieved party are valid as he has many of those as well. I spent more than a week discussing personal attacks and civility in great detail with Sugaar and gave him many ideas of how he could avoid this problem in the future. He is now following Thulean around and making belittling and rude comments where ever he goes - I hope the two agree to stay away from each other since they cannot work together. Shell 18:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss with Shell. She has shown to be strongly one-sided and I doubt her sincerity and good-will at this point. I ask Shell to recuse herself from any further cases involving me, LSLM or Thulean, or anything related with the problematic article. If I can recuse her, I do it.

Still, just for the record:

• I have not persecuted Thulean anywhere. I had Shell's talk page watched, as it activates as such when you write in it. So I protested his irregular pseudo-PAIN demand. Was it rude or just somewhat sarcastic? I sadly can't trust Thulean or Shell. And it is not a PA in any case, much less an extreme case that requires a block.
• I opened the ArbCom because I got confused on what procedure to follow and misread Shell re. mediation. Later I admitted she was partly right and retrieved the case myself. We went to mediation as per her suggestion and the case was rejected as pertaining to ANI. I posted here and some administrators clarified my doubts. Fine: case closed (I hoped).
• Andronico (the mediator) only said that Shell's only warn was right regarding the PAIN, something I disputed then. He did not warn me for any other thing but the same that she did. So it's not any additional warning in any case. Just that he agreed with Shell then.
• The warnings from Thulean are as valid as any warnings I could post in his talk page. I am not so easily "offended" as he is, so I have not intiated any sort of action against him nor ever visitied his user page. I don't think that what he's doing is right and I don't want to fall to the same type of lawyering harassment. It would be against my own feeling of dignity and good will. Anyhow, Thulean's "warnings" are just his personal opinion and I consider most of them insulting and harassing. They are not official nor any thing of the like.
• I don't agree with Thulean in almost anything, no matter how hard I try. But I have decided for my own emotional and mental health to disconnect permanently from that article, that was what Thulean wanted from the beginning anyhow. I hope not to find that element ever again in my life... but you never know. As he feels his tactics are successful, he may want to expand his area of action and we may find each other in any other article. I may also be unlucky enough to meet with someone else with his same more than dubious methods, or any other case, like I myself being attacked by another user, as happened in the past once and was solved to my total satisfaction and with remarks of having managed the case very well by the involved administrators. I believe that would Shell have to manage any other case involving me she would have a clear.

Finally I find quite offensive the a priori attitude of some administrators that read: "this user has a warn" and seem to understand "he's systematically problematic", without even looking at his/her historial, that in my case was perfectly clean until I stumbled with that element and his favorite administrator.

If the case is not reviewed, next time (hopefully never) they may say: "this user has a block: he's a convicted dangerous criminal", no matter I never had a proper trial. As blocks are only suppossed to be issued in very extreme cases, they could even have some reason to think so in principle, and that's why I am requesting that the case is throughtly reviewed to see if the alleged personal attacks actually constitute reason for a block. What I think is clearly abusive interpretation of the policy and dangerous abuse of power. --Sugaar 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, it's this simple: You have to abide by our community standards, as interpreted by us, or you're going to get blocked for abusing people. You don't set our standards - we do. You're welcome to disagree in principle, but how you act will be judged by our interpretations.

You came here to complain, and you've got a number of admins and editors telling you that you're in the wrong. If you don't listen, your future here at Misplaced Pages is going to be short.

It's up to you to listen. You've had plenty of chances. Please start doing so. Georgewilliamherbert 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Shell seems to have this about right. Sugaar, we are supposed to bend over backwards to be civil here, not engage in uncivil discourse then Wikilawyer about whether it technically crosses the line into personal attacks. Just treat other editors with courtesy and you won't keep getting into trouble. Metamagician3000 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You also as administrators, maybe more than anyone else have to abide by our community standards. And it's clear that, if there was any fault (what I question strongly), it wasn't such a severe case as to generate a block. Read WP:NPA please:

In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial.

Can you point out which is the personal attack(s) at all and, if it exists (that I deny), why is it so extreme as to justify a block? Else, can you proceed with the review, as requested? Thanks.

Note 1: my impression is that you're just backing each other (out of mere corporative solidarity maybe) without putting forward anything that justifies the application of such clause.

Note 2: I have never rejected the norms of Misplaced Pages, I may have violated them out of ignorance and maybe arrogance in the past, not in this case, but I accept that I must abide by them. Can you do the same and apply the policy correct and justly without prejudice against me? That's what we, the users of Misplaced Pages, expect from you: fairness and justice. Nothing more but nothing less. --Sugaar 01:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Aditionally, I don't mean to "wikilawyer". I just mean justice. I believe that the one wikilawyering was Thulean and that he does have bad faith whatever you may think. The common of us mortals has not the steel nerves he has to be so calculating.

I have 100% dropped any relation with the article in question voluntarily. I am not risking a heart attack for that. But I believe someone should investigate a little and find that Sugaar has a totally clean historial before this nasty problematic, two years editing Misplaced Pages productively (I don't know how many edits I may have but must be over the thousand or more), not a single conflict other than the typical POV riff-raffs (and not many). I am not any extreme case and your severity and lack of imparciality seems totally out of place.

I think honestly that some among you should step forward and try to see my point of view. I am no wikilawyerist. I have only filed a single RFI before this awful situation, I took attacks and hostility for one month before doing it, and that single case was ruled in my favor with all blessings (he did got a block, but only after repeated vandalism). I have never ever been accussed of anything by anyone before Thulean stepped in out of nowhere. So what's the problem?

For you I am not (apparently) but just another quasi-anonymous troublemaker. But I had a completely clean and productive historial and your lack of fairness and seriousness in investigating the case is dirtying it.

And some among you even dare to make threats, without even studying my appeal. This is total madness. I have no other name for this. --Sugaar 02:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just let it go, Sugaar. You were blocked for a mere 6 hours over an article that you've repeatedly said you're not going to edit anymore. The block is done. Your relationship with the article is done. A bevy of respected editors has told you you're in breach of civility. Just let it go. ♠PMC♠ 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't let it go. I would be failing to my duty as wikipedian if I would allow administrators to abuse the policy.

Personally this doesn't feel nice but it is not my feelings what are at stake. When administrators here pointed out what I had done wrong previously and how it was a clear violation of NPA I accepted and tried to redirect my efforts in a constructive way despite the huge difficulties.

But now is not my fault. I have been punished for non-existent faults and beyond all measure (as per NPA). It is somebody else's fault (no need to name, we all know) and it is this person and collectivelly the administrators of Misplaced Pages who must correct the wrong.

It is blatant abuse of power. --Sugaar 04:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish I knew what would satisfy you. Many different people have come along and given there opinions during this saga, but that doesn't seem to sway you. Please read the blocking policy - persistent personal attacks is considered a non-controversial block reasoning - that's precisely why templates like npa2 warn you that you may be blocked if you continue. There has been nothing in my behavior over the past week that has been an abuse of power or policy - if you feel the need to continue making these accusations, please open a request for comment on my behavior; otherwise, please stop making snide comments about me in multiple places. Shell 04:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no personal attack, nothing at all since that warn and the subsequent discussion. I was trying to discuss with a person that has very marked ideas on what he wants and is not used to Misplaced Pages working style (though he's getting addict at PAIN and your user page). I was trying to be pedagogic and constructive and the whole last section of Talk:White people page and Talk:White people/Mediation are evidence of my constructive and positive behaviour (though not of Thulean, but anyhow).

There were no Persistent personal attacks. Not since the warn and what you took as such isn't but a touch of irony and then a little more angry sarcasm. But no major nor constant PA, nothing that might justify a block of any sort. I was just discussing genetics, census of Latin America and future possibilities for the article structure and discouraging LSLM from keeping his tone of political denounce, as it seems to be problematic.

Besides WP:BLOCK says:

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages. They should not be used as a punitive measure.

...

Caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith.

...

Blocks may be damaging when consensus proves elusive. Examples include:

• blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block
• blocks that, while possibly wise, lack policy basis.
• short term or cool-down blocks, e.g. if a user is angry about something controversial, blocking that user will rarely cool him or her down

Obviously you ignored all that.

You are claiming a justification that does not exist and, meanwhile, you ignored all the rest of WP:BLOCK. You used block as means of punishment, you took no cautions but acted on impulse (I deduce), you blocked an active user with a substantial history of valid contributions, you blocked without any policy basis, you tried to use the block as a "cool down" block.

You broke all the rules.

My appeal is more than justified. And it is not just for my name but specially for the good working of Misplaced Pages that I am appealing.

Besides I insist that you recuse yourself or get recused otherwise on intervening in cases affecting my person or the controversial article (where I won't be anymore anyhow but you may cause more damage than good), as you have clearly shown strong bias and misuse of policy. --Sugaar 07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also: I don't see where the RfC fits in. The right place to appeal a wrong block is ANI, as per WP:BLOCK. RfC is for articles, users' editing or civility behaviour (maybe Thulean or you, Shell, should had started with that) and policies and conventions. Not for appealing a block or, it seems to me, recusing an administrator.

I think everybody would gain if you would recuse yourself voluntarily. And I have no questions about the validity of my appeal as such and, the more policy I read, the more convinced I am that the block was absolutely wrong.

Additionally, I have no interest in persecuting any direct confrontation with you, Shell, and, definitively, I won't be disturbing the peace of your campaign for ArbCom or your user page. Personally, I have no problem if you and I don't talk to each other for a while. But I can't trust you after this. I don't know how you expect me to trust an administrator who instead of appliying the policy and guidelines applies martial law, that uses wrong (I'd say "false", but maybe it's too harsh) justificactions for her actions, that has clear prejudice against one side of a very complex and difficult conflict, that assumes that if I did wrong once I will always do the same without any comprobation. No: I've seen other admis recussing themselves on much weaker grounds but you insist in staying in charge and admit no error.

I don't know what you expect from me. I strongly believe in Misplaced Pages's principles, independently on wether I may agree or disagree, be aware or not of some particular aspect, and I am each day more convinced that you have broken all them with this totally unjustified block.

I understand that you can commit errors. We all do. But I also think you should meditate on this and accept what is your part of fault. That's actually much more honest and respectable than just castling on your unjustifed position. --Sugaar 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, your complaint here is bordering on stalking Shell. Please give it up and move on. Georgewilliamherbert 10:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to stalk anyone. I just mean justice done. If the common user must abide to policy, much more administrators.

I have tried to avoid direct discussion with Shell because at this moment doesn't really seem helpful. I have unwatched her talk page and any other case related pages apart of this one.

But I am right and you are not applying policy as you are suppossed to be done.

I insist you do your work and stop protecting each other: study my appeal, determine if the block was right and say why. I have put forward many reasons so far why this block was totally wrong.

As I said, we all commit errors but we must be able to admit it and fix them. It is my right and my duty as wikipedian to appeal an unjust block. I must not renounce to it and you should not abide by other reasons than policy: that's why you have been named administrator, not to protect each other but to protect Misplaced Pages and good willed wikipedians as I believe I am.

I am astonished that no administrator here has said: you have a point Sugaar, policy was violated in your case and your appeal is at least in this or that way correct.

I am also disappointed because Shell, on whose good will and seriousness as administrator I once believed in, doesn't seem to be able to admit her error. I'm not calling for the head of anyone, just for justice and due prudence.

And personally I have felt stalked myself by Thulean and this attitude protected by Shell and other administrators somehwat. I am insomniac, I am smoking double than normal and I am quite worried at some "irregular" trends inside Misplaced Pages only now I am realizing.

I have a great trust in Misplaced Pages as such and, if I dropped the case I would be betraying it and Misplaced Pages itself. It is a very good case but I am still waiting for any of you to step forward and admit even a small part of the great deal of reason I do have. That also worries me, sincerely. You have a major responsability as administrators: you are the custodians of the integrity of Misplaced Pages (and its policies and spirit). I want to think you will be at the height of the enormous trust that Misplaced Pages has deposited on you.

And this is the place where I am suppossed to appeal my unjust block. I still have to see my appeal rejected with any good reason. Just calls for dropping the case, for giving up without any grounds. ::I am very worried at Misplaced Pages's system of justice. --Sugaar 10:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to say few things. Of course I'm hugely biased but hear me out. First of all, Sugaar called me Nazi many times, among other PA's. I warned him unofficially and then officially and then reported him and he got a warn. After all this he continued and was even warned by the meditator.

And even after all this Sugaar went to Shell Kinney's page and even managed to continue his PA's while appealing. See User_talk:Shell_Kinney#You_are_not_being_just

An example:

"But that page has been under consistent attack by (mostly anonymous) vandals of clearly nazi/racist ideology. Thulean and Dark Thicondrias have been the only ones in that spectrum to do it with a username."

I've also made a response there, at the bottom of that section, trying one last time to tell how I feel. But afterall this he likened me to a jewish skinhead. So I believe the block was just. Shell Kinney has been very patient with him despite continuous accusations from Sugaar:

1) He claimed Kinney refused meditation.

2) His answer when told that he was wrong: "You are right: you accepted the mediation request but I misread you because of your patronizing tone and threatening questioning of my terminology."

3) His meditation was rejected and he moved it to ANI. But he accused Kinney of misleading him again. which was wrong:

4) After ANI, he accused Kinney of not mentioning the correct policy which was also wrong

He also directed PA's to Kinney, one of which was pointed out by another administrator:

""we can hardly struggle against such one-sided admins as you, really." ... ...That would also qualify as a personal attack, per WP:NPA. So far as I can see, that's all Shell has been trying to tell you. Crimsone 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC) " And still he is talking about how his comments werent PA and how he wasnt warned enough after all this:

User_talk:Shell_Kinney#You_are_not_being_just
User_talk:Shell_Kinney#Brought_the_case_to_ArbCom
User_talk:Shell_Kinney#I_was_thinking...
User_talk:Shell_Kinney#Mediation_rejected:_moved_to_ANI
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#PAIN_case_mishandling Thulean 12:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually he was advised to knock off name calling even in here: Thulean 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading here Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#The_elephant_in_the_room, it's clear he implies me and anyone who follows the link to White people, which he gave, can understand he implies me. And besides "For instance, I have been warned for descibing one POV-pushing editor's ideology as "nazi" and "racist", which is blatantly true", he managed to say this:

"This is just allowing certain twisted people to gag others."

And he said this AFTER his block. Amazing...

And his refusal to apply wiki policy of "commenting on debate, not on editors" seems NOT only towards me:

"If not in the ANI, where admins seem to behave like a wolfpack..."

"Ironically Shell Kinney is running for ArbCom herself. Guess that her campaign is something like "Misplaced Pages needs an iron man and that's me" of Thatcher. I don't know. I'm voting a more promising candidate." Thulean 13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to disengage from Thulean. All mentioned above has been said previously and I have discussed all point by point. The only exception being my private note to user LSLM who is also very disappointed at the running of Misplaced Pages justice system and is yelling despair. It is anyhow decontextualized and if he wants to persecute me despite my attempts of disengagement, he should do it somewhere else. As it is irrelevant for the block or my appeal.

I have not asked anyone to come here to comment as I see it just as a matter of application of policy, not and RfC. Hence I request that Thulean's comments, along with my reply are deleted as irrelevant.

He is chasing me and looking for any error I might commit (not the other way around, as some seem to think). --Sugaar 02:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Truth hurts, doesn't it? So long as you can stand around yelling that someone else is at fault, you seem to be happy, but when faced with facts, you back into a corner and attack. Not a single person who has ever looked at this case agrees with you. Perhaps I'm not the one that needs to take a hard look. And yes, WP:RFC is the correct place - please see "This is not the complaints board" up top. Take it to RfC if I'm so horribly overstepping my bounds. If you continue to attack and harass me at this point, I will ask another administrator to step in. Shell 02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

E104421 blocked for 24 hours for edit warring of Ak Koyunlu

19:22, 17 November 2006 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 24 hours (edit warring on Ak Koyunlu) 02:12, 18 November 2006 Steel359 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked "E104421 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)" with an expiry time of 6 days (Edit warring and sockpuppetry) Could anyone review this please? Myrtone (☏) 07:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry by E104421. I'm guessing you got the email, too. Daniel.Bryant 07:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Striking other user votes in an AFD

Can we strike other user votes in an AFD when we are not even an admin and on the other side of dispute. If not then please warn the user because I reverted it back but he continues to do that again. And I do not know what I suppose to do now? --- ALM 12:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• In general nobody's comments should be struck out on an AFD because they are not really "votes", and anonymous users are welcome to contribute to the discussion. On the other hand, in this case the item struck out was a useless '''keep''' ~~~~, so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Useless delete? humm? Should I go ahead and strike this keep too. "Keep, --Shamir1 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)"? Being a fair person we all should be consistent in our opinion --- ALM 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a "'''delete''' ~~~~". Whether we like it or not, unreasoned "vote" type contributions on AFDs do count for something (how much is up to the closing admin) when they are made by well established contributors (I have even seen arbitrators make such posts). When an anonymous person makes such a contribution they usually don't count for squat. I would not recommend that you strike out anything, but if you will remove the the strikethrough and make a comment of the lines of "Please don't strike out anything unless it was made in bad faith" below it, then I don't think anyone will complain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I had done that already and was here for your help. Looks like Gwernol below will do that. Thank you. --- ALM 13:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The same with "DO NOT DELETE" Wiki is free hosting people, no-one cares if those aren't counted. Still, XfD is not a vote and some people think it is. Will 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that striking out anonymous votes are a good idea. However, as long as the editor striking out the vote makes it clear that he and not the original anonymous editor struck out the vote, and indicating the reason for striking out the vote, then I'm not going to get up in arms over it. —Psychonaut 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I love the idea of AFD is not a vote and hate when they do become votes. But that what not the action of closing admin sometimes reflect. Can someone ensure me please that this AFD will not be closed after reading both sides comment and will not be a simple counting? --- ALM 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In general striking out the comments of any user in AfD is not permitted. Anon IP users are welcome to express their opinions in AfDs. I will remove the strike and ask the user who struck it not to do this again. We should allow the closing admin to exercise their good judgment in closing AfDs. In this case I doubt much weight will be given to the delete opinion expressed, but it is not okay to strike it out. Gwernol 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :). Problem solved. --- ALM 13:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• You don't have to strike out anything by others actually. Usually on close inspection the closing admin of any XfD can tell which to discard and which to consider. - Mailer Diablo 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Peterwats

Peterwats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been repeatedly violating several Misplaced Pages policies (personal attacks, civility, improper use of speedy deletion, and vandalism; there's also some rather obvious sockpuppet voting on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Communism which I suspect he's behind). His user talk page is full of warning templates (many of them "this is your last warning" templates). IMHO it's about time he's blocked. —Psychonaut 12:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I say indef-block. Anyone else agree? —Mets501 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. He has apparently abused sock puppets in AfDs about articles he created, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Communism and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Australian Workers Party. He's been all over amking personal attacks and demanding that other users be banned (or more precisely, "band". His spelling is terrible.) Even Stormfront (website) has banned him as a troll. -Will Beback · † · 00:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone please hurry up and take action against this user. Since my notice was posted, he has created yet another article about himself (Peter Watson (political activist)), inserted information on his own non-notable publications to Warwick, Queensland, and made personal attacks by calling editors neo-Nazis . His user page is overflowing with warnings about such behaviour (and not just from me). —Psychonaut 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've indefinately blocked him. Martinp23 10:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

IP 68.208.176.52

This IP vandalizes wikipedia since 19 January 2005. The user have been warned, but he keeps trolling. Examples:

• In Road Rage

Vigilantes

As of 2006, vigilante involvement in road rage highway battles has risen sharply. Vigilantes often when identifying a road battle involving rage will join in the chase in an attempt to disable the aggressor's vehicle. Vigilantes have been known to employ the use of spears, handfulls of rocks, and cinder blocks to aid in the disabling of an offending vehicle. They maintain that the easiest and safest way to stop a speeding vehicle is a direct hit with a cinder block or spear to the driver or radiator. In Maine in July, a vigilante confused another vigilante who was engaged with a raging driver. The original vigilante noted that the "other guy went racing past in front, slowed, and all of a sudden a spear came flying out the drivers side and hit me in the chest."

• In Aggressive driving:

The agressive driver will continue to punish weaker, more ignorant drivers until he feels sufficient retribution has been had, or a lesson has been taught.

• In Elastica:

Waffles, indeed, are good.

The user's activity: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=50&target=68.208.176.52

Inconsistent editing here, probably a small school (or a family). yandman 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong speedy tagging by sockpuppets with strange usernames

I have noticed that a user tags many pages that are at WP:PNT wrongly with {{db-notenglish}}, and some of these are wrongly deleted. Please do not delete pages that are not in English unless they exist on other Wikimedia projects: they should be tagged with {{notenglish}} and listed at WP:PNT.

The sockpuppets I am talking about are many new users with random usernames like Miui-kaoa (talk · contribs) and Iwtb (talk · contribs). These users also update cleanup tags, just like the the user Ppgj-nzng (talk · contribs) who recently made the same wrong redirect as Qhkj-mdhm (talk · contribs). Has anybody else seen this kind of behavior and does anybody have an idea why this guy makes lots of new accounts like these and with edits like these? Kusma (討論) 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Frivolous requests for deletion of George W. Bush

The editors OrbitalWise (talk · contribs) and LoxingFerrer (talk · contribs) have made repeated requests for aforementioned article to be deleted, on WP:DRV and WP:RFPP. LoxingFerrer, at least, is violating WP:POINT, as shown by this. Can something be done? -Amarkov _edits 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also note this personal attack made on me by OrbitalWise. -Amarkov _edits 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both indefinitely as obvious sockpuppets with the sole purpose of disruption. Cowman109 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are they sockpuppets of? Ashibaka tock 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

They are clearly sockpuppets of eachother, but if it goes further than that, only checkuser could determine. Cowman109 20:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OrbitalWise said that he was supported by Homeontherange (talk · contribs) (Odd, could have sworn I've seen him, but no contribs) and SPUI (talk · contribs). There might be something there. -Amarkov _edits 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Found the diff, he also mentioned Essexmutant (talk · contribs). -Amarkov _edits 20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are just other unrelated users, that much I'm sure of. There doesn't seem to be much more to do other than block any others who show up with the same frivolous deletion request, and if they persist, a checkuser request to block whatever range they're using could be in order. Cowman109 20:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, it sounds too random for my liking to tie any of them up to this one. - Mailer Diablo 21:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just bringing it up, not necessarily saying there's anything to it. -Amarkov _edits 20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also see User:Whitdick - who thought this was a good idea. 213.107.21.212 22:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This troll has other accounts which have been indef blocked for the same thing. Seems like a good case for quiet blocking when necessary per WP:DENY. --Ginkgo100 22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry by 64.107.3.104

64.107.3.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This one is kind of complicated. This user has a static IP address and is blocked under this IP but is editing under 66.99.3.172, 64.107.2.2, 66.99.1.109, 66.99.0.8, and 64.107.1.221. I don't really know how you handle this. But he's engaging in edit wars on the Yasser Arafat article and the Katyn massacre article. He seems to be the only one using these IP's. He's vandalized my user page several times. The IP's are clearly the same person when you look at the edits they've made to the Arafat article attempting to insert the same information over and over when he's been told that the source isn't reputable. --Strothra 22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I am reposting this report, which was removed from WP:AIV, because it appears to indicate that 64.107.3.104 is using sockpuppets to evade his block. John254 22:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is one of our better-known troublemakers from about a year ago: the "George Reeves" vandal, aka "Squidward", who I don't think been around for a while. Those are his IP ranges, and the edits all show his characteristic interests, editing style, comma splices, and "I'm right, I'll revert until I get my way" manner. Here's an example from earlier this year . ; here's an even better contribs list . Not sure if there's a long term abuse page on him or not, or if we killed it under WP:DENY. Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: Misplaced Pages:Long_term_abuse/George_Reeves_Person. Jimbo deleted the LTA page himself as part of a negotiation with this person: the deal, if I recall correctly, was that he would leave us alone. Looks like he's back. Look at the page carefully in undelete preview; it's clearly the same person. Antandrus (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone may want to bring this up with Jimbo and ask he if minds if we undelete the page. JoshuaZ 06:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:NazireneMystic removal of npa warnings and sockpuppet

NazireneMystic has removed two npa3 warnings I placed on his user page . Please restore them. User subsequently received an admin warning and a temporary block, see warning.

This user also set up an alias SpiritualEbionite and copied over his user page in anticipation of a block. Please remove the sockpuppet. Thanks in advance. Ovadyah 23:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your Wikipedianlawyering never stops. It was clearly pointed out on the Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard in this following DIFF that your prior warnings were unfounded . As far as Im conserned unfounded warnings are vandalism to my talk page.

As no warning (other than some unnecessary ones from Oyidah at an earlier date) were issued, I've warned NazireneMystic for this edit, which was unacceptable. I would hope that unless he/she continues making edits of this kind, the matter is now closed. Proto::type 15:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Most reasonable people would consider being called deceitful, ignorant, diabolical, and a meatpuppet to be personal attacks on their character. In this diff this user admits to calling me these things and argues they are not personal attacks because they are all true. A continuation of this behavior is why this user was warned and blocked. Ovadyah 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins, See what I mean? After two admins have already read that post and after looking things over desided it was not a personal attack this editor keeps proving my points through his actions. Just defending myself becomes a personal attack in his eyes. Read the warning and block section of my talk page and you will see the reason given for both. Its worth noting the warning and block resulted from the same edit,at least according to the admins that posted them, maybe not in the mind of my accuserNazireneMystic 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as your unfounded report of socketpuppetry please read up on the socketpuppetry artical and maybe your unfounded personal attacks of me would stop. It is clear the account was created after I forgot my password to the Nazirene account and in my first edits using it I ID'ed myself as NazireneMystic. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=SpiritualEbionite Hardly a socketpuppet.

It should be noted this editor has already tried to claim on the Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard I evaded a block by the use of this account when it is clear from its contributions page it was not even used during that timeframe. So now the claim that I moved my tlak page because I anticipated a block? what evidence do you have ? I moved my tlak page because of past vandalism to it by you as can be seen in your frivolous warnings and wiki lawyering tactics and ongoing reports of things that do not exist. Please stop throwing invented crap up on the wall hoping something will stick.

Again, I beg to differ. The user page was copied over to evade an expected block.

09:17, 14 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:SpiritualEbionite (saving endangered info) (top)

The PA Noticeboard suggested I post a suspected sockpuppet report (see below). Ovadyah 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The other account hasn't been used since 11 November and the move occurred before I administered the block. Suggest you follow-up with a suspected sockpuppet report. Post again here if problems resume. Durova 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes he/she did sugest a suspected socket puppet report after this editor made false claims I evaded a block. This editor still seems to be fixated on this even with evidence given from Durval in the above post that I did not evade a block and both contribution pages that during the block I did not edit. This is the hostile stance I have faced from him since I attemped to NPOV an artical he has strong religous and or political interest over and has lead to all the tactics shown in my talk page. Some of his deception I exposed that is on the talk page was mearly a defense from acusations against Allan Crownshaw in the edit were you called him my leader and tried to make it seem that Phillps person is a mear secetary as can be seen in the archived section or my talkpage. Just constantly facing his allegations becomes a personal attack to him. This editor has even ran off one of the scholars mentioned in the artical as a source and he is only after me because I stand up to this garbage he postNazireneMystic 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins, please do not say this is not the place to resolve this dispute, so far all Ihave seen from the RFC TO peerreview to deletion hearings is this editor act as a meat puppet and his POVshoping among other tactics. I only waht to present evidence that this is just another unfounded complaintNazireneMystic 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that user NazireneMystic has received an additional 48-hour block by the PA Noticeboard for personal attacks against another editor. Ovadyah 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the complaints department, as it says at the top of the page. Please use Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism at User talk:Zora

Please revert a vandalous page move at User talk:Zora. Thanks. --BostonMA 23:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Martinp23 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've also given the vandal a one week block. Martinp23 23:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please check

User:216.164.200.39 . I think its a sock trolling on RD!--Light current 00:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Potential racism - input required

I was asked by User:RoboRanks to intervene on Somali people, where I found a clear 3RR vio , so I've blocked both him and User_talk:68.40.41.202 for 24 hours. I'm looking for input into the other allegations waged against the IP on the talk page of the article - ie, what action to take. Thanks -- Martinp23 02:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

I've never had to report sockpuppets before and don't know if this is the right venue or format, but here goes. Five accounts were created within the past 24 hours which all appear to be SPA accounts, all have made near-identical edits to a group of closely related Somalia articles, blanked sections and images for POV reasons, and supported each other in revert wars on the articles and in the talkpages. The contrib histories are relatively short, and almost any diff in their histories supports my assertions. I'm not involved in the article itself, I became aware of this through RC Patrol and followed up. The page has been protected, but the dispute revolved around the assertions of these suspect editors:

• Basketballplayer90000 (talk · contribs · count)
• Kurtnimmo90 (talk · contribs · count)
• Dhulbahante55 (talk · contribs · count)
• AfricanThunder99 (talk · contribs · count)
• 76.169.136.160 (talk · contribs · count)

If I haven't come to the right place, please re-direct me. Otherwise, please investigate: it looks like some blocks are in order. --Doc Tropics 04:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as obvious socks, if they are not really obvious, WP:RFCU might be in order to checkuser em -- Tawker 04:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response and good advice. I thought they were obvious, but have limited experience with socks. I (and others) really appreciate your help :) Doc Tropics 04:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible vote stacking and sockpuppetry at a TfD

Hi all. I'd like to bring everyone's attention to the recent TfD nomination of {{Turkish History Brief}}, which seems to have caused a lot of controversy. I had to warn Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) for the talk page spamming he did, in addition to another user. However, the strangest thing is that these users are voting were clearly notified either by email or somewhere else off-wiki. For example, before ErdemTuzun voted, he his last edit was in 2002, and many other of the users aren't that active either, such as Bugtrio. There might also be some sockpuppetry involved as well, I'm not sure. However, I could appreciate if some other admins could look into this. Thanks. Khoikhoi 05:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it have influenced the outcome? If so, RFCU will take you :) Daniel.Bryant 06:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The main issue isn't sockpuppetry, but the massive vote stacking that occured due to talk page spamming, and possibly something outside wiki. Khoikhoi 06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese nationalists at Korea articles

There's been a series of Japanese vandalism on many Korea articles that have led to page protection. This has happened to Korea, Kofun period, Joseon Dynasty have been protected recently, and similar thing has happened to Korea under Japanese rule, Battle of Myeongnyang, and I'm sure others.

It looks like we have the same combination of original research, Japanese nationalism, anonymous IP's, mangled English, and revert battling, now shaping up at Korean-Japanese disputes. Maybe protecting this page too is the only answer. Thanks. Room218 06:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Room218 is right in his claim (I haven't checked it out), you'll notice 211.131.246.10 (talk · contribs), who is in the same ISP range as these changes, tried to blank this section on the ANI. Patstuart 08:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

211.131.246.10 (talk · contribs) has directly edited Korean-Japanese disputes, and also vandalized Room218's talk page. Although it's hard to be sure, it seems likely that there's one person who has been using frequently changing IP addresses to make controversial and repeated changes to Korea-related articles, specifically where Japan-Korea relations are involved. The use of language and the specific edits are usually very consistent across changing IP addresses. --Reuben 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

IPs on Ollanta Humala article

There is an IP in the Ollanta Humala article who keeps adding false information that Humala's father is named "Alonso Vargas". As the de facto head of the Wikiproject Peru I can tell you that Ollanta Humala's father is Isaac Humala (whom himself is very well known in Peru). The IP seems persistant and it doesn't seem like he will stop. I am not sure if the IP is driven by malice, in order to vandalize the article, or if he simply doesn't understand that the information he is adding is false. Either way, I do not want to have to be watching this article and getting into a revert war over this and thus I ask for some administrator intervention.

First two edits from IP

• First edit
• Second edit

Third edit from a different IP location:

• Third edit--Jersey Devil 06:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Angry user from Bahrain

We have one user from Bahrain who seems to be a Shi'a Muslim and an opponent of the current Bahraini regime. He edits from various anonIPs. After he reverted the Rafida article five times in two hours, I asked to have that article semi-protected -- which was done. This seems to have enraged him. As User:89.148.41.41 he left an epithet on my user page and a nasty comment on my talk page accusing me of being anti-Shi'a. Now he's using User:89.148.40.178 to follow me around WP, reverting anything I edit. Could someone please roll back the 178 edits and block that IP, or range of IPs? Zora 06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked both IPs and reverted him/her. Please let me know if this person returns. Khoikhoi 06:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks muchly! That was FAST. Zora 06:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and he's come back from different IPs just as quickly. He keeps reverting, various admins keep rolling back and blocking, he gets another IP. This is one determined dude. Fascinating, in a serial-killer-movie kind of way. Zora 09:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:JFD

JFD has been removing any Indian influence on Chinese culture incessently. He has removed sourced text from Shaolin temple and posted unsourced POV statements on Zen and Chan. Kindly see that this incessent violation of mentioning unsourced text and removing sourced text does not continue.

Freedom skies _{Send a message to Freedom skies} 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Can an admin head over here, there appears to be a semi-large backlog. semper fi — Moe 08:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:LAUGH90

I have permanently blocked the account LAUGH90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of this edit. He seems to be the devoted vandal with a habit of vandalizing pages and helpfully adding an editing summary of "Replacing page with ''" (or "Blanking page").

• I see. I have unblocked the acccount; I seem to have misunderstood Misplaced Pages:Automatic edit summaries. - Mike Rosoft 10:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Block enforcement requested

Indef-blocked Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) is back and edit-warring on Irish potato famine (legacy) as 216.194.0.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can someone block please? Thanks! Demiurge 11:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• And also disrupting this noticeboard . Demiurge 11:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put an autoblock on Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) which should stop the IP - if not, then another block needs serving specifically for the IP. Martinp23 11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean "put an autoblock" on, the original user was blocked quite a while ago before the option to disable autoblocks was available. Autoblocks themselves are not necessarily that simple, in this case it is unlikely the original user id has edited from that IP so an autoblock will not occur (indeed that user has come back under various usernames and IPs over time). I've blocked the IP. --pgk 12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah OK - thanks. Martinp23 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

IP 213.216.199.6 requests unblock

I got a mail saying this( I have added the wikisyntax):

I have been autoblocked by you because I happen to be assigned some IP address that was used by a blocked user. I (A_Jalil (talk · contribs)) have nothing to do with the sockpuppet nor the edits that led to the block. Can you please unblock my username so I can do some edits. Thanks.

the block note is:

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Fred Chess for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Featured article (talk · contribs)". The reason given for Featured article's block is: "Blocked user, sockpuppet".

Your IP address is 213.216.199.6.

I don't have the time to investigate this right now, but I think it is important not to block innocent people, if that's the case here. Could someone take a look and take appropriate actions?

Fred-Chess 12:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP in question (213.216.199.6 was blocked on 01:43, November 11, 2006 for a period of 1 week. This means that it should not be blocked by now!

Anyway, i received an email as well from user:A Jalil who has nopthing to do with the edits of the IP as Jalil maily edits Morocco related articles. I'll unblock the IP which i believe should have been technically ublocked by today! -- Szvest → 12:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

68.52.232.43's vendetta

68.52.232.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be waging a slow vendetta against wikipedia, threatening to buy it and turn it into a Chirstian website. Violations of WP:NPA are to be found everywhere, but the IP has made no edits since npa4 was posted. Could be someone we need to watch. Martinp23 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, 75.109.101.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was trolling The Haunted Angel's talk page previously, on the same topic. --Majorly (Talk) 16:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not just me either, take a look at HJ's talk page. The Haunted Angel 17:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

poss. block evasion

this anon: 70.114.236.109 (talk · contribs) might be RunedChozo (talk · contribs) evading a block. similarity of pages edited, preoccupations & accus. against admins seem enough to be worth look into  ⇒ bsnowball  16:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at CSD

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Please feel free to pop over and delete a couple dozen. Or even a couple. KillerChihuahua 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust Research Team

Normally I know what to do when a new user posts promotion across a number of articles and pages. But not this time. is potentially a very sensitive cleanup, even though it doesn't need administrator privilege. And so I thought maybe I should bring it here. (Let me know if this was wrong). Notinasnaid 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted all of it and given a warning. Spam is spam. —Mets501 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See also the contribs from 71.243.87.210. Like Notinasnaid, I'm hesitant to wade in here. FreplySpang 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, not so hesitant - I've warned and am reverting. Anyway, keep an eye out for more of this in Holocaust-related articles. FreplySpang 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See this for what is claimed to be the interesting backstory to this one month old donations requesting one-man operated site. WAS 4.250 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This continues, and appears to be a confirmation (in case one were needed) that the website owner/operator is adding the links. Which is a simple and clear violation of WP:EL, perhaps? Notinasnaid 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mhm. Thanks for the background info, WAS 4.250. It certainly explains why so many of the edits were replacing links to deathcamps.org. FreplySpang 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Homeontherange, again

Roncey Valley was not my sockpuppet; it was a meatpuppet. And can a bureaucrat please re-name Formeruser-82 (talk · contribs) back to Homeontherange, you've just renamed all my GFDL contributions! One more thing... I wish to come back and edit in peace. --Homey 17:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Khoikhoi 18:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Zane burden

This is a {{db-bio}} candidate that should be expunged immediately due to the inclusion of personal identifying information about a suspected minor in multiple versions in edit history. --Kinu /_c 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Appears to have been taken care of as I was typing this. Thanks! --Kinu /_c 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

4.225.119.125

4.225.119.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - was blocked for 24 hours for vandlism, but after a death threat against User:SlimVirgin, I've lengthened the block to one week. Another one to look out for when the block expires (also, user talk page is sprotected). Martinp23 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Qbkd10

The user above creates new user-pages and adds spam-links (see User_talk:Buddy and User:Some). Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

I reviewed User:Qbkd10's contrib history thinking I'd find blatant linkspamming (mmm, my favorite!). Instead, this seems to be a good-faith editor who has made a couple of questionable contributions, probably because they are unclear on some WP basics (like not creating extra userpages). I fixed a couple of article edits that were problematic, but haven't touched any of the userpages or contacted User:Qbkd10. Hopefully this quick little "background check" will help the responding admin :) Doc Tropics 21:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Generic Character socks

I posted a report here a while about about a user, User:Generic Character, who had plagiarised various texts in various articles and in addition was trolling on various pages. User:David Gerard blocked him. here is the initial report.

Since then, we've noted at least three users engaged in this pattern of behaviour. Articles targetted include

• Prescriptive Barony - reinstating the copyvio text
• Coat of arms of Wigan - removing perfectly good quotations, apparently in retaliation at being caught and blocked

The socks are User:Copiedimage, User:Tauex and User:Uhrwerkmaus. They've denied being socks even though this is quite blatantly obvious from the identical editing pattern. The vendetta has recently increased in scope, to attempt to remove all coat of arms from Misplaced Pages. I expect more socks to be created. This user has also vandalised my userpage (check contrib history of IP to match to other similar edits made). Please block on sight. Morwen - Talk 21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Generic Mouse, Uhrwerkmaus, Tauex, Rodentiaest, Copiedimage, all blocked indefinitely. Generic Character still indef blocked from last time. I've also blocked the IP (which has been used as yet another persona) for a month for the relentless sockpuppetry - David Gerard 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kdbuffalo disruption and edit warring

Reverts that apparently skirt the three RR policy, but that are disruptive and indicative of edit warring, on Evidence of evolution .

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Comments: This user has a long list of rule violations (see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo). He habitually deletes any comments left on his talk page without replying to them, making it impossible to interact with him. NOTE: Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Haljackey

I tried reporting this user on WP:AIV but was told (through an edit summary that I had to search through the history to find) that he had "no final warning". However, I already told him that if he continued I'd report him, and he did continue. His images at least need to be deleted. Was I correct to take it here, or is there a better place? I would have thought AIV was appropriate, but it seems bogged down in bureaucracy. --NE2 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Turrets Guy (talk · contribs)

I need admin help with a persistent issue that keeps cropping up in different ways: I'm not sure where to take it this time.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tourettes Guy

Tourette's Guy has been AfD'd twice, but entries about the website are often made to Tourette syndrome. The latest issue is a post to Talk:Tourette syndrome by Turrets Guy (talk · contribs). I don't know if the user name or user page content is OK given the AfD, and if the talk page entries should be removed as spam/advertising. The people who follow and support that website are aggressive and coordinated, so I'm not inclined towards taking any action myself, and not sure if any action is even appropriate to the case. There are also constant posts of this nature on various pages. Thanks for any advice and help, Sandy (Talk) 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How long to block?

I've just reverted user:206.207.42.115. Has a history of vandalism and warnings. If blocked, how long is appropriate period? RJFJR 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say at least 48 hours, as it's the second time he's been blocked this month for the same thing. However, Tawker already blocked him for 24 hours... Titoxd 02:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Software cracking how-to posted in article

On speedy patrol, I came across RuneScape Cheats, which seemed to contain detailed how-to advice on how to hack into other players' passwords/accounts on RuneScape. As this might be potentially dangerous information that people could use to harm each other, I've speedied under IAR. Feel free to overturn if you think I overreacted. Wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell on AfD, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Well done. — Moondyne 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Earned the creator an indef block as well. I can't believe people would still fall for that. Naconkantari 02:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks

There have been several identical, offensive personal attacks on an editor at David Bukay. Although some users and IPs have been blocked, others are quickly established or used. These attacks have been made by User:198.172.203.223 , User:132.74.99.84, User:207.67.145.171 and User:Bucket6. They appear to be linked to offensive edits in the same article, and at Steven Plaut, Roland Rance and User:RolandR, by User:Bejeebers, User:Asskick, User:Fumigate, User:wczto, User:193.225.200.93, User:Beckerman, User:84.109.62.205. The most recent such attack has been made by User:207.67.145.222. Dealing with this is like fighting a Hydra; there's always a new head growing.RolandR 02:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wblakesx (talk · contribs)

• Wblakesx (talk · contribs) is spamming my talk page with text dumps after I got involved with a debate between him and KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) regarding the God page. I'm honestly not sure what's going on here. He's constantly left messages on people's user pages despite being warned against doing so. I really don't think he means any harm, but I need someone with more authority than I to set him straight on what is and is not acceptable behavior here. Danny Lilithborne 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Short Shorts and High Heels

Who deleted my first article there? I'm feeling ill.... Isitcozimblack 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards