Misplaced Pages

User:CJ2005B

Please see this entry on the Misplaced Pages:Policy enforcement log. I'd just like to know if my actions were appropriate. Thanks. --khaosworks 00:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I thought it was a bit too lenient, until I noticed it was an AOL IP. Don't see any problems with the block. - Mgm| 09:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, he's back, and he's vandalised my user page and talk page again. Someone please deal with him this time round because (as Ed rightly pointed out) since I was involved in a content dispute with him, I don't want to be seen as a bully. --khaosworks 10:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've blocked him for 24 hours after he wouldn't stop vandalising some user pages and ignoring warning I placed on his talk page. Evil Monkey∴Hello 11:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism rampage on af:

If anyone has admin permissions on af:, could they please check in - there's a vandal on the rampage mass-deleting content from articles. See http://af.wikipedia.org/Spesiaal:Recentchanges and http://af.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Spesiaal:Contributions&target=195.85.154.162 . -- ChrisO 10:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:CJ2005B (II)

This user is threatening me here, SqueakBox 00:04, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

He is now making death threats hereSqueakBox 00:12, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

He also keeps vandalizing SqueakBox's user page, see diffs:], ], ], ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtkiefer (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Watcher (talk · contribs) appears to be reverting in the same pattern (and has the same atrocious grammar. Denies it, but I strongly suspect The Watcher to be a sockpuppet of CJ2005B. --khaosworks 00:25, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, SqueakBox 00:32, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Both users are currently blocked for 1 week.Geni 00:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evading his block

Based on the contribs I am 99% sure he has resurfaced as Agent003 (talk · contribs). Identical interests, SqueakBox June 28, 2005 14:19 (UTC)

Also help

I blocked the cancer vandal IP range 2 days ago and a user has asked me to unblock. I tried and cannot. Something strange is happening as I have logged in twice as alteripse, but when I move to the administrative pages the skin changes back to default and I am no longer logged in although I can edit this. Therefore I had no "unblock" option when I went to the page listing blocked users and addresses. Can someone please unblock 195.93.21.104 as soon as possible please?

I don't know whether my access problem was a known bug or if I was doing something the wrong way. I am not at my usual computer and will try again later from there. Thanks. 159.14.171.39 28 June 2005 15:21 (UTC) (alteripse)

195.93.21.104 looks like its another AOL address. I'll unblock it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 28 June 2005 15:29 (UTC)

I assumed good faith (ie. your not an anon pretending to be an admin) and unblcoked the IP. As a side note, I spoke with someone on commons who was having the same problem. THey couldn't log in and when they finally did it would log them out on the next page reload. This link is Broken 28 June 2005 15:30 (UTC)

I was having that problem on Sunday but it seems to have fixed itself now. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 28 June 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the unblock. I am back to my usual machine and have not had any problems with being logged out by page changes. I gather the big software switch has had some side effects? alteripse 28 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)

James Voirin VfD

I've moved this here per Carnildo's suggestion over at WP:VP policy.-Splash June 28, 2005 19:04 (UTC)

Ok, I nominated James Voirin for deletion, on the grounds given in the VfD. Now, the article has been expanded since the beginning of the VfD but, Goldstein307 (talk · contribs) just closed the debate with a Keep when the voting was 7d, 2k. That is a clear consensus to delete. There was discussion of whether he was sufficiently notable or not, but the voting is very clear indeed, as are the reasons given for the 7 delete votes.

Is there a procedure for contesting the closure of a VfD on that basis? I've let Goldstein know on their talk page.-Splash June 28, 2005 18:13 (UTC)

You might drop a notice on WP:AN. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 18:28 (UTC)

How many of the votes to delete and keep were made after the rewrite? If, for example, both the keeps were made after the rewrite, those votes tend to have more weight because the previous delete votes were made before the rewrite, and therefore may not have voted with all of the information neceesarily on hand. If the VfD gets reopened, maybe you or the person who rewrote the article should contact the people who voted before the rewrite (keep or delete) to reconsider their votes. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)

There's also WP:VFU if you think the vote was conducted improperly. · Katefan0 June 28, 2005 19:13 (UTC)

I don't think VfU is the right place, since it was kept, not deleted.-Splash June 28, 2005 19:18 (UTC)

I was mistaken - all the non-VfD edits were made before the VfD began; the article was not revised once voting commenced. This makes me even more sure the closure to keep was inappropriate. .-Splash June 28, 2005 19:16 (UTC)

As one of only two individuals to vote keep on the article, Goldstein307 shouldn't have closed the VfD—if only to avoid any question of a conflict of interest. I have rolled back his closure, and leave the article disposition up to a neutral admin. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 28 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)

It appear rather obvious that Goldstein307 (who is not an admin) completely went against the vote and took it upon himself to decide that the page should be kept. There was only one other keep vote besides his own (vs 7 to delete). All votes were after the rewrite. I'm going to close the VfD as it should have been and delete the page according to process. If Goldstein307 (or any other user) believes that I am in error, please bring it to VfU.Carbonite | Talk 28 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Yeah, with no rewrite, the correct thing to do was to go with consensus and let someone else decide. It's perfectly okay to close a VfD where one voted, as long as one follows consensus (whether the same as or different to one's own vote). --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. That was an impressively quick response. -Splash June 28, 2005 19:33 (UTC)

User:7121989

I don't have anything against sex, but these images this user is uploading are IMO pretty clearly porn and not made for the educational value. Should I ask the user to source and tag their images, or can I start removing them? - Mgm| June 28, 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Remove them. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 28, 2005 21:41 (UTC)

• BTW, I'm about to go to bed. I'd appreciate it if someone else kept an eye on him. - Mgm| June 28, 2005 21:41 (UTC)
  • I have left a message on the user's talk page warning them about uploading pornography. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 28 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)

He came back and immediately began uploading more pornographic images and linking them into his favorite articles. I have now given him a one day ban to show that, yes, you can be blocked for doing that. Geogre 5 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)

User:Enviroknot's injunction

It appears that Enviroknot is violating his Temporary Injunction on editing anything other than Talk or arbitration pages. See after the 25th. --Calton | Talk 29 June 2005 07:44 (UTC)

• I've put a warning on the user talk page; I'll monitor his contributions and block if he does anything else. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
  • So, his next contribution was a charming little note on my talk page. As I am the target of this, I am reluctant to block. Can someone else please handle this? Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 12:54 (UTC)

I had warned Enviroknot in the past about his hostility and disruptive behavior in the past. I'm giving him a final warning now and will block if he continues in this vein. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 29 June 2005 13:05 (UTC)

He was warned several days ago and again earlier today. I've blocked him for 12 hours for blatant disregard for the ArbCom's injunction. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 13:12 (UTC)

Thanks. But for the fact that his edit was aimed at me, I'd have blocked him myself. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 14:24 (UTC)

I don't think you needed to be that cautious. Until the warning, you'd no previous involvement; if their response was clear abuse (i.e. not a judgement call as to whether it was or not), there's not much else one can say, is there? Noel (talk) 29 June 2005 14:39 (UTC)

I just like everything to be ultra-transparent. The last thing I'd want to do is to feed his sense of being put upon: "I tried to reason with that Filiocht person and all he could do was block me." Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 14:49 (UTC)

I think it's cool that you did that; it's sensible. However there seems to be a very strong consensus that this guy is one of the silliest trolls we've ever encountered. He's tried tricks that would work in a more troll-friendly environment. He's been caught red handed but he still insists he's innocent. Giving him warnings is better than blocking at this stage because it enables us to gather more evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 29 June 2005 22:32 (UTC)

I agree that warnings would be more productive, in the short term at least. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 12:40 (UTC)

User:Kurita77

the true artist of sockpuppetry does one harmless edit first , and seamlessly continues his dispute only with his second edit . Except it's strange User:Kurita77 with his second edit quotes and fully supports Enviroknot, and with his sixth edit educates users about policy. The conclusion is left to the gentle reader. dab (ᛏ) 29 June 2005 15:04 (UTC)

Good catch. This is obviously a sockpuppet, as demonstrated by the use of strikeouts, bolding and section headings in his second edit. Kurita77's first edit was about 15 minutes after Enviroknot was blocked. It's already well known that Enviroknot has an affinity for sockpuppets. I'd like an IP check before blocking, but I think there's little doubt that Kurita77 == Enviroknot. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 15:18 (UTC)

I asked David Gerard for an IP check, but then noticed that he doesn't have this ability under MediaWiki 1.5. I've gone ahead and blocked Kurita77 permanently. If any admin truly believes that Kurita77 is not Enviroknot, please unblock. In my opinion, this is another case of a troll annoying good editors and gaming the system. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 15:50 (UTC)

are you serious? not even DG can look at IPs now?? On 1.5, socks check out you? that's not exactly my idea of progress :\ dab (ᛏ) 29 June 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Hopefully, it's a short-term issue (he says on his talk page "I don't presently have CheckUser access in the new software"). I didn't notice the message at the top of his talk page until after I left the request. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 16:01 (UTC)

Kurita77 emailed me:

Carbonite refuses to answer my emails. Nobody is responding to me. Why are you calling me a sockpuppet? I have done nothing wrong. I have acted within wikipedia policy as sent to me by Spangineer. He sent me all the information on how to edit and how to format things in Misplaced Pages. It's all listed right there. Please. I just want to edit in good faith.

I do think he is gaming the system, but I would like to put this case to everybody's consideration. he appears to claim that he read through policy so quickly that he can act like a seasoned edit-warrior within 10 minutes of his first edit. If anybody has reasonable doubts this is Enviroknot, feel free to unblock him. We are not the arbcom after all, and only supposed to deal with obvious cases. dab (ᛏ) 29 June 2005 17:10 (UTC)

It's not the first time an apparently new user edits like a seasoned Wikipedian. I think there's good reason to stay suspicious.--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 17:15 (UTC)

I posted this to the mailing list. This is why I blocked him:

Here's a synopsis of Kurita77's contributions at Misplaced Pages:

1st edit: His first edit was made within minutes of Enviroknot being blocked for violating the ArbCom injunction.

2nd edit: Quoted Enviroknot and struck-out many of BrandonYusufToropov's comments. Kurita77 used also editing features such as section headings and bold text.

6th edit: Began lecturing Brandon on "No Personal Attacks". Again struck-out several of Brandon's comments.

10th edit: Again lectured about "No Personal Attacks".

16th-18th edits: Uploaded an image of "Eyeshield 21". Added a disambiguation link to the Eyeshield article. In an email he sent to me, Kurita77 claimed that this article brought him here.

20th edits: Posted a message on Brandon's talk page referencing several Misplaced Pages policies and instructing Brandon to "calm down".

22nd edit: Posted a question on AN/3RR (regarding personal attacks ).

All of the above happened in less than 3 hours. It's crystal clear that Kurita == Environknot. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee will probably ban all sockpuppets of Enviroknot permanently and allow him to edit only under his own account. It is possible mistakes will be made. All we ask is a good faith effort. Usually he is pretty obvious, as in this instance. Fred Bauder June 29, 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Here's the nail in the coffin:

According to email headers, Kurita77's IP is 66.69.141.11. Sound familiar? That IP is listed on the ArbCom case page as one of Enviroknot's IPs. This IP traces to cpe-66-69-141-11.houston.res.rr.com. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 17:58 (UTC)

This is EnviroKainKabong's Roadrunner IP address. He posts from there and from the business school at the University of Houston, or else he uses open proxies. SlimVirgin June 29, 2005 18:27 (UTC)

Response

It appears that I have one chance to respond so I am responding.

1st edit: His first edit was made within minutes of Enviroknot being blocked for violating the ArbCom injunction.

Why does this matter? I was unaware that editing at certain times of day was proscribed. I certainly couldn't have predicted that I was editing right after someone was blocked. In fact it looks like you guys are blocking people all day long.

2nd edit: Quoted Enviroknot and struck-out many of BrandonYusufToropov's comments. Kurita77 used also editing features such as section headings and bold text.

I thought it was a good idea for the page. Even BrandonYusufToropov seems to agree with that idea. Misplaced Pages policy says to BE BOLD about making edits. I was doing that. I didn't know Misplaced Pages was a persecute-new-users society.

6th edit: Began lecturing Brandon on "No Personal Attacks". Again struck-out several of Brandon's comments.

10th edit: Again lectured about "No Personal Attacks".

Aren't editors supposed to help other editors? Aren't we supposed to remove personal attacks as per Misplaced Pages policy? Aren't we supposed to inform other editors when they're doing something outside the bounds of policy?

16th-18th edits: Uploaded an image of "Eyeshield 21". Added a disambiguation link to the Eyeshield article. In an email he sent to me, Kurita77 claimed that this article brought him here.

It did. I was referred here by a friend who noticed that they had an article on the manga but none on the anime. I got my feet wet and got comfortable making edits before trying to make a whole new article. Is that a bad thing?

20th edits: Posted a message on Brandon's talk page referencing several Misplaced Pages policies and instructing Brandon to "calm down".

Is it wrong to ask someone to calm down when they're engaging in heated discussion and flinging around personal attacks? I find it very funny that he removed the comments from his talk page. As if he couldn't be bothered to read Misplaced Pages policy.

22nd edit: Posted a question on AN/3RR (regarding personal attacks ).

I posted the question because I wanted to be sure I wasn't breaking the rules. Would you rather have me just wait until I was blocked before asking?

According to email headers, Kurita77's IP is 66.69.141.11. Sound familiar? That IP is listed on the ArbCom case page as one of Enviroknot's IPs. This IP traces to cpe-66-69-141-11.houston.res.rr.com. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 17:58 (UTC)

I told you - and you REFUSED TO POST IT HERE - that my area's been having trouble thanks to my idiot neighbors putting in a pool and messing up the cable lines. I think it's changed again. I'm not sure.

I don't know what this Enviroknot person did and I don't think I want to know. I came in here in good faith. I took the time - TWO DAYS - to read the policy pages and how-to-edit tutorials before I made my account and started in, because I didn't want someone coming in and attacking what I made for poor writing style.

Instead I got attacked just for being here and making legitimate comments.

Please, for the love of god, SOMEONE show some common sense and give me back my account. I haven't done anything wrong. Kurita77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.133.72 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I just checked. Yes, my IP address changed again with this last outage. It's now 66.69.133.72. I have no idea how long it'll last, probably only until that nitwit with a backhoe decides to risk electrocuting himself again. Kurita77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.133.72 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, does the fact that your neighbors have messed up cable lines have to do with your using the same IP as Enviroknot? It's a lot of smoke you're blowing, but I'm not seeing any fire here. What's the connection? Are you saying that your klutzy neighbors have forced you to share Enviroknot's IP? How did they manage that? --Calton | Talk 30 June 2005 04:10 (UTC)

You sound like someone who has been on Misplaced Pages for a long time. Do you want to make us believe that you're a newcomer?--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 19:39 (UTC)

I am a newcomer. I took the time to read the documentation available here before editing because I didn't want to make an ass of myself. Please give me back my account. Kurita77

Sorry, but I strongly doubt that anyone could assimilate that amount of Wikpedia lingo that fast.--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Lingo? What lingo? The tutorials teach you how to make a link. The rules pages are pretty clear if you take the time to read them. Indenting is as simple as putting a colon before your line. What have I done that is advanced? If after two days of reading the pages you couldn't edit halfway decently I'd think something was wrong with you.

Please. I have done nothing wrong but I am being treated like some sort of criminal for "knowing too much." Why are you doing this? What is the problem with you people? Kurita77

The way you talk about your situation reveals that you are very familiar with about how things are done in Misplaced Pages and what things are called. LOL, I am not sure I would produce that amount of correct Misplaced Pages terminology.--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)

I have no idea. I didn't even know this page was here until Carbonite put that insulting "warning" on my user page and blanked out what I'd put on it. Kurita77

FYI, I am a linguist and everything you write convinces me that you have a long experience of Misplaced Pages. You won't fool me, sorry!--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)

If you're a linguist then you could tell me what it is I've said. But you won't. You're actively refusing to. What the hell is wrong with you? Do you get some sick enjoyment out of tormenting new users? Is this some assholish initiation rite or something? Kurita77

Now, as to your question, the reason why I believe you to be a longterm wiki-user is that you get every single term right (a newcomer would have a more varied set of expressions), and you know a load about Misplaced Pages. Kurita77, instead of getting angry, and if you're innocent, why don't you take a wikibreak until all this is over? If you're a newcomer, Misplaced Pages should not be so important to you as it seems.--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)

"Kurita77", I might note also shares Enviroknot's calm manner, measured language, and admirable social skills. --Calton | Talk 30 June 2005 04:10 (UTC)

...not to mention similiar responses to being challenged, as in and . --Calton | Talk 30 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)

EN-L Mailing List

These came over the Misplaced Pages en-l mailing list and to my personal email.

Fuck you, assholes. I never would have come here if I knew THIS was the way Wikipedians act.

To Rdsmith4: these emails are REAL. The one from Gregory Maxwell came directly off the wikien-l mailing list. Don't delete them just because you don't like the fact that you've got neo-Nazis with admin powers.

I'm fairly sure this e-mail is sarcastic. I'm entirely sure that it doesn't indicate that its author is a neo-Nazi. —Charles P. (Mirv) 30 June 2005 08:06 (UTC)

Kurita77

>From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>,English Misplaced Pages <wikien-l@Misplaced Pages.org>
>To: English Misplaced Pages <wikien-l@wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re:  New user, blocked indefinitely?
>Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:59:24 -0400
>
>On 6/29/05, Kurita Ryohan <kurita77lineman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm now on 66.69.133.72. You can check it if you like.
> > I told you, my idiot neighbors are putting in a pool and didn't check the
> > utility maps before they started digging. They cut the cable lines and
> > everything has been getting patched and re-patched for the past few days.
> > What the hell is wrong with you people?
>
>Well Kurita, enviroknott obviously lives near you. Because he's been
>such a pest we have decided to block everyone in your area who makes
>edits remotely resembling enviroknott.  I'm afraid that if you want to
>edit you're just going to have to track him down and ask him to move
>to a new community. Sorry.
>____________________________

note that enviroknot exhibited exactly the same behaviour of claiming innocence while carefully avoiding to recognize or comment on the sockpuppet evidence, such as signing with the wrong username, on the wrong talk pages etc. A new user with the same IP who appears within minutes of Enviroknot's block, and starts quoting Enviroknot's statements on Talk:Jihad immediately is just not credible, sorry, neighbors or no neighbors. We may be legalistic sometimes, but we do retain a few shreds of common sense. dab (ᛏ) 30 June 2005 07:53 (UTC)

"carefully avoiding to recognize or comment on the sockpuppet evidence" - What the fuck do you call the big thread response up above then dumbass? You haven't shown any common sense or good faith, all you've shown is that you're a dumbass on a fucking witch hunt. Kurita77

Thanks Kurita77, I think you have permanently removed any doubt among the admins that you are one and the same as enviroknot.--Wiglaf 30 June 2005 12:31 (UTC)

User:Noitall

I was wondering if I could get some advice for the following problem. On June 19th, Category:Anti-gay rights legislation came up for CfD (see Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 19 for the archived discussion). It seems that there was some discussion on the category, mostly between Users Dave and Noitall. After two days, they commented out almost all of the discussion and deemed there was a consensus to rename the category. After the required seven days, I un-commented out the discussion (I take care of archiving CfD these days), determined there was in fact no consensus, and marked it as such.

Noitall then modified the archive to say there was a consensus , which I reverted. This happened twice more and . I left him several warnings on his talk page to which he basically called me an idiot: , , , and . I then blocked him for CfD archive vandalism and 3rr .

Any comments? Thanks. --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 13:28 (UTC)

4 Renames (of which 2 are rename/keep) and 3 deletes. I fail to see any consensus here unless CfD operates with extremely broad percentage of what is deemed so. Inter\ 30 June 2005 21:06 (UTC)

• Technically the only thing that requires a substantial consensus is deletion. The problem here is that a vote-to-rename is mixed up with a vote-to-delete. What I'd propose is that if there exists a naming convention in the MOS, this should be renamed accordingly. If not, leave it be, and interested parties can take it to RFC if they want to form a naming convention. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Your assessment is fine, however I'd suggest leaving the blocking to someone else in cases like this: You might be too close to see things neutrally, and there is a certain conflict of interest. --W(t) 30 June 2005 23:52 (UTC)

• Please see below for accurate information, discussing Administrator Kbdank71 abuse. --Noitall July 1, 2005 23:34 (UTC)

User:Old Redneck Jokes

Just a heads-up: I do not intend on unblocking this user. If someone else wants to, that's fine, but he sent me three emails. Look here.

I was joking it wasn't a personal attack, if you type Zod 
in the search it will tell you I am a satirist and you should 
know that I am too afraid to beat some one down (that's a lie). 
But I was just unblocked can't you just unblock me, I've gotten 
a website now and any "personal attacks" will be discontinued, 
so will you please unblock me.
From,
Ronnie DeYoung

I was never warned before not to "personal attack" people. But 
once again I don't consider saying something that is meant to 
be somewhat humorous to be a "personal attack". I've actually 
talked about this before. What I said wasn't offensive, it was 
a fact. I said "watch yourself" as a joke, I'm too lazy to actually 
do anything. So Linuxbeak, do you think you're special that you 
blocked someone that can anal rape you with his massive intellegence? 
Well you don't have to unblock me if you want because I know your 
kind. Just because you're are a rich little dipshit that can afford 
to go to the University of Rhode Island, doesn't mean that you can 
be a dick to Zod. For Zod will anal rape you with his massive 
intellegence. The crappy joke "I can break diamonds with my voice" 
its just a sickening cliche joke. Remove that joke from your profile, 
or I will have to anal rape you with my massive intellegence. Oh 
and one last thing Protestant-Baptist thing, my SAT score was 
1380 boo ya
 h!

Okay I wish to update something and it's really bothering me, so you 
dumbass cocksucking 18 year old, I want you to unblock me, or I will 
anal rape you with my massive intellegence. Listen I've done it before 
and I'll do it to you unless you unblock me, for the good of the 
"wikipedian" community.
Thank you for your time Ass Master.
From,
Ronnie DeYoung

I've got enough to do than to feed trolls. *shrug* Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 1, 2005 03:22 (UTC)

Main page

Someone needs to edit the main page of the site and remove the picture there - I think it has little to do with an Estonian rock band, as it should. Wally 1 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

Yet another GNAA VFD

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America Deletion (5th nomination) was created by User:Convene, who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. Because the nomination was created for purposes of disruption, I've protected it and removed the notice from the GNAA article. Feel free to reverse my decision if you feel I've not done the right thing, but I really can't see how anything good could come from repeating this process yet again. — Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what psychic powers you employed to determine a) User:Convene is a sockpuppet and b) the nomination was created for purposes of disruption. Or did you have some actual evidence you're not sharing with everyone? --Calton | Talk 1 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

At this point please don't revert the decision by simply unblocking it.. already voters have been turned away. :) If you disagree, feel free to start a new VFD. Although it can hardly be considered fair after we've gone around systematically blocking the supporters. :) Gmaxwell 1 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)

• See my comments I left below in Blocking of GNAA "sockpuppets". <>Who?¿? 2 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)

Blocking of GNAA "sockpuppets"

User:Radiant! has blocked a bunch of people, many of which I recognize as individual GNAA members, as "Sockpuppet. Only edits are VFD votes." I asked him about it on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to be active right now. Some are obvious sockpuppets, while others, like Timecop, have a number of legitimate edits. Blocking, especially in the latter case, seems way overboard. --SPUI (talk) 1 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Quite a few of the ones he marked as only being active in VFD actually had a couple of other edits as well.. A small issue but if we're going to block people accuracy counts.. and we should unblock timecop for sure.. Gmaxwell 1 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)

And they are now in IRC very politely asking to be unblocked. Gmaxwell 1 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

I've unblocked them, because, well, I can't find anything to justify their blocks other than that they are GNAA members; they didn't do anything more disruptive than vote, and I have no reason to believe they are anyone's sockpuppets, just a group of people with too much time on their hands. Since 1) VfD is not a democracy and their votes would likely be discounted anyway, 2) the VfD has been locked now, 3) blocking them is entirely ineffective and only encourages actual disruption, and 4) Radiant!, who originally blocked them, doesn't seem to be around and responding to the comment left on his talk page, I've unblocked. I trust that they will be reblocked if they do abuse their reinstated editing privileges. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 1 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

• Okay, I was away for a couple of hours... perhaps this was overkill but these accounts seemed rather suspicious to me. I did look over their edit histories and found that these accounts either had nearly no edits other than to VFD, or had been absent for a very long time and suddely returned to answer one VFD. Timecop being one of them - he has 51 edits, the vast majority of which either to the GNAA article or to VFD votes. Those accounts that had a bunch of nontrivial edits, I didn't block. I haven't checked for GNAA membership (partially because I don't quite see how to do that) but these doesn't strike me as regular editors. You're probably right though that blocking them would not particularly accomplish anything, though. One exception though for User:Lysol, since he's been changing other people's votes. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 22:56 (UTC)
  • Interestingly enough you unblocked Convene as a GNAA member, but he probably isn't since he's the one who nominated the article for deletion in the first place. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 22:58 (UTC)
    • The mass descent of "new editors" stretches my ability to assume good faith, as well, but I think they cause more fuss blocked than unblocked. Changing votes is another story, of course... As for Convene, well, the debate has been locked now; s/he failed to get what s/he wanted except for some momentary attention; I don't suppose it hurts to unblock now. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 1 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)
• I have a feeling that I had a small part to play in this, for the dicussion I started on Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America. It's odd how they just recently started trolling again. If so, I sincerely appologize to the admins who have to monitor their edits. <>Who?¿? 2 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)

It may be notable that Timecop showed up on IRC complaining about unfair blocks and cursing "some Jew" who blocked him. For some reason, when he said that interest in investigating his claims dropped to zero. I wonder why that is. I'm not sure it counts as asking "very politely." (He couldn't of course have meant Linuxbeak, who is as fine an example of Aryan manhood as exists.) - David Gerard 4 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)

User:Yahweh divine

I've received a complaint by email from another editor that the above user name is inappropriate in that it may be offensive. While I can see how this may be the case, I'd like to ask opinions on this one, and since I've had previous interactions with the editor in question (User:Yahweh divine) over what seemed like vandalism (at the time), maybe a less involved party can communicate with Yahweh divine if it is felt that their user name is inappropriate. Fire Star 1 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)

Administrator Kbdank71

Kbdank71 is a Wiki Vandal: Violates Wiki 3RR Policies – Vandalizes Page Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 19

Regarding Wiki 3RR procedures, here are the Wiki procedures violated by Kbdank71:

1. Violating blocking Policy: Lying (or inability to count) – Cited me for violating 3RR policy, but I did not revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.

2. Abuse of Administratorship: Kbdank71 reverted 3 times first, then blocked me for removing his vandalism.

3. Violating blocking Policy: Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.

4. Violating blocking Policy: logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block should not be blocked.

On the Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 19 page edits, Kbdank71 did not even bother to learn the issues. Here is what happened:

1. I put the Category:Anti-gay rights legislation up for deletion as it was related to 5 other categories also up for deletion.

2. The topic was vigorously debated with the principal opponent of deleting said category, Dave.

3. On June 20, Dave proposed to RENAME the category to Category: LGBT-related laws to be like Category:Family_law. I agreed.

4. On June 20, Dave wrote this: “The user that submitted this and I have come to a consensus on what to do about this, which is compatible with the votes of four of the seven editors that voted (by my count) and I suspect would be acceptable to the other editors if asked.”

5. After that time, many Users voted on the other 5 categories, but because this debate was successfully resolved and none objected, none did here.

6. As I noted on June 20, we have “successfully resolved all issues by this debate.” The debate ended successfully and amicably.

7. Thus, the consensus was that this should be renamed Category: LGBT-related laws and expanded to include laws from both sides.

8. Everyone agreed.

9. On June 28, Kbdank71 attempts to stir up trouble where there is not any with his re-write of history and writes no consensus (keep)

10. In informed Kbdank71 that, “It cannot be an archive because you have not recorded it correctly. I do not know your agenda here, but it is not the agenda of what was discussed on the CfD. I will continue to correct the record. --Noitall June 29, 2005 21:27 (UTC)

11. Kbdank71 then violates Wiki policies as above.

--Noitall July 1, 2005 23:23 (UTC)

This should go on a RFC, not here. --cesarb 1 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Thank you. In addition to standing on its own as a report of abuse, this is partly a response to an inaccurate report filed above. --Noitall July 1, 2005 23:30 (UTC)

• You are overreacting. Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't mean they are abusing anything. Please assume good faith. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:07 (UTC)

All the evidence points to bad faith. If you were not friendly with this editor, you would agree. Also, it is entirely irrelant if an Administrator has lots of good work and then steps off the deep end to abuse his authority. All those previous edits did not stop me from being victimized. In addition to my statements above, here is more: I was blocked for 55 hours at one location (not certain how he did it) and it did not end until 58 hours after my edit that he disputed. And I never violated any policy, including the 3RR that he accused me of. Here is the evidence:

10:15, June 30, 2005 Noitall (Kbdank71 is vandalizing this page, has reverted 3 times)

For continuing vandalism of the CfD archive, you have been blocked for 24 hours. When your block expires, please feel free to take your issues to the CfD talk page. --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 13:12 (UTC)

20:16, July 1, 2005, Kbdank71 blocked #26495 (expires 20:16, July 2, 2005) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Noitall". The reason given for Noitall's block is: "CfD archive vandalism/3RR".)

--Noitall July 2, 2005 23:49 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. That means that if you stick to the letter of a policy (e.g. the 3RR) but violate it's spirit (e.g. ), then an admin is well within his rights to block you. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 08:07 (UTC)

• You have not addressed any of the issues that I extensively wrote about except to, strangely, argue that Admins are free to do anything they want to for any reason, no matter how unjustified or in bad faith. Needless to say, that does not seem to be a strong argument. --Noitall July 3, 2005 13:45 (UTC)

• Very well, if you insist. In response to your points on policy,
• 1.people can be blocked for the spirit of the 3RR even if they do keep to the letter of it. The 3RR does not give anyone the inalienable right to three reverts per day.
• 2.KBdank's edits there are not vandalism. See WP:VAND for the definition.
• 3.This is not a content dispute.
• 4.Logged-in users with a lot of valid contributions are not exempt from being blocked. Nor, in fact, are admins, ArbCom members or even Jimbo.
• From your second list of points, #4: You suspect would be acceptable to the other editors if asked. However, since you haven't asked, you cannot be sure. I'm glad that you and Dave worked out your differences, but you cannot assume from everybody else's silence that they agreed with you. If you want people to reconsider their votes, ask them.
• Therefore, #7 and #8 are also assumptions. Since they are opinion rather than fact, it is not unreasonable that someone else may make other assumptions and reach a different conclusion. That doesn't make it bad faith for anyone. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 21:13 (UTC)

User:Cognition (I)

Another LaRouche supporter has arrived: Cognition (talk · contribs), and he's trying to insert LaRouche POV into a number of articles, including that Bertrand Russell was evil; he's objecting to the FAC nomination of the Russell article on the grounds that it doesn't mention this. See Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates#Bertrand_Russell. A number of editors have been reverting his edits, but if it continues I'm going to start protecting. I've left a note on his talk page referring him to the arbcom rulings. SlimVirgin July 2, 2005 05:29 (UTC)

The user is quick to delete materal and make reverts, but makes no attempt to provide valid reasons on talk pages or elsewhere. His latest exploit is to claim as evidence against the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ... wait for it ... a chatroom post about the World Wrestling Federation! Something probably needs to be done about this user. Tannin 2 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

These are all LIES. I am the only one who has backed up my edits with sources (**non-LaRouche sources**) on WWF, Chip Berlet, and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Bertrand Russell. Instead I am reverted without explanation. "Slimvirgin" even deletes my minor NPOV edits of Peter Camejo, which was essentially a copyedit, without explantion. On Chip Berlet, he even abused his admin powers to protect his version of the article, despite our dispute. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

You're remarkably familiar with Misplaced Pages's rules for a new user. You might want to try adhering to some of them. For the record, I have no dispute with you. Misplaced Pages has a dispute with you, and I'm involved in this as an admin, not an editor. SlimVirgin July 2, 2005 06:05 (UTC)

Unlike you, I have not broken a single rule. And you are involved as an editor, reverting me on pages that have NOTHING TO DO WITH LAROUCHE, such as WWF and Peter Camejo. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)

I see these reversions of User:Cognition's changes undertaken by several editors. El_C 2 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

That's exactly why you're being reverted. The arbitration committee has ruled that material originating with the LaRouche movement may not be inserted into articles that are not directly and closely related to LaRouche. You're editing in violation of those rulings. SlimVirgin July 2, 2005 06:11 (UTC)

FALSE. I did not insert material originating with the LaRouche movement in the Peter Camejo, Chip Berlet, WWF, and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Bertrand Russell pages. Speak the truth and the truth will set you free. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:16 (UTC)

They will revert you and then they will ban you. I'd suggest you don't waste your time. It's already been effectively decided that LaRouche editors aren't allowed here. Moreover I already see an allegation of sockpuppetry. That is an easy way to get rid of someone like you; it's what happened to the last LaRouche editor we had. Everyking 2 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)

LaRouche is just one of many people whom I admire. In fact, no one would even know that if it weren't for the fact that he appears on my user page along with my opinions on dozens of other important historical figures. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)

There are a number of editors who are familiar with LaRouche propaganda and can spot it a mile away. Even without your user page, your edits would have given you away. As I said elsewhere, I'm not prepared to continue arguing with you. If you're here to edit in good faith, and you're willing to stick to our policies and the arbcom rulings, you're very welcome here, regardless of your political views. But if you're going to insert LaRouche material into unrelated articles, your edits will be reverted and, if you continue, you may be referred to the arbitration committee. SlimVirgin July 2, 2005 06:45 (UTC)

You're not doing a good job. The bulk of my edits have nothing to do with LaRouche. Cognition 2 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)

Chuck F

Chuck F, prolific edit warrior and problem user, has returned. Despite an ArbCom decision specifically banning him "from editing any article related to libertarianism, socialism, or political ideology", he has returned to his favorite haunts: Ron Paul, Libertarian socialism, Libertarianism, and Liberal Democratic Party of Australia. A significant block, as authorized by the ArbCom, would seem to be in order. RadicalSubversiv E 2 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

The ruling says he can be blocked for up to one week for that. On the other hand it doesn't specify an expiry time for that penalty, which was instated in February, but I guess we can assume it's one year, so he's still subject to it. Everyking 2 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

Seeing as the ArbCom specifically set expiry times for every other remedy, I think it's safe to assume this one was indefinite. And for what it's worth, he's also in violation of the "removal of content" and "required edit summaries" provisions of the decision. RadicalSubversiv E 2 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

Mmm. Indefinite usually means a year, on the principle that a year is just about forever in Internet time - David Gerard 4 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)

I was under the impression that one year was the maximum penalty the ArbCom would (or could?) impose. A year isn't really very long in my opinion, but it's good to limit it to that because then people can at least get second chances. Everyking 4 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)

It's a "would", not a "could", but it is the convention. Note cases where someone racked up an over 1-year ban - the actual ban is then one year - David Gerard 5 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)

Man. Why you people gotta hate on that dawg? Ya'll admins abuse all us people who isn't one of ya'll own. BrowardPlaya 2 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)

User:Cognition (II)

I've blocked Cognition (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for disruption. Specific policies violated: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:No personal attacks, and the guideline WP:POINT. S/he's a LaRouche-movement activist or supporter, and since opening the account on June 29 has made mostly disruptive or inflammatory edits (158 posts, 76 to articles), with lots of WP:POINT and attempts to insert LaRouche POV. His user page is a clear example of LaRouche thinking: Aristotle is "possibly the greatest evil in distant times," John Locke "depraved," Adam Smith "systematically insane," Kant "pathological liar," Hitler "put into power by London bankers," Bertrand Russell an "evil" advocate of "genocide," and "Lunatic Isaac Newton."

Background for those not familiar with the LaRouche situation in Misplaced Pages: there have already been two arbcom cases that ruled LaRouche supporters must not use Misplaced Pages to promote LaRouche, and may not insert material originating with the LaRouche movement unless the articles are closely related to LaRouche. The arbcom has ruled that material published by the LaRouche movement amounts to original research. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Evidence, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision.

Some of the disruptive edits:

• Using an image to insert a POV: his first edit was to remove the Immanuel Kant picture and replace it with one that made Kant look ugly. Kant's a LaRouche bogeyman and Cognition's user page calls Kant an "avowedly pathological liar."
• Bad-faith objections to FACs: he has lodged objections against two featured-article candidates Bertrand Russell and Carl Friedrich Gauss, because LaRouche POV was not included in them. In the case of Bertrand Russell, he objected because the article didn't make clear that Russell was "one of the worst monsters in recent history."
• Bad-faith VfD nomination: he nominated Chip Berlet for a VfD. Berlet is an investigative journalist who has written about the LaRouche movement. See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Chip Berlet
• He's inserted LaRouche POV into Dennis King, another journalist who has written about LaRouche, including an anonymous Amazon review that said King had "no intellect" and "lesser morals."
• Abusive edit summaries e.g. "removing outright lies by barbarian POV-pushers."
• Deletion of links that contradict LaRouche POV.
• Deletion of posts on his user page warning him about the LaRouche arbcom rulings and 3RR, with the words "remove harassment."
• Personal attacks: He uploaded a rabid dog image and awarded the "rabid dog beast-man barnstar" to User:SlimVirgin and User:Willmcw with the words: "For working around the clock to defend fascism and synarchism."

Cognition shows too much knowledge of WP to be a new user (his first edit was to upload an image and tag it as fair use), though I'm not convinced he's User:Herschelkrustofsky, who's banned from editing LaRouche articles, because he's a little too manic for HK, and HK could spell, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were connected. SlimVirgin July 3, 2005 10:08 (UTC)

Mine said rabid cat, but that was no cat. It was a monkey. Which made me sad. :( El_C 3 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)

Or maybe a lemurite or a lorisidae, I don't remember now. Sadly, it's gone now. El_C 3 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)

User:Herschelkrustofsky was previously determined to have used sockpuppets in an attempt to deceive other editors. Here's the ArbCom decision:

If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans.Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2

While this enforcement may seem harsh I notice that, by way of comparison, P... V.... hasn't been around lately. Misplaced Pages wins in the end. Cheers, -Willmcw July 3, 2005 11:02 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that it's HK. There are elements of him in some of the posts on talk pages, and in some of the edit summaries. But there are also quite a few spelling mistakes, which HK didn't make, though that might be deliberate. It would be good to get an IP check, but apparently the check-user facility isn't available to David yet under 1.5. We could ask a developer. I'll leave a note about it on David's talk page. SlimVirgin July 3, 2005 11:14 (UTC)

The IP addresses known to be HK from the last arbcom case were 64.30.208.48 (talk · contribs), which resolves to Linkline Communications in Los Angeles, and AOL dial-up IP ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255. SlimVirgin July 3, 2005 11:31 (UTC)

Has this user made any uncontroversial edits? Everyking 3 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

Most are controversial. The few that aren't are still firmly within the LaRouche POV. For example here he added of The Beatles: "many criticize the Beatles for their role in launching the rock-drug-sex-youth-counterculture of the 1960s, which popularized harmful drug usage among youth," which is inching toward LaRouche's view that the Beatles were a set-up by British intelligence, sent out to corrupt Western youth. SlimVirgin July 3, 2005 14:17 (UTC)

You know, I was thinking, what if a LaRouche editor didn't revert war but talked things over and reached compromises on what to include? Would that be acceptable even though it would violate the ArbCom ruling, which says no LaRouche material can be included? I would like it if the LaRouchites would discuss and reach compromises, but the ArbCom ruling seems, if I'm reading it correctly, to make that useless. Everyking 3 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

So as to avoid endless repetition. El_C 3 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Say what? Everyking 3 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

He's not an economist per se., we've been through this already, Everyking. Now, where's that cat! El_C 3 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

Say what? I don't think he's an economist per se. I think he's a fascist cult leader. But what does this have to do with what I wrote above? Everyking 3 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

No. First you stop saying say what, then I'll say what. Now, what I am saying is that your "discussing and reaching comrpomises on what to include" will result in endless repetition. Involving such edits and such discussion. El_C 3 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

As long as he isn't trying to force marginal views into articles, I think repetitive discussion is fine. I think that's a damgerous road to go down, to ban any consideration of content changes because discussion of such changes could be repetitive. Also I wish you'd be more straightforward. Everyking 3 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

And I wish you'd be more (non)linear, but regardless, I doubt the respective talk pages would benefit from that type of repetition. El_C 3 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Several editors tried that over many months, leading to 186,000 words on the LaRouche talk pages: see Template:LaRouche Talk. His supporters won't compromise. If you believe that Bertrand Russell (a well-known pacifist) was evil and genocidal, that the Queen is involved in the drugs trade, and that the British royal household wants to assassinate LaRouche, it's kind of hard to find a middle ground. Some say the Queen wants to kill LaRouche, but others say she doesn't? SlimVirgin July 3, 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Good job, counting all those words! ;-) func(talk) 3 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if we could steer them in that direction it would be an improvement. Get them to stop provoking controversy and do some serious discussion. If they are reasonable, I don't see why a reasonable solution to these various issues couldn't be reached. I'd hate to think a whole viewpoint, no matter how personally abhorrent I find it, is deliberately excluded from WP altogether. Everyking 3 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Everyking, you're more than welcome to try when he returns after the block. The only things you have to bear in mind is that LaRouche publications are regarded as original research, because they're not in the slightest bit credible and are never confirmed by reliable publications, and the inclusion in articles of LaRouche's tiny-minority views violates WP:NPOV. But if you can find a way to work within those limits, by all means give it a go. You can be the one to count the words on the next set of talk pages for the next arbcom case. ;-) SlimVirgin July 3, 2005 16:11 (UTC)

We shouldn't sabatoge the integrity of this project in a misguided attempt to shape someone who thinks the Beatles are a British "psychological warfare" project into a legitimate contributor. We aren't here to "save" people, we are here to create an encyclopedia. While we should strive for openness, we also shouldn't hesitate to show the crazy people to the door. Gamaliel 3 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Calling me "crazy" is a personal attack. See Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. I demand an apology. I also note that Socrates was called "crazy" and "criminal," along with his followers, but history judged those most loudly condemning him most harshly in the end. Cognition 4 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)

I'm speaking of booting "crazy" people as a matter of policy. Gamaliel 4 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The question I raised was whether someone with views you consider "crazy" can be a legitimate contributor at the same time, and work positively. You're dodging the issue by making the assumption that everyone you disagree with is automatically a bad contributor. If a LaRouchite was a good and well-behaved contributor, then would we have an obligation to work things out in a standard way according to consensus with the LaRouchite? Everyking 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

That is a pretty sizable if, actually. El_C 3 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. The suggestion that I believe everyone I disagree with is a bad contributor is preposterous and unproductive. If Congnition wants to be a good contribitor, then all he has to do is actually be one, and I'll gladly cut him some slack if he shows any sign of this. But I'm not going to succumb to the naive illusion that everybody from the lunatic fringe can be rehabilitated by patience and wikilove. Gamaliel 3 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)

If a LaRouchie was a good and well-behaved contributor, we wouldn't notice s/he was a LaRouchie. It's the expression of the LaRouche POV that makes the contributions poor, and the strident insistence on their truth that makes the behavior bad. SlimVirgin July 3, 2005 23:46 (UTC)

But the contributor could openly state it, and argue in a pro-LaRouche way, without actually behaving poorly. It seems to me the same thing could go for any political POV. I don't get it. It seems like the argument here isn't considering the full scope. It isn't just the LaRouchites; how do you handle people from any POV that you consider marginal? Can you put all those people in the same box? My view is, let people talk things over, reach agreements, regardless of where they're coming from, and in the most intractable cases we ought to have a content committee to make recommendations for solutions. I worry that this is a kind of test case for locking people out based on their views, rather than their behavior. Everyking 4 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)

I listed the behavioral problems above: a bad-faith VfD, bad-faith objections to FACs, personal attacks, abusive edit summaries, deletion of posts from his talk page, revert warring. It's not a question of marginal views: the views are insane. Several of us (Adam Carr, John Kenney, Andy L, Snowspinner, Willmcw, Cberlet, and myself, among others) spent months seeking compromise with Herschelkrustofsky: all that happened was we ended up with 186,000 words on talk pages, and some of us ended up being woven into their conspiracy theories, including that I had a connection with the British royal family and had been placed in Misplaced Pages to protect them from LaRouche POV.

Bear in mind that there are no sources for any of these views other than LaRouche publications, or a handful of other similarly crazy ones that parrot whatever LaRouche says, and they're not even slightly credible, so putting the material in Misplaced Pages would violate WP:NOR and Misplaced Pages:Cite sources. SlimVirgin July 4, 2005 02:25 (UTC)

The last thing I want is LaRouche POV infesting our articles. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't lock people out simply according to their views. That's the wrong road to go down. The last time we had a LaRouchite around he was banned by Snowspinner on a baseless charge of sockpuppetry. Clearly that was just a pretext to get rid of him, because he would have done the same to any LaRouchite. And of course the same thing is happening here. Let's get solid majority opinions against these LaRouchites to keep them from POVing the articles, instead of locking them out of the project altogether. Everyking 4 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

As I've said many times, no one is being locked out because of their views, but because of disruption. We do have solid majority opinion against LaRouche POV being inserted, but there's no reason that any editor's time should be tied up having to deal with it. However, as you seem to want to do it, you're welcome to volunteer; what you can't do is volunteer on behalf of anyone else. SlimVirgin July 4, 2005 02:55 (UTC)

Because, to finish my sockpuppets thought, it sounds as if you're saying let someone else engage them in endless repetition over whether he is, above all other things, an "American economist," to use but one example. The thing is, nobody wants to do that. You don't want to do that. El_C 4 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

Improper page protection

There is a dispute between two editors, User:Roozbeh and User:Zereshk, on Talk:Tehran. Roozbeh, who is an admin, then proceeded to protect the article. As Roozbeh is directly involved in the dispute, I request that the article Tehran be unprotected as this action was improper. SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

I've done this - while there's a dispute it's not really anywhere near an ongoing, large-scale edit war, and it wasn't listed on WP:PP. It would be easier to see what was going on if Roozbeh could edit in one go rather than ~20 edits in an hour. I must note, though, that Roozbeh did protect it on the version done by the other user, so that, at least, is to his credit. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)

Deep Impact article

I sincerely doubt I'm the first to leave a message on this (although I'm probably the only one to send it to what is likely the wrong place). Whatever the case, the article on the Deep Impact space probe has been tampered with in and certainly reads in a way that might be funny to a third grader but noone else.

Msg left by 216.52.163.226

• Because this article is currently listed on the main page, and because it is an ongoing current event, information on that page will change very rapidly. With the increased exposure, there will be times when it looks very unedited, and times when it has been vandalised. If you find material has been added or removed inappropriately, please follow the directions on How to revert a page to an earlier version and help us remove some of the nonsense. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)
• Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thanks for reporting this. Vandalism to articles is a common occurence. If you spot it, the best thing to do is to access an earlier version through the "history" tab, click "edit this page" and save. That will revert the vandalized version to an earlier version. If the vandalism to an article is really out of hand (constant, and repeated), you can request that it be protected at WP:RPP, but for articles regarding a current event, such as this one, protection is unlikely to be granted for more than a few minutes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 5 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)

69.209.239.161 (talk · contribs)

This user, who has used many different IPs and userids, has spent a couple of months trying to force some text into the Apartheid article against a strong consensus. Having not gotten his way there, he has targetted me and a couple of other editors, making many personal comments about their alleged ethnicities and political beliefs. He is now reverting me apparently solely for the purpose of reverting me, e.g. . An RfAR would be a lengthy procedure, and unlikely to be particularly effective, given the individual's constant use of differing IP addresses. Unsure how to proceed at this point. Jayjg 5 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

• I'll throw in my two cents worth. An RfAr (woof!) could allow us to revert this guy on sight, without engaging in an utterly pointless discussion about it -- utterly pointless because he seems incapable of understanding basic principles such as "consensus". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

So you think an immediate RfAR is the way to go? Jayjg 5 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

• • Revert his idiocy, remove his personal attacks, and see what he does. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

Isn't this the same editor who was trolling the David Irving and Anti-Defamation League talk pages a few weeks/months ago with different IP addresses and user names, and who became very abusive? He seemed first and foremost to be an Irving supporter. If he's doing nothing but make disruptive edits, perhaps he can be blocked for disruption for short periods until he either learns or leaves. SlimVirgin July 5, 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same editor. He uses Ameritech Electronic Commerce in the 69.xxx range, where xxx is typically a number near 200. He's used at least a dozen IP addresses, and at least 8 different userids. Blocking him is tedious because he simply reboots, gets a new IP address, and continues editing. Jayjg 5 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

I was just going through my talk-page history to find some of the comments. I remember he got pretty abusive, and I think I blocked him for it, as did several others, and he did eventually get fed up and stayed away for awhile. The arbcom could ban him, but he'll still be able to come back. I wonder whether it would make more sense just to keep blocking him until he gets bored again. He's made no useful edits that I'm aware of. All he does is disrupt, introduce POV, and leave snarky comments on talk pages. SlimVirgin July 5, 2005 17:36 (UTC)

See how easy redacting comments from an abusive user is? Snowspinner July 5, 2005 18:00 (UTC)

• No need to look far for a valid reason to block: are the latest violations of WP:NPA.

Exactly, he's been doing this for weeks. Anon, I don't know where you get the idea that you've broken no rules. You constantly violate WP:NOR (by inserting your own idiosyncratic views of what's relevant), WP:NPOV (by trying to introduce tiny-minority views), and WP:NPA whenever you're thwarted, added to which there's the sockpuppetry. You're eminently blockable. SlimVirgin July 5, 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Some trolls

User:Involved in trolling has been blocked as a sockpuppet intended for trolling. Yes, I know troll being in the username is not a reason for banning. However, saying you are involved in trolling is different from troll being in the username, and he went straight for policy pages about trolling. Similarly User:Lleague of Responsible Trolls is gone as the Entmoots sockpuppet he acts like. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 16:46 (UTC)