Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InkSplotch (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 11 January 2006 (→[] claims that all third party edits to his user page are vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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?

User:Gibraltarian

I range blocked every IP he could possibly use, which is 212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255. We have no one else using any of those IPs. This is just for 48 hours. If it goes ok with no complaints, I'll make it longer. I know. It's drastic. But he just won't give up. We're up to 15-20 IPs he posted from. Just no other way. --Woohookitty 08:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the list of IPs G has used and it's not even inclusive. --Woohookitty 09:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I note this probably means blocking all of Gibraltar. Now the pages in question are semi-protected is this needed? Morwen - Talk 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If it does it is a little counterproductive. We do need the Gibraltar POV in articles.. Secretlondon 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A locked out Gibraltar user comments:

I have politely explained twice to Woohookitty that the addresses he has blocked are part of a dynamic IP pool allocated to users of Gibtelecom, the largest of two ISP's in Gibraltar. This has been posted to the discussion part of his homepage, he deleted it without comment. He has locked out 2000 Gibraltar users unjustly.

He does not want to listen, and when he says "We have no one else using any of those IPs." he is simply not telling the truth, I normally use part of that IP block and I am certainly NOT the user he objects to.

Woohookitty seems to have a campaign against Gibraltarians as a whole and is unworthy of the privilige of being an administrator - I request that this block is removed quickly and that his status is reviewed.

I have been updating the pages on Gibraltar for some time (see record) - nobody has complained about my actions, and I have tried to deal with the Spanish user who wants to rewrite things his way politely. Woohookitty ignores this.--Gibnews 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what solution do you propose to sort out the Gibraltarian problem? Have you also politely requested Gibraltarian to stop his disruptive behaviour (the real source of this problem)?

And BTW, I don't want to rewrite things my way, just introducing the Spanish POV, something that your compatriot Gibraltarian doesn't seem to even allow. Besides, your concept of being polite with "the Spanish user" is certainly rather strange: downright lies, lunatic , feel free to post as much false Spanish propaganda about Gibraltar as you like or I just rather hoped that there was an emerging intelligent generation in Spain who could treat Gibraltarians with respect and as friendly neigbours instead of wishing to engage in cultural genocide . And last but not least, Woohookitty hasn't tried the IP range address (as the last resort) because "he has been upset by Gibraltarian calling him a fascist" (as you state in User talk:Gibnews#December_2005) or because "he have a campaign against Gibraltarians as a whole" but because Gibraltarian has proven that he's not able to work in a place like wikipedia (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence) --Ecemaml 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm alarmed that no Gibraltarian is now alowed to edit the Gibraltar page- unless he lives outside Gibraltar! While I agree user Gibraltarian has been rash, he's trying to make sure that the Spanish POV isn't dominant on a foreign page. Bearing in mind the hostile attitude some Spaniards have of Gibraltarians, no bad thing. Blocking all Gibraltarians is an over-reaction. I suggest it is lifted immediately, and a fairer way found. As a newcomer to WIKI, far for me to suggest what that is, but I'm sure you have more options than barring an entire country from editing their own pages. Rockeagle 20:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No my friend, I'm afraid you're not totally right. Gibraltarian hasn't been rash, but definitely rude (you can see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence) if you want more info. And no, he isn't preventing the Spanish POV from "being dominant". He's simply attempting to remove it. And in wikipedia there is no "own" or "foreign" articles. There are just articles that, as wikipedia clearly states, everybody may edit. And this is not a forum like those of www.xsorbit3.com, where simply shouting louder or using the most crude insult makes someone "win". There are quite precise rules and guidelines (WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:CITE and WP:V) that Gibraltarian routinely violates on the grounds of the "hostile attitude some Spaniards have of Gibraltarians", which, according to you, it's "no bad thing". That's the real problem. --Ecemaml 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please Rant less, Quote more accurately, and remain on topic--Gibnews 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

being polite. --Ecemaml 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ecemaml, please don't bait me. I was trying to be a dampening influence on some of the comments made here, so was deliberately understating. I'm not saying that Gibraltarian isn't being unreasonable, some of his comments are. However, some Spaniards have a very warped view of Gibraltarians, and Gibraltarians don't much like Spain, so care is needed to make sure it is a NPOV. I think we can agree on that much. Alternatively, we could try two sections: a UK/Gibraltar POV and a Spanish POV. However, I have been working on the History temp page, which I think is comprehensive and neutral, though maybe links to the Dispute page can be put in once we thrash out something for that page. If we can get the History page released, then perhaps we have made a start, and I can then focus on getting the dispute page into language we can both agree on, even if we don't like the points the other raises- because we probably won't. It IS a "dispute" page after all! So, are we going to edit, or just argue? Rockeagle 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm no longer doing anything involving these articles. You guys can revert Gibraltarian's comments yourself. Have fun you all! I did nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing. Not a single admin reverted what I did. Not a one. I don't even speak Spanish. I've never been outside of Wisconsin much less been in Gibraltar. I have no Spanish or Gibraltarian in my blood whatsoever. I've never read either of the articles this is about. But yeah. I have a grudge against people from Gibraltar. yeah. --Woohookitty 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a hard work to be an administrator. Sure. --Ecemaml 09:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

yes its hard work, and with it must come responsibility. Blocking 95% of Gibraltar users from access is simply unjust. Bad behaviour by one does not justify it by another; Less is more, so all other comments as irrelevent.--Gibnews 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, fortunately Gibnews is here to tell us what is relevant and what is not. --Ecemaml 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion about blocking, not an excuse for a rant and as such it does not affect you, unless you want to silence everyone in Gibraltar.--Gibnews 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with blocking that ip range for 48 hours. Gibraltarian has been constantly using ip addresses to vandalize, and this was meant to put an end to it. To claim that Woohookitty is partial to one side or the other is absolutely unjust—how long have you known him? Have you seen the disputes he works with? He is doing his best to be practical and deal with the situation according to policy. You are allowed to be critical of his actions, but to suggest that he is acting in bad faith is absurd, and I strongly suggest that you apologize. --Spangineer (háblame) 17:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking at the board, not the players and stand by my comments. if you have problems with one user thats what needs to be addressed.

I see a problem with an administrator; I also saw "If it goes ok with no complaints, I'll make it longer." The film '48 hours' had several sequels. There have been complaints.--Gibnews 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you complained. So. I didn't do another range block. I saw one complaint in my email. I looked through the discussion board and my email. You complained once, not twice as you claim. If you can find the first complaint, let me know. And you know what? After you complained, I stopped. And I'd also like an apology from you. I want to see this bias I supposedly have against Gibraltar. Look at the entire web through google. Look up either Michael Lindeen or woohookitty. And also look at all 16,000+ of my edits on here and show me my bias against Gibraltar. The real issue here Gibnews is that, as you admitted on your talk page, you basically agree with Gibraltarian. It is you with the bias here, not me. You make a comment that unlike us, you can talk to the ISPs in Gibraltar to get him stopped. Then why haven't you? You haven't because you think G is just and correct in his attacks.

Another thing. Look at this page. It is a list of evidence against G. Notice that the vast majority of it is not from me? I am point this out because on your talk page, you said "It seems that someone called user:Woohookitty has now locked out 95% of the users in Gibraltar as he has been upset by user:Gibraltarian calling him a fascist." Um no. He was originally blocked for the 135 offenses on the evidence page I cited. 135. After he was blocked, he starting using sockpuppets, which is completely against policy. So then I started short range blocks, which didn't stop him. So I did the longer 48 hour one. ANY ADMIN COULD HAVE REVERSED ME. Any admin. Admins get reversed by other admins every day. If what I did was so biased, why didn't others stop me? Because they knew there wasn't much else to try.

And people wonder why I'm ready to leave the project. It's because people like gibnews can make wild accusations with no basis in fact and they get away with it. If he doesn't apologize, there isn't a damn thing I or anyone else can do. I have him accusing me of abusing power when he doesn't know a goddamn thing about me or my work here. I've been here for a year now. I have 16,000 edits. I've been an admin since June. Gibnews, yours is the FIRST complaint against me on this board. Doesn't that tell you something? There's no abusal of power here. I was trying to stop someone who has violated most of our rules from posting. I did the range block for 48 hours. You complained. I stopped. How the hell this has become "Woohookitty is abusing his powers" is really beyond me. --Woohookitty 08:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no apology to someone who blocks the entire ADSL pool of Gibraltar wrongly.

You complain of abuse from ONE user of that pool, and slam 2000 IP's used by around 5000 users, including me.

I have told you the implication of a global block yet you ignore the advice.

I have offered to trace the user here in Gibraltar and resolve the problem locally, you do not reply to my email.

Despite which I have traced the user and am dealing with what you claim is a problem you cannot solve without killing everyone.

IF as you allege you have been subjected to repeated emails from the users, you can complain to the ISP or myself and it will be actioned but you do not.

You need to learn that with power comes responsibility and if you can't accept a polite and reasonable complaint against your abuse of authority, its time for you to consider your position.--Gibnews 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh please. Accusing an admin of bias and demanding his adminship is not polite. "I have traced the user and am dealing with what you claim is a problem" is patently absurd. This discussion has degenerated into an exercise in troll feeding and I suggest we end it here, and go work on the encyclopedia. Incidentally, I just blocked five Gibraltarian sockpuppets today... Dmcdevit·t 20:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Amen, Woohoo is one of the finest admins we have, get over yourself Gibnews, sometimes drastic action needs to be taken against determined banned users. The only thought that should come to Woohoo's mind when he considers his position should be absolute satisfaction with his role here. --kizzle 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify something I said before, my decision on whether to stay with the project is not based on just this. It's been a long series of stuff that's got me dissatisifed with the project. Since December 2nd, I've had 163 headings on my talk page. It's just overload. And I'm being told every day that I'm things I'm not. In the last 2 weeks, I've been called power hungry, racist, a censor and everything else. I have a thick skin, but it gets to you after awhile. And then you have this. Gibnews, your first email to me was on the 2nd day of the 48 hour block. You completely avoided my question. Where are these other "warnings" and "complaints". I get up at about 4 am Wikitime. You wrote me the couple of emails you wrote me while I was sleeping. By the time I woke up, the block had expired. You make it sound as though you had been warning me for weeks. it's all just ridiculous. The block is OVER. Has been for 2 days now, as evidenced by Gibraltarian's socks. And "polite"? What do you consider polite. In your very first email to me, you told me that I should take time off and contemplate my role here. On a post on your talk page, you talked about how corrupted by power I was. How the heck is that polite? You don't even know me! You know how many admin things I do a day? 10-15. I do one thing that you consider wrong and suddenly, I'm just an awful, power hungry man. Again, where is this bias? Where are all of these other abuses of power? People make mistakes, gibnews. Anyway, I'm not saying anything else on this. --Woohookitty 01:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been on Misplaced Pages for a little while now (though less than a year, I admit), and I would like to put down a small observation on this. Woohookitty is a good admin. He has always attemped to be fair in dealing with those who would work contrary to what Wiki stands for; I've never seen Woohookitty act in a rude, condescending or otherwise inappropriate manner here. What we have is a single individual (Gibnews), who has felt apparently slighted and rushed to judgement without any thought to whether or not his accusations or demands were called for. They aren't, of course. Woohookitty did what he felt was neccesary in order to preserve the peace and sanity of everyone who contributes legitimately to the article in question. This is also why Woohoo's actions weren't overturned by higher authorities; because he acted appropriately. Gibnews has already (as was shown in this very thread) asked politely by other users to calm down and to discuss the matter rationally, but he merely seems interested in presenting his own side of things and not listening to what others have to say. It's extremely difficult to deal with an individual like that, because oftentimes rational logic will get thrown out the window in an effort to preserve "his side".

Woohookitty, please don't leave the project. Your contributions to Misplaced Pages have been remarkable and invaluable. I count you as one of the people that can be relied on to tirelessly, thanklessly work towards bettering the project despite seemingly constant attacks from individuals who don't get their way. I am asking you, please, don't let the small minority win. Don't leave.

Wiki needs you. Daniel Davis 04:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Thank you, much appreciated! --Woohookitty 05:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 'people make mistakes' and one hopes they also learn from them. You scorn any assistance from me is solving a problem you have not been able to address. I suggest you wait and see.

There has been a long history of trouble between 'Gibraltarian' and the Spanish, resulting in him being blocked, and I believe the whole Gibraltar IP pool, from editing the Spanish pages, these still contain defamamatory comments. That will be addressed.

In the meantime, as others say you are doing good work, please carry on doing so. I also intend to do just that. Less is more so don't go on about things ad infinitum, there are more serious things to be done.--Gibnews 10:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, you're beginning to resemble Gibraltarian too much, I'm afraid. Yes, the whole Gibraltar IP pool is blocked in es:. It's blocked in a week-period basis. We block for a week and wait for the new vandalizing from Gibraltarian. Last time it took less that a day to see the new vandalizing from him (Vandalizing? Yes, quite similar to what is currently being described in ). And as long as we don't implement the semiprotection feature (it's not automatic and is being voted in es:) the blocking will continue. The other possibility was blocking Gibraltar-related

Gibnews, you're right, the whole Gibraltar IP pool is blocked in es:. It's blocked in a week-by-week basis. We block for a week and wait for the new vandalizing from Gibraltarian. Last time it took less that a day after the expiration of the block to see the new vandalizing from him (Vandalizing? Yes, quite similar to what is currently being described in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence. Besides, of course without any explanation, he violates the naming policy agreed on in es: with regard to place names, for example replacing Bahía de Algeciras with Bay of Gibraltar or Puerto Argentino/Stanley with Stanley; he's even funnier when he, not being a native speaker, intends to replace perfectly valid phrasing because he doesn't like it). And as long as we haven't implement the semiprotection feature yet (it's not automatic and is being voted in es:) the blocking will continue. The other possibility was blocking Gibraltar-related articles (and Falkland Islands-related, by the way) and, sorry, but it's not fair to block a set of articles only because of the vandalizing of a proved fanatic individual like this. Unfortunately, the measures that wikipedia may put in place to fight against people like this are quite limited, and administrators have to choose. I'm not keen to get burnout like Woohookitty (my sympathies, by the way) only because of people that doesn't understand wikipedia, people that doesn't love wikipedia as we do, people that come here only to continue with his offensive and rude insults they've got used to in places like xsorbit (you can see his messages there and verify whether he was a troll after or before posting in en:). And take it for sure, there is no possibility of removing such allegedly defamatory contents (I'd still like to know which of the current contents of the articles are "defammatory") for people that behave as Gibraltarian does. As far as I understand, there are only two possibilities with him: blocking the IP range (unfair) and semiprotecting all the articles he targets (more or less fine), but as long as he's publicly stated that he's determined to go on with his behaviour "for ever" I don't know what to do in the long term (semiprotection is not forever). I'd like to know whether there are other possibilities, but it doesn't seem so. --Ecemaml 08:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (administrator in es:)

I'm on extended break as of now. And again. It's not just this. Read my user page. --Woohookitty 12:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Everybody needs a holiday and a rest from things from time to time; If you are spammed or molested by any Gibraltar users, feel free to email me directly, otherwise I will leave you alone. My complaint here was about blocking Gibraltar not Gibraltarian but you have reverted the heading and really we have said enough on the topic. This is why I drew a line and hoped others would take the hint. No, I don't know you, but there again you don't know me either so perhaps we should start afresh when you are back.--Gibnews 00:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'am a regular watcher of Spain and sometimes Gibraltar as well. I must testify that Gibraltarian is not a type of a user that listens or discusses. The user doesn't respect any policy of Misplaced Pages. He's been notified many times that the day of his indefinite banning was on the horizons. His actions are not acceptable in this place.

Back to the subject. As long as everybody agrees about the vandalism of the user, the solution to this problem is simply an sprotected tag. Let's go back to work! -- Cheers -- Szvest 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not really the place, but in the article Economía, it describes Gibraltar as a "paraíso fiscal" and then later correctly says the OECD states its not. Its one thing I agree with 'Gibraltarian' on.--Gibnews 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's not the place, but acording to the definition (in Spanish, see the authority on determining what things mean in Spanish here), Gibraltar is a "paraiso fiscal". We're not going to change things because a non-native speaker thinks that it should not be the definition in Spanish. BTW, see the article here on Tax havens. It (correctly, I suppose) lists Gibraltar as a tax haven (the usual translation of "paraíso fiscal"), so... where is the point? --Ecemaml 13:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar is not a 'tax haven' according to the OECD who are the authority. Your article contradicts itself. Your comments about 'non-native speakers' views not counting are revealing.--Gibnews 22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gib! The point is that Gibraltarian acts against the policies. I may agree with him or not but I'd never tolerate their lack of respect of policies. If the problem is about "paraíso fiscal", it would have long been sorted out (as it is done in every article). The problem is beyond that and everybody should abide by the policies, starting w/ WP:NPA. Knowing in advance about the fact that playing with a large range of IP's would cause a disruption for all Gibraltarian users like you and many others and still keeping on playing the same tricks is a clear evidence that the user just don't care. Cheers -- Szvest 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Sort of human shields. --Ecemaml 13:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the topic is Gibraltarian and I was discouraged from changing it to the wider issue of blocking Gibraltar IP's which was my actual complaint; I suggest you read the above intransigent exchange from Ecemaml and form your own opinion on why 'Gibraltarian' got frustrated and acted inappropriatly.

This discussion has also confirmed that the majority of Gibraltar users are locked out permenantly from editing the Spanish version of the pages on Gibraltar, and that our views don't count as we are not 'native speakers'. Yet we should also be locked out of editing the pages in English, so the Spanish version of reality can prevail there too. This mirrors the practice that our mobile telephones are blocked totally from operating in one particular country in the world.--Gibnews 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, Gibnews. But you are both distorting things coarsely and unfortunaly not telling the truth. Distorting things because there is nothing against not native speakers. There are plenty of them in es:. But what a non-native speaker may not do is changing the meaning of words in Spanish. If the Real Academia Española (the organism that defines what every word means in Spanish) gives a meaning to "paraíso fiscal" and such definition applies to Gibraltar, it seems weird that a non-native speaker claims that such a definition does not apply (BTW you can try the following searches "paraiso fiscal" +Gibraltar or "tax haven" +Gibraltar. The first search gives 17,000 hits. The second one 64,000. Moreover, if you go here to the article on Tax havens, you'll see that Gibraltar is listed as one of them. I don't see so much belligerence with regard to the article Tax haven. In fact, if you take the listing of the OECD, only three territories are listed as non-cooperative tax havens. And BTW, the presence of Gibraltar in the OECD reports is appropriately described.

And not telling the truth since the claim "the majority of Gibraltar users are locked out permenantly" is plainly wrong. At the moment, and as long as we haven't implemented semiprotection yet, blocking of the Gibraltar range is performed in a periodic basis (and we're forced to renew it once expires since it takes to Gibraltarian less than a day to go on with his vandalism). The problem, as you know, is your compatriot Gibraltarian that, according to their last editions (here) and quite defiantly, "will NEVER give up". We're still waiting for your solutions to the problems caused by him.

And Gibnews, again. I ask you to refrain from labelling people or their edits. Sometimes it seems that as long as you've suffered a lot you should be allowed to behave in the way you want, and that's not the case. The edits by Burgas00 may be right or wrong, but as long as he's a beginner, you could try and assume good faith and therefore, not label his editions as vandalism. It's not definitely polite. --Ecemaml 08:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me concisely respond.

1. Gibraltar is not a 'fiscal paradise' nor a 'tax haven'. The OECD is the body who determine that and your article says correctly they do not list it as such. it is not your call, nor that of a wiki or Google it is THEIR opinion which defines inclusion.

No, you're not right. And not in the specific case of Gibraltar, but in a wide sense. If you look to the ODCE list, you'll see that they define tax havens according to the transparency of their mechanisms and how cooperative they are. According to that, there are only three tax havens in the world! However, the article on tax havens here defines what in English language a tax haven is (regardless of being cooperative or not and not considering the definition of the ODCE). The same happens in es:. The definition of tax haven is applied. And although the precissions on what the ODCE considers a tax haven should be added (as an interesting aside to consider: sort of "legal definition"), they're not the authority to define what a tax haven is or not (by the way, the inclusion on the ODCE is described in the es:Gibraltar article). --Ecemaml 07:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

2. You are blocking my normal IP with a rollover lockout on the .es site. I am not complaining about that currently just observing the fact.

No, you were stating that there is a permanent blocking. There isn't. --Ecemaml 07:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC) PD: BTW, the semiprotection feature will be implemented on January 15th (once the voting ends) so that no need for further blockings will be needed.

3. The edits of Burgas00 amounted to vandalism, however as he had I now believe him to have been naieve rather than malevolent, so there is no further action required. if he persists he should get the treatment awarded to 'Gibraltarian' I have politely described with reasons for deletion in the appropriate place and you agree with me ... unless you really think Gibraltar is 'in Spain' :)

The fact that I think Gibraltar is in Spain or not is irrelevant (in fact, I do think it isn't), but again, the point here is wikipedia and its rules and guidelines. Misplaced Pages states "assume good faith" and "don't label other people editions". I agree with you that Burgas edition might be unaccurate and even offensive, but the wikipedia way is explaining what's going on (what you actually did), rework the edition by the other side, if necessary, wait and see. Being personally offensive with a newcomer (labelling his edition as "vandalism") is not the wikipedia way. For sure. --Ecemaml 07:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets not labour the point, its resolved and my comments on the discussion page are a model of politeness. Seeing five bad edits rang alarm bells. I'm glad you agree with me on geographical issues. Without wishing to get into that discussion, Brits died to remove the name Puerto Argentina, its not coming back. It should be treated as a historical curiosity and not given equal billing but at least we agree on the name of Gibraltar and that military intervention is not an option.--Gibnews 10:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we agree on the current status of Gibraltar? In spite of what you can think about me, I'm not here to support the Spanish claims. Only to show that they exist. On the other hand, I understand that your mention to Puerto Argentino is related to the discussion that has taken place in es: (other of the usual vandalisms by Gibraltarian). So I'll try to explain it again in order to make it understandable. The first point is that the official toponym of a name is irrelevant in es: (well, in the same way as in any other wikipedia). That way, we have an entry named es:Londres and not London or es:Bruselas and not Bruxelles or es:Islas Malvinas and not es:Islas Falkland. The convention we follow is using the Spanish exonyms when available. From such a point of view, the conventions in es: were clear: the article should be under the title es:Puerto Argentino. However, there were two problems: the Spanish exonym was not "traditional" (it was created during the Falklands War) and it was not unanimous in the whole Spanish-speaking countries (in some countries Stanley was used while in others Puerto Argentino was more popular). That way, it was decided, after a two-week discussion, that the convention used to name Chilean-Argentinean lakes (lakes located in the frontier): using both names with a slash between them (and using an alphabetic order). That way, the name of the article is es:Puerto Argentino/Stanley. However, Gibraltarian, without considering the discussion or explaining anything just removed the agreed name and replaced it with Stanley. Very similar was the replacement of es:Bahía de Algeciras with Bay of Gibraltar, when the name in Spanish is the first one. Are they vandalisms or not? --Ecemaml 16:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

One last comment, I am not defending Gibraltarian here, although I do understand his frustration. You seem rather intransigent on the issue of defaming Gibraltar by calling it a 'fiscal paradise' and a desire to continue a myth in the South Atlantic; However the issue is blocking Gibraltar and its over.--Gibnews 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that people from Gibraltar are blocked permanently from editing the Spanish wiki. That's not fair at all. However, I am not in a position to intervene on that matter as I am not an admin neither a user in the Spanish wiki. Regarding here, I also can't give a judgement about the editi warring as I am not familiar w/ the political issue. All my intervention is dealing with pesonal attacks and the lack of civility. And according to my experience, I only witnessed that to come only from one user as I explained above. Cheers -- Szvest 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fayssal. In fact I don't see the personal attacks as the main problem. The main problem is his inability to understand how wikipedia works. See for example this removal. It seems that he tries to manipulate the history to support his political point of view, removing what could be against his positions. What is rather strange is that a) I can't see how such removals support or not his position b) what is removed is appropriately sourced with British sources!!! (two books, the most widely references works on the topic; one of them being allegedly pro-Spanish, the other one by a very ex-Governor of Gibraltar, a militar and professional military historian). That's the real problem, I'm afraid. --Ecemaml 08:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, the size of this particular AN/I is growing beyond limits. Please continue any further discussion to the relevant articles' talk pages. Cheers -- Szvest 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I say delete it - the dispute is over. --Gibnews 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle

Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · block log) I'd appreciate input from other admins about this user. S/he's been here for just over two weeks, seems to make very few useful edits, and spends most of her time causing problems and insulting people. She has 500 article edits (most of which I guess are reverts), but 1,633 on talk, project, and template pages. I get e-mails every couple of days from editors she's offended wondering how long they have to put up with it. She's been warned many times and blocked 10 times, but nothing makes any difference. I asked her to stop again today, but her response was to change the header of my post, delete my second post, then alter my first one.

As this is an encyclopedia, I'm wondering what the benefit to Misplaced Pages is of her presence, and I'd like to know whether anyone agrees that the account should be blocked. Or if I'm wrong and she is in fact contributing constructively in some non-obvious way, I'd appreciate hearing about it. SlimVirgin 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My experience with this user is limited, but I do have some, and it hasn't been positive. She was extraordinarly rude and disruptive at Zatanna over a fairly minor issue. I believe, if I'm remembering correctly, that I also blocked her there for violating 3RR. While blocked for 3RR several anons began to show up to continue reverting. The article remains protected, in part because she (and other users) cannot agree on this continuing problem. You may also be interested to inspect this diff , the results of a sock check suggesting that Miss Selina Kyle may be User:Chaosfeary. (I note that she left a message on Chaosfeary's userpage as well ). · Katefan0/mrp 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

However, the last block of User:Mistress Selina Kyle, by Kelly Martin, may have been a bit of a stretch. See User talk:Kelly_Martin#Chat transcript for why the block was done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes - (s)he should send karmafist a thank-you letter for cleaning up after her/him. Anyway, I do agree that if it continues kyle should be blocked - but lets take it in increments please...Start with a day, then a week, etc.. Simply outright banning looks bad - and that's the last thing that is needed at the moment. WhiteNight 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've been watching this user quite closely. She is an unrepentent edit warrior on multiple pages. She has an uncanny knowledge of Misplaced Pages's politics for being here just two weeks. She's been attacking and disparaging multiple users. Blocks of ever-increasing length is a good strategy, until/unless someone can confirm whether she's a reincarnated banned user. -- Netoholic @ 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon comparison, I am absolutely convinced that this user is a reincarnation of User:Chaosfeary. -- Netoholic @ 19:40, 3 January 2006

Hmm, you have a point there. Started contributing just after Chaosfeary stopped, too. User:Chaosfeary wasn't permanently banned, I thought? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced they are one-in-the same based on some specific editing quirks of both users. Chaosfeary was getting blocked progressively more often and longer. In fact, SlimVirgin mentioned a permanent block, right before Chaosfeary's last edit on Dec. 9th. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of her other contributions... but see this revision of {{User antimonarchist}}. There were at least two others like this that I saw. Given the timing of her block, I also strongly suspect it was her behind User:N000 (see its deleted revisions, if you don't mind waiting a long time for it to render), User:Saveus, and the other two IPs I blocked on the 1st in relation to this whole mess. —Cryptic (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am 100% convinced she is a reincarnation of SOME long-time user, banned or not - nobody truly new leaps into Misplaced Pages and instantly starts MULTIPLE wars on known contentious subjects and knows how Misplaced Pages works like that. I haven't seen any credible theory on who she might be a reincarnation of, however. The sockpuppetry allegation should be checked out, that's for sure. I would support blocks for excessively warring behaviour; we are here to produce an encyclopedia, not to argue as a goal in itself. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but just a brief note to confirm that MSK, in my experience, has contributed only hatred and disruption. Zora 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I met MSK when she was replacing pics of Jimbo with those of a video-game megamaniacal warlord and I was doing vandalism patrol. After a few 'pleasant' comments on my appearance in the photo on my userpage I made a joke, she felt bad, and we have since gotten on fine. She is a handful to be sure, but does make some constructive contributions to the article space from time to time. My favorite editor? No. (that'd be me of course)... but not beyond hope or redemption. Guide upwards... not crush downwards. --CBD _☎ 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Mr Data (talk · contribs), a new account that turned up to revert to MSK's version at Aisha just after she was blocked for 3RR, and another one on the same day, forget the name, both of which she claimed were friends. CBD, can you direct me to any constructive contributions she has made? SlimVirgin 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A user with the name "Mr Data" screams "I'm randomly looking around my computer desk for a new name to use". Mr Data is a company that makes cheap recordable optical media. --Kiand 00:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

, , , Macro virus, Macro_virus_(biology)

Likewise to CBD here. I think she's her own worst enemy, and far too vitriolic when facing those who disagree with her, but not a bad faith editor. I've let me know that she's just making it worse for herself, I will only intervene again if she's blocked by someone she's having a dispute with or she needs a friend. These are trying times for all Wikipedians. karmafist 20:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. El_C 20:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Willy on wheels seems to hate me, surely I can't be that bad? more than 10 impersonators, wow.. -_-

1. 18:03, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Ky1e (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
2. 18:01, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress-Selina-Kyle (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
3. 18:00, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Discuss my sockpuppets (mistress selina (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
4. 17:59, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle creating a sockpupp (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
5. 17:54, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle - Misplaced Pages prostit (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
6. 17:53, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle = ME = THE WIKIPEDI (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
7. 17:51, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle personally attacks (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
8. 17:50, 30 December 2005, Antandrus blocked Mistress Selina Kyle hates Pigsonthewing (infinite) (contribs) (abusive sock)
9. 17:50, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle hates Pigsonthewing (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
10. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's second sockpuppet (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
11. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's Sockpuppet for va (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
12. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Antandrus blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's second sockpuppet (infinite) (contribs) (sock for personal attacks)
13. 17:20, 30 December 2005, FireFox blocked Aspergersgeek9 (infinite) (contribs) (WoW)

um anyway joking aside I'm not a vandal or whatever and I'm definitely no-one's sockpuppet: And those other people (Mr Data, CSB and N00000) are NOT me: I bet SlimVirgin never even checked first - *They were* internet friends though, but in getting people to help me I was just doing the same as what Yuber was doing at the time: going round to other editors and getting them to revert for him:

(example, Farhansher, who immediately afterwards went on every Islam-related article and reverted back to Yuber's POV version) - I was just trying to help stop the rampant POV-pushing going on

One example

• Labelling the Pro-Islam source "evidence" while the other is a "claim" is wrong: they're both claims as I tried to point out, I talked to Svest (talk · contribs) and he was ok with it after I explained in more detail on his talk page and pointed Yuber towards that but he wasn't interested and carried on revert-warring
• And it's true that there's no way someone could end puberty at 9. I mean come on, that's a relevant observation: It's a sick joke to say someone at 9 is post-pubescent.

See Lina Medina and think again. alteripse 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• The labelling of one view/opinion as "traditionalism" is wrong, it's just another side of the story: The fact is there's no proof on either side and that's something that's accepted, which is why there's two sections (proof for, proof against etc) in the article already -_-

Some of the edits by Yuber are just blatant censorship and SlimVirgin supports him all the way: Anyone accused of being a "sockpuppet" against him is banned immediately, while anonymous IPs with no contributions tend to appear out of nowhere and revert for him and no action is taken at all

What you say is demonstrably false. I submitted evidence in a fairly recent arbcom case against Yuber, and have taken recent admin action against him. But I will support him when he's being unfairly attacked and possibly stalked, as seems to be the case here. SlimVirgin 01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

She really seems to have something against me, probably because I tend to oppose her blatant nepotism and cliqueism (as I have said before). Recently she decided she'd paste on my talk page a link to Irishpunktom (one of her editing friends) insulting me on another article's (Islamofascism (term)) talk page and then complains when I change it, that's what's triggered this off she seems to REALLY want the last word.

Netoholic (talk · contribs)'s not neutral in this at all, he'd love to get me banned not because he's "convinced" I'm a sockpuppet but because I opposed some of his editing on articles like Eminem: He's said before he'd like to get me banned, he's pretty vindictive. After daring to change "his" infobox celebrity (to try and make the image work better, it was resizing ALL images even small ones to be a certain size so messing things up and making them look distorted) he stalked me onto Eminem and reverted me several times and reported me for 3RR on that and then later on Latex, an article he's never even edited —the preceding unsigned comment is by Mistress Selina Kyle (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 January 2006

I've never edited Latex, but I did notice it in your contribs while checking other things. -- Netoholic @ 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try and deal with this in a way which doesn't go into personal attacks. She's still trying to 'find her feet' here, as the metaphor goes. --Sunfazer 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, she's a new user and she does make valuable and valid contributions, so perhaps we should take it easy on her. If she violates WP:NPA, she should be warned with the {{npa}}...{{npa4}} templates and blocked if necessary. But no permanent blocks. - ulayiti (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to start implementing blocks of increasing length for disruption and personal attacks. Karmafist, you said or implied MSK had made some useful edits. Does anyone have any diffs? I'd like to give MSK the benefit of any doubt. SlimVirgin 00:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to start pasting my contributions onto the administrator's noticeboard because you think I "may not have made enough useful edits" ..That doesn't belong here, and there's definitely no rules about "not making enough edits" - it looks more than anything that you're clutching at straws trying to imply I'm a ""bad editor" --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(Not an admin) I'd just like to point out that some people may have contributed anonymously long before bothering to get an account and log in; their real list of contributions may be more than what is on their user constributions page. Also, some users do not bother to log in unless commenting to a talk page. This may also explain the familiarity of a "new user" with WP. - Synapse 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As Karmafist seems to be MSK's main supporter, I've left him a note asking that we keep in touch regarding how best to proceed. Hopefully, that way we'll avoid wheel wars. SlimVirgin 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is obviously a personal one with me and the fact I don't like how some of your friends act, this shouldn't even be here --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal issues whatsoever with you, and hope you're able to turn into a constructive editor. SlimVirgin 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I already am. Your definition of "constructive" seems to mean nothing more than "let my friends walk all over you and revert war all they want" though: This is what's been going on recently. If anyone's "stalking" anyone it's Yuber and Farnhansher doing it to me. For example how Yuber tells him to go around reverting every edit I make all the time on articles he's interested in back to his own personal POV which often include unsourced personal opinions, original research and clear bias: For example like in Aisha how he was venhement in labelling the one saying about that Aisha may have been older as "evidence" and the others as "claims" and reverting when I tried to change this to say both as claims (NPOV): He does this kind of stuff all the time and when he needs help in revert wars he goes to you and you help him: You block my friends claiming they're sockpuppets with no evidence, yet his group of reverting anonymous IPs (with just as much evidence, often with no other contributions than reverting) that appear occasionally when needed are ignored out of hand --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you'd try to defend your editing and revert warring at Aisha with your unsourced, original research e.g. that "post-pubescence at nine ... is unheard of in medical terms ..." and while I've no doubt you have a point (though I think you may be wrong), you need a source for the edit, because your name is not Professor of Gynaecology Mistress Selina Kyle, and the editors who reverted you on the grounds of WP:NOR were right to do so. Your sole purpose in making the edit was to underline that Muhammad, believed to be a prophet by Muslims, was a nasty old pedophile, which shows a lack of knowledge about male-female, male-male, and possibly female-female, sexual relations during that period. If you want to be a Wikipedian, you have to edit and interact within our policies and do at least a modicum of research. If you're not prepared to do this, you ought to leave, though I hope you'll choose the former course. SlimVirgin 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, I was trying to get rid of the POV and disregarding out of hand any evidence that points towards the view that shows otherwise. You don't seem to know the meaning of "assume good faith" that you supposedly hold "highest of all" (quote from your user page) and seem to want to stifle any criticism of anything to do with religion, especially Islam

And offtopic: I do know that it was considered "acceptable" back then for such things but that's nothing to do with it at all: just because middle-aged men having sex with nine year old girls was considered "acceptable" back then doesn't mean it isn't still sick: We know better than to allow people to abuse children now, even if you get certain weirdos occasionally wanting to return to the "good old days" of being allowed to marry and have sex with kindergarten kids. --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I read through this all, Selina, the point does not seem to be as much about what opinions you have, but rather about the way you seem to be expressing them. Revert wars, fights with other users, incivil behavior, all must stop. You seem to be accumulating blocks regularly, and that usually has no good consequences. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK -- there is an odd combination of unwarranted hostility toward me (calling me an Islamist and so forth) and an unwillingness to engage with me in discussion, even benign discussion. (For example, my query to you about your vote on the deletion measure for Fascism (United States). This combination of instant hostility and strained silence is strange, since you and I have never had any disputes before. BYT 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK -- I don't care if the user is an incarnation or a mirror of some or a few ex and present users but the behaviour of MSK is to be changed. Seriously!. They have been asked gently many times to refrain from using the ists when interacting with fellow wikipedians. I was one of the first users who noticed the hotty behaviour of the user being curious about about the userbox admin that they posted for fun on their userpage the first day!. I was assuming good faith believing they are really newbies! A few weeks later, still assuming good faith but this time believing I was totally wrong!

One more issue. I am not a fun of festivals of userboxes (I got enough though) but i saw the user creating havoc and anarchy in the community re the issue, which i personally consider it is not the first thing we need here. We need good editors, editing and avoiding useless controversy. I mean, seriously, we have some weird userboxes (i avoid to name them wikiboxes to not participate in their spread and be accused of conspiracy) and see that as a sign of individuality in wikipedia that i am against.

MSK, appart from the non respect of policies (being blocked more than enough) and the amount of conflicts they have had with tens of wikipedians, including myself in the case of Aisha and its relative discussion. This is something serious as it is the problem touches the community and one can never make life horrible for many. We spend more time arguing and witnessing incidents and infrigements (like here) than we do contributing. We got work to do and I can't accept contributing more to this board than to the main reason we all came here for. Cheers -- Szvest 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've blocked MSK for 12 hours for this edit. SlimVirgin 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Could people please focus for a moment on the first thing SlimVirgin said: this "newbie" has been blocked ten times in two weeks. Block the account indefinitely right now. Please note that "don't bite the newbies" doesn't mean "let the reincarnations walk all over us." Bishonen | talk 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Make that eleven. I'm not blocking indef, as I have no first- or even second-hand knowledge of Chaosfeary, but a week for repeatedly removing others' comments from WP:TFD is at best lax given her history just at this username. —Cryptic (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Twelve, rather. Sean Black blocked her indef just before I got there. —Cryptic (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - it is kind of sad, but I've seen nothing but meaningless edit wars from the user, and have seen various pages protected etc. because of it. No objection here. WhiteNight 07:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. 12 blocks in the span of 2 weeks is pretty much showing to me, at least, that the user is pretty much impossible to save. Zach 07:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with an indefinite block as well—I've had enough of this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I'm going to disagree. Looking at the "evidence" of disruption available on this page, I see hardly anything worth a block (with the exception of the vandalism to Iain_Lee), much less an indefinate one. Looking over her block log, I can see only six or seven blocks that were not a) two admins blocking at the same time for the same offense, b) a block to reblock, or c) blatant corruption innappropriate interpretation and application of WP:NPA. Looking at the evidence initially provided by SlimVirgin, I have a few things to say. First, there is no rule against re-structuring your talk or userpage. Changing headers on your user talk page is not innappropriate behavior. Second, I fail to see any evidence in the diffs provided of innappropriate removal of talk page comments. Third, when Mistress Selina Kyle editted SlimVirgin's comment on her talk page, it was to correct the diff she had provided. SlimVirgin had linked to a diff where MSK was removing a blatant personal attack - MSK corrected the link to point to where she implied the user was a fundamentalist muslim. Certainly not "hiding" anything - in fact, being so polite as to point it out to you. Mistress Selina Kyle is disruptive at times, I'll grant that, but I fail to see any egregarious violations of policy. Just my two cents, for what it's worth. --Blu Aardvark | 08:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that short blocks applied liberally for specific bad edits may be less controversial than an outright indefinite block. (I'm not saying I particularly disagree with the block in this case tho.) Also, as previously pointed out, she sure looks like no newbie, so a sock check could be informative. Friday (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A sock check was very informative: Mistress Selina Kyle is a vandal. Of the five IP addresses she uses, two belong to a hosting company (unusual) and one of those is shared with at least two dozens vandals of the worst sort, including at least one incarnation of Willy on Wheels. An indefinite block is clearly warranted as it is now quite obvious that she was here for the primary, if not sole, reason of stirring up trouble. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral as ever. Yet another "neutral" point of view in relation to an issue that directly concerns you, in which you suddenly come up with "evidence" that you for some reason don't feel it necessary to present to anyone. Is a vandal? Since when. She was just someone who was trying to prove your corruption. Glad to see that you've managed to get rid of someone who was proving your corruption. Now you can feel free to act however you like without fear of reprisals. This is User:Zordrac/Poetlister all over again. And I suppose now you'll have to ban all of the people who protest MSK's block too. When will it ever end? Will there ever come a time when you tire of the coverups? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Those black helicopters are really coming to get you. Ambi 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would make for a better atmosphere if you tried to understand his upset. He seems to have misconceptualised the situation but slamming him won't fix his misconceptualisation, will it? Be gentle. I don't think Kelly's "evidence" proves much. So she uses a hosting company. Does it issue IPs on the fly? If so, MSK has the misfortune of sharing a hosting company with vandals, and so much for "research". I daresay she uses them because she was banned under a previous name. I agree that MSK is more trouble than use, but it seems to me she's fuelled more by overenthusiasm than malice (the one silly vandalism aside). It surely would have been more friendly to block her for a couple of weeks to think about whether she wants to contribute constructively, and to place her on a revert and PA parole (by which I mean suggest that she should agree to both and agree to be blocked for a week for a breach -- paroles are after all supposed to be agreements on the part of the person who has been punished). You have to ask yourself whether you can believe that she genuinely wants to contribute. Some -- and I don't blame them, SlimVirgin in particular, who has been sorely tried -- are going to think not, but I like to be positive about people -- assuming the best I can about them -- and I think she should at least be given a shot at redemption. Grace Note 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's syndrome

I just saw that MSK was indefinitely blocked and came here to see if there has been any discussion about users with Asperger's Syndrome. I stumbled into a revert war at Template:User Aspie and saw a telling comment. I'm copying the discussion here. I have not as yet gotten a reply to my comment. -- Samuel Wantman

You're telling an Aspie to stop being obsessive? Do you have any idea what the syndrome entails and what the primary symptom is? :p That is all. Rogue 9 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I know? Should I assume that an editor has a serious neurological condition, and tread carefully around them? I'm sorry, but I refuse to stare at the wheelchair, if you get my meaning. -- Ec5618 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really know much about Aspies, but I have come accross a few of you here and there. The above note points out a problem I have been pondering, and for which I don't as yet have an answer. The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that it really isn't my role to figure this out, but rather is up to the Misplaced Pages Aspie community to address. While Aspies have made some wonderful contributions around here, I and others, have found some behavior to be very disruptive. There are some rules of behavior that have been reached by consensus by the community. Some of these rules, like assuming good faith, the three revert rule, no personal attacks, etc... are essential for the continued success of Misplaced Pages. It seems unreasonable to exempt some people from these rules because of a neurological condition. Instead, I hope the Aspie community could figure out a way to participate without being disruptive. I don't know what that is, but I'm willing to help out in whatever way I can to implement it. Perhaps some sort of mentoring situation is possible.

I was the first admin on the scene here yesterday, and my first reaction was to block everyone. It is not the first occasion that I have felt like blocking an Aspie and didn't. I believe in talking about things and trying to work them out first. It would be very unfortunate if these problems do not get addressed and many Aspies get permanently blocked. I hope that doesn't happen. -- Samuel Wantman 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, there was a bit on the mailing list (wiken-l) a while back. I'll reply with more on your talk page. WhiteNight 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that discriminating against someone for a mental disorder is discrimination. Whilst each country has their own laws, I am sure that in USA such behaviour would be considered to be illegal, and it would also cover internet use. Whilst Misplaced Pages can legally ban or allow whoever they like, they cannot forbid someone entry on the basis of race, gender, religious preference, sexual preference, or mental disability. Pretty simple thing. Whilst you are entitled to treat her as if she did not have a disability, you are not entitled to consider this to be a factor warranting a ban. To do so may be illegal, and put the individual person doing the ban/discriminating and/or Misplaced Pages itself in to jeapordy for legal action. Just seriously not a good idea. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got this backwards. Please re-read my comments. I am trying to think of accomodations for the disability to help keep people from getting banned. I resisted blocking the revert war because I knew that AS has some compulsive behaviors related to it. Had I not tried to accomodate the AS I would have immediately blocked them. My comment was an outreach to try and think of a way Misplaced Pages can make accomodations. -- Samuel Wantman 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No problems. I guess that I am a bit wary of people doing things like this. Going for equality really is important, and discrimination is an issue that needs to be considered. I mean we wouldn't ban someone for being muslim, would we? Or even for believing in Goat Cheese. But we might not like them pushing these views. I hope that you didn't think I was attacking anyone there. I just get very nervous when people talk about things like this, especially as at least a few people have commented in a way that suggests that they should be able to ban autistic people for being autistic. Quite simply, you can't. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac, please refrain from commenting on legal issues when you frankly have no clue what you're talking about. You're becoming as bad as Everyking - you comment first, then think and research later if we're lucky. Ambi 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that I have ever seen a more obvious Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks than the one above by User:Ambi. I trust that you recognise Misplaced Pages policy with regards to such things. You should know it, after all.

I have no clue what I am talking about, do I? I dare you to prove me wrong. Because you won't be able to, you know. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist

I was simply noting that you hadn't read any of this discussion before launching into one of your predictable "fight the power" tirades. No one here was suggesting anything like banning people just because they had Asperger's syndrome, which you would have known had you read any more than the section title. Ambi 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin & fair use images on her user page

While I was leaving a note to SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) due to a server error which caused an odd error while she was leaving a message, I noticed that two images on her user page were fair use, which is not allowed per our fair use policy. I left her a note telling her about the server error and the fair use messages, she replied saying she could have them, I replied again, she ignored my comments. I then removed the images from her talk page, and she has reverted me. Could someone else handle this; I don't want to start an edit war but policy clearly states that no fair use images are allowed on user pages. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 02:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Talrias's tone certainly was not the most constructive in that. Comments like "this is so full of lies", "patent nonsense", "you are ignorant, not malicious", etc, don't really help. The full discussion is at User_talk:Talrias#Enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. He has removed or altered some posts: where he calls me a liar (which I'm glad he removed, so thank you for that), and where he was warned about personal attacks. SlimVirgin 05:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to read the full discussion to understand the context behind those remarks. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to set an example. If the policy says X then admins should abide by it regardless of whether they think the policy is wrong. If you think a policy is wrong, you should try and change it first, and not go around behaving as if you are the law. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ril. I find that scary, however. --Phroziac _. o º 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

She claims that Image:Kamelia shojaee.jpg is okay because it is a promotional image. How is that any different from most of the logos that userboxes were deleted for, most notably the one on {{User democrat}} (which has had a long edit war). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a public spat about this, but I'd like to note the background to Talrias' complaint, which I see as malicious. My first contact with him was when I objected to his engaging in a wheel war over User:Marsden, twice reversing an indefinite block, until Jimbo ended the dispute by blocking Marsden indefinitely himself. Shortly afterwards, on an unrelated talk page, Talrias accused me of stalking him, talked about my "absurd comments, rude remarks, and argumentative nature," and restored the comment several times when I tried to delete it. Today, he accused me on the mailing list of "whining" because of a post I wrote about the need to improve the way we choose admins (I wonder what makes me think that), then later deleted images from my user page, called me a liar, ignorant, deleted an admin's warning about WP:NPA from his talk page (in fairness, at the same time removing one of the personal attacks), proceeded to add this report here, then went to Misplaced Pages:Fair use and changed it from a guideline to policy as if to lend weight to the report. It adds up to inappropriate behavior for an admin, in my view (whether he's right or wrong about the substantive issue), and I am asking him once again to stop. SlimVirgin 05:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

How much of that is actually related to the fact that you have fair use images on your user page, when you are not allowed them? Yet again there is a selective version of history going on here. How many times must I correct the "background" which you present? Here we go: I didn't undo an indefinite block of Marsden, I shortened it and discussed it fully at all times when I was performing admin actions (which few others were), I have also opened an RFC asking for comments on my actions; I reversed some of your actions which were specifically against policy; the email you wrote on the mailing list was actually a gross distortion of new admins in general and deserved to be criticised; you were making untruthful comments on my talk page which is why I called you a liar (a comment I later removed); and our Fair use page is policy, as you can see by the recent comments by the Arbitration Committee. I'm asking you to stop thinking I have anything other than the best interests of a free content encyclopedia at heart here, assume some good faith and stop posting "background" to all of my actions when I've refuted a number of your claims only to have my comments completely disregarded by yourself. Thanks. Talrias (t | e | c) 06:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Per Phroziac, I find it deeply disquieting that I agree with both Ril and SPUI on this page. 'Promotional' image or not, making our user pages more attractive just doesn't seem like a sound fair use argument. That said, I hope that we can limit the amount of heated invective that this discussion generates, and I will be very disappointed if this turns into a 'pile on to SlimVirgin' thread. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea if someone could make a bot that would go around leaving nice messages for people with fair use images on their talk or user pages directing them to the relevant policy page and asking them to remove them themselves. Looks like a big job... Dmcdevit·t 06:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. We always need more good images taken or created by our own contributors, so perhaps a message could encourage their creation to replace the, er, borrowed images. I bet most editors have a breed of pet, variety of flower, cultural landmark, or outcropping of minerals that would be useful to have a picture of. Let's decorate our pages with our own (and each others) images. -Will Beback 08:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have left a rather more polite notice. Please assume good faith on Sarah's part, and make sure you keep to WP:CIVIL. ] 12:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

An even worse example

Trekphiler (talk · contribs) Fred Bauder 02:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

lol. --Phroziac _. o º 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Aieee! My eyes! --Calton | Talk 04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't that bad. --Must... keep... straight... face... 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

soooo.... many..... user.... boxes.... -Lanoitarus .:. 05:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out User:GeekGirlSarah for even more userboxes, in a table no less. Without the misused fair-use images, though. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 18:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

GGS may have more userboxes, but at least they're not strewn around with the fairuse images in the way Trekphiler's is. A lot easier on the eyes. --Deathphoenix 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes were left but they were removed by Trekphiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . User:Trekphiler was protected and the userboxes removed. Fred Bauder 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Two small (hahaha) points

1. The "WP fair use policy" is a guideline, not a policy.
2. From what I'm reading, the spirit of this guideline is that it applies to article space.

Tomer 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And copyright law is a law, and it applies everywhere, including Misplaced Pages. Policy is extremely clear on this one: no unlicensed media in user space. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to show me which law you're talking about Kelly. Then again, nobody's been able to show which law you're apparently talking about at Template talk:User democrat for weeks now except BDAbramson, who by the way is an actual lawyer in Florida basically saying FUC's stance on User pages is full of shit more than likely. karmafist 07:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, you might try reading Fair use: you might learn something. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarify please, how these "fair use" images here are prohibited by copyright law. Tomer 07:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, many people are arguing that copyright law does not forbid such images. The typical response is that policy trumps law. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, WP:FU is a guideline, not a policy. Tomer 07:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Many people are arguing out of their posterior. It needs to be clearly set as poicy just so the whiners and complainers don't ignore it. Legally speaking, not making it policy would make the site look like it doesn't care and will let people violate the law if they want to, which, if it ever comes to a lawsuit, means we're totally screwed. DreamGuy 06:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Propose it as a policy. First off, there's no violation of law with legitimate fair use. Second, until you propose a policy, you should be careful about whom you accuse of arguing out of their posterior. Thirdly, your previous history with Slim casts doubt on your detachment from this discussion. Finally, your statement "it's not a laughing matter" is disingenuous, since it's quite clear that the "hahaha" was in reference to my use of the word "small", not in reference to this discussion as a whole. I recommend you lighten up. Tomer 07:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OBVIOUSLY there is no legal violation IF something falls under fair use, but the claims you and others have been making about fair use simply do not hold water. My "previous history with Slim"?!? Dear lord, she stopped harassing me months ago once she realized I was right about Gabrielsimon, and we haven't interacted any since then. It's pretty ridiculous to claim something from months ago has any relation to raising points now. I recommend you lighten up, read about Fair Use law before making ridiculous claims about it, and follow all the assume good faith fun happy stuff. DreamGuy 00:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Kelly's comments about gray areas in fair use law, and how Misplaced Pages should explicitely avoid those gray areas, was an extremely good explanation, and I'd like to see that specific thing mentioned in official policy. --Interiot 06:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In which policy, precisely? Tomer 07:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Fair use policy --Interiot 07:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Great. So, like I said previously, Slim's usage does not violate this. Tomer 07:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"The following section of this page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages" ... "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." --Interiot 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of wikipedia policy, fair use is a facet of copyright law. Essentially, we cannot reproduce copyrighted images unless we can claim an Fair use exception, such as that the image is used to illustrate or critique some specific point. This means wikipedia does not own the image in anyway, but in that specific case we are asserting that we do not have to. If someone uses that same image on their user page, it is typically NOT fair use and is a copyright violation. The exception here would be if the user page itself qualified for fair use (for instance, if i had a critique of something on my user page then the image could also be fair use there). The general point is that most users using fair use images have them just for decoration, which is a copyvio. -Lanoitarus .:. 09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing is SlimVirgin vehnemently supported Kelly's deletion of userboxes with fair use images on them. Seems she thinks the rules apply to anyone but her. --Mistress Selina Kyle 12:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems a rather broad accusation, Selina, based on this (rather trivial) incident. Is there another example you could give us where you feel Slim has ignored WP policy? BYT 13:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So then, the question is, since Slim is saying that the images are being used as an advertisement, whether or not the community judgment is that that claim is accurate . I haven't seen any argument here yet that indicates that anyone is even thinking about, much less addressing that question, which is the only relevant one in this entire discussion. Tomer 13:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted one of them, which did say fair use, but the second says "released for promotional purposes," and used to be tagged with a free licence, so I'm keeping it until I can find out why the tag was changed and what it should say. However, using a hypothetical example of an image we know is correctly tagged as "released for promotional purposes," what would be wrong with using that on a user page, and where on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere are the conditions for using images like that written down? It seems to me that an awful lot of people are jumping to conclusions about copyright law when none of us are copyright lawyers, and even if we were, we couldn't be sure because there's no case law about images in Misplaced Pages.

Also, for the record, I neither opposed nor supported the deletion of fair-use images in user boxes. I know nothing about the subject. What I opposed was the RfC about it, which I saw as an excuse for bullying. I also see the attempt to delete my user page as bullying. It's all rather more disturbing than the use of a picture of an Iranian woman and a field of flowers. SlimVirgin 14:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, well done, and kudos to Slim for her actions. I personally think the current guideline/policy (not even clear WHAT it is due to edit wars over its status) regarding fairuse images is in need of review, although it currently seems to clearly say they should not be used in userspace. Promotional images are, well, promotional and should be fair game in userspace. The infamous Firefox logo being an example. Any future commercial distribution of WP is not going to include userpages now, is it? --Cactus.man ✍ 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

{{promotional}} is very much a fair use tag, what the firefox gang is trying to do is to re-introduce "by permission" in userspace only. As for commercial distribution, I dunno, but most mirrors copy everyting verbatim and slap on some goodle ads or whatever. Here is your userpage at bibleocean.com cooldictionary.com for example. Theyr stylesheets sometimes leave something to be desired though. --Sherool (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair point Sherool, but what have the Cooldictionary idiots done to my user page, not that it's a work of art anyway. At least with Firefox you can "greasemonkey" out the Google ads, I haven't seen one in months :) I would be interested to know what the Foundations own legal advisors say on the matter though. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice's user page

User:Deeceevoice was blanked and protected by Snowspinner at 08:25, 6 January 2006. I reverted the blanking, because the page was how DCV wanted it, offensive content at the top, and a discussion of the offensive content below. I did not unprotect it, though. Now Anthere has blanked it again. Isn't DCV allowed to have her user page as she likes, especially since the offensive content is not of her authoring, but was vandalism that she chooses to keep there as testimony? --Angr (tɔk) 11:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that several people appear to have accepted her right to use that userpage (its purpose was to shock and attract attention, and definitely not to advertise for anti-semitism), I think it would have been far more prudent to ask for community input at WP:MFD, which is the forum we have for discussion of troubling userpages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think WP:MFD would be the place to go. No one's suggesting her user page be deleted outright as if she were a vandal. I suppose the questions here are: (1) Does DCV's user page comply with WP:UP? (2) If it doesn't, does it matter, since WP:UP is a guideline, not policy? (3) Is protecting a non-vandal's user page so that she can't have it the way she likes an abuse of administrative powers? My answers to these questions are (1) Yes, (2) not applicable, (3) yes. --Angr (tɔk) 11:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored DCV's text but without the offensive photos and insults for the moment. This has been debated before on AN; I'll try and dig up a link to it. — Matt Crypto 11:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on this issue from a couple of weeks ago can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive20#User:deeceevoice_user_page. — Matt Crypto 11:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you consider the racist caricature of a "mammy" eating watermelon, which you left there, to be inoffensive compared to the other images you removed? --Angr (tɔk) 11:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think I find the racist caricature inoffensive? Assume Good Faith! I just missed it. — Matt Crypto 11:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry; if you just missed it, that's an honest mistake. But saying you removed all offensive images when there's one offensive image still there is bound to create confusion as to your definition of "offensive". --Angr (tɔk) 11:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. I think for most people, the real problem is the obvious "shock" stuff; i.e. pierced penises, naked women in bondage, a person hung by their neck. The racist caricature is offensive, but doesn't have the same instant "shock" factor. — Matt Crypto 12:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one opinion. Me, I'm more shocked by the racist caricature than by pierced penises. (I've seen dozens of them in real life, so they don't make much of an impression on me anymore.) --Angr (tɔk) 13:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is ridulous...by leaving that filth on her userpage, the vandals win. That's why they put it there so why let them have it their way?--MONGO 11:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The vandals put it on her talk page. She moved it to her user page to document the vandalism her talk page has received. It was her active choice to have it there. --Angr (tɔk) 11:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update:) Point is, as insulting as that trash is, like all vandalism, it should be removed...why cater to the bad guys by making it even more visible?--MONGO 12:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Userpage policy says that, "If the community lets you know that they'd rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a year or so, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it. If you do not co-operate, we will eventually simply remove inappropriate content, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate)." — Matt Crypto 11:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, WP:UP is a guideline, not a policy. Secondly, I think the most relevant part of the quote above is "After you've been here for a year or so, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it." She's been here since May 2004 and has definitely written lots of great articles. --Angr (tɔk) 11:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, another key phrase here is "the community". As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no consensus on this issue. The page has been blanked and restored numerous times, by many admins. That means a default keep. — BrianSmithson 14:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• At any rate, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, I have asked the ArbCom to consider the userpage policy as a relevant principle. Also, let's stop the edit warring on a protected userpage which Deeceevoice herself is currently unable to edit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

While we do allow a lot of leeway on what users have on their pages, common sense dictates that user pages should be vaguely "work safe". On Misplaced Pages, the norm is that you go to a user page to find out more about the user. You don't expect to find genital piercings, bondage, swastikas and large racist slurs thrust in your face in the manner of a shock site. For example, say you're editing in a public library, or at a relative's house, or in the company of children etc, you know not to visit genital piercing and sexual bondage, but it's reasonable to expect to be able to visit user's pages without being confronted with such things.

I understand that Deeceevoice wants to make a point about the vandalism targeted at her, but a more community friendly way would be to provide a series of diffs. — Matt Crypto 12:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

DCV has asked me on my talk page to do something about the fact that her user page is not how she left it. I'm unprotecting it so she can edit it again. --Angr (tɔk) 13:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Crypto, you repeatedly have assumed that the "wikipedia community" is monolithic. Quite the contrary. I've received several e-mails and notes on my user page from users who agree with and support what I've done with my user page and who've applauded me for bringing the racism and intellectual bias of this website out in the open -- not to mention e-mails from two white guys who've left Misplaced Pages in protest over the racism at Misplaced Pages that it and the RfC/RfAs have exposed. Don't assume your sensibilities are shared by everyone. deeceevoice 17:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that my sensibilities are shared by a lot of people. You have even said yourself that you find at least one of those images "distasteful/repugnant". A user page should not be a shock site. — Matt Crypto 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh great. Not this argument again. --Deathphoenix 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Matt Crypto claims he made a "suggestion" about simply having links on my user page. I view it as something else. He unilaterally -- while this discussion is still ongoing -- took it upon himself to delete all the images he deemed offensive, leaving the lock in effect. I view this action as entirely inappropriate, precipitous and an abuse of his admin privileges. Not only did he blank the images because he wanted to, but he did so without notifying me of his intent -- leaving the page without images or links and, with the lock still in effect, with no means of inserting them had I desired to. Crypto claims he didn't institute the lock. But he altered my user page and left the lock in effect. (What's the difference?) There was no edit tab for me to undo his changes. But I soon observed that he returned to remove an image that -- oops! -- presumably didn't strike him as sufficiently inappropriate/offensive (see how the slippery slope of censorship gets more and more difficult to tread?) initially -- that of the watermelon-eating, snaggle-toothed mammy. I also saw that the edit option was, all of a sudden, available. It was at that point that I took the opportunity to restore my page. Now, I don't know how any of this works -- whether it was the result of Matt Crypto's actions (not likely) or of Angr, whose assistance I sought when I realized I could not edit my own page. But, as Angr says, he unlocked my page.

Keep in mind that these are images that can be found in the pages of wikipedia. These are not imported, unsanctioned pics. How are they so intolerably offensive on my user page to illustrate a point -- and not deemed so elsewhere? IMO, it makes no d*** sense. deeceevoice 14:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Context makes a huge difference. Duh. Hu 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Angr.

I don't know how you guys operate, but a good start would be to agree to take no action until you come to a consensus. That way it would at least look like you're all on the same page. Doncha think? (Bad boy, Snowspinner! deeceevoice 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Just read this on my talk page. So, Matt removed only the image of the watermelon-eatin' mammy, (sorry -- but yes, you did, Matt) but, in effect, sanctioned Snowspinner's actions by leaving his changes intact and leaving the lock in effect. Sux. Get your act together guys. This is getting downright silly. deeceevoice 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. Matt, did I say thanks for at least restoring the text? No? Thanks. deeceevoice 14:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I am happy to say it again, but I believe Deeceevoice should have the right to leave her userpage in that state if she so desires. Yes, it is shocking, but not more so than the harassment that she has had to endure while trying to contribute here, which is after all the point she is making. As this seems to be a recurring issue, could we try to get a definitive RFC or something to determine consensus on this rather than wheel warring and/or leaving the page in a state that even DCV can't edit? Dragons flight 15:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes - but then her userpage becomes disruptive to prove a point. Still, I take the general point, and have overturned myself here partially - I've moved the flurry of offensive content to a user subpage, starting her userpage with the "beware" section. The point she is making is still there, but I think it's done now in a way that causes less immediate strife. Phil Sandifer 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that she's in the middle of an ugly RfAr case as it is, I see no need to complicate things further; I'd suggest we let her express herself through this process as she sees fit, even if it contains offensive imagery gathered from elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. If people don't want to look at it--surely they can just avoid Deecee's user page? It's not as if this is our article on the History of Azerbaijan or something. Once the Arbcom has ruled, we can take another look at her page in light of that. --Dvyost 16:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's worth considering that the page contains so much vandalism not because Deeceevoice has been specifically targeted, but because vandals have discovered that it is a 'safe haven' for their nonsense. They've found the one page on Misplaced Pages that they can deface without restraint, and they're taking advantage of it. Given what Matt Crypto has has observed regarding community expectations of user pages–that is, that they not contain extraordinarily offensive and eminently non-work-safe material–perhaps a warning at the top of the page would be a minimum acceptable change?

We tend to govern our other pages by a 'principle of least astonishment'. If you go to penis, you expect to see a penis on the page. If you go to George Washington, you don't. I would suggest that a reasonable compromise would be to have a full-page of non-vandalism content at the top of the page in question, including a visible warning/explanation of the content to follow. It reduces the likelihood that our other editors will get in trouble at work, but lets Deeceevoice maintain her vandals' playground. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in the issue, but after seeing Ten's suggestion, I wanted to drop in an idea that occurred to me when I first saw this discussion: What about something like SPUI has, with a "censored version" option? -- Essjay · Talk 17:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is her user page. Her space to do whatever she wants with, so long as it's Misplaced Pages-related. That's what WP:UP says: what you do in user space should be Misplaced Pages-related, and everything on her page is definitely that. WP:UP never says a user page can't be shocking, but it does say not to edit other people's user pages except to correct minor typos and revert vandalism. In other words, leave her page alone! Do not create a subpage in her user space where you think she should express herself. Do not blank her user page because you don't like its contents. If you don't like her user page, don't look at it, but no one else besides DCV gets to decide what she keeps on it. --Angr (tɔk) 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, Ten. This vandalism occurred as a direct result of my editorial activity on the website. And, if anything, this unseemly and utterly ridiculous admin edit war is simply calling greater attention to the page.

Further, it seems quite clear to me that no one has a right to tamper with what I choose to put on my user page. Leave it alone. I take particular exception to repeated, unlitaral attempts by users like Snowspinner, who seems to think he has the right to decide what is and what is not appropriate on my page. Any further alternation of my page that is not a revert of changes unauthorized by me will be considered vandalism. And I will take appropriate steps to press a formal complaint against such action. Kindly refrain from altering my user page. If you don't like it, then vote with your web browser and simply don't visit it. (Gee. Now, there's an idea.) deeceevoice 17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not "your" page. It is a page you are given wide leeway to update as you see fit. There is a difference. Phil Sandifer 17:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're arguing that user pages are like web sites, where a user has the right to put whatever they want on it. This is not the case. If certain user pages obstruct or disrupt the goal of the project, then they have absolutely no right to be hosted on Misplaced Pages. User pages aren't spaces for unrestrained freedom of speech. Having said that, I believe criticism is healthy and we should let user pages be used to criticise, even harshly, the project (as long as they avoid personal attacks). On the other hand, I believe that a user's main page is not a good place to hold "shock" images. You say, "if you don't like it, simply don't visit it". The obvious rebuttal is that noone knows whether you like a user page until you (and all the kids in the public library) have already looked at it. And there's no reasonable expectation that a user page will be a shock page. I think it would be better for everyone if you either: A) moved this to a user subpage, linked to with a warning about what it is; or B) added long disclaimers at the top of the page warning about graphic content; or C) replaced it with diffs showing the vandalism. — Matt Crypto 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to outspoken, textual critisism of the project. I have a strong objection to "shock" images on user pages. A couple of good suggestions have been made for alternatives, and another is for deeceevoice to get an off-site page to use as she wishes. User pages are not a user's property. You do not have the right to put anything you like on them. We may have developed a culture of permitting a lot of leeway on these pages, and of avoiding editing "someone else's page" (something I wish we had discouraged more strongly when it started), but the fact remains that this is not a hosting company. In my opinion, this page is not acceptable -- sannse (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the vandals?

Deeceevoice didn't go out and find those images and put them there in order to shock people or disrupt Misplaced Pages. She put them there as a representation of what other Misplaced Pages users have done to her. If you're shocked and offended, perhaps it would be more productive to direct your shock and offense to the perpetrators of it, not just the person who drew your attention to it.

The problem here isn't Deeceevoice, it's the vandals who have engaged in a protracted campaign to silence her. Anyone who is thinking of censuring her for speaking the truth about the horrible conduct others have shown her, had damn well better have done something about the real problem first. --FOo 06:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think you'll find that many of the people commenting above have a long history of fighting vandalism on this project. Most of them have no problem with Deeceevoice 'speaking the truth about the horrible conduct others have shown her'. Speaking for myself, I find it a bit rude that I would be accused of 'censuring' her for speaking her mind. It strikes me as a false choice to present our options as either being shocked at vandals or being offended by Deeceevoice's conduct; we're quite capable of doing both, thank you very much.

I don't believe it's appropriate for the bulk of our positive contributors to be hit with swastikas and other highly offensive and inflammatory images and text by surprise. Someone who in good faith wants to discuss an edit with Deeceevoice ends up with a screen full of vitriol. If Deeceevoice wants to write a long screed about the decidedly horrific behaviour of some vandals and trolls, she's more than welcome to. If she wants to keep copies of it all on a subpage in her user space, she should go for it. If she wants to complain and protest in a way that is likely to upset and possibly harm other, innocent Wikipedians, she ought to rethink that approach. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, has anyone ever checked to see if the racist vandals attacking deeceevoice might not be deeceevoice trying to give a false sense of persecution? I mean, because, really, I don;t see other people getting harassed like that, and it seems rather suspicious that she would, especially when she seems to like it because she just uses it as a rationale to try to justify her highly inappropriate behavior? Everytime I see soeone try to support her it's always, oh, but what about the vandals? Well, the vandals, if real, are certainly bad, but no excuse at all for the things she regularly does. DreamGuy 10:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Attack templates

I (speedily) deleted {{User oppose Kelly Martin}}; I am appalled that anyone could think this appropriate for Misplaced Pages. I also blocked the creator for 8 hours (this is not the first attack template created). If I have acted inappropriately, feedback would be appreciated. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — Dan | talk 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll see your Barnstar and raise you a pint. Good move. I blocked him yesterday for a template that called Kelly a 'fascist', but I unblocked (an hour later) when he assured me he would not create templates concerning individual wikipedians. My block was perhaps a little harsh, (without warning) - but it served as a warnign for this, which was clearly disruption. --Doc 20:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I sent about four of these templates to TFD before, but by this, there are more out there that need to be deleted or at least looked at. Zach 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

These are speedies, to my mind. Phil Sandifer 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate the feedback (and the barnstar!). — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblock of 64.107.0.0/16

I have unblocked 64.107.0.0/16 prematurely from the 48 hour block that Zoe set for it upon emailed request from Blahedo, a friend of mine who I absolutely trust not to be a vandal (and who is not at the institution from which the vandalism arose).

Zoe blocked this rather large range after a series of vandalistic edits from 64.107.220.151, 64.107.220.155, and 64.107.220.164. While a range block may have been appropriate in this instance, the use of a /16 subnet is excessive. 64.107.220.0/24 would have been sufficient to cover the vandal range (as would several smaller ranges, such as 64.107.220.128/26). A 48 hour range block of a /24 range is also rather long given the high risk of collateral damage. Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that range blocks should be reported on this page. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly Kelly, I wish we had a policy on range blocks. We really don't. It's too severe of something to do for it to be just on an admin's whim IMO. And yes, they should be reported here or at AN. --Woohookitty 10:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The vandal kept claiming he would keep switching IP addresses and continue his vandalism. Once I placed the block, the vandalism stopped, obviously. I got an email from another user at Knox College asking me to remove the block, and I told him that I would if he could get someone from Knox College's IT department to email me so we could discuss the repeated vandalism from their location. User:Zoe| 20:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User DreamGuy

It appears User:DreamGuy has been spamming for a TFD for the Biography Infobox (a highly debated template which recently - Oct '05 - survived a TFD). Besides spamming, I think this is clearly an attempt to force through a deletion at the TFD on this template. I have blocked DreamGuy for 48hrs (24 for spamming, 24 for attempting to force a TFD). I'm sure this is pretty controversial which is why I have posted this here.  ALKIVAR™ 12:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please see directly below for another issue concerning User:DreamGuy. Thanks. Englishrose 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Uhh, were you planning on giving him an explanation on his talk page? The length is a bit long. Internal spamming isn't a blockable offense in and of itself, and can usually be stopped by a warning on the talk page. I've got no idea why "forcing a TfD" would be a blockable offense. He appears to have nominated it for deletion in good faith. What exactly is this block for? android79 17:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We regularly block users who use sockpuppets for "vote stacking" I see this as doing exactly the same thing. This is disruption of the process. Frankly i'm sick of the "well it didnt get deleted this time around... i'll wait 3 days and try again" attitude that seems to permiate *fd debates. This is a cut and dried case of a user spamming people he knows to have voted one way on a previous tfd, to come vote stack a repeat listing. I see no difference between meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry when it comes to forcing a shift in a vote.  ALKIVAR™ 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It was three months, actually, which, while short, seems like a reasonable amount of time for a renomination. The attempt at votestacking is quite troublesome, however. How about reducing this to 24 hours, minus "time served"? In the meantime, please leave an explanation for this block on his talk page. android79 18:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Frankly unless there is a SERIOUS change in an article, the deletion process decision of no consensus should not be questioned and not revisited. That is since just about every revisit leads to the exact same no consensus decision, a la GNAA. Frankly I am really not amused when people decide that they dont like the first judgement and keep relisting it, its akin to cruel and unusual punishment to the users who have contributed to the article up for debate. I know I sure as hell dont want to put multiple man hours of editing time into making something great when the shadow of deletion is continually lingering over it. I'm pretty sure very few people do. Its stuff like this that leads good users to throw up their hands and quit in disgust.  ALKIVAR™ 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, Alkivar, it's things like blocking peoplpe for no reason at all other than revenge for relisting a template for deletion that had no consensus to keep that makes good editor quit in disgust. If you want a policy on not being able to relist things, try to get a policy passed. If you do not want me letting people know about the vote on talk pages, then discuss on the talk page for the templates for deletion page removing the instructions that suggest giving notices on talk pages and actually giving a template to make the process easy. If you thikn what some editor does was not helpful, discuss it with the editor. Blocking out of spite is exactly the wrong thing, and for you to try to claim that you are one of the good editors when you pull nonsense like this is a disgrace. A good editor absolutely would not have done it, and good admins would have completely overruled you on it and blocked you as well. I guess having another admin reduce the block slightly is a tiny bit of a consolation, but, really, this is a failure for all admins to let abuses like this happen. DreamGuy 09:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
        • If something ends in "no consensus" that's just what it means: there was no decision to be questioned. There was no consensus to do anything, and the issue may be revisited in the future. I don't think you can take one extreme case (GNAA) and extrapolate that out to every revisited deletion decision. Revisited decisions get overturned routinely, often as the result of WP:DRV. (Of course, the opposite happens, too.)
        • Did you intend to block him for 24 hours from now? Minus time served, it should be about 18. android79 18:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar, this was a completely ridiculous block. You admit your reasoning was that you didn't want to see another vote happening. A completely in policy and reasonable revote comes up, and so you block out of spite. This was voted on three months ago, and there was no consensus to keep. The vote was actually quite close, and there were complaints that an admin in favor of keeping it then was acting outside of the rules also. There never was a consensus to create it and put it on other pages either. Even without this consensus, I found someone going around adding it to articles, and when I asked him about it, he rudely tried to suggest that it had broad support (which from the previous vote clearly showed was untrue) and that if I didn't like it I should put it up for a deletion vote. So I did. This was my first listing of something on the Templates for Deletion page, and I followed the directions that were listed there, which said to put a notice on appropriate talk pages. It even gives you template code to go do so. So the claim that this was somehow not legitimate, or beyond that a blockable offense is just nonsense. If you didn't think they were appropriate, you could have said something, or given a warning, or removed them, or whatever, but you just blocked, and blocked for an exceedingly long time. Furthermore, considering that you voted to keep this article, it's quite clear that you had a personal stake in the outcome and should not have been making such moves on your own. This "block first and rationale up some excuse later" concept has to stop. You need a real, demonstrated, actual and logical reason to block someone, not simply a block out of nowhere because they did something that annoyed you.

The most disgusting thing about all of this is I went and checked out your user page and here you posted essays from people on how to improve this encyclopedia by welcoming knowledgeable people and avoiding cliques and socialness and stopping bad blocks, and when an opportunity arose, here you are blocking solely to get at someone following all the rules and policies as they are written down without warning, explanation, or even common sense.

This is an example of an action that should immediately have blocking powers taken away from an admin. Revenge blocks are wholly inappropriate. If he would have explained why he thought what I did was wrong -- the whole putting notice on user talk pages, despite the fact that the instruction tell you to -- then we could have discussed it. But instead all I see above is him complaining that he didn't wnat another vote. Clearly, clearly a bad move on his part. If admins as a group want to have any respectability, they need to hold themselves to the same standards -- or more strict -- than other editors. If that were the case, ALKIVAR here should be strongly disciplined for abuse of his admin position. Whatever he can rationalize up as a reason is nothing compared to blocking someone out of revenge. We need to clean the rampant abuse of admin powers up and start making examples of admins when they get out of line, or else more and more examples of this are going to happen. DreamGuy 09:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• This does seem to be a little odd that an admin at whim can block another well respected editor just because he personally disapproves of his actions. A decision of non consensus is just that, and akin to a verdict of "not proven" in a legal situation, thus just as in the legal situation, the threat of a retrial/nomination is always a possibility. In this case a period of three months had elapsed, and three months in Misplaced Pages is a long time indeed. Can someone chow me where on wikipedia it says "spamming is strictly forbidden and and in all cases the spammer will be blocked without trial or jury ". There should be very strict definitions of what is a blockable offence and the term such a block must last. And admins should be aware of them, before being given admin status. All this rubbish about Adminship being "no big deal", with these sort of powers it should be a "hell of a big deal". Giano | talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Users: Peter S. and DreamGuy (aladin issue getting nasty)

It seems that Peter S. is pursuing a personal vendetta against those who took part in the aladin deletion review or on the aladin talk pages. He has made several accusations of sock puppetry to users and has made personal attacks on the aladin talk page., such as

Ox, you're a sockpuppet for Aladin, it's so transparent to everyone here it's ridiculous you're hiding behind the next facade. Give up, you've already tainted your image enough. Peter S. 12:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)”

and

“Of course it is, Mr. Sockpuppet. Peter S. 23:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)”

On top of that, he accussed all users who voted keep as being sockpuppets on aladin’s article for deletion page with commens such as

“I'd like to order a full sockpuppet and meatpuppet check on all people that have voted here, with an article of such a bad quality, all those "keep" votes cannot possible be the thruthful opinion of the well-educated general wikipedia public. Please do a IP-Address-Location&Provider-check, not just a "numbers of good edits" check which could be faked by a determined person. Thank you. Peter S.”

He has also created the article aladin (London), which was a personal attack on aladin.

As well as that, DreamGuy is also pursuing a personal vendetta against those who took part in the aladin deletion review or on the aladin talk pages. I feel that comments such as,

“No disrespect, Autumnleaf, but from your history here anything you claim without proof that you can show and verify so that other people can see it doesn;t mean anything to me. You have from the very beginning been pushing Aladin's claims of notability and making unsupportable comments. Claims of having tracked down a paper doesn;t help. Photocopy and mail it to someone trustworthy if they really exist, because I would guess that you are Aladin himself under one of many accounts from your actions here. DreamGuy 03:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)”

“And I would agree that this is probably a sockpuppet anyway. DreamGuy 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)”,

and “The matter you quote has nothing to do with what you are talking about, and for someone who appeared out of nowhere you sure know your way around... I smell sock. DreamGuy”

I feel that these comments are highly offensive to such users if they are not sockpuppets and could put them off from editing again. I feel that they should take their concerns up here rather than directly accuse them.

As well as that, DreamGuy has also vandalised the aladin page and turned to it to a redirect to the differently spelt Aladdin, his given reason was “redirect for typo on common and notable name instead of stub for person who fails notability tests”. I feel that this was malicious.

Regardless of whether original aladin the article is justified, I feel that Peter S has over-stepped the mark. (Personally I think that aladin is real and notable but was originally hyped up beyond recognition, I also question some of claims but that’s another issue). Also Peter S. quite rightfully asked for a check on these notice boards (See here) and the response was that there were no suspicions of sock puppetry. I am all for a sock puppetry investigation (of all voters, including those who voted delete) as I have my own suspicions if it stops Peter S. from continuing this personal pursuit. I think that the issue is seriously getting out of hand and turning nasty and suggest that review both Peter S.'s contributions and Dream Guy's contributions and see some of their comments/actions. Thanks for your time. Englishrose 14:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not vandalize the article, and there are very clear indications of sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry going on. A group of editors on that page made similar self-promotional edits on a variety of linked topics all over. Certainly the similarity in their tactics in responding to their being caught is suspicious in itself, with newly registered editors showing up to defend them when they found themselves outnumbered. This is just someone who got caught making suspicious edits trying to piggyback on another complaint. I think the real issue here is that we have yet another example of coordinated spamming and hoaxing of this encyclopedia, and it went for months without anything being done about it, with a number of other articles involved that still have not been looked into. DreamGuy 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"This is just someone who got caught making suspicious edits trying to piggyback on another complaint." Despite your repeated claims, please notice that I have made 0 edits to the Aladin page and only take part in the articles for deletion discussion, please notice that some of the people you have accussed of suck-puppetry have a large amount of edits such as user:autumnleaf. Please check the page's history. Would you be prepared to make a public apology to those you have accussed who are not suck-puppets when the checks are made? The majority of the people who voted keep had a long history of contributions with the exception of few.

"did not vandalize the article" Could you please varify what redirecting an article you are strongly against to another article that has nothing to do with the subject is? Englishrose 07:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet checks only trace to IPs and do not catch people across multiple IPs very easily, nor do they catch meatpuppets. Being prepared to make a public apology isn't even an issue, because there it's not like it's possible to prove a negative here. Some of these people have long editing histories, but then they also do similar odd promotional edits on other articles. There is very clear puppeting going on here with at least some of the names, regardless of whether you and some of these others are involved or not, as well as people knowingly putting false information into articles.

Furthermore, "redirecting an article to another article that has nothing to do with the subject" is NOT what happened. It was redirected to the more common spelling, so clearly it was related. Please read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism for what vandalism really is before accusing anyone of it, because none of these things you have labeled vandalism are. The more you make these bizarre accusations the more you appear to have been caught up in the hoaxing and spamming of this encyclopedia. If, as you say above, you have concerns about the edits on the article, work on stopping the people who are doing that, do not try to hassle the people who discovered the spammers and hoaxers and pointed them out. Your motives here are highly questionable, and deceptive comments and so forth certainly do not help your case at all. DreamGuy 09:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of Deeceevoice

I have blocked Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours regarding her refusal to engage in dialogue regarding her user page. Please see regarding this issue. Fred Bauder 16:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Fred, I think this action now requires you to recuse yourself from the arbitration. You should have left this to someone else; you now no longer can represent neutrality in her arbitration. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Discourtesy" is not, iirc, part of the blocking policy (all the more, the "discourtesy" of removing a message from you placed on her user page instead of her talk page). In addition, I find it very discomforting to see an arbitrator seek out conflict with someone whose case he is hearing. Guettarda 16:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is truly getting out of hand. I think that Deeceevoice is really making this situation worse for herself by not participating in dialogue, but I also think that these blocks are unjustified. Blocking for personal attacks is, according to the blocking policy, controversial, and DCV was not attacking Bauder himself. She took issue with his posting to her user page (not user talk page) and his blocking her for refusing to let him make that comment in that forum. I think this is at the heart of her behavior; if Bauder had posted to her talk page instead, he probably would have gotten a more positive response. Please reconsider these blocks, especially Sandifer's extension for what he considers "personal attacks". — BrianSmithson 17:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

She referred to his block as a hissy fit. That is about as blatant as they come. Furthermore, let's note that this is a refusal to engage in dialogue after Jimbo point blank said "engage in dialogue." Phil Sandifer 17:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm contesting more your extension of the block than Bauder's original one. And "hissy fit" is, again, describing Bauder's actions, not Bauder himself. — BrianSmithson 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) because I can find nothing on WP:BP to justify Fred's or Snowspinner's blocks of her. And using the {{vandal}} template to refer to her is extremely disrespectful and could be construed as a personal attack and/or harassment. --Angr (tɔk) 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there would be a lot fewer wheel wars on Misplaced Pages if there were also fewer admins who liked doing things likely to start one. Phil Sandifer 17:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed some substantive something or other on some other page, since this has ranged all across WP, but hasn't DCV made her feelings on the issue pretty clear? That's certainly been my impression. To then block someone for "not engaging in dialogue" is rather, well, confusing to me. Unless that really means "engage in dialogue that will result in you changing your userpage." This whole situation is a mess. · Katefan0/mrp 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The engagement in dialogue would involve some statement of the form "Gee, lots of otherwise reasonable people are really upset by my userpage. Please tell me, otherwise reasonable people, what I can do to still express my thoughts on these matters in a way that does not so offend you?" Currently, DCV's statements are of the form of "Get bent, this is my userpage." Phil Sandifer 17:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still discussing my user page. It's no longer an issue -- or it shouldn't be. El Grande Cheese-o disappeared it. :p deeceevoice 17:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In other words, then, it's not really not engaging in dialogue, it's not engaging in the right dialogue. · Katefan0/mrp 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Right dialogue" - well put. It's about dcv speaking her voice and not falling into line. The block was unwarranted, and Fred should recuse himself from the already unnecessary and entirely illigitamate arbcom case. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you on that. --Angr (tɔk) 17:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you just pour fresh gasoline on a matter that was resolving itself? Phil Sandifer 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In light of, IMO, Bauder's unseemly actions, I'd like to request that he recuse himself -- or be excused -- from hearing my case currently before the Arb Com. How do I go about such a thing? I'd appreciate a response at my talk page. Further, I am considering taking further action against him. After the tacky RobChurch affair and now Snowspinner, I'm a bit fed up with admins at this point. I'd like some advice on how to proceed. Thanks much. deeceevoice 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

While I think Deeceevoice has done more than enough recently to merit quite a few blocks, I think the specific rationales given for the blocks here were a little shaky, especially the "personal attacks" one (referring to someone's actions as a "hissy fit" is not particularly civil, but it's hardly "about as blatant as it comes", either). Given that, historically, doing anything "bad" to Deeceevoice ends up construed as "racism", it might be best to stick to undeniable cases of disruption before blocking. — Matt Crypto 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

She's clearly generating more heat than light. I don't tend to like blocks much, but this one was justified in my opinion. Friday (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Much more heat. Agreed. Rx StrangeLove 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Threatened block for using the words "hell" or "fuck" on a talk page

At Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy, Admin User:FayssalF is threatening to block users for using the worlds "fuck" or "hell." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good for him. -- 16:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have pointed out that using fuck and hell are bad, and so is blocking for it. Phil Sandifer 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

People have the right to use vulgar language, so long it's not to insult other people, so what's the fucking problem? This was the line that was used: "all the angels in Heaven cannot changing that fucking rule". Someone tell these housewives who were made admins that they have no right to censor people! Shame on you, redneck housewives! Shame on you, you new-born Christians! --Anittas 16:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, let me point out that people can be blocked for disruption. Note: I'm not commenting on this specific situation (I haven't reviewed it), but in general. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am now thinking of Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Disruption and trying to fit everything into the marked slots:

Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Misplaced Pages. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks. Users should normally be warned before they are blocked. For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month.

Does this apply? I don't really know what to think - being incivil is unacceptable, but can one be blocked for it after being asked not to do it? We should hear FayssalF's side of the story before jumping to conclusions though. Izehar 17:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't apply! Read the talkpage! These is just some religious fanatics that try to impose their conservative ideals on the hard-working editors of Wiki! No censorship on Wiki! --Anittas 17:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As per Phil above, being uncivil is bad. But blocking for minor incivility is bad too. -- SCZenz 17:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, it depends on whether the person is being a) blatant enough and b) disruptive enough with their incivility. Is it beginning to affect discussions or editing negatively? If so, block. Even a short-term block can be effective (3-4 hours, long enough for a cooling off). Otherwise ...... probably not. · Katefan0/mrp 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Use of the words won't need a block, but if the user is being incivil with them, then I think a block can be used. --a.n.o.n.y.m 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

When people are using vulgar language in order to shock and offend (as they undoubtedly are on that page) it is highly uncivil. If people persist in using such language on that page with that deliberate intention, I also intend to block for it. ] 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Admins have to use their judgement. I wouldn't block for a statement such as "Misplaced Pages is f--king cool." That's not a personal attack, nor disruptive. However, a user stating "You are a f--king retard," will recieve a stern warning, if not a short block. Bratsche 19:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In that instance, the profanity is being used to add emphasis to what is already a personal attack, so certainly WP:NPA applies, strongly, regardless of one's position of profanity. I agree with Bratsche in that there is a difference between the bare words and how they are used in different instances, and with Sam Korn on intent. KillerChihuahua 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking because of genuine incivility and personal attacks is fine. Telling users that "words like hell and heaven not suitable for Misplaced Pages" and then threatening to ban over this issue is...well, inadvisable. Babajobu 20:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Context is key.--Sean|Black 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with what everone's saying about profanity, but what's everyone getting so worked up about? As far as I can see, all FayssalF said was "Next time, I'll start blocking any user disrespecting others" and then "If words like f**k are acceptable here than I must remind the offenders that applying policies is the rule." A threat to apply policies and block disrespectful editors is not earth-shattering. In fact it sounds fine to me; he was trying to address a real incivility problem, after all. If you ask me, Hipocrite is being deliberately provocative, and got what he wanted: a bunch of random people, admins included, to go criticize FayssalF, accusing him of censorship, abusing admin powers, and um, being a redneck housewife. Dmcdevit·t 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Fucking Misplaced Pages is not fucking censored for the fucking protection of minors; why the fuck should it be fucking censored for fucking prudes? Yes, fucking avoid fucking personal attacks, but simply fucking using fucking language that someone else finds fucking offensive is not a fucking personal attack. (By way of example, I know full well some people find blasphemy offensive, but if I want to interject "god" or "jesus h. christ" into a conversation, or if I want to insult the Prophet on a talk page, I kinda think that's within the limits of generally accepted civility.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BRAVO! BRAVO!!! --Anittas 21:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • That's fucking brilliant :).--Sean|Black 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Fucking ace! FearÉIREANN\ 21:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary judgment:

1. No Wikipedian should call Fayssal a redneck housewife.
2. Fayssal should not issue lists of words "not suitable for Misplaced Pages". Babajobu 21:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys! I am very amazed by all this souk! First of all, have I blocked anyone?! It sounds like I did block people! I did not! No! So what's the problem? Threatening? Mmmmm! Yes! I did! Why? Because of WP:Civility. As Sean Black put it, depends on the context!

Too much of swearing, too much of f**k, too much of s**t, too much of p**s, etc... Aren't that threatening itself?! This is an encyclopaedia and and not a market place! And that's why wikipedians put thier faith on me!

Second thing! Why are you relating this to a religious matter????! Why not relate it to civility and stop there?!!!!

Anyway, (a message to Anittas), please don't judge situations as being religious fanatics that try to impose their conservative stuff. This is in itself a personal attack. So refrain from such declarations. I don't care if someone calls me a housewive anyway. My GF would love that! However, isn't housewive a personal attack itself? Some people are for the slogan No censorship in Wiki!!! C'mon! What about f**k? So, do I have to accept the f**k stuff? Respect is the key! Wherever you go! Including your own home!

Third of all, please have a time to read this at WP:Civility. And please avoid doing the same if you are in a classroom! -- Cheers Szvest 22:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Some people are for the slogan No censorship in Wiki!!! C'mon! What about f**k? So, do I have to accept the f**k stuff?" Fayssal, I think the consensus is yes, unless the word fuck is employed as a part of a personal attack, then we must tolerate it. Some people use fuck lightly (JPGordon would be an example) and do not find it offensive or necessarily intend offense when using it. We don't have to share their "beliefs", as it were, but we have to tolerate them. Babajobu 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My take, for whatever it may be worth: If I say 'snot', and Doris Biggles claims to be offended by it, must I refrain from the usage? Then if Doris says 'geranium' and I claim to be offended by it, must she refrain from the usage? Surely the criterion must be whether offence was intended, rather than that offence was taken. If I know that Doris is offended by the usage of the word 'snot' and continue to use it gratuitously, specifically to offend her, I would be in error; if I use the term as I normally would, I am not in error. Similarly Doris in re 'geranium'. Similarly anyone in re 'fuck', 'hell', etc. Sbz5809 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job guys! Keep on filling wikipedia with whatever you want as long as it is not offending anyone! If you take a look at the page where that happened you'd realize that it offended many users. Anyway, I am sure most of the users who are participating in thi sdiscussion forget about this:

Fuck is a strong and generally provocative (and offensive) swear word in the English language. It is one of the best-known vulgarisms in the English-speaking world, and it is often considered the most impolite curse word in the English language. However, today it is used more freely.

It is unclear whether the word has always been considered impolite and, if not, when it was initially considered to be profane. Some evidence indicates that in some English-speaking locales it was considered acceptable as late as the 17th century meaning "to strike" or "to penetrate" . Other evidence indicates that it may have become vulgar as early as the 16th century in England; thus other reputable sources such as the Oxford English Dictionary contend the true etymology is still uncertain, but appears to point to an Anglo-Saxon origin that in later times spread to the British colonies and worldwide. -- Cheers Szvest 23:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"FUCKITYFUCKONASTICK"..

seriously, relax a bit... --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will be surprised when I say that I saw the first line of this comment in a diff and automatically reverted. This kind of comment is intentionally offensive, and confirms my perceptions of you. Don't say this kind of thing again. ] 23:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Look MSK, I don't like hearing (or reading) that word either. It serves no useful purpose speaking like that. Izehar 23:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle proved that I am totally right! Cheers -- Szvest 23:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hi again(?), Fayssal. I say fuck all the time, conversationally, just not on Misplaced Pages (I did that once whilst on free drugs, and never heard the end of it – but this isn't about Sam Spade); I don't think it makes sense to actually prohibit it explicitly as policy (we already have WP:CIV/NPA/NOT/WQT/etc). Generally, people tend aim to minimize the use of the word here, it just looks unprofessional, inter-editorially. So if you see someone say fuck, and someone else objects to it, and fuck continues to be repeated, then you can block for disruption. El_C 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So if Doris says 'geranium' and I object, then Doris says 'geranium' again; what then? Sbz5809 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• All I said was I don't give a flying fuck what's in my best interests. Sorry! El_C 23:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So if someone says "Fuck me with a geranium" which bit is offensive? BTW Hiberno-English has such variants. One is "Fuck me with a handle and call me Shirley", and Irish people often say "Jaysus Fucking Christ" and "Mother of Divine Fuck". Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are notorious for their use of "fuck". Can that be mentioned? FearÉIREANN\ 00:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, neither bit would offend me, but my point is that if some term were to be used specifically to cause offence, that would be wrong; if the same term were to be used because the user generally tends to use that term, that would not be wrong. I'm only responsible for what I mean, not for what you think I mean. Sbz5809 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fayssal, I think more people were offended by your claim that certain words are intrinsically "not suitable for Misplaced Pages" than were offended by any particular words. So if offensiveness is what we're striving to avoid, I think you should avoid telling people not to swear. Otherwise, I say people should just talk as is their natural habit, but not make a special effort to offend. Babajobu 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Fuck this conversation. Babajobu 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

fUkcK Meah, than!! I apologize for all the mess I've caused! However, the donkey/culprit/victim/stupid/warrior/vandal/admin/king/prothet/best-player(including swimming)-ever/spy/F**ker got a word to say!

Thank you! -- Cheers Szvest 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Cherish the innocent free drugs days many indentations ago. :) Babajobu, it's invariably a double-edge sword: there are ways of conveying that, too, without causing offence; or without stupid references to cats, and so on. Yikes, I'm circling far too close to the proverbial edge. El_C 02:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should have the right to block others for using swearwords unless they are used as part of a personal attack, in which case they can make that personal attack seem more insulting. However, people use "fuck" and "hell" all the time without a necessarily insulting context, and for that reason, I think the suggestion to block such users is quite absurd. Ronline ✉ 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I was interested to see that WP has articles on fuck and hell. User:AlMac| 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist (3)

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)

I'm repeating a quibble from a couple of days back which I feel has not been addressed; indeed, it appears to have been condoned by another user which may imply the wrong message. Although the AfD in question has now ended, I do not think that negates the actions described below.

• I note from the Wiki Guide to Deletion page the following guidelines: "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith". (my emphasis)
• Yet a check of the AfD history shows that ScienceApologist did indeed remove two comments, and put them on the AfD's talk page (1) (2)

--Iantresman 17:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Excessively long comments are routinely moved to an AfD's talk page, where they are still visible, and where discussion can still occur. They were not removed, and only modified slightly; they were simply moved elsewhere. If you disagreed with the move, you could have simply moved your comments back. The AfD is still open, so you can still make your case. android79 17:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Each comment was "moved" in its entirety. For anyone visiting the AfD, there was no visible sign that the comments had ever been there, so for all intents and purposed, they had been removed. A summary was not been made, nor a couple of lines of the original comments left, nor even a note to say that the comments had been removed. In my books, that is a removal.

--Iantresman 18:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So move 'em back. android79 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So even if it someone ignores the guidelines, effectively resulting in deception, no-one is going to say anything. What a great message to send to editors. That makes a mockery of the AfD process; Leave comments, but if someone thinks they are "too long" just move them elsewhere, despite the guidelines. --Iantresman 18:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a Wiki. You can easily undo just about anything else anyone else does. You "said something" to ScienceApologist yourself about this inappropriate move of your comments. The AfD closer will notice that and take it into account. android79 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's something, even though it's too late. I think it would help the editing process if minor infractions were somehow noted. Especially as I have a long list of similar infractions against the same person, all of which I can substantiate. But thanks for your consideration. --Iantresman 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

For that, there's WP:RFC. android79 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've had at least three WP:RFC's and am happy to work with other editors. I've also started a couple of Requests for arbitration, and been told its merely a content dispute (which it has been, but not the reason I was going through arbitration), and told that I hadn't gone through the Dispute resolution process (which I had, and provided evidence), along with evidence of (a) POV (b) Ignoring Citations (c) Personal attacks and Civility (e) Ignoring Verifiability (g) Association fallacy (h) Ignoring Consensus. Unfortunately all this seems to show is that I am harrassing an individual , and the individual carries on without note, comment, concern, etc etc. But thanks anyway. --Iantresman 19:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Iantresman, can't you see when to stop? You have some content disputes with ScienceApologist. Most people from WikiProject Physics which looked at this issue support ScienceApologist. Reddi who tried to tip the scales against ScienceApologist by aggressive editing finds himself on RfAr:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2

Pjacobi 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me see. I make a complaint against another editor, and offer to substantiate it. Your throw it back in my face, without addressing ANY of my points, and suggest that I am making "agressive editing", based on someone else. And, as it turns out, ScienceApologist's idea of "editing" is to COMPLETELY replace an entire article without any consultation whatsoever. And you condone this form of "cooperation"? --Iantresman 23:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, I'm saying:

• There is a content dispute behind your repetive complaints here
• Not you, but one of the few editors choosing your side of the content dispute, is now subject to RFAr for aggressive editing

Pjacobi 23:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is also a content dispute. That should not excuse the behaviour that I cite? Regarding editors that may also support my point of view, "I am not my brother's keeper". --Iantresman 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Intentional disregard of WP:FU by User:MegamanZero

I happened across an inappropriate use of unlicensed media on a user page today at User:MegamanZero. I removed the inappropriate use and informed the user that I had removed it on his talk page. He has since replaced the removed image. Since I follow 0RR with respect to admin actions, I've merely notified the user that I will report his disregard of policy here. And so I have. I request that some other administrator remove the image again and take such appropriate measures as to ensure that this user returns to compliance with policy in this regard. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: User:MegamanZero altered the license on the image in dispute from "fair use" to "free for any use" in order to get around the fair use policy. This alteration of the license was based on no legitimate claim and was clearly done with total disregard for our copyright policies and the copyright law. I am therefore blocking MegamanZero for one month. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is OTT, though I agree with the block on principle. Would you agree if I reduced it to one week, with a "don't do this again or else" note on the user talk page? ] 19:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree he needs a block, but a month seems excessive. android79 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I can live with a week. Note that under policy I'm entitled to block him indefinitely; Jimbo has sanctioned a zero-tolerance policy for this sort of thing. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. Another violation -> month block. Further violation -> indefinite block. ] 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A week sounds good - it sends a clear message of "no". And, of course, much longer would be appropriate for any repeat of this -- sannse (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll reduce the block to a week and update the note on his talk page. Thanks for the advice. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This guy is an admin? --Ryan Delaney 19:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Who? MegamanZero isn't, no. Kelly Martin might be; I can't quite recall. -Splash 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That entire statement "0RR in respect to admin actions" does kind of give it away. ;-) Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I must have misread. Thank god. --Ryan Delaney 19:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• These Fair use and other copywrite issues are confusing to many people. Megamanzero is a fairly new user, but he shouldn't have replaced the images under a new proported license. Is a one week block a bit long in light of the fact that he is still fairly new and seems to be quite youthful?--MONGO 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He's not all that new, having been here for at least a couple of months, and deliberately applied an inappropriate copyright tag, implying he knows precisely how copyright tags work. I imagine if he establishes by email with Kelly Martin that it absolutely won't happen again, and Kelly is satisfied of that fact, that the block can be shortened or lifted. But that's up to Kelly. -Splash 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest that a user savvy enough to alter the copyright template on an image in an attempt to get away with copyright infringement doesn't get the benefit of claiming a lack of experience with how we deal with copyright issues. I suggest that the user in question is being treated quite leniantly in not getting indef-blocked. Jkelly 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • NO, it's not up to Kelly. I won't lift the block, but I think he is just very youthful. If he agress and apolgizes for his transgressions, the block should be reduced to 48 hours in my opinion. And an indefinite ban, Jkelly?...you're joking of course? What are we here, a lynch mob?--MONGO 22:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't kidding. There have been a couple of statements recently by User:Jimbo Wales indicating that copyright infringement is serious enought to indef-block for. Jkelly 22:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of those statements by Jimmmy Wales. They pertain to more egregious situations from my understanding.--MONGO 22:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as less serious than two cut-and-pastes from IMDB done over a year ago. I'll grant that its reasonable to disagree with me about that, though. Jkelly 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I will lift the block, it looks like that rfc wasn't enough to end the lynch mob mentality that MONGO's talking about here. You think Kelly would have stopped all of this after that rfc. I try to take some time off, and I see that she's still at it... karmafist 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, leave the block in place, I gave Meagman instructions on what he really does need to do..--MONGO 22:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Karmafist has lifted the block anyway, replacing it with one of his own choice. Karmafist is cruising for trouble. -Splash 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Karmafist, if you are reading this, I request you cease making decisions that are not backed up by consensus. There was not consensus for Kelly's original block. I shortened it. There was consensus for my block. You shortened it. There is not consensus for your block. I don't intend to change it again, but I request that you think more carefully before using your admin privileges in future. Cheers, ] 23:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I can't believe that with an ongoing discussion an admin takes such unilateral action. It shows total contempt for process and concensus and abuses admins powers (hey, wasn't that what Kelly was criticised for in the RfC.... - looks like the pot and the kettle). --Doc 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• MONGO is right (and so is Doc); I say, let him take over this case. El_C 01:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I say the 1 week block should be restored. That's what had consensus, and consensus is good. -- SCZenz 08:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the block should not be restored. Don't get me wrong, Karmafist was wrong to shorten it. I think the 1 week block was appropriate, but it is not fair to put MegamanZero in the middle of our fights. Karmafist is an admin, and we need to live with his decisions in this case. --best, kevin 09:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Megaman Zero appointed me voluntarily as his mentor a couple of weeks ago. As there are enough eyes on this case and he should know not to do anything like this again, I propose that the block remain as forty-eight hours. If he doesn't take copyright very seriously thereafter , then a one-month block would be deserved. I know that an indefinite block may be considered in circumstances where someone has knowingly tried to fiddle the copyright policy (this would apply if he did it again, see this), but this is a user who genuinely wants to help Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems very petty for a copyright issue. Just delete the picture and be done with it. Is a block really necessary? Let alone threats of an indefinite block for what, listing a picture without appropriate copyright? There's so many pictures on here without proper copyright that it's not funny. Whilst that is an issue in itself, I don't think that someone should be blocked over something like this. If its a repetitive thing maybe, but not as a one off. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Other stuff

Would you consider similar action in relation to this removal of a copyvio statement? (See also Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2006 January 6) for abuse associated with this action). User:Noisy | Talk 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because this says that the material is indeed Crown copyright. (Unsurprising — it's a crown!) The linkedto list suggests it may appear on some userpages, but I haven't checked them all. -Splash 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you read this portion of the page you cite?

Copyright of photographs on this site appears alongside each photograph. Copies of many of the photographs appearing on this site can be obtained from the sources listed below. Pictures must not be copied, used or reproduced by any means or in any format (including other web sites) without the prior permission of the copyright holder.

User:Noisy | Talk 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The odd thing is that at the source where it says the image is from does say it is under crown copyright . Maybe we should send it to WP:PUI and see what they say, or we can just look on the Commons for a crown photo. Zach 19:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has Image:Kamelia shojaee.jpg on her user page which is also a fair use image, been on there a while it looks like. funny how only certain people get targeted by certain admins isn't it? -_-

This is also just as intentional, see this edit and this edit.. --Mistress Selina Kyle 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate policy is at Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Fair use policy (which is an official Misplaced Pages policy). It states at bullet point nine (my bold):

Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages.

User:Noisy | Talk 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed that photo from another user page, but Slim was telling me on my talk page that the copyright situation is being "worked out" with the artist, who lives in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I still think the photo should be removed for the time being, but I am not going to engage in a wheel war over it. Zach 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Fair_use#Counterexamples: Some people find it easier to understand the concept of fair use from what is not fair use. Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: … A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War SlimVirgin, used without permission to illustrate an article on the war SlimVirgin. Also note Raul's 4th Law. The image is released under a promotional tag, so it's safe to say that promoting the artist or the Iran Cultural Heritage Foundation, and quite likely the nation of Iran is covered under the image's licence. Promoting the SlimVirgin is not. And I'm sorry to say that this: stating on User:Zscout370's talk page that Iran is not party to the major copyright treaties to be able to keep the image is cheap and disrespectful. Let us respect the artist's intellectual property, even though she does not live in a country that is a signatory of the Berne Convention! Pilatus 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Commons even has a provision about copyrighted items from the Islamic Republic of Iran. . I also believe that Jimbo said that we should respect Iranian copyright though they are not a party to any of the various treaties. Zach 01:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This was apparently released for promotional purposes, so fair use isn't being claimed. Give me a few days to hear back from the artist, and if I don't, I'll remove the image myself. In the meantime, I'll add her name and some other details to make sure that I am "promoting" her. I wish as much energy was expended tracking down and removing defamatory, inaccurate, unsourced edits. SlimVirgin 01:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipdia doesn't allow "with permission" images anyway does it, because it's not verifiable other than the person asking for permission? I remember someone saying that. And yes it is fair use, the tag on the picture says fair use clearly (note that SlimVirgin did not take the photograph of the art or upload it) --Mistress Selina Kyle 08:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Permissions (i.e. verifications of a release under the GFDL) can be verified by emailing permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org. ] 11:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the artist wants to or intends to release the image under the GFDL - definitely hasn't so the image is a clear copyvio in its present state: what I'm referring to is SlimVirgin's comment that she will "try get permission from the artist" --Mistress Selina Kyle 20:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the location of this artist, there is pronbably few times that the artist might even email, so I will suggest this: SlimVirgin launches an email explaining about the Permissions/GFDL and all of that good ol' fun stuff and explain about where the email should be sent to to grant permissions. Until we get a response back from permissions, I respectfully ask SlimVirgin to remove that photo for that duration. Once we get the email and the artist give us the green light, then SlimVirgin can put it back. Deal? Zach 09:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jim16 & User talk:66.17.116.148

History: A request was filed by User:RoyBoy for CheckUser here regarding violation of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and potential Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry, but user own edit here & here effectively admitted to be same person.

Vandalism and attempts at hiding: User_talk:66.17.116.148

Abusive behaviour & violation of Misplaced Pages:Profanity & Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks:

Violation of Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry:

Blanking talk page without answering after being informed to assume good faith & cease sock puppetrying:

KTC 20:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New vandalism:

• With account Jim16: , see User talk:Jim16 History
• With IP: see User talk:Jim16 History, see User talk:66.17.116.148 History.

KTC 11:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Undoing other admins' blocks

I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Undoing_other_admins.27_blocks. Comments from everyone would be appreciated so we can hopefully come up with a way of avoiding damaging wheel wars in future. SlimVirgin 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

JAIS (Just Another Iasson Sockpuppet)

Mpaksa (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) inserted a comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Iasson that is basically a repetition of previous Iasson sockpuppets. I have blocked this user indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet and will update Iasson's ban date accordingly. Since this is my first indefinite block, I figured I should report it here to have it unblocked if you think I'm mistaken. It also appears that Mpaks (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is an (unblocked) Iasson sockpuppet, though he only edited under that account on December 10. --Deathphoenix 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. User:Zoe| 21:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. User:Mpaks was indefinitely blocked on December 10th. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I'm not sure why I didn't see it in the block log last time. Maybe I was looking for the wrong username. --Deathphoenix 03:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Block disagreement

SlimVirgin blocked Everyking today for an infringement of his arbcom ruling. Everyking asked me to have a look at the block, feeling it was unfair. I had a look, and felt that in this case he was not targeting Snowspinner, but specifically arguing Bishonnen's block, so unblocked. I understand SlimVirgin's viewpoint on this, but see things differently in this case. SlimVirgin and I can't come to an agreement on what is best here, so it would be useful to have another opinion. Everyking cannot comment on this page, so please don't let this become a big comment fest on his behaviour, we just need an un-involved admin to review the situation and replace the block if that is appropriate (I will not under any circumstances wheel-war on this of course)

The relevant pages are:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3
• User talk:SlimVirgin
• User talk:Sannse
• User talk:Bishonen
• WP:RFAR#Request for injunction against harrassment by Everyking

Thanks -- sannse (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In future, it might be best to ask for the third party view before reversing the admin action. --Ryan Delaney 21:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I did. Just not on Misplaced Pages, so not "officially" if you like -- sannse (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if it could be done openly so that the blocking admin has a chance to give an opinion before the block is undone, rather than afterwards. Or better still, contact me directly to discuss it. I'll put up some diffs here for a third admin to review. SlimVirgin 21:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time to look over this fully right now, but just pointing out, though, I do believe it was Snowspinner's block Everyking was disputing , not Bishonen's. Which is why he was blocked. Dmcdevit·t 22:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are the reasons I feel Everyking should be blocked. I blocked for 48 hours, but because there's disagreement, I'd have no objection if someone were to shorten it.

Everyking's been harassing Snowspinner for months, criticizing everything he does, and there have been several arbcom cases about it, which haven't changed his behavior. He invariably engages in boundary violations, finding loopholes, or claiming not to understand. As a result, the arbcom recently issued this ruling: "Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Misplaced Pages. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year."

Clarification was requested and Raul654 gave an unambiguous clarification on January 2: ""Everyking is not to mention, gesture, indicate, or gesticulate in any way that implies Snowspinner or any action taken by Snowspinner (including, but not limited, to Snowspinner's edits)."

I warned Everyking on his talk page that I intended to help enforce the ruling. Note that I had not involved myself in this case before, but I was tired of seeing it reach the arbcom. After the warning, Everyking violated it by posting about Snowspinner, so I blocked him for 24 hours on December 29.

On January 3, one day after Raul's clarification, Everyking started questioning Bishonen about a block of hers against User:Hollow Wilerding, a sockpuppet account of a blocked user. He has posted so often about it that Bish has asked the arbcom for an injunction against him posting to her talk page.

Although Bish had blocked HW for two weeks, Snowspinner had extended the block to indefinite three hours later. Therefore, it is Snowspinner's block that Everyking is trying to have overturned.

Sannse says he didn't realize the standing block was Snowspinner's. Even if that is true (i.e. he didn't look at the block log), Bishonen explained on January 5 at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bishonen that Snowspinner was the final blocking admin, and again on her talk page in a response to Everyking at 12:19 January 7.

Assuming good faith, that Everyking didn't know until 12:19 January 7 that it was Snowspinner's block he was trying to have overturned, he still continued to post about it. I warned him at 19:02 on January 7 that he was in violation of the arbcom ruling because the block was Snowspinner's. He acknowledged seeing the warning, but continued posting about it anyway, so I blocked him. I blocked for 48 hours because the previous one had been for 24.

Because Everyking has violated every ruling about staying away from Snowspinner, I feel he needs to have the limits made clear (as Raul654 and the arbcom have done), told what the response will be for transgressions, and then each and every trangression should meet with that response. Otherwise this situation will continue, to Everyking's detriment as well to Snowspinner's. SlimVirgin 22:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm missing the diff showing EK acknowledge that his action was going to be a violation. Just trying to get a clear picture.--Tznkai 05:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I was beginning to wonder why Bishonen — now it makes sense. El_C 22:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, honey! Bishonen | talk 23:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

/Is jealous/ :)--Sean|Black 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

sheesh first SlimVirgin now Bishonen, El c.. get a room(s) :p --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Paradoxically, I am the room (if Kitty was here, I'm sure he'd ask: what does that even mean?) El_C 23:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

you're "the room".. right.. um. So, they're both "in" you... the "room"..

~ponder~ - o-O --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

El C, if you're going to hang around on the page, you may as well make yourself useful by giving your opinion of the Everyking block. I say 48 hours (or 24 as a compromise); Sannse says none. What say you? SlimVirgin 00:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle, do not forget that in Soviet Russia, the room is in you. SlimVirgin, That's a pretty big if. Twenty four hours. El_C 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I respect SlimVirgin & Sannse enough to not want to get into second guessing either. I believe El C would not make a reccomendation without considering the situation carefully and as such, I'm inclined to enforce his suggestion. As such, I'm blocking Everyking for 24 hours. Hopefully, as a completely uninvolved admin, my block will stand. -- Essjay · Talk 01:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty big if hope. :) El_C 02:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, El C and Essjay. I'll change the notice on the arbcom page to 24 hours. SlimVirgin 02:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of the ArbCom ruling based block, I think that one is inncorrect, as a Reasonable Observer could fairly conclude that Snowspinner's involvement was at best, incidental, and Everyking determined that the discussion did not involve Snowspinner's actions, thus not violating the stringent standards applied. Even taking into an account accusastions of historic abuse and rulesgaming, this one, using adminstrative discretion, could've been let slide on that standard.

As for the matter of Conduct with Bishonen, I will abstain until I research more.--Tznkai 05:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't noted already, Snowspinner didn't actually extend the block, though he tried to. The software actually goes by the shortest block placed, not the newest. --Phroziac _. o º 05:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

...And, I have to uphold the block. I don't personally see any evidence that he was complaining about Snowspinner's actions, but I think his conduct to bishonen is blockworthy. I'd strongly prefer anyone considering unblocking to talk to Essjay first though. --Phroziac _. o º 05:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked the block I set after discussing with Tznkai, who is going to reblock EK over the Bishonen matter for the duration of the 24 hour block I set, so that he will end up being blocked for the same time as the block I set, but the block reason will be the less controversial one. -- Essjay · Talk 05:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked as stated, but it ended up being 2 hours shorter because of my issues with the date syntax, hope no one minds. I also took a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking_3, talked with EK on IRC and determined that the prohibition of remedy 5 was violated as well.--Tznkai 06:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to unblock. I also disagreed with the original Snowspinner-related block of Everyking and wanted to unblock him, but since I went to discuss it with Slim first, Sannse got in there ahead of me. I wasn't against the block because I thought EK had behaved well, but because I thought he'd been blocked for the wrong reason: I don't think he'd done enough research to have any idea Snowspinner was involved, indeed I don't think he'd done any research (see my messages to Slim, here, and here). That in itself, of course, violates yet another arbcom ruling: "Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it." Since that ruling, number 5, is mentioned in the block reason, I'm OK with Tznkai's block. Also, none of what I was saying to EK on my page, or what Slim was saying, was getting through to him, so I think a block just to get his attention on the issue of harassing me was a good idea. However, I believe (from reading the IRC log) that he has now been brought round — not indeed to seeing my point of view (hollow laugh)— but to being prepared to leave me alone, however irrational and disgracefully un-adminlike he finds such a request, and go edit something instead. If he holds to that this morning, I'd like to unblock him. I'm most uncomfortable with the idea of somebody laboring under a "punishment block" for harassing me, once they're prepared to stop doing it. It should perhaps be noted also that my request for an injunction against EK posting on my page was just that, a request; the ArbCom hasn't shown any sign of issuing any injunction, so EK hasn't been violating it (the courtesy issue is still the same, of course). Though I don't understand how long the block still has to run, perhaps the matter is already moot? The block log, strangely, shows only the date when the block is supposed to run out — I've never seen that before — and that date is January 9th (wtf?). Anyway, I ask: if the block still has some hours to run, are there objections to my unblocking EK on the ground that the block has served its purpose? Bishonen | talk 15:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I support this measure. (Bishonen was begging people on IRC to comment, so I thought I'd help.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dooo it. (unblock as per bishonen). --Phroziac _. o º 16:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Go ahead, and I've been having trouble with the date syntax on the block page, and am reluctant to learn, as I am reluctant to block.--Tznkai 17:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The unjust blocking of Everyking has not gone unnoticed, and those responsible will not go unpunished. MARMOT 18:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, MARMOT...? I'll take all those as "yes, unblock". It's not very much input, but I can't wait any longer, if there's going to be any point at all. I've unblocked. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh! 'Tis a neverending comedy around here. :) Concur with the unblocking. El_C 19:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Superfan spammer dilemma

Two days ago I created Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Superfan due to the ongoing spam problems we have been experiencing with the Jessica Simpson article. This evening I decided to investigate things a bit further, and as it turns out, this individual (or individuals) have been spamming Misplaced Pages as far back as early October 2005, possibly earlier.

Articles targeted include: Jessica Simpson, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Gwen Stefani, Keira Knightley, Pamela Anderson, Reese Witherspoon, and Tom Cruise.

This spammer makes use of fallacious edit summaries, such as "rv linkspam", while inserting spam links, and in some instances has gone as far as to remove an official website and replace it with their spam link instead. I am bringing this to the attention of the Administrators' noticeboard in hopes that someone can perform a CheckUser on the accounts recently added to Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Superfan which have not yet been blocked and help put an end to this problem. Thanks Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Dschor claims that all third party edits to his user page are vandalism

Dschor appears to have decided that his userpage deserves the same protection from outside editing as a geocities account. As a result he has accused other users who've made simple changes of vandalizing his page. He has since equipped his userpage with a notice which claims that edits made without his authorization are vandalism. Can someone else please ask him to go get a free web account someplace if he is interested in maintaining a personal web presence? --Gmaxwell 07:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion? He can presume that all he wants. However, I would avoid editing it unless necessary (as I do with all user pages) but simply reading Misplaced Pages:User page will tell you they are community space. gren グレン 07:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

He's just mad because I edited his user page. He needs to grow a sense of humor or something. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh, he's changed tack :) --Interiot 08:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I also edited his userspace to change a flag, i'll see what he says. Zach 07:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:User page:"by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." Crystal clear: it's a convention, but only a convention. Dschor can (foolishly or otherwise) presume what he likes about people who breach it. Rd232 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

People shouldn't be editing someone else's user page unless there is a very good reason for it. I will check out the edits and comment further. But please be a bit nicer to him about it. He is clearly assuming that Misplaced Pages runs in a way that places like Geocities/LiveJournal etc work, and that your user page belongs to you. It is a reasonable assumption to make. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay I checked it and User:Snowspinner has been making misleading edit summaries, stating incorrectly that he was removing text because it was a personal attack, when there was none on there. Really, there was nothing wrong with Dschor's version, so let's just leave it be. It's just very petty to go around changing people's user pages for these kinds of reasons. Get rid of personal attacks by all means, but not opinions. We might call it vandalism if you do edit his user page like that, and with good reason. So please stop. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner has made one edit, with the remarkably accurate summary: "Reverted edits by User:Dschor (talk) to last version by User:Tony Sidaway". Tony made the changes you refer to, and I'm curious why you didn't discuss things with him before acting. Questions of intent and civility aside, you need only look at Dschor's talk page for your comment:

Obviously stating that you oppose Kelly Martin for ArbCom is not a personal attack. However, perhaps you should not include "Beware the Cabal".

And Tony's above that:

Secondly, while your stated opposition to Kelly Martin was probably okay, the allegation that she is a member of some Cabal is an attack and we don't allow personal attacks. I've removed it for now; please feel free to restore minus the attack.

...to see your thinking is along closer lines than you might suspect. Maybe before attempting to set Dschor's expectations regarding his User page, you should reach a consensus here first. I'm sure Dschor doesn't feel like being the subject of a wheel war. InkSplotch 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, I am getting tired of fighting this type of vandalism on my page. I never stated that Kelly is a member of a cabal, but I did notice the prominent display of an "I love the cabal" image on her user page. Seemed like a harmless reference to her own stated affection. I assume good faith, but I ask that you please notify me before making significant changes to my user page. It's simply the polite thing to do. --Dschor 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism suggests malicious intent. I don't see that here, but I'm only a neutral party. What I see is a difference of opinion on two counts: should Users (such as yourself) be allowed to reserve edit rights to their User page, and was the "cabal" comment a personal attack. While consensus doesn't seem too firm yet, it doesn't seem to be going your way at the moment. I'd ask you consider the comments above about User pages and community space. I'd also suggest that Kelly Martin's original edit, regardless of it's factual accuracy, was a good faith edit and not a personal attack or attempted vandalism. Use of the word "cabal" would probably be best dropped by all sides.

To others, I'd like to echo Zordrac's comments about "...be a bit nicer...about it." Dschor might be making a test case here over User rights to their User Pages, but poking at him to see how he reacts ("I also edited his userspace to change a flag, i'll see what he says.") isn't going to help all of you reach a stronger consensus, or Dschor to be more amicable to your position. InkSplotch 14:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

m Signing my comments, now that I have an account to do so. InkSplotch 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Australian politics vandal back

See Talk:Paula Rizzuto. This is the guy under 1000 sock names who I've been tracking several months. His MO is to make slanderous additions to Australian politics articles. In this case, he's created an entire article about a minor Australian political figure and edited it as User:StephenBengHo, which is the name of her husband. Of course, checkuser shows it to be the usual sock of 1000 heads.

I have a name for the sockpuppeteer, but won't reveal it until confirmed. But he's seriously trying to use Misplaced Pages as an arena for particularly stupid political games. His contributions are bad enough that I locked Paula Rizzuto blank with template:deletedpage; I strongly suggest this for other examples of his work, and to keep a very close eye on any pages about current Australian political figures, major or minor.

I previously made a range block on the IP, but the current one is a new range (same geographical area). Dealing with these one at a time. I'll compile a list of usernames later - David Gerard 09:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, vindication. Thank you, David. When you say Australian vandal with 1000 sock names, is he also the Crocodile Dundee vandal, or do we now have two vandals to watch out for? Ambi 09:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea. But see the email I just sent. I need the motivation and organisational abilities to keep copies of old Checkuser results on hand so that I can refer back to them when people like this show up over and over and over again ... - David Gerard 10:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this the guy who was trying to insist that Australia was a republic already? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Check User:Samvak

See Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder samvak's attempts to distort events, articles and information are persistently reinforced by anonymous users on IP 62.162.xxx.xxx which is his own IP mt.net.mk.

The rest of his behavior defies description and includes attempting to provide full name and contact information for someone without reason or their permission and against their will --Zeraeph 14:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

IP Still Vandalizing after a large number of warnings

This IP has been warned a large number of times. I have just had to post warnings for obscenity and vandalism. I suggest a ban may be in order.

The IP is 205.234.187.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

Thank You Mikeroberts 16:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Banned for 24 hours Fred Bauder 17:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chantelle Houghton

This appears to have turned into a fight. What's going on?? --Sunfazer 17:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Open proxies - advice needed from computer expert

I have indefinitely blocked three IP addresses which I believe to be open proxies:

1. 83.220.143.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 213.179.243.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 212.50.186.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I believe that these IP addresses are open proxies for the following reasons:

• Despite the fact that they are from different countries and ISPs, they all speak in the same broken English and all target the same articles for edit warring
• I was able to configure my PC to edit through these IPs (try the usual ports: 80 or 8080)

My question is: are the above sufficient evidence that those IPs are open proxies and was I justified in indefinitely blocking them? If anyone disagrees with what I did, please feel free to unblock them. Is there a kind of open proxy test that could be performed on them? Izehar 17:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If you were able to configure your browser to edit through services on those IPs, then they are open proxies and should be blocked indefinitely. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Slight techical quibble: to make sure you've configured your browser properly, you can go to something http://www.whatismyip.com/ and confirm it shows the proxy's IP. And yes, then block it. --Interiot 19:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

83.220.143.18 is in a dynamic address range, and when I just tested it it was completely closed off, so I'm guessing that this is a wandering open proxy (lovely, I hate those). Probably a compromised machine on a nonpersistent connection and a "call-home" service installed.

213.179.243.4 appears to be behind a firewall but is apparently configured (perhaps deliberately) as an open proxy. I'm going to block it. (Oddly enough, the BackOrifice port is closed instead of filtered, which suggests that it's compromised.)

212.50.186.45 appears to be behind a firewall but is apparently configured (perhaps deliberately) as an open proxy. I'm going to block it.

Kelly Martin (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Just testing - yes, this does work as an open proxy and shows me as if I'm from Duesseldorf, whereas I am really somewhere (not saying where) in England. I am User:Izehar by the way. 83.220.143.18 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Just confirming that I made this edit. Izehar 20:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Another webhost blocked

Another backslash-inserting vandal found and shot.

• 64.27.5.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • TequilaAndLime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Donald Easby - Misplaced Pages Admin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • DanWillis2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Brian Daniels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • A NON COMPLAINING WOW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • JamesWalker112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Regilo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Rodam3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Hownae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Gozeboer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • JamesAllen13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Maudser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Obesanes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Sadlersadie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kelly Martin (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, thanks for all the good work hunting down vandals. I think its a great job you have been doing. I do have one question though: Should you be posting these in such a way as to associate the IP and usernames? I'm sure in most cases these are proxies with neglible chance of tracking down the real user using them, but that can't always be the case can it? For example one might pick off a legitimate user who had the misfortunate of using a compromised machine. As I said, I think you've been doing good work, and this is just a quibble from someone with a touch of privacy paranoia. Dragons flight 19:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

First, all of the above are vandals; their right to privacy was waived when they vandalized Misplaced Pages, per the privacy policy. Second, since I'm blocking people who are using an open proxy, presumably their identity is already protected by the mere fact that they're using an open proxy. (All of the above accounts were "throwaway accounts" created for the sole purpose of vandalizing Misplaced Pages. All but two of them were already blocked for one reason or another.) Kelly Martin (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well technically, the relevant clause is Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers, which gives two reasons for releasing a vandal's IP. As you already blocked the IP, I don't see how telling us the names using it assists with that block, and as far as I know there is no one planning a complaint to their ISP. I also note that the CheckUser Policy discourages releasing IPs as much as possible even when there has been abuse. I agree there is probably very little risk here, but I can also recall at least one posting you made where you identified two apparently legitimate users editing through one of the IPs you shut down. The paranoid guy in me just thinks that one shouldn't identify an IP address unless there is some good to come from it, and while I'm grateful that you are hunting down and blocking these, I'm not sure what additional benefit is to be had by listing the names and IPs. Dragons flight 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It often helps other admins engaged in vandalism management to note patterns in the usernames used by vandals, or to correlate vandalism events. More than once I've gotten useful feedback from posting one of these notices. And since I've effectively revealed the information anyway through the block log and talk page notices, the announcement here does not further spread such information. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Posting known vandals' names is certainly a helpful thing, however patterns in user names can be viewed without associating the names with an IP. That argument for lisitng with an IP has no merit. I find your shoot first, question others when questioned later personal policy making troubling. WAvegetarian (email) 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ, just give it up already. --Ryan Delaney 16:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kelly, keep up the great work. I am of the opinion that if more people (namely User:Curps) had CheckUser permissions, we would be seeing much less vandalism here. Hall Monitor 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this. Looks like inserting backslashes before other backslashes is also a sign of these misconfigured PHP scripts. --cesarb 21:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Sunfazer/Open_proxy_list --Sunfazer 21:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the list! All blocked. Curiously, some of them had already been indefinitely blocked by Kelly, yet the blocks had misteriously vanished from the ipblocklist. --cesarb 03:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:El_C

I believe this administrator is attempting to intimidate me into not posting on a particular talk page (regardless of content). My impression was that talk pages are an appropriate way to send relevant communications to editors. I do not think his banning threat is legitmate but I'd like a quick statement so I don't get myself blocked/banned. -Justforasecond 19:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

He can't enforce such a threat, however continuing to post at User talk:Deeceevoice is a bad idea. Fred Bauder 20:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not? JFAS's is disruptive and has been harrassing several editors. Unlike discourtesy, disruption is grounds for blocking. Guettarda 20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a threat, Fred, it's a warning. And I most certainly can enforce it and will. Just watch me. El_C 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is being blocked for disruption kind of like getting an ASBO? In other words, no set criteria, but someone with authority decides you are a pain-in-the-ass and boots you out of the community (albeit temporarily)? Genuine question, not rhetorical. Babajobu 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, being blocked for disruption means that one of our 700 trusted users thinks you are a 'pain-in-the-ass', and not one of the other 699 disagree. I'd say that's some 'pain-in-the-ass.' --Doc 10:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Being blocked for disruption means one of 700+ Misplaced Pages:Administrators thinks you are a 'pain-in-the-ass'. Any other conclusions depend on the circumstances. Rd232 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It certainly looks like it. If an admin doesn't like what you're doing, they can bully you out of doing it by claiming you are "disruptive". It's the getout clause for any and all rogue adminnery. Still, this guy could hardly complain. He's not doing anything productive, is he?Grace Note 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

El C would be unable to enforce this threat: if an admin blocked you for posting any reasonable message on Deecee's talk page, then you would very likely be unblocked in short order by a different admin. By convention, the user talk page is used to send messages to another user. and Deeceevoice only has the right to request, but not demand, that you do not post on her talk page. Having said that, I would strongly encourage you to avoid posting at User talk:Deeceevoice. — Matt Crypto 10:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As a user who has been through the struggle of trying to get away from unwanted talk page messages, I'm going to have to cite ] as precedent for disruption blocks over user talk pages. If the postings raise to the level of harassment (I haven't read them so I don't know, but obviously El C thinks they do) then a disruption block is in order. -- Essjay · Talk 11:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Matt Crypto's veiled threat to unblock is unsurprising and underscores his overall disreagrd for the decisions of fellow admins, Essjay. I'd expand on the type of disruptive editors he again rallies to the defence of, but that should probably best be left for another time. El_C 13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I know we've had our differences in the past, El C, but I would hope that every time we bump into each other we could avoid incivility and nastiness. How about it? The above was not a threat that I would unblock, veiled or otherwise. Assume good faith! It is entirely likely that another admin would unblock him, and I was pointing this out. If you'd asked first, El C, I would have told you that I would avoid getting involved if you blocked Justforasecond, both because of our history of animosity, and because, at least in the very general sense, Justforasecond and I are both "on the same side" (critics of Deeceevoice). — Matt Crypto 13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll begin assuming good faith when you cease depicting my warning as a threat; otherwise, I hope to avoid bumping in to you. El_C 13:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't interpret what Matt said above as a threat towards you at all, El_C. He's just saying that if an admin blocked someone for posting a reasonable message on a talk page, and was then blocked for it by an admin, another admin would probably remove it as an unfair block. I don't see any hidden meanings here. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Him calling my warning a threat vs. me noting his 'observation' that another admin will unblock as a veiled treat is interchangable. El_C 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you have the intention of blocking Justforasecond if he posted on Deeceevoice's talk page? That was the message you seemed to be conveying. You said, "You are not welcome on that talk page and are prohibited from editing it. If you take issue with my decision, you may appeal it through the normal channels", and "Do not place any further comments on DCV's talk page, or you will be blocked for disruption." (emphasis mine). — Matt Crypto 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much reason for interpreting Matt's comment as a threat - he probably meant exactly what he said. And he's right, surely we can all agree that a "don't post on this page" prohibition is not reasonably enforceable? I have no problem with blocks for disruption, when it's a pattern of behavior. I'm not saying El_C is wrong in keeping a close eye on this user or blocking liberally for future incivility or disruption. But if JFAS posted a polite, constructive message on another user's talk page, that's not reasonable grounds for a block. I took El_C's comment to mean "If you post on this page again in a disruptive way, I'll be watching and ready to block, as needed." Assuming that's what El_C meant, I don't see much to disagree about here. Friday (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa guys, time out. No need for this to explode into a dispute between admins over something that hasn't even happend! This discussion has, like so many others on Misplaced Pages, gotten away from the original issue: Whether or not an admin may block for what they perceive to be harassment of another user via that user's talk page (whether or not the instant case actually qualifies as harassment is something to be taken up after such a block has been issued; at this time, there is no block to argue about, because one hasn't been issued yet).

Returning to that issue, I believe the ArbCom has made it clear that when one editor asks that another user refrain from contacting them via their talk page, it is expected that the request will be honored. If that request is not honored, and the user continues to post after being warned not to, then a block for harassment is in order (and before anyone starts screaming about the blocking policy, harassment of other users is very clearly disruption, and falls within the disruption provision). Whether or not a given situation rises to the level of harassment is, like any other block situation, a matter for the descretion of the blocking admin, subject to review by the community via the normal channels for contesting a block.

Now, if others have comments on this issue, id est whether or not blocks for harassment are in order, please continue to discuss that here. If all that is going to go on here is continued arguing over the motives of given users, then please take it to email, RfC, or the ArbCom, or, if at all possible, get back to work. -- Essjay · Talk 14:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to "the ArbCom has made it clear that when one editor asks that another user refrain from contacting them via their talk page, it is expected that the request will be honored...": that's a bad precedent. I have no intention of following it, and I hope nobody else does either. Plenty of disruptive editors are quick to say "stay off my talk page" when people express concerns over their editing behavior. Folks who give warnings like that are quite frequently problem editors themselves and should not be coddled. Friday (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I submitt that you should use common sense on a case by case basis rather than getting drowned in legalistic abstractions. El_C 15:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That is taking the decision into a completely different context. The context of the decision is for legit editors, not disruptive editors: When a legit editor requests that someone not comment to their talk page, i.e., two otherwise good users who cannot get along about anything, or when a good editor is being harassed, they have the right to be left alone. For example, I was being harassed by a problem editor who was eventually banned; I was tired of his constant nonsense on my talk page, and I told him to stop posting there, and I was upheld in doing so. I'm sorry to hear that doing so places me in the category of coddled problem editors.

A legitimate request should be honored; quite obviously, a request such as the one you describe would not be legitimate, and would quite rightly not be honored. There is a certain amount of common sense that has to be applied to any rule: When a rule or a ruling is being abused by a problem editor, it is wikilawyering and should be treated as such. It is not a bad precedent to say that editors do not have to tolerate being harassed on thier own talk page; it is a bad precedent to allow disruptive users to abuse an otherwise good ruling. -- Essjay · Talk 15:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not posting very helpful stuff on Deeceevoice's user page. I think anyone posting anything there needs to think about whether it will be helpful in encouraging her to attempt to stay here and contribute. I'm not sure what the arbitration committee has said in the past on unwelcome posting to talk pages. I think we are on the side of sincere efforts to communicate. However, in this case it is better to wait a bit and then try to talk to her. Fred Bauder 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonderfool

Copied to User talk:Jimbo Wales.

Wonderfool, in xyr latest incarnation as User:Fooled...err..1, has just placed the following on my talk page, after I added the account to Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Wonderfool:

So what if I'm Wonderfool? I've admitted all my nihilartikels (OK, to be fair, I misused the word nihilartikel - what I meant was "articles that I thought don't warrant an entry in Misplaced Pages". So all should be cleared to have me reinstated now. And I've apologized alreadt too. In various pages under various names. But I'd like to stay put and NOT be banned please, otherwise I'll only just get another username and edit anyway. Cheers Uncle. --Wonderfool 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This situation appears to be stuck in some kind of Limbo, with Wonderfool stating that xe has apologized and named all of the nihilartikels and the Arbitration Committee stating that the ban is still in effect until an apology is forthcoming and all nihilartikels are named. Unfortunately, the two do not appear to be communicating directly with each other. Please resolve it. Uncle G 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: the order of the ArbCom should stay in effect until it's otherwise lifted. If the current ArbCom doesn't lift it, we're electing a new ArbCom that will take office in less than three weeks, and they can hear an appeal if they want to revisit the case. However, we must follow the ArbCom's decision. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--Sean|Black 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

His message admits to being Wonderfool, by the accident of grammar in the second sentence. I've indef blocked the account. The ArbCom ban is in place until it is lifted. -Splash 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that administrators just blocking yet another account does not constitute communication (between the Arbitration Committee and Wonderfool) that would resolve this situation. I've already encouraged Wonderfool to communicate with Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee. (And xe has attempted to reach Jimbo via Jimbo's talk page on Meta.) I similarly encourage Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee to talk to Wonderfool. (I cannot find any reply, from either Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee, to Wonderfool. There is nothing at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Talk_to_me.3F.) This continual Whac-A-Mole, with no actual communication going on, is silly. Uncle G 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• ...and so we should be playing whack-a-mole. Did you read the diff you just posted? There is no way that block should be overturned. Ambi 08:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I did. I remind you of what it says. It says "I've admitted all my nihilartikels" and "I've apologized alreadt too". Whereas the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo are stating that the ban is still in effect until an apology is forthcoming and all nihilartikels are named. If they disagree with Wonderfool, they should be at the very least telling xem, and furthermore explaining why they aren't satisfied enough to lift the ban. But whilst I can find Wonderfool's attempt to communicate with Jimbo, I haven't found any attempt to reply to that from either Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee. There's been no attempt to actually tell Wonderfool anything. So we have Wonderfool thinking that everything has come to a satisfactory conclusion, wondering why xe keeps getting blocked, and probably putting it down to administrator obtuseness; and Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee, and hence Misplaced Pages administrators, thinking that things have not come to a satisfactory conclusion. And, as a result, administrators end up playing Whack-A-Mole. Some communication needs to be happening, here. It isn't. Uncle G 09:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm unclear why you're posting here, Uncle G. If you want comments from Jimbo, post on his talk page; if you want comments from the arbitration committee, post on WP:RFAR (perhaps under the requests for clarification). WP:AN/I is typically for discussing administrator actions and getting feedback, which is what's been occurring here. Until the arbitration committee modifies its ruling, our current direction is well-defined. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I did post on Jimbo's talk page. See the notice right at the top of this section. I posted here on the Administrators' noticeboard in part because the Arbitration Committee decision involving Wonderfool was made here. There's no formal ArbCom case about Wonderfool. Uncle G 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:OceanSplash

I have blocked OceanSplash indefinitely for repeated blatant racism, hatemongering, and harrassment. He has been blocked several times for his hatemongering and harrassment and has been warned to stop on his talk page however he has persisted both with his tyrades and his verbal spates against editors who disagree with him. I welcome any outside comments on this block. Jtkiefer ---- 03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Bishonen | talk 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

Good block which should have been done long ago. --a.n.o.n.y.m 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtkieffer, just curious what the precipitating factor was for the block. From his contributions he doesn't seem to have edited in two days, since you and he interacted regarding the sockpuppetry issue. Is he being blocked for the problems that occurred prior to the sockpuppetry concerns? I'm not disagreeing with the block; it's only that he told me he doesn't understand the timing, and I promised him I would find out. Thanks. Babajobu 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

this which although it's by his IP you can tell it's him by his referencing his previous statements towards me in the first person. Jtkiefer ---- 21:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mahabone

I would like to request a permanent block for disruptive editing, all related to a currently deleted article, Mahabone. There is clear evidence on many of the diifs on User talk:Mahabone that he has changed timestamps, and he has clearly resorted to namecalling based on other users' reactions to his misconceptions of provable facts. With the deletion of Mahabone, said user has done no more editing anywhere on Misplaced Pages, which also leads me to believe he is a sockpuppet created simply to POV push an article that had no provable fact in it, and I don't see a need to have the account available for similar behavior in the future. MSJapan 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin's RFC/ArbCom vote

This was brought to my attention in IRC: a user has posted a link to Kelly's ArbCom vote on the talk page of her WP:RFC (see ). The user talked to me at , based on a revert that I did at . While I do not wish to engage in a edit war with this user, what do y'all think about this. I still find this disturbing and could lead to vote-stacking, though the original message itself does meet NPOV and CIVIL rules. Comments? Zach 08:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

These concern me. I don't think the message is proper. Input? --Tznkai 07:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

(the above moved from WP:AN#Possible vote statcking —Cryptic (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

Anyone who didn't see it coming, please raise a hand? (And its source surprises me not one bit, either.) —Cryptic (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the many comments in the RFC about the degree to which KM has or has not retained the community-wide trust needed to be an arbitrator, I don't see a neutral link indicating that she is a candidate in the current arbcom elections and telling people where to go to vote on her candidacy inappropriate. Since the official format of the arbcom elections includes oppose votes (although many have argued against this) it isobviously thought important when people disapprove of a particualr person as a candidate for arbitrator. And people who approve of KM's actions (and ther are quite a number) can just as esily follow the link. This is not the same IMO as a msg sent sepecifically to presumed opponents of a particualr candidate, urging them to vote agaisnt that candidate. DES 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In the end, Jimbo chooses the arbitrators, taking input from the community. He is, as is well known, a remarkably intelligent man, and I'm sure that he's capable of following edit histories and whatnot. I seriously doubt that any vote stacking attempts will influence his appointments, though the numbers on the wiki may be inflated. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As was pointed out, as this was placed in a public place in an unbiased way, it will attract both positive and negative votes, and hence not influence anything. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

www.wehatetech.com

Please see Big muff, which was redirected to User:Zoe. That was done by the people at this site, rather immaturely. It's amazing what you find when you crawl Google for the phrase "wikipedia -site:wikipedia.org" :-) Anyway, might want to watch the site. The offending post on the site is at . - Ta bu shi da yu 09:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How mature. Thanks for the fix.  :) User:Zoe| 05:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:McDonalds.jpg

Could someone explain our fair use rules to the people who use this immage on thier userpage.Geni 10:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no template being used on the userpages, but hardcode text: {{userbox|red|yellow|]|This user prefers McDonald's over other fast food places.}} What we could do is replace the image with a yellow m in text and see what happens. Just remove the image from the userpage, explain what is going on. If they place the image back, remove it again. If they repeat, block for a short time. Zach 18:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, the (not-so) man of the year

I'm not entirely sure where to discuss this, so I'm going to put it here. The photoshopped image Time-Jimmy-Wales-NoTitle.png was recently added to User:Jimbo Wales under the heading "Man of the Year 2006", which of course he isn't (at least not yet). Obviously this was intended in good fun, but because it provides a false sense of endorsement from Time it could be interpreted as a trademark infringment. If the parody was made clear by context (e.g. User:Jimbo_Wales/Funny_pictures), it would probably be more acceptable, but I'm not sure. Thoughts? Dragons flight 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty clear that it's humour. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Though this is unrelated, User:Jimbo_Wales/Funny_pictures, interestingly appears to have at least one fair use image in it... Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a lot of Fair use photos there. As for the time cover itself, I am borderline on it. While we used a GFDL photo of Jimbo for the cover, the format itself was taken from an older issue, and the format of the image crediting is the same as Time Magazine, so I think we should get rid of it. While I express profound kudos to the author, it might not be wise to keep that on our servers. Zach 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my school last year everyone did a TIME person of the year with whoever they chose. This tells me that the TIME person of the year bit is well known enough and this picture does NOT provide a false sense of endorsement from TIME anymore than my friend making Kurt Cobain the man of the year. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This might fall under parody as fair use, which can be anywhere on wikipedia. Some of these border on satire, which is not covered (or not clearly protected).--best, kevin 01:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that it is parody, and I would argue it to be a transformative use of an image, then I would think that it should be OK. Maybe if someone adds an amusing caption, it might make things a bit clearer? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that it's clear that this is supposed to be parody, which is a protected form of speech under fair use. Maybe if it were being distributed primarily as a template or if there were pictures with humorous headlines on the cover, but right now this is just there. I doubt anyone at TIME would care, but I'm not sure how well a parody defense would hold up. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 04:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd put this squarely under parody - this is not a copyright concern at all, (Time magazine can neither copyright the word "Time" or the color red), but rather a trademark issue, and the rules for parodying trademarks are much looser: there is no commercial use; no possible negative effect on the sale of the trademark-holder's goods; and precious little likelihood that this will be interpreted as a Time Magazine endorsement of Misplaced Pages. No legal problems arise here unless we fairly clearly make some false claims of sponsorship, endorsement, or affiliation. BDAbramson T 05:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw this image I assumed that it was a genuine Time front page and might qualify when used appropriately under fair use. I now see that it's a clear and pretty serious copyright infringement (magazine front page formats are subject to copyright law just like any other artwork) and that it's probably an infringement of various TIME Inc.trademarks, too. There is no indication in the image that it is a parody. This must be deleted immediately and I'm doing so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I know of various copyright laws - is it not legal and perfectly normal to be able to use a company's logo in a parody? You don't have to state it is specifically a parody though and in the context that it has been placed it is apparent that it is a parody. -localzuk 10:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, clearly parody, not used in an abusive manner. Can we not let our paranoia grip us too fiercely? On the other hand, fun's over, move along, delete it and get back to work. Either way... get back to work. - brenneman 11:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed "time" from the image, this image is now 100% free. achilles 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Ubena

Could someone do somthing about this guys edits. I'd do it myself but it would look like revenge. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Levine2112 and personal attacks

I request that some personal attacks and malicious statements be removed from the talk page at Talk:Quackery. Specifically, the statements here. Thank you. --DocJohnny 12:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bumpusmills1, legal threats, and the FBI

Bumpusmills1 (talk · contribs) has posted a threat to his user page that "Those who vandalize any pages here or anywhere I frequent are in line to be reported to the FBI." Apparently he has already reported at least one such user. In my dealings with this user, in which I attempted a copyedit of the article Cherokee society, Bumpusmills was very protective and several times violated WP:OWN and WP:NPA. I left the conflict and later admins stepped in, but he has continued to threaten other users who edit "his" pages. Please take a look at this users legal threat. If any diffs are needed, please ask for them. Thank you. — Scm83x 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You missed Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. -- Longhair 15:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he may have to worry about the FBI having a word with him about wasting their time with silly reportings of people altering his userpage...-localzuk 15:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I sort of recused myself from talking to him, as he stopped listening to me. I know that there is active policy to block users involved in legal cases from further editing until legal issues are resolved. I do not think that this is what the user wants, and I'm reasonably sure that if he were made aware of that policy, he would stop. Again, I post this here because Bumpusmills1 thinks of me as a "lad" and therefore brushes off anything I say to him. — Scm83x 15:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bumpusmills1 thinks of me as a "lad" and therefore brushes off anything I say to him. There may be a reason for this that is unforseen by Scm83x. In the ways of my people one must earn respect. Respect nor trust is handed out freely. I do not think I've earned his respect nor the respect of anyone else here since my arrival. He feels unappreciated due to my calling him a "lad". Well his photo attests that he is a mere "lad" compared to some of us, right? I am not calling him "lad" out of spite or being mean spirited. It is a mere fact. One day he'll appreciate being called a "lad". I know when someone calls me a "lad", and it is usually somebody over age fifty, it makes me feel good inside. As one grows older perceptions change and things of this nature do not carry the same weight they once did. We all have too learn. An elder family friend said too me when I was a mere "lad" of sixteen, "A fellow never gets too old too learn something new. When you get too old to learn then it's time to die." It seemed confusing to me way back then, but now I find it profoundly true. So I'll overlook these comments by Scm83x and attribute them too his being a fine "lad". He does a great job as an editor. I'm sincerely glad he caught my seemingly threatening statements so I can eliminate them from my userpage. It is most appreciated. Wado, --Bumpusmills1 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the active harassment he's received on and off Misplaced Pages -- including having had his personal information posted here, and getting packages at his parent's house. (See User:Bumpusmills1/Archive_1#Deleted_and_recreated_user_page_to_remove_personal_info_from_history. So, in fact, the FBI actually might have something to get their teeth into were the local SAIC having a slow week. You lads had nothing to do with any of that, right? --Calton | Talk 16:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This issue is separate from the off-Wiki harassment that he has received. He has now threatened to report anyone who vandalizes any of his pages. This language is very sketchy to me. Calton, I do not appreciate the implication that I was involved in his off-Wiki harassment. If you would take a look at these diffs ( and ), you can see that we settled our differences a long time ago. — Scm83x 16:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to over-react about this. Bumpusmills1 is merely a newbie who is still learning Misplaced Pages guidelines and manners. He was targeted for some threatening actions over the last week and is a little freaked by it so has possibly overreacted himself. However, when I looked at his user page I didn't see the comment you refered to. Perhaps he already removed it. Anyway, I'd let it go and not sweat it. He's also made vast improvements in how he relates to other editors and I imagine if people would stop threatening him he'd mellow out even more.--Alabamaboy 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How many times do we let a new user break the rules under the guise of "he didn't know"? He has been warned about all of these things before. This has become a repeating pattern. The problem lies in his views that he owns any article that he edits, so he attacks those who make changes adverse to his vision for the article. Some of these users bite back. Neither is warranted in their actions, but I think if we could stop the root cause, Bumpus's views on article ownership, then the attacks would stop. The threats are still on his user page under "Bogus Users" and "My Userboxes". For a static link, use this. — Scm83x 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Scm83x, have you considered RfC? -- Essjay · Talk 17:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Has Bumpus caused any trouble over article ownership or edits in the last few days? I pointed out to him Misplaced Pages policies on how to act and edit and he thanked me, said he hadn't been aware of them, and (to my knowledge and the evidence I've seen) worked to improve the way he behaves. I now see the comments you refer to on his user page and will mention them to him. Odds are once he is aware that this is not permitted, he will remove them. He admits to being new and is working to learn things. An RfC is overkill for a situation like this. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now raised these issues with the user. I suspect he'll respond favorably to them but if not we can go from there. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting fairly tired of hearing about this, as with Scm83x. If he doesn't get his act together promptly, he's simply asking for a very long block. Ambi 06:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm now in compliance. It's best too let a sleeping dog sleep. Scm83x and myself are now in contact and working out our minor differences. As for who has been behind vandalism on my userpage and talkpage or elsewhere on wikipedia, I have a pretty good idea what external organization they belong too. Out of compliance to wiki-regulations I will not mention it here. --Bumpusmills1 12:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this another W-on-Wheels?

]. Apologies if it's not. Sbz5809 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to block in case it's a sleeping vandalism account, and then suggest the user pick a different user name. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This user already placed an explanation of his user name on his user page. I think it's kinda hasty to just ban him outright. — Scm83x 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the block was hasty. I reversed it as soon as I saw WoWjUnKiE7206's assurance on his user page, which unfortunately did not appear on the user's contributions list until after I'd done the block. User SWD316 has also lobbied me, as he knows this user personally. Given this assurance, I trust that the user will prove a good Wikipedian. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reminder, people...don't block because you THINK it's WoW. If it's obvious, make the block...if not, we can run the risk of it attacking. Curps' bot will block them very quickly anyway. Ral315 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gazzle9

I just blocked this user with no warning for 24 hours due to posting sockpuppet notices on both User:Sam Vimes and myself . I know I should have got someone else to do it but that's the second time I've been attacked this morning. Could someone else review it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the user's contributions it's clearly a sockpuppet. Nobody uses {{sockpuppet}} on their first edit. Rd232 17:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jamal al din = Zephram Stark/Peter McConaughey

Jamal al Din is a transparent sock of Peter/Zephram, per CheckUser, and has been blocked accordingly. Please keep an eye out - the style of interaction is pretty obvious once you're attuned to it - David Gerard 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added the sockpuppet id to the user page. Demi /_C 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Eww. Ok, right to block.

However in itself there was nothing wrong with telling people about a vote. The suggestion to "put it on the village pump" is pretty ridiculous, as lets be honest; who apart from really dedicated people and admins read "the pump"? --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

People who are going there to ask something. --cesarb 01:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

People who watch the pump and read the edit summaries, in case something there interested in comes up. -- SCZenz 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we also get a sock check on User:Fred Veraxamin? He picked up right where Zephram/Jamal left off. Carbonite | Talk 03:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On looking through that user's contributions, and his forged talk page, he is fairly clearly malevolent. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I've blocked him indefinitely as an account created solely for trolling. The account was created less than two hours after Jamal al Din was blocked. Carbonite | Talk 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, is it fine for Carbonite to be blocking these editors, despite the fact that he is an involved party? Shouldn't a neutral Admin block, perhaps at Carbonite's request? Just curious. --LV 03:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Admins are expected to block sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. It's only a tiny bit unseemly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block Jamal, that block was actually made while I was offline. The actions of Fred Veraxamin (forging talk page, continuing same message) showed it was obviously Jamal/Zephram. He was in the middle of disruption, so I blocked indefinitely (not necessarily infinite). If any admin believes Fred Veraxamin isn't a sockpuppet, let's discuss. Otherwise let's put "Getting it right" above "Following procedure". Carbonite | Talk 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • (How odd! My edit slipped in above yours, rather than giving me a conflict notice.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I feel the spirit of the policy is better than the actual words of the policy sometimes, but we have to remember that blocking people that you are involved with in a disagreement can be a serious problem. I don't doubt he is a sock, I just think that since other Admins are around, it wouldn't have hurt to just give one of them a holler to do the dirty work. Oh well, what's done is done. This case seems fine, but let's just not let this become too common. --LV 03:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in general, but I do think there's a significant difference between blocking for behavior and blocking a sockpuppet of an already banned user. In this case the actual identification was trivial (Fred Veraxamin was first spotted by Christopher Parham and I concurred that it was Jamal/Zephram) and thus it wasn't really much of a judgement call. But you make a good point that, when possible, neutral admins should block. Carbonite | Talk 04:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewfro

There seems to be a minor edit war/revert war going on at Jewfro, with one user and an IP contributor who may or may not be the same user reverting to reinsert PoV content. Extra neutral eyes would be welcome. My attention was called to thsi on the help desk. I have placed a msg on the talk page of the relevant user. DES 00:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have nominated that page for deletion as a neologism. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thumbshot revert war

213.8.83.40 (talk · contribs) looks due for a block. pfctdayelise 05:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure

I ran across User:Jim Apple advertising this betting pool on when deeceevoice would leave Misplaced Pages. My immediate inclination was to speedy it and block the user for disruption, however, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, assume good faith, and give him the opportunity to llist it for speedy deletion himself. I left a note to that effect on the user's talk page, further indicating that if he chose not to, I would list it on MFD and bring the issue here to discuss whether a disruption block was in order. He did indeed choose not to have it deleted, and true to my word, I have listed it on Mfd (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure) and am now raising the issue here to get input from other admins as to whether a disruption block is in order. Given the controversey surrounding deeceevoice's RfAr, I am astounded that a user would do this, but further, I'm astounded that a user would disregard two administrators (Jmable also spoke up against it) protesting against it and pushing for him to have it speedy deleted. I have been online since 6AM this morning (it is 1:30AM now) so I am going home to bed, but I leave this situation in the capable hands of my fellow administrators and rest assured that you will see it solved. -- — Essjay · Talk 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have speedied it as an attack page. If anyone wants to put it up on WP:DRV, fair enough, but that page was simply unnaceptable. -- SCZenz 06:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The page was recreated immediately after the deletion (my guess is that it was an edit conflict, not a deliberate recreation) so I have re-speedied it to maintain SCZenz's speedy. — Essjay · Talk 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1. It wasn't a betting pool; there was no betting involved.
2. I am shocked that you're shocked that someone would disagree with two administrators at one. I'm sure it has happened thousands of times before, and will happen thousands of times again. Jim Apple 08:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • It's three administrators now (and I'm sure that more will join me). We're telling you that you're breaking the policy on civility and probably the one personal attacks, and that you're being a dick about it (and yes I'm being a dick by calling you a dick). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Make it four (and yes I know that Tony Sidaway and I agreeing on something probably heralds the end of the world).Geni 12:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With me, that makes it five (or 4.5, depending on how you see newbies). --Deathphoenix 12:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My comments are on WP:DRV. This is particularly nasty. Whatever you think of Deeceevoice she is a very useful contributor on subjects Misplaced Pages has otherwise poor coverage. This page treats her serious concerns over the way she's been treated in a flippant manner. No-one deserves that. In other words, make it five. David | Talk 12:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that she has contributed much. That's why I stated that I want her to stick around. I diddn't mention think racism on Misplaced Pages, so I certainly couldn't have treated it flippantly. -- Jim Apple 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim Apple clearly intends to cause provocation; his perpetual passive-agreessive bewilderment notwithstanding. El_C 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You admit that its wrong to call me names, but you do it anyway? I think that's more abusive behaviour than disagreeing with admins. -- Jim Apple 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

well, I agree with the deletion, but give the guy a break. What he did was not "POINT" since he didn't disrupt anything. What he did was not a PA, it amounted to saying "I don't like you" I suppose, and there are many ways of saying that, many of them frequently seen on talkpages. What he did was poor wikiquette. We tell him we consider it poor wikiquette and delete or blank the page. Dcv is not exactly an unproblematic user herself, what with the insistence on keeping the Nazi vandalism featured on her page. Again, well done deleting the page, but making a "disruption" case out of this is a little over the top imho. I would be grateful if the disruptive editors I have to deal with would confine themselves to their own userspace :) dab (ᛏ) 13:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You lost me. El_C 13:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

He's saying there was no personal attack. -- Jim Apple 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying Jim didn't "disrupt the functioning of wikipedia", and he didn't call dcv names to her face. He was not being nice, and should just accept that he was scolded for disregard of wikiquette, keep the page deleted and move on. dab (ᛏ) 13:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's his insistence on the right not to be nice that has me concerned. The issue is basically settled in my view, but I do kind of wish he'd stop harranguing me and Tony about citing m:Don't be a dick to him. It seems rather applicable. -- SCZenz 14:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to review the situation, and the user's respective contributions again, dab. El_C 14:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no right not to be nice on Misplaced Pages. You are highly encouraged to be extremly nice, and to avoid any possible meanspiritedness, especially when it is pointed out to you. At anyrate, no good will come of the page, its deleted, there is massive concurance, lets move on.--Tznkai 17:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-protection for the Batman page

Hey... over at the Batman page, we're having to revert the same changes being made from an anonymous user changing his IP several times a day. It's not vandalism, although the page gets a reasonable amount of that; it's just bad content, and the editor is being REALLY insistent about putting it in.

Not sure if this is the appropriate remedy to request, or the appropriate place to request it. Simnel 10:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the history of this page, and the contributions from anonymous editors seem substantial. I have not found any effort to discuss the recent versions that have been reverted. Semi-protection is a drastic step. I'm hoping some dialogue can happen first, and it won't be necessary. -- Samuel Wantman 11:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thumbshot and User:213.8.83.40

An anonymous IP user keeps adding a link and unverified information to the Thumbshot article in spite of several editors asking them not to until it can be verified, reversing reverts to their edits (in gross violation of WP:3RR, in spite of several warnings posted on their talk page, at least one block, and, perhaps most troubling, continues to edit other people's comments on Talk:Thumbshot.

Please help.

Wrathchild 13:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I got a heads-up on my talkpage regarding this IP. I have blocked it for a week for repeated spamming. If s/he returns after one week, I'll have no objection to blocking it again immediately. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A Comment Or Two

There are a few users who are highly concerned that I'm not learning wiki-ways or learning "how" to be in compliance with wiki-procedures, rules, etc. I am learning "how" to be in compliance. I've been here a month now and I've endured harassment, vandalism, and nit-picking; some of which I brought upon myself. However, some of it was not provoked in any way. There are some users who'd really like too throw me out the door and slam it shut behind me. Many of these same users I've had absolutely no contact with whatsoever until the last couple of days. I only contacted these same users in the form of a rebuttal. I realize few here have "any" respect for me as a person and I'm getting fairly accustomed too it. Do I like it? I don't like it at all, but there isn't anything I can do about it either. I have my own standard of beliefs, opinions, and views; as we all do, and I've learned too do my best too keep them out of the loop here at wikipedia. It isn't at all easy for a person as opinionated as myself too curb this. I feel I'm handling it and learning diplomacy, which I've admitted has eluded me all of my life. Some have over-reacted and are in the worry mode. Stop worrying about me for a while. I'm getting the knack of things. Wado (Thank you in Cherokee), --Bumpusmills1 13:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of process deletion of {{User GWB}}

{{User GWB}} is currently being discussed on WP:TfD. The consensus there seems to be inclining to "Keep". Current policy on WP:CSD limits speedy deletion for attack pages to articles. Policy discussions for extending this to tempaltes are ongoing at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Policy discussion on user boxes in general are ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userboxes. In spite of the above, User:Tony Sidaway speedy deleted {{User GWB}}. I undeleted this, and he re-deelted it. i am not going to get into a wheel-war by redeleting it. i think this deletion is out-of-process, and given the various policy discussions no ongoing, very unwise. I call your attention to Misplaced Pages:Process is Important. I ask for the views of other admins and non-admin wikipedians on this matter. DES 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Current policy on WP:CSD limits speedy deletion for attack pages to articles. Now, that's absurd - if it wern't for WP:POINT, I'd immediately go and create 20 templates saying something unjustifiably unplesant about DES - which, since they are not articles, would then all sit on TfD for a week. Policy is a vacumm here, and process is an ass. Our inclusionist deletion policy was designed to prevent the deletion of encyclopedic material. The process to decide what was encyclopedic. Both are now being used byy a vocal minority to keep things that that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia. So we are breaking new ground in developing precidents for writing the encyclopedia, in response to new situations. That's where IAR pioneering comes into its own. Personally, I'd say, delete all non-constructive templates from the template space (userfy if you must), but certainly let's delete all the ones that disparage, divide and ask for disruption. --Doc 18:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course such an action would be a violation of WP:NPA and lead to other consequences. But if you feel you must, go right ahead. DES 18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why we need a vote to recognize the obvious. I fully support the speedy deletion of attack templates of any sort. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

comes into its own, huh? <g, d&r> --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

And I forgot to say: fuck process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Next time, remember! El_C 18:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to DESiegel for not pressing the point of undeletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Enganging in a wheel-war will not persuade anyone of the value of my arguemments. Even if I should win, it would not help the project nearly as much as it would hurt it. That is the exact point of WP:PI. And when you say "fuck process" IMO you also hurt the project, even if you intend it as a joke. I urge you to consider if you are really helping the project by deleting this with no more justification than WP:IAR. Persue the various policy changes listed above -- they needn't take all that long if consensus is realy as wide as you seem to think -- and if it isn't, then perhaps summery deletion wasn't sucha good idea anyway? DES 18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing Misplaced Pages:Process is Important (authored by you two days ago) to our attention. Are you proposing it as policy/guideline? El_C 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Since it doesn't really incluide a rule of action it is perhaps not suitable for policy status. I hope it will become a basic philosophy statement adhered to by many here, and i intend to ask all future admin candidates to react to it. Perhaps in time it may becoem soemthing of a counterpoint to WP:IAR. Do you think it would be suitable for guideline status, given the way it is framed -- assuming it got sufficient suport to be considered, of course. DES 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I do hope that all in this disccion will read it and react to it on its talk page or in some other appropriate forum, but that is up to each of you. Currently i have categorized it as a wikipedia essay.

Encyclopedia. Say it with me: en-cy-clo-pe-di-a. Now, go work on it. android79 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to DESiegal: I'm sure that it says lots of useful things, but getting policy consensus out of a situation like this tends to require boldness. Not recklessness, just enough balls to take actions that focus attention on the issues at hand. Parts of our bureacracy have been clogged in recent days by some rather determined vote packing, but things are beginning to thaw and a consensus is beginning to form on what kinds of template, at least, are so unacceptable that they can be speedied. It's far from complete but it was significantly jump-started by the speedying of an anti-scientology template, quite outside process, followed by the out-of-process speedying of 15 more templates and an associated redirect, which have been discussed in some depth on WP:DRV and in outline principle on the talk page of WP:CSD. So we've got a bold proto-process in place, with an approval mechanism in operation and some embryonic policy formation on the back burner. Plenty of consultation going on, no reason for anybody feel left out. In my opinion, this is a pretty good way to cook. Where else do you think our original processes came from, if not by these darwinian methods? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with darwin. What it does have to do with, is that templates such as that are harmful and need to be kept in userspace (if that). Making templates for userboxes in that capcity is unneeded, and you can just as easily make userboxes that are confined to your own userspace. -MegamanZero|Talk 19:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Translation: I wanted to delete it, so I did. I know what's best. Whenever skirting that fine line between disruption and boldness, it helps to invoke how slow and unreliable deliberation can be. P.S. I've got balls. Color me thoroughly unimpressed. --Fastfission 19:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• It is sometimes true that reasoanble policy consensus can come out of "act out-of-process; descuss; formulate and codify resulting views" it is also true that much of current wikipedia policy arose in something like this way. It is my view that the act out-of-process step is not needed, adn is ultimately more harmful than helpful -- and that this is more tue the larger the scope of the action -- doing this to a single widely noticed template may get discussion going, while doing it to every trmplate to which the final policy might apply seems like an attempt to win the debate by forstalling it. So does re-deleting after undeletion, IMO, particualrly when the undeltion was accompanied by multiple comments indicating why users felt the deletion to be a bad idea. i accept that Tony had no intent to forstall the debatge, and he is pusing policy proposals, for which i applaud him. I wish he weren't quite so ready to be bold on deletion issues, WP:BOLD by its terms refers to editing issues. Perhaps I am wrong, but I disagree with this approach, and i think in the long run it will hurt us if it becomes common -- indeed unless it becomes rather rarer than it has been. DES 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• It shouldn't have been deleted out of process. That's what we have it for. I don't think the Misplaced Pages:Snowball clause would operate here, as there is a good chance of the consensus being keep. Izehar 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • NOTICE Someone has recreated this personal attack/troll template, please redelete it, and ban the person for recreation of a deleted page, also please delete and protect the talk page, they're using it as a staging area for an anti-bush campaign--Nn-user 19:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • NOTICE User:Nn-user's first edit was to an AFD page. The account was created today and he has both acted disruptively and shown a level of knowledge of Misplaced Pages arcana very unusual for a bona fide new user. I've requested a sockcheck. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't yet have a process for dealing with attacks that are made in template space and mostly deployed in user space. Except the one that I've been developing, with much cooperation from others, on WP:DRV, the talk page of WP:CSD, and here. And we seem to be well on our way. Do feel free to join in. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby removing POV tags

Can someone please block User:KDRGibby for repeatedly removing a POV tag from a section of Wal-Mart? He refuses to discuss POV issues with the section, and he won't even let people tag it as POV. This is disruptive editing. Diffs:

I think the whole "response to criticism" section is original research which I'd like to remove, but I'm currently trying to engage in discussion with Gibby. Rhobite 18:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Created Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser

I've created Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser as a central point of contact for requesting sockpuppet checks. I'd appreciate it if someone would go and spiff it up and link it in to the administrative resources boxes or whatever we do for that sort of thing as I'm not very much up on those procedures. Thanks. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:66.59.105.22

Could a checkuser search (Kelly Martin, are you still around?) be used to detirmine if this IP is coming from a school or institution? The vandalism pattern of the IP seems to be juvenile in nature. Today its been directed towards Malcolm X. Theres a bunch of admins watching that page, but I would appreciate some direction before a block is instated (the user has been warned, by User:Hall Monitor). Thanks, in advance! Hamster Sandwich 20:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't need CheckUser for this: this tool shows it coming from West Perry School District, wherever that might be. android79 20:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

West Perry Township, Pennsylvania. ] 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Thank you very much! Hamster Sandwich 20:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui

User Siddiqui has twice deleted the link from the 'islam' page and the 'criticism of islam' page, once on 01:59, 9 January 2006 calling his edit 'spelling error' and again 18:50, 10 January 2006 calling his edit 'minor edits'. + Is this really acceptable? Any page should have criticism of the subject discussed, and it is already a concession to relegate criticism of islam to a different page. + The link seems necessary to lend any objectivity to the 'islam' page. + 129.12.200.49 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I posted a msg on User talk:Siddiqui cautioning him not to do that sort of thing again. DES 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This user has also removed referenced text in various articles without any explanation on the talk page or in the edit summary. and other examples. He seems to delete anything that is not according to his pov. --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 13:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

User:Nn-user registered today and immediately immersed him/herself into a variety of edit wars, including warring over various template policy issues. His very first edit was to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Economics of fascism. He has also violated WP:CIVIL by calling other users liars for disagreeing with him. His behavior is very unusual for a newbie; can someone see if he is a sockpuppet of an established user? I have a suspicion about who it might be, but no way to back it up. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make this request on Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser. ] 20:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to pick on you (since you weren't the first to do it) but it's just funny that there's something about a new centralized CheckUser thingy three headings above. :-) android79 20:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I posted the request on that page. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

White Rose Society

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The White Rose Society (website) has turned into one big flame war with all kinds of depravity and voter fraud and you name it. It is impossible to sort out, because it's under constant change, however if somebody feels like sorting it out, please do so. Dr Debug 21:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that most of these votes must be considered invalid. They're not signed, and it reaks of sockpuppetry. I suggest not counting all of the unsigned votes and continue the deletion process, with a reminder above stating votes must be cast with signitures. Just my opinion. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On the AfD's talk page, 67.171.38.176 (talk · contribs) has accused BenBurch (talk · contribs) of meatpuppetry. . The user has only ever contributed to the AfD discussion. Aecis 21:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I was tempted to block User:Freepersh8truth (only contribs are to the above AfD "discussion") for their username. Jkelly 21:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion is pretty seriously bad. I am also tempted to semi-protect it. The personal attacks are really beyond the pale. Jkelly 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just went in, and deleted every vote that was un-signed, including the personal atacks, I also placed instructions for furthur voting precedure. I also looked at the history, and all the IP's involved may need blocking. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yikes... would it be proper to SemiProtect an Afd? --LV 21:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. But I see the IP's are persistant- they need a block to calm them down. I also left a notice on the person's talkpage who oringinally put it up for deletion, as they didn't follow procedure and state their concensus why they wanted it to be deleted. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't do it. I have no idea if it would be "proper" or not, but I suggest that we don't want to be hosting that "conversation". Jkelly 21:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. When the IP's and "anonymous users" revert their attacks and such on to the page, just delete them. They need a block, however. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just done major surgery on the AfD page, and have blocked one repeated reverter for 24 hours. Whew. User:Zoe| 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In general i think that deleting commetns on an afd, even unsigned ones, is a mistke. Atrib them using {{unsigned}} and leave appropriate comments on any that are from logged in but new users. Trrue persoanl attacks could be removed, but I think thot ought to be the limit. DES 22:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

North American Man/Boy Love Association

There is a growing suspicion that the page has been infiltrated by right wing Free Republic activists. FR had already named the article as one to target for alleged liberal bias. A Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transexual category was added to the page unilaterally though there was no consensus. (Now in a vote the insistence of those responsible is that a super consensus is used to overturn the addition, even though questions arise not just over accuracy but whether it fits the categorisation guidelines. One user appeared and edited no other articles until the fact that he curiously appeared and focused on no other article, at which point he suddenly developed interests elsewhere. The particular user had engaged in a series of homophobic attacks on the talk page.

An attack has no appeared on their page and followed through here attacking someone they claimed is "a pro-homosexual administrator who guards the NAMBLA article to hide the fact that this group of pedophiles is homosexual."

Among the comments on the Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association from the user who suddenly appeared are

• Attraction to sexually mature teens under the age of consent just makes one a "Fag with Good Taste," not a pedophile.

Two users seem to have appeared in or around the date of the Free Republic stuff and in one case primarily edit the NAMBLA page, one almost exclusively do so, using extreme and provocative comments. The first edit by one of the two, at least using a usernic, was curiously to the name of the admin this page had attacked. It all seems rather fishy. FearÉIREANN\ 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to reject your, uh, interesting conspiracy theory here, Jtdirl, but I'm not conservative, I'm not a homophobe, and I've never seen those pages you linked until now. In fact, I argued against the category at first, but then I was (rightly) put in my place by Corax and Freakofnurture.

I also find it ridiculous that you could even fathom Hermitian's "Fag with Good Taste" comment as an insult. // paroxysm (n) 21:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, not everybody who disagrees with you is a part of some large conspiracy. I've been editing the article in question for over a year. The article in question remained peacefully classifed in Category:LGBT organizations for over eight months before this ordeal, contrary to your characterization that it was recently "added unilaterally." Quite frankly, I am tired of the insinuations and outright accusations that I have setup sock puppets, that I am not making my contributions in good faith, and that I am a part of some conservative cabal seeking to attack gays. In fact, I am gay. But I suppose these are the kinds of low tactics to which one must stoop if one does not have tenable arguments to propose in support of one's positions. Corax 06:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

GWB again

What is this, the amazing blinking template? :) I personally agree that this should be deleted but let's try to convince people why instead of trying to settle it with a boxing match. Haukur 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Coudldn't we let the TfD go to copnclusion? if the TfD result is "Keep" will that automatically justify undeletion? if not, why not? DES 22:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I will go now and vote for its deletion. - Haukur 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have undeleted it. The decision belongs with the TfD and nowhere else. unilaterally deleting something while votes are going on is an outrageous abuse of power. Unlike there are legal reasons why it must be deleted immediately or it is seriously deficient in a major way (eg, major error in formating, copyright issues, etc) a template should not deleted until a vote has been taken. It is disturbing that people would try to in effect highjack a vote by deleting a page in advance. It needs to be there for users to see it when voting. Deleting it before a vote has concluded is a gross abuse and little short of vandalism. FearÉIREANN\ 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have to question the motivations of the people who recreate the template without bothering to restore the tfd tag that should be accompanying it. User:Zoe| 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the deleted category: Category:Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush. IMO this refusal to go through the proper channels is unacceptable. Izehar 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the category but removed the subsed copies of the suer box from the category page as provocative and not the sort of thing we normally include in category pages. DES 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see that User:Tony Sidaway has just deleted this for the fourth time in less than 24 hours -- really this is a bit much IMO. DES 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Tony Sidaway for 24 hours for violating the 3RR on Template:User GWB by deleting it 4 times within the same 24 hour period . If anyone disgarees, feel free to unblock him. Izehar 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was taking only the sencond and subsequet deletes to be a "reversion" and so I warend him but felt that he was at but not over the limit. I'm not sure of policy on deletes, so i won't unblock. DES 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have had to undelete the page for a second time. This is absurd. What the hell has got into a handful of users??? It seems that we have an outbreak of popeitis, with some users deciding that they, and not the community, can decide on the issue. Some people may believe that the pope is infallible. But few people that admins posess the same ability. Frankly if vandals behaved the way some have behaved in unilaterally deleting templates I'd have no hesitation in banning them. I'm surprised and disappointed that Tony and Zoe have stooped to such behaviour. I expected better. FearÉIREANN\ 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Incredible. Sidaway came back after being unblocked by another user and did it again. I've blocked him again. Because I don't think the above block was an actual breach of 3RR (he had done 3RRs to an original move, not four) I've only made it a 24 hour block. As I did the block I'm not doing the undelete. Someone else if they wish can do that. After his antics tonight Sidaway has plummeted in my estimation. He grossly abused his position to highjack a vote. I have lost count of the number of what were IMHO stupid decisions on the TFD but highjacking a vote by preempting it like that is a big no-no. FearÉIREANN\ 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it isn't his first time to screw around with templates for deletion. Look at this! What the hell is he up to? Does he actually think tampering with templates mid TfD is acceptable behaviour? I'm flabbergasted at his antics. FearÉIREANN\ 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

just let it sit through tfd. it's a userspace template, ffs, I agree these are getting out of hand, but so far nobody objected to users voicing their political leanings on their own userpages. take a step back, people, edit-warring admins is a sad sight, but why Tony would jeopardize his adminship over a userspace template saying "we don't like GWB" is beyond me. Everybody is still free to say "I don't like GWB" on their userpages, manually, so what's the point. The problem with these templates (as with the "Wikipedians who" categories) is that they are not cleanly separated from article namespace. That's a generic problem unrelated to the GWB case. dab (ᛏ) 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. And guess what! It was deleted again, now by someone else. *sigh* FearÉIREANN\ 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

At last count, after several more iterations all 'round, TS unblocked, and template restored. I've filed a 3RR report rather than contribute to the admin-warring further, after my initial undeletion. Alai 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No hassle. The blocks didn't have effect for more than a few minutes and I hope you've now all toddled off to WP:DRV, the talk page of WP:CSD and er, well. edits here earlier today, where you'll find that I was acting on a substantial consensus to delete attack pages. Now we're all in the loop we go through more iterations.

Currently there is a page at Template:User GWB but it doesn't attack Bush and it doesn't incite vandalism on our article about Bush. It only disparages vandalism of that article, which is what the original author claims it was intended to do all along. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"no hassle" to you, maybe, but another blow to the battered "admins should behave above par" principle. "I was acting on substantial consensus" is never an excuse for edit warring, let alone 3RRvio, since if you were, there would have been plenty of other people willing to do the job for you. (un)delete once, or twice at most, then step down and let others deal with it. I don't care about the stupid template, just show some countenance when using admin privileges. dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of Anakinskywalker and Hipocrite over University of Ottawa

I'm reporting this here because I just blocked Anakinskywalker and Hipocrite 24 hours for violating 3RR and editing disruptively. Hipocrite is dissatisfied with his block and I wanted to submit it for others' review.

Anakinskywalker and Hipocrite both violated 3RR on the University of Ottawa article, however Hipocrite reverted himself on his last edit . I blocked him anyway because I don't believe the revert was done in good faith; his edit summary read "oops, one might argue I just violated 3rr. I'll wait for AS to get blocked then fix the article again." Anakinskywalker is a relatively new user and as I have watched their dispute, it's my opinion that Hipocrite has taken aggressively uncompromising stances , skirted the boundaries of incivility and, in this case, baited Anakinskywalker into taking actions Hipocrite knew would get him blocked. Anakinskywalker has not been an angel either , but my impression is he's significantly newer than Hipocrite.

I welcome other administrators' review. For the record, I've offered to lift both of their blocks if they agree to avoid editing the UO article for the time period in which they would've otherwise been blocked; Hipocrite has yet to respond to this, but has posted this on his talk page. · Katefan0/mrp 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite has agreed, and I'm lifting his block. However, I still welcome comments. Thanks. · Katefan0/mrp 22:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I may have, looking at things with 20/20 hindsight and an imposed 20 minute editing break, flown off the handle. I still believe my conduct to be head and shoulders above the other parties, but clearly not up to the standards I set for myself. There is no need for another adminstrator to review what was clearly a valid block. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record they have both been blocked before for edit warring on the exact same article. Jtkiefer ---- 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For a more accurate record, I have never been blocked before. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-spoke. Anakinskywalker has been blocked before for edit warring and 3RR violations on that page. Jtkiefer ---- 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pandora Rodriguez

I have indefinitely blocked this user as a sockpuppet of banned user Zephram Stark. For more information, see Carbonite's evidence at WP:RFCU. ] 22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have concluded, based on CheckUser evidence, that Bonaparte is running a sock farm. At the very least, Monor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Boxero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets; he appears to be running a botnet or other collection of proxies to appear to be editing from different locations, but slipped up and executed some of each of Monor's and Boxero's edits from his home base instead of the remote proxies. Monor and Boxero should be blocked indefinitely. I leave the determination as to what should be done with Bonaparte to another admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked blocked them all indefinitely including Bonaparte but the block on Bonaparte is only until feedback can be gotten on how long the block should be and I support it being shortened if other admins think so. Jtkiefer ---- 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, votes cast in RfA by the socks:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/KillerChihuahua (Boxero)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Wgfinley (Boxero)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev (Boxero)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Rogerd (2nd) (Monor)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Juro (Monor)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Aecis (Monor)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Husnock (Monor)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev (Monor)

Kelly Martin (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume you meant you've blocked them all, Jtkiefer? android79 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be yes:

01:23, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Bonaparte" with an expiry time of indefinite (malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet)

01:21, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Boxero" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sock of user Bonaparte)

01:21, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Monor" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sock of user Bonaparte)

--Calton | Talk 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget the "coincidence" that Bonaparte was one of the people questioning Kelly Martin's actions. Surely a coincidence that Kelly Martin is here banning people who disagree with her again. I mean, its not like she hates criticism. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive comments or are you simply interested in ad hominems? Carbonite | Talk 01:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac, your repeated attacks on any and all admin actions have become as tiresome as Everyking's. And Everyking eventually had an ArbCom ruling against him. May I suggest you refrain? User:Zoe| 04:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I will soon provide a list of anon accounts which revert warred at several articles following Bonaparte with deceiving summaries like "rv test" or "phrase from the article". I remember Chinese, Taiwanese, Australian and US ip addresses. When Mikkalai (talk · contribs) was reverting them, the newbie admin Ronline (talk · contribs) blocked Mikka and Mikka is still not editing because he seems like lost hope that WP may function.

The matter should be addressed quickly and decisively. If sockpuppet/IP farm used for revert-warring with the goal to provoke the opponents into 3 RR with a "friendly" or just clueless admin from a 3RR board placing a block is simply a fraud, using socks to derail an adminship nomination is a fellony, so to speak. --Irpen 01:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that while I am very happy that Bonaparte is gone (comment below) note that the "friendly admin", Ronline is a principled user. I don't think he was engaged in any game here. If anything, Mikhalai should have been smart enough to not fall into the trap of doing four reverts in three hours; those were not vandalism he was reverting; it may have been propaganda/biased wording, but not vandalism. So, Ronline has nothing to do with Bonaparte's sockpuppetry. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see little reason to unblock Bonaparte. While I haven't particuarly been in a dispute with him, I've been in a position to observe his editing at length, and he has never shown the slightest sign of understanding, let alone following, the NPOV policy. He's been a key part of the recent massive flareup on Moldovan topics, and had made very little, if any, beneficial edits. This sockpuppetry is a new low, though, and I think gives us plenty of justification to block him permanently. Ambi 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, I very much hope so! Running a sock-farm for edit wars plus rigging the votes (and who knows how many other votes ArbCom, WP:RM, surveys were rigged) is definetely enough material to be blocked through an arbitration proceeding but they are way to lengthy. The monster case against another obvious disruptor is going for months and we still do not have a formal ArbCom decision to undo the bad faith redirects, even though the ArbCom votes are leaning to undo them, judging by the votes already cast.

There is a reason why there are words "administrator discretion" in our policies. If this isn't obvious enough, the Misplaced Pages is doomed. We cannot allow the malusers to waste so much time of good-faith editors better spent on improving Misplaced Pages. The amount of aggravation from a couple of users like this one is untenable for the project. --Irpen 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please keep him blocked. A true troll by all measures. I have plenty of evidence (in form of diffs) of personal attacks by this user. Hope he's gone. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My candid reaction would be "good riddance" (in addition to all the above, his idea of "mediation" seems to be more in line with "content dictator"). To be scrupulously fair, though, I doubt he'd be banned forever by the arbcom, so a block of on the order of a month might be preferable. OTOH, he always has the option of an arbcom appeal anyway... Alai 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Good work...I saw that User:Monor had been doing some voting and was newbie, now I'll go over to my nominee for adminship's page and ensure the vote isn't counted as he/she cast a support vote there. Perhaps a note needs to be placed on each Rfa voted on?--MONGO 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• As Bonaparte's self-professed mission is to advance "Great Romanian" agenda on Misplaced Pages and to have myself and Mikka ousted from editing, I'd like to point out this troll's long-standing obssession with his IP. I also suspect Bonaparte's socks are guilty of repeatedly vandalizing my user page: see here and here, for example. It would be nice to know if Bonaparte has a hand in this too... --Ghirla | talk 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Modgrrl

At a quick look User:Modgrrl's edits all seem to be additions of links to . I noticed because of an irrelevant link added to Home! Sweet Home!. Probable spammer, in my view. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Pretty obvious spammer. I recommend a block. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Death metal

As you can see on the article Death metal, there is a user named user:METALGOD42088 who is adding external link to his own death metal site. I follow his link, and its not an extremely popular site. www.ultimatemetal.com/ and www.anus.com/metal/hall/ are extremely popular sites, so I do not feel it is relevant to add his external link to his own page. Now am I in the wrong for removing his link? I forget the term, but I believe it can be found:What_wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Someone please respond what should be the the correct course of action.

(Opes 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Vandalism on Basketball

I'm not entirely sure on how the semi-protection policy works. But Basketball has had a lot of vandalism recently. Is this a candidate for semi-protection? history of 'Basketball' Neonumbers 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! Let's see if that would stop anons from vandalism. Feel free to unprotect it when possible. Cheers -- Szvest 03:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks. Neonumbers 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's probably better if requests like this are made at WP:RFPP. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Morton devonshire

Just wanted to give people a heads-up on User:Morton devonshire. Makes some good edits, but also others, usually with political POV, that border on vandalism. Has been repeatedly warned about the latter, but simply removes warnings from his user talk page. I figured I should mention here, since if you have an issue with him and go to his user talk page you'll have to look at the history to see that he has been warned repeatedly. warning from me, warning from Schuminweb, removal of latter, removal of former. Schuminweb restores both warnings, Morton accuses Schuminweb of being my sockpuppet. Etc. Then later he blanked this. Similarly with warnings from Will Beback and Skywriter. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby vandalizing section-pov tag

I asked about this earlier, did not receive any responses. User:KDRGibby is repeatedly vandalizing Wal-Mart by removing a POV tag from a section which he wrote. He does not engage in substantive discussion, he only says that he has "addressed" complaints so he is entitled to remove the POV tag. I would like an uninvolved admin to talk to him and/or block him for vandalism. I am trying really hard to resist the urge to block him myself.

This is disruptive editing. Diffs:

Also a personal attack: "I'm repeating again for your thick skull"

Yeah, I am going to complain about this until someone looks into it. Is there some sort of admin shortage all of a sudden? Someone deal with this please. Rhobite 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

well, I'm pretty sure this constitutes an edit war, incivil behavior, and possibly general jackassery, but it isn't vandalism. I'll leave him a stern warning.--Tznkai 07:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, having reviewed the history breifly, it looks like this is developing or has been an edit war. While his comments are uncivil, its still an edit war, which generally require more than one particpant, unless someone self-reverts a lot.--Tznkai 07:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not accusing me of doing anything wrong. I'm adding a POV tag to an obviously opinionated section, and attempting to engage in dialogue with Gibby. If Gibby wants, he can revert my attempts to fix the section, that's fine. But I'm not going to let him remove the POV tag as well. POV tags function as a "release valve" for edit wars - the party that is unwilling to revert war (me) can instead add the tag and engage in discussion. They are meaningless if we allow anyone to remove them. The general protocol on Misplaced Pages is that nobody should remove a POV tag until there is consensus that the dispute is resolved. Most admins frown upon removing valid POV tags. Rhobite 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I frown on it as well, I'm simply stating that its not vandalism, and edit wars are bad, whatever they are over. For what its worth, you are correct that it is original research, but thats a verifaibility dispute, not a pov one, but thats semantics. At anyrate, I issued a blanket warning, and first, second, third, and fourth person to sneeze funny gets slapped. I don't see how thats a problem--Tznkai 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

SEWilco's arbcomm restrictions

The Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 places SEWilco (talk · contribs) on probation using the follwing language:

4) SEWilco is placed indefinitely on Misplaced Pages:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Misplaced Pages, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, SEWilco's Probation shall automatically end.

SEWilco has been placing notices on the talk pages of what appears to be everyone who voted against William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) in his previous WP:RFA, notifying them of WMC's current RFA. This appears to be blind spamming - Dunc received this message despite the fact that he had already voted in WMC's second RFA. Since campaigning in RFA's is generally frowned upon, and SEWilco is on probation for regarding to disruptive behaviour (stemming, in part, from his previous campaigning against WMC), I believe that SEWilco has violated the terms of his revert parole. Guettarda 08:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I had already voted when I got SEWilco's message (for the record, I voted support this time around). Letting people know about an RFA is one thing, letting only the people who voted oppose last time is another thing entirely, and quite inappropriate. --Deathphoenix 08:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As I had stated on my Talk page, I misread part of the list and notified some who had already voted. You can see in my Contributions that just after Deathphoenix, after Encyclopedist I noticed the error and backed up to the right part of the list. Some redirected names also show up in nonalphabetical order. (SEWilco 08:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Incidentally, don't you see it as inappropriate to not notify all the parties to a discussion? None of you told me that this discussion was taking place, so I almost was again unable to correct erroneous assumptions being tossed around. (SEWilco 09:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

I certainly agree this is both spammy, and inappropriately partisan. Touch and go whether it rises to the level of "disruption"... Alai 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

concur with the above. I suggest a stern warning and if he reverts his own edits, and/or apologizes, let it go for now.--Tznkai 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Grace Note has now opposed WMC's second RFA, after getting a similar talk page message, and I highly doubt she would otherwise have voted. This is disruption of WP (in this case, an RFA) to make a point (that he opposesthe candidate). Even without ArbCom ruling I'd advise any admin who wants to take this up to block for a WP:POINT. NSLE _(T+C) 08:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're letting your voting POV show. You're only mentioning an Oppose vote and not the two Support votes from two others notified, Calton and Carnildo. I'm not the one interfering with an RFA, as I'm trying to notify everyone equally in the previous RFA who has not participated (and thus does not need notification), and complete notification is what is required for it to not be spamming. El C already has interefered by removing some of the notifications. (SEWilco 08:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

The question is whether Calton and Carnildo knew about WMC's 2nd RFA before they were notified, even if they didn't vote until after they were. In this case I doubt many of the opposers did until you mentioned it. NSLE _(T+C) 08:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't know about the RFA before the Talk Page note. I also voted "Support" in the first one, so if SEWilco was trawling for "Oppose" votes he was doing a bad job of it. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I have no idea how who would have voted. As I already said, I edited out the votes from the lists and sorted the lists alphabetically specifically so I wouldn't know how they had voted. (SEWilco 08:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Try acting upon the facts rather than incorrect interpretations. Guettarda is incorrect. I am notifying everyone who participated in the first RFA but not yet in the second RFA. I edited the list before extracting the names in a way that I can't tell who voted for or against in either RFA. Dunc changed his signature between the two RFAs so "User:Duncharris" does not match between the two RFAs. (SEWilco 08:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

I am unsure whether this is actually a major improvement.Advertising RfAs tends to lead nowhere good.--Tznkai 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, don't always follow RFAr, and was not aware of WMC's candidacy until I saw SEWilco's posts appearing on my watchlist. But I agree that advertising RFAs is a bad idea. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it's disrupting Misplaced Pages to let me know that someone whose RfA I opposed is asking for the mop again. I welcome it. I'd have been annoyed to miss the vote. I welcome the notification of anything another editor thinks I might be interested in. If I don't want to know, I can just ignore it. What's disrupted?

This notion that votes should be semisecret, with only those who happen to stumble on them (or who are emailed or telephoned by interested parties of course) able to vote on them, is bonkers. I've never seen anything even approaching a decent rationale for it. Grace Note 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I request that User:El C's rollback of my notifications be rolled back so the required full notification is restored. You'll note that this discussion has also interefered with my notifications, and should not consider the current partial notifications as a factor. When I have time to continue I'll complete the required full notification. Below is the list. (SEWilco 08:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

User:Actinide
User:Alteripse
User:Audiovideo
User:Axon
User:Bishonen
User:Boothy443
User:Borisblue
User:Calton
User:Carnildo
User:CDThieme
User:Columbia
User:Cortonin
User:Cyberjunkie
User:Dbachmann
User:Derex
User:Dmn
User:DropDeadGorgias
User:Duk
User:Duncharris
User:Ed Poor
User:El C
User:Eloquence
User:Facethefacts
User:Fastfission
User:Flcelloguy
User:Fred Bauder
User:Ghakko
User:Gkhan
User:Grace Note
User:Hadal
User:JamesTeterenko
User:JCarriker
User:Jdforrester
User:Jonathunder
User:Juntung
User:Kaibabsquirrel
User:Karmosin
User:Kelly Martin
User:Klonimus
User:Linzer2002
User:Lucky 6.9
User:Marco Krohn
User:Mel Etitis
User:Mike Halterman
User:Morven
User:MPerel
User:Netoholic
User:Neutrality
User:NoPuzzleStranger
User:Noren
User:P3d0
User:Petaholmes
User:Radiant!
User:Radicalsubversiv
User:Redwolf24
User:-Ril-
User:R.Koot
User:SchmuckyTheCat
User:Scimitar
User:Seancdaug
User:Secretlondon
User:Shem Daimwood
User:SimonP
User:Slrubenstein
User:Stewartadcock
User:Stirling Newberry
User:Stormie
User:Sunray
User talk:Denelson83
User:TimLambert
User:Trilobite
User:Tznkai
User:Unfocused
User:UninvitedCompany
User:Viajero
User:Wikibofh
User:Willmcw
User:Wyss

I'm not quite prepared to do so without further input from others here. Please review my rational on User_talk:SEWilco#WMC_RfA_notices. El_C 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be notified of anybody's RfA. Please don't spam my talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rolling back (unrolling?) the edits makes no sense, since both the original message AND Guettarda's rollback lit up the "New Message" banner, meaning that the recipients have had the chance to see it already. Unrolling (rerolling?) the edits will be redundant. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood and Huaiwei Article Bans for Category:Chinese newspapers

I may be the wrong person to do this but I haven't seen anyone else step up to the plate. Since I'm user banning both of them from this category page I'm hoping I won't be accused of bias. If one simply reviews the edit history of the cat you will see these two going back and forth over the same issue from their ArbCom case that resulted in probation . The warring on this cat has been going on for more than a month. Per that decision I placed the ban notice on the talk page and notified them both. I am sincerely hoping that this ends here, the edit warring has to stop as if another Arb motion wasn't enough to stop them already.

I realize that since I was an advocate for Instantnood this may be seen as bias, I think it's obvious to one looking at the category history but I welcome any reasonable comments on my actions. --Wgfinley 09:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good shoot, and indeed exactly like their Usual Revert War. Of course, I still have the niggle that, as I pointed out when the decision was being finalised, much of this dispute was over catgeories, and those aren't expressly included in the probation (though at least on arbiter has expressed the view that it covers them regardless, by what seems to me some Mysterious Method). Alai 09:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I also support this move. Ambi 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Probable open proxy blocked

I'm blocking 142.150.204.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a probable open proxy. This IP has been used to create multiple user accounts with obviously inappropriate names (full titles of recent movies) and is vandalizing. The IP is at the University of Toronto. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is another in this series. What IP is it using? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to another IP 142.150.205.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I wonder if we're going to have to block all of 142.150.204.0/23. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

SEWilco blocked from commenting on William M. Connolley

Per the consensus of myself, Ambi, and Extreme Unction, SEWilco is blocked from commenting, either directly or indirectly, on the actions of William M. Connolley. This is to be interpreted liberally. This restriction is to last for one year, or until we believe that SEWilco can distinguish what actions are appropriate in respects to other users. Ral315 (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should also say that this block is in conjunction with the Probation placed upon SEWilco per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. Ral315 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all happy about SEWilco's harrasment of WMC, but... is it not the ArbCom which has the power to enforce such sanctions? Please correct me if I have misunderstood something. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Strike that, I see the remedy now. Good. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I object. This flies in the face of freedom of speech. Yes, SEWilco sometimes can be a PITA. Yes, some of his comments and behavior violate WP:Point or WP:AGF or WP:CIV. But there is no reason for a blanket block on a whole class of comments. This message will go to User talk:SEWilco, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 --Stephan Schulz 14:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. See WP:NOT. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bogdanov sock?

Govin (talk · contribs) has been removing links to Bogdanov affair from articles. His second-ever edit was to replace the redirect at Bogdanoff affair with a copy of the page itself. Crossposting this to WP:VIP. --Angr (tɔk) 14:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

PackerFan1000322 blocked indefinitely for uploading copyrighted photos

WikiFanatic blocked PackerFan1000322 indefinitely for uploading copyrighted photos from NFL.com and other websites, after being repeatedly warned to no response. I agree with this block, though since I didn't see it publicized anywhere, I figured it should be posted here. Ral315 (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, he apparently did respond... Ral315 (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards