Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Herschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 19 March 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:50, 19 March 2006 by Herschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

    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)

    Start a new discussion

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links



    User:Syrthiss

    Hello, I have also been blocked. I work here and me and the other secretaries edit the clive bull article and the Iain lee one. This wiki stuff is getting stupid because they don't understand most companies have one email address. Joanne was blocked by this guy on Wednesday and none of us could edit. She put a comment on a discussion page saying she preferred the old version of clive bull and was banned for being a sockpuppet. Is there an offical place to complain, we work for a tv station so that might make them sort this situation out.160.83.32.14 10:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


    this ia an official complaint, please respond to this thread as we have an issue that was not discussed in the link from Syrthiss. We are requesting a remove of the block and a reply to our specific request. it is fair and wiki policy to reply to our comments not just provide a link to tell us we are blocked because he thinks we are one person 84.13.84.22 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)84.13.84.22

    3 contributers to Clive Bull and fans of his program work in the same organisation and we like to edit wiki while we are working. Especially Clive Bull as it is close to our hearts. Is that a crime? Two of my work collegues were banned from wiki simply because they said they didn't like the changes at the clive bull site. Apparently because they all inputted their independant comments at the same time they were banned. That is very unfair. So you just block people on a bandwagon??? How do we make an official complaint? Editors should have been more throurough before banning everyone.

    We received this reply from Syrthiss " I can say with confidence that if your coworkers registered new accounts and contributed positively to wikipedia (ie don't all edit Clive Bull with a remarkably similar style concurrently) that they would be welcomed." He doesn't listen to Clive Bull's program at all yet bans people. A week ago Clive mentioned that he might be gay on air and had a poll from his listeners. He made the comment as a joke but a lot of listeners took it seriously. We LISTEN to the program everyday and have a right to contribute to wiki. If you actually listened to the program you would understand that out posts were not hoaxed but justified. A similar thing happened with Iain Lee recently too. 160.83.73.14 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Hey dude, where are you from? We have been banned too - this guy is just crazy! He is banning everone that disagrees with him!! Can someone please help out all the fans of clive that are getting banned because they are voicing their opinions!!84.13.84.22 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    ... --Syrthiss 20:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    ==we expect a response to our messages, not a link. Debbie was banned for putting something in a discussion page. there is no explanation. ==160.83.32.14

    ==we expect a response to our messages, not a link. Debbie was banned for putting something in a discussion page. there is no explanation. ==160.83.32.14

    Perhaps if you explain your vandalism of the Gibraltar article half an hour ago, whoever blocked 'Debbie' will explain their actiona too? 81.178.78.149 14:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


    You seem to follow us like a bad smell, 6000 use this ip address so I can't be responsible for all of them. Do you actually have a life? Also this is referring to 4 other ip addresses that were banned because they have people who work for companies and they are all being labled sockpuppets. Are you a sock puppet for Syrthiss?

    Misplaced Pages Administrator Jim Duffy (author)

    I made a factual edit to Dr. Duffy's article based on information he had posted to his Misplaced Pages User page here. For whatever reason, User:Jtdirl (Dr. Jim Duffy (author) edited his own article and reversed my edit in contravention of Misplaced Pages principles and as recently reiterated by Jimbo Wales. - Ted Wilkes 02:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    Other editors at Misplaced Pages rely on User:Jtdirl as he has repeatedly stated he is a historian and made assertions on various topics based on a claim to be an "academic" with a PhD degree from the National University of Ireland and that he is a published author (both history and fiction). He asserted these things as a fact for a long time on his User page as seen here. People need and have a right to know if he has lied about his credentials or not as they in fact have depended on his advice based on his asserted qualifications. As a Misplaced Pages Administrator, I'm certain he will want to state that he is or is not Jim Duffy (author). After all, he created the Duffy article. - Ted Wilkes 03:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    To my mind, User:Ted Wilkes is frequently gaming the system. He did this several times in the past. Most people may remember his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. There is much evidence that he is identical with multi-hardbanned User:DW. For a summary of facts supporting this view, see . Wilkes was blocked for one week by administrator Jtdirl. This kind of contribution seems to be his personal reaction. Onefortyone 04:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    "Jim Duffy = jtdirl" is something Skyring was convinced of to the point of obsession, and spread over Misplaced Pages as far as he could - it's not actually documented in the wider world. Jtdirl emails to wikien-l as "Thom Cadden", fwiw - David Gerard 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    But he used to sign as Jim Duffy. Jonathunder 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    David Gerard, thank you for pointing out Jtdirl's use of the alias Thom Cadden because here he calls himself James Duffy and as Jonathunder says, also as Jim Duffy. Jtdirl has a record of edit warring, at times bordering on histrionics to the point where Duffy repeats that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder accused him of "historical revisionism." Here he calls other editors work "nonsense" and "garbage" and adds that: "Sometimes the low standards on Misplaced Pages give me the creeps." - Ted Wilkes 12:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    But that particular bit of editing he was talking about was rather poor, and I don't see how those comments at all relevant here. It's a long way from where you started this thread. Are you going through all of his edits or something? If so, for what purpose? Jonathunder 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Socks of Shran/CantStandYa

    • Previously identified sock accounts/IPs:
    • Sample of articles which have been edited by more than one current account. *Conspicuous edit warring.
    • Editors who have posted warnings or complaints to the current accounts:
    • Proposed action:
    • "Shran" could be a more valued contributor if he would stop using sock puppets to edit war. He has been asked repeatedly by editors including myself to stick to one account. The user, through various accounts, has protested that the IPs are either open to many users, or are used by a "little brother" or "brother-in-law". Despite these claims the edits are clearly the work of one person. The previous set of sock puppet accounts was blocked by me and others in the fall of 2005, and a new set has been created since then. As with previous socks, these accounts have been used to abuse consensus and even to pile-on votes in CfDs and an AfD. As we did before, I propose that we block all the current sock accounts indefinitely while leaving one account open for editing, User:CantStandYa. I'd appreciate hearing input from members of the community on this user and on my proposed action. Are there any other known accounts for the user? Have there been any other editing problems? Are there any other measures, beyond blocking the obvious socks, that we should pursue? How can we get this prolific editor to follow community norms? -Will Beback 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    See also User:Stbalbach/anontexan. -Will Beback 22:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    Due to Stbalbach's research, it appears that this user has also been using a number of dial-up accounts. Short-term range blocks may also be necessary to manage this sock-puppetry. -Will Beback 00:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    I can confirm that many of these accounts are sockpuppets (I simply haven't checked them all). I recommend dealing with the issue by blocking all by the main account, and then selectively sprotecting the articles in question, if IP editing or sockpuppeting continues, but I welcome other input. Jayjg 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the confirmation. Hearing no objections, I will block the registered accounts except User:CantStandYa. I will semiprotect articles on which these IPs are seen to edit in the future. -Will Beback 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    Text copied to Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse for future reference. -Will Beback 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    Possible new sock based on edit pattern and same Texas IP, 70.85.195.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thatcher131 14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    Also 207.44.237.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)Thatcher131 14:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    The editor was clearly edit-warring using several IPs on some articles, so I've sprotected: Ron Karenga, Dick Cheney, Jay Rockefeller, Hillary Rodham Clinton, White cracker, Killian documents, and Pat Tillman. -Will Beback 17:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Ted Wilkes seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned user DW

    To my mind, multiple hardbanned User:NightCrawler alias User:JillandJack alias User:DW is certainly identical with Ted Wilkes. For facts supporting this view, see also . Here is a debunking edit by NightCrawler:

    PLEASE NOTE: I, NightCrawler, have never attacked anybody at Misplaced Pages, the record of contributions will show hard work creating quality non-copyright violated articles to the best of abilities and go about fixing numerous links, inserting full birth/death dates when only a year is listed and then posting that info to the “year” page. Nightcrawler never interferes in others work, ever. However, while NightCrawler never has and never will attack anybody, this User most certainly will respond forcefully to an attack on me through lies, innuendo or other conduct unacceptable to Misplaced Pages policy. Thank you for showing respect to ALL Misplaced Pages users.

    See . This is remarkably near to expressions frequently used by Ted Wilkes in defense of his own misbehavior:

    1. Note that User:Ted Wilkes never inserted statements from less that unimpeachable sources that in fact contradicted these statements by the Crime Magazine personal website etc. Instead, I put them on the Talk page with detailed rebuttal that was ignored by Onefortyone. See .
    2. I am the one who requested this page be protected. For the record, I NEVER removed any link to The Guardian, EVER. Before making such a statement, it is best to check the facts. See .
    3. NOTE: "to engage in prostitution" is TENTH in Webster's order of definition but again, Guralnick never once used the word in that context – ever. See

    Furthermore, both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes contributed to the List of Canadian musicians and to the List of people who died in road accidents. See and . Both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes are interested in the history of motor racing. See , , , and , etc.

    In the past, DW, NightCrawler and JillandJack also contributed to the Bugatti article. See . In addition, DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack and User:Karl Schalike contributed to the List of Quebecers. See . Finally, both Karl Schalike and JillandJack contributed to the List of racing drivers. See .

    I think, this is evidence enough that DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack (and probably Karl Schalike) are identical with Ted Wilkes, especially in view of the fact that they are all logging in from Canada.

    The case of Karl Schalike is somewhat different and confusing though, as he made edits in support of the view that Adolf Hitler may have been homosexual. Ted Wilkes, on the other hand, is frequently deleting contributions which prove that some celebrity stars may have been gay. However, between 29 March 2005 and 2 February 2006, there were only three Misplaced Pages contributions by Karl Schalike, two of which were significantly made in defense of Ted Wilkes: and . Furthermore, this edit by Karl Schalike is certainly an allusion to, if not a parody of, my own contribution here. If Karl Schalike is indeed identical with Ted Wilkes, then it is quite obvious that this user endeavours to game the system by poking fun at serious topics.

    In my opinion, it is high time to hardban Ted Wilkes alias DW for all of his system-disrupting activities. Onefortyone 21:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    Please note: It is WAY TOO LATE for Checkuser at this point, since DW and many of the original sockpuppets lasted edited YEARS ago. --TML1988 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    What about Karl Schalike and Danny B., two other supposed aliases of Ted Wilkes? It is very interesting that a relatively new user has deleted exactly those passages from the Nick Adams article which support the view that Adams had homosexual leanings and reverted the Elvis and Me article to exactly the version preferred by Ted Wilkes. Could it be that User:Danny B. is related to, or identical with, Ted Wilkes? See and . It is certainly no coincidence that both Danny B. and Ted Wilkes contributed to the following Misplaced Pages articles: , , , , , , , , , etc. Their editing interests are very similar, if not identical. Onefortyone 21:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    A checkuser may still be practical. Naturally a checkuser on Ted Wilkes will recover his IP. Angelique, Nightcrawler and the other puppets were all identified by manual checks done by developers (essentially ur-checkuser), and I suspect details of that (the names of the specific ISPs involved) will be in the various talk pages regarding each sock (or perhaps user:Tim Starling and user:Angela, who were involved with said checking will remember). Off the top of my head I seem to remember DW being located in the Great Lakes area of Canada (although I could be entirely wrong on that one). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    I can also remember that DW is located in the Great Lakes area of Canada. I think this information comes from User:Angela who had much experience with DW in the past. Just a question. Are the IPs 66.186.250.106 and 66.61.69.65, which have deleted some of my contributions and denigrated my sources, also logging in from Canada? See , , , and . It should be noted, too, that administrator Jtdirl also thinks that "there is a widespread rumour that Wilkes is our old pal DW. The edits are the same: find one topic and flog it to death by writing every conceivable article about it. Wilkes's big issue is actors. Like DW sports (horse racing) seems a thing with him. If it is clearly established that he is DW he will be banned permanently instantly like all his other sockpuppets and trolls." See . Onefortyone 21:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    It could well be that User:Mayumashu is also identical with Ted Wilkes and DW. He removes what he calls "apparent vandalism of cat links", as Ted Wilkes does. Both have a predilection for starting new Misplaced Pages categories and are interested in sports. Further, Mayumashu is deeply interested in Canadian personalities, for instance, in the "Category:Pre-Confederation Ontario people" or the "Category:Quebecers (city)". Their editing interests are very similar. JillandJack and/or Ted Wilkes and Mayumashu have contributed to the William Lauder (contractor), the John William Dawson, the Roy Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson of Fleet, the Jack Pickford, the Doug Rogers, the Joseph E. Seagram, the Matt Stairs, the Joseph Howe, the Bobby Orr articles and the List of famous duels, etc. See , , , , , , , , , . Onefortyone 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    I have recently been going through the images uploaded by User:JillandJack, and I do notice a number of similarities between them and those uploaded by User:Ted Wilkes. Both have the (bad) habit of not providing sources for images they deem to be in the public domain, e.g. Image:WilliamCMacDonald.jpg (JillandJack) and Image:LoisWeber.jpg (Ted Wilkes). Both often cite image sources without the http: prefix and with a space in the middle of the URL, e.g. Image:NikideSaintPhalle.jpg (JillandJack) and Image:Noah-beery-jr.jpg. Ted Wilkes also often uploads images with an ellipsis in the middle of the source URL: Image:BFbryant.jpg. This was another habit of JillandJack--I've deleted all of these that I've come across, since they effectively had no source, but I'd be happy to find an example if requested. I find it quite plausible that this is another DW clone. Chick Bowen 22:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


    RESPONSE TO User:Chick Bowen:

    Just for the record. Sometimes even very high-volume, quality contributors forget to post the source for images. Misplaced Pages:Civility says we politely ask them for it. However, the tone and content of the above remarks by Chick Bowen makes it appear that he is on a mission to denigrate my contributions. I certainly hope not. Some of his comments show a lack of understanding of both the Internet, Misplaced Pages, and U.S. copyright laws. As an example: Image:WilliamCMacDonald.jpg (JillandJack) – He misled readers on this. The uploader (JillandJack) did not label this image as PD, they labeled it US-PD. A very significant, and I might add, most basic difference. Unless officials pickled the gentleman's body for six years then propped him up for a photo in 1923, then when someone dies prior to 1923, any photo taken of them and published in the U.S. is automatically US-PD. In case Chick Bowen is not aware, the Wiki program automatically links to the article where the image was posted so if one uses their mouse and clicks on it they can see that the 19th century image is of a Canadian/American businessman named MacDonald who departed this earth in 1917. Simply explained, when you are dead prior to 1923, you are dead. Chick Bowen's arbitrary removal of that image demonstrates a lack of knowledge on very basic copyright matters, but worse it shows he takes such action without having studied the issue so as to act based on knowledge, rather than unqualified and unfounded assumptions.

    Next, Chick Bowen's stated: "Both often cite image sources without the http: prefix and with a space in the middle of the URL, e.g." I'm not the only thoughtful editor who does this type of valid sourcing. Google deliberately creates this format and copying the Google label avoids excessive linking on Misplaced Pages pages. Excessive linking has been talked about many times, most recently with respect to dates in biographies etc.

    Next, Chick Bowen's quote that "Ted Wilkes also often uploads images with an ellipsis in the middle of the source". This reality applies to thousands of Misplaced Pages images as at one time the magic ellipsis was automatically generated in place of all blanks by the Misplaced Pages upload program.

    Finally, Chick Bowen stated: "I've deleted all of these that I've come across, since they effectively had no source, but I'd be happy to find an example if requested. " - How does an image effectively have No source? I think we need to follow Misplaced Pages policy, not create it ad hoc.

    A brief look at the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page shows Chick Bowen has had a lot to say on a lot of things. It is certainly commendable that he also has made sixty (60) new articles in the 8½ months he has been here. Nonetheless, I'm going to suggest that Chick Bowen might wish to refrain from impugning a fellow Misplaced Pages editor and with no certification in copyright law he should refrain from deleting images based on that demonstrated lack of knowledge. I cannot speak for the Misplaced Pages uploader (JillandJack) that Chick Bowen refers to, but ALL of my image uploads were made in full compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. However, if out of my 18,888 quality edits at Misplaced Pages and my 677 new articles made within the past 12½ months, I occasionally forgot to paste the source, as I said at the start, all one has to do is use Misplaced Pages:Civility and ask for clarification. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Actually, all of JillandJack's uploads can be speedily deleted under our policy, since JillandJack is a reincarnation of a hard-banned user--I've kept the ones that had clear sources out of courtesy, but I see no reason to keep ones that don't have clear sources, regardless of the content of the image. As for you--I've stated what I observed and you've stated your response. Ultimately, it's not up to me to determine, which is why, as you've noticed, you're not currently blocked. Chick Bowen 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    DW was apparently from Elliott Lake in Northern Ontario, if that helps. I think we had an understanding with DW that if he came back, stopped uploading copyrighted images, and stopped being a troll (as he was as Angelique and JillandJack), and generally edited in such a way that it was not obviously him, he would be allowed to stay. Whatever the problem is here, it doesn't seem that Ted Wilkes should be banned simply for being DW (if he is). Adam Bishop 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    Jimbo Wales has banned user DW and his many sockpuppets indefinitely. See Misplaced Pages:List of banned users. When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account, according to Misplaced Pages policy, can likewise be blocked. See . It should also be taken into account that Wilkes already made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling and was blocked for one week. See and . He has again been temporarily blocked for breaches of WP:Point including posting deliberate mispresentation of an arbcom ruling, edit warring, accusations of lying against multiple users (including calling one user a "convicted liar" and other misbehaviours). See . This means that he will continue gaming the system if nobody puts a stop to this. Onefortyone 23:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    As I said above, Ted Wilkes is indeed uploading copyrighted images with incomplete sources, just as DW and JillandJack did. Chick Bowen 23:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    For example, here is an image that was uploaded by JillandJack.

    This one and this one were uploaded by Ted Wilkes. Onefortyone 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I have extended Ted Wilkes's block for another 48 hours while we work this out. Chick Bowen 03:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

    Some additional information. Ted Wilkes repeatedly called me an "Arbcom-convicted liar". See , , , , , etc., though he was informed by administrator FCYTravis that "Onefortyone has not been convicted of any crime. An ArbCom ruling is not a finding of fact in a court of law. For someone who has such a fetish for libel laws, you, of all people, should know that. I'd suggest you remove the 'convicted' bit." See . He is still showing a lack of insight and will continue his personal attacks, as he did in the past. It should also be noted that Wilkes repeatedly endeavored to swamp the Misplaced Pages article on Nick Adams with expressions such as "gossip book" or "discredited gossip writer", "not supported by any evidence", "alleged", "all unsubtantiated claims ... possibly repeated one from another" etc. in order to denigrate sources he doesn't like. See , , , , , , . It seems as if he wishes to suppress independent sources which are not in line with his personal view. Therefore, he frequently accuses other users of vandalism, of fabricating texts, etc., if their contributions are not in line with his personal opinion. In fact, he himself is fabricating texts. For example, original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:

    She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

    The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See , and . I corrected the text but Wilkes repeatedly reverted my version to the fabricated one he has written. See , , , . For direct quotes from the book, see . His kind of misbehavior is very similar to that by DW and his aliases. Significantly, Danny B., who also reverted the Elvis and Me page to the version Ted Wilkes preferred (see ), has now accused me of having vandalized his user page (see below). Is it just mere coincidence that Ted Wilkes is frequently accusing his opponents of being vandals? See, for instance, . See also his Block log. Onefortyone 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Please take note that User:Onefortyone has vandalized my User page. Danny B. 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

    See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike are the same person. Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Request Permaban of User:Robertjkoenig's sockpuppets - Update; misuse of Talk Page

    User:Robertjkoenig was permabanned for his behavior on the USAA page, turning it into a soapbox for his rantings. Several anonymous and non-anonymous users have continued to revert the page to his heavily POV version of it; just tonight with User:Kwai, User:Outofthenoondaysun, User:Interlocutor 1, not to mention harrasing editors who revert his edits.

    He has an amusing (and sad) claim that is a conspiracy theory based on the following convo on my talk page:

    File:Conspiracy paragraph.jpg

    . Btw, recommend speedily deleting the image but I'm not familiar with the process.

    I wonder if permanent protection isn't a better way to stave off his efforts; at least with anon we can block his IP's, but I'm reluctant to block every block of his ISP, as will no doubt happen as he exhausts every avenue available to him. Judging by his claims on my talk page that this is a Civil Rights violation, the man is either trolling or needs help.

    I'd requested help on the village pump ].

    --Mmx1 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

    • I've semi-protected USAA for the time being. I'll look into the behaviour of the edits. Call back here if the vandalism persists, but I suspect it won't. Stifle 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It appears to happen every 3-4 weeks, judging by the history; going back to December 2005 when the original user account initiated the torrent. Hopefully he'll lose interest. --Mmx1 21:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Update 15 Wed; He has continued his conversation with another account, User:Philosophenweg. Further, he's stated his intent to continue his ramblings on the talk page in order to use them as a sort of proxy for pitching his views on the main article itself: "But the fact of the matter is that each of the Archive pages as been indexed by Google. That is the way people find things - they stumble across then in the most awkward manner - by Googling. In fact, the 9 archived pages rank higher in Google searches because they elicit more hits then the sanitized main article page. Such is the internet."

    Though not in itself a bannable offense, just by the language itself and its ardent defense of the same esoteric claims that RobertjKoenig made, I have reason to believe they are sockpuppets of the permabanned user, and feel the above is reason enough not to let his ramblings slide. --Mmx1 15:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    . The user makes no valuable contributions to wikipedia and is harrasing and slandering users. --Mmx1 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    User Master101

    I have indefinitely blocked Master101 (talk · contribs) for this death threat. User:Zoe| 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

    Look at this: He just erased the block notice I placed on his talk page. Should it be protected? --TML1988 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    3RR violator promising to return from another IP

    Hey, folks. I blocked a user at 83.221.83.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 3RR at Beastie Boys and Talk:Beastie Boys; he was apparently the same user who had been previously blocked at 83.221.83.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). (There's a link that he objects to on the Beastie Boys page.) I tried to explain the pointlessness of edit warring to him, to no avail. He's now threatening to create a script to "parse your site and erase the unwanted link every 10 mins from a different IP", and has already edited again from 80.67.17.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 72.232.81.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). What do we do? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I just saw that Tom harrison semiprotected the Beastie Boys page. Why didn't I think of that? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    The same individual is still edit warring and violating 3RR at Talk:Beastie Boys (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), mostly from 72.232.81.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I've blocked that IP, but I fully expect the user to return from another one. The semi-protection policy says that talk pages shouldn't be semiprotected except in extreme cases. Does this qualify? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have blocked 69.57.177.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for violating 3RR on the talk page. Review and undo as appropriate. I'm reluctant to s-protect the talk page, but I can if we have to. Could we archive the page and protect the archive? Tom Harrison 20:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Likewise I've blocked 83.149.72.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Tom Harrison 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I made an archive, which was immediately attacked, so I protected it. I hope this helps, sorry for the inconvenience, review my admin actions, et etcera. Tom Harrison 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Sports Wiki Spam

    Hello, I received this message today, asking me to contribute to an off-site wiki-project related to sports. It reminded me of a similar message I'd received previously. I checked into the poster User:Roblefko and I found that every single edit this user has made has been to recruit users to this other wiki project. That's gotta be against the rules. If it isn't it should be. Possibly we can annul this account on the grounds that their user page is not being used to help build an encyclopedia? What does everyone think? Johntex\ 02:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Could we have someone from meta add the website to our spam blacklist, too?
    I'm blocking his account and removing his linkspam from the pages where he placed it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    While I don't agree with the spamming this fellow is doing, I think it's common courtesy to warn someone before you block them. how else are they to know they are doing anything wrong?--Alhutch 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    The only edits the guy made were linking to his own site; he hasn't made a single contribution to the encyclopedia. In his last run, he spammed fifty talk pages in eighteen minutes. I'll unblock (or anyone else can) if he indicates a desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages (and not just use our bandwidth for advertising his project)...or maybe if his site is blacklisted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I agree that he has not contributed to wikipedia or evinced a desire to do so. However, I think it would be nice to give the guy a little warning before he gets blocked, since he seems to be acting in good faith. I don't entirely disagree with your course of action, though.--Alhutch 03:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Update—I've blocked his account and rolled back all of the linkspam (about a hundred talk pages total). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Further update. He actually has at least one sock. This looks like a deliberate linkspamming operation. Have a look at the contributions of Awrigh01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); it's the same message, to hundreds of pages. I've blocked, and am rolling back. Perhaps a sock check, to find out if there are any others? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    it's not a sock, it's a different person. In the interest of full disclosure, I have an account on the website they are spamming for. Those are definitely two different people.--Alhutch 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    If you want, I could try to contact them on the other website and tell them to cool it with the spam on Misplaced Pages.--Alhutch 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Website added to the Meta Spam list. User:Zscout370 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I've added it to the m:Spam blacklist. Essjay 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    ...and see also Dan121377 (talk · contribs). UninvitedCompany has already blocked and reverted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    UninvitedCompany has not responded to my inquiry into having the ban and reversions lifted. Both were inappropriate. My comments to user talk pages did not provide the URL to the outside site unless the user in question requested it, with one minor exception (person provided NPOV edit to page; when reverted, asked where it would be appropriate). Similarly, I have made substantive edits to the wiki. I was banned without warning and, as my user talk notes were not spam, without justification. Now, the power-tripping admin (see his talk page for complaints by others) does not reply to me? Absurd. --DansGhost 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    "my user talk notes were not spam" – They most certainly were spam, whether or not they contained an external link. See Misplaced Pages:Spam. android79 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, what I was doing does not fall into the categories on the page you cite to. I checked that page before doing what I did for that specific purpose. Indeed, I'm just doing what is otherwise accepted in regard to Wikicities, save for the fact that my site is not in any way affiliated with Misplaced Pages's founders. In the very least, I should have been notified before such drastic action was taken. The draconian response is entirely unfounded. --DansGhost 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Apparently you didn't read as far as Misplaced Pages is not a space for the promotion of products, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. android79 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    This doesn't seem right. Shouldn't the users get some kind of warning before being blocked? It's not like they were vandalising content. Their comments to various talk pages has been going on for days if not weeks. Recommend reverting the blocks and issuing warnings; only carrying out the blocks if the spam continues. Nfitz 05:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Try this: unblock and see what happens. Since it was added to the meta spam list after all blocks were issued, we could see what happens next. User:Zscout370 05:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I've now unblocked Awrigh01, because he's apologized and he seems to 'get it'. I look forward to positive contributions from him. Since the site in question is blacklisted, he can't spam anyway....
    I've also lifted the block on Roblefko. Once again, because of the blacklist there isn't a need to keep the block, methinks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    CyberGhostface

    Blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly removing {{nsd}} ("no source" image tag) tag from image (Image:Will.i.am.jpg) without discussion, explanation and after being warned the first time. --Wgfinley 05:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Update

    Now blocked for one week for removing the tag again and removing my previous admonition from his talk page . --Wgfinley 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    User contacted me via email, I agreed to shorten to 3 hours, he has provided a source for the image which I missed due to a formatting problem with how he posted it. I agreed to reduce to block if he agrees to make a better effort to make sure his images are uploaded and tagged correctly. --Wgfinley 17:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Upper Canada College

    I am an administrator who has been trying to mediate a dispute on this article -- see Talk:Upper Canada College. An anonymous editor is not satisfied with my atttempt at mediation. It would be useful to have another administrator take a look at this. If I have overstepped my bounds as an administrator, I would like to know as I am relatively new at this. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    • That anon is definatly not helping things, and certainly seems to be alone in his POV about the changes to the page. I strongly encourage other admins to take a look at this before it gets (more) out of hand. --InShaneee 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    User 66.208.54.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) / 68.50.242.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been warned to desist disruption and trolling by several uninvolved editors, including two admins and an advocate. The actual grievance the user has is that no one has provided sources to say that UCC is all-male, has an elementary school, has a secondary school, or if it is indeed in Toronto, Canada, or on planet earth at all. The article has many references already. See Talk:Upper Canada College. Request intervention by an admin so that other editors can use the talk page constructively. ॐ Metta Bubble 06:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    A newly-registered user, who does not appear to be the anon user has requested the semi-protection be lifted so that the anon editor can be allowed to demonstrate good faith. This has been supported by another newly-registered user, and by a couple of other anon editors. I believe that lifting semi-protection would allow the anon editor to return to his disruptive behaviour, but would respect the decision of another administrator to lift semi-protection if s/he sees fit. See Talk:Upper Canada College#Lifting semi-protection for the discussion. thanks.Ground Zero | t 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    I spent a lot of time this morning reading the UCC talk page; as well as having tracked the discussion on and off for a few days. I think the semi-protection should not be lifted at this point. The anon user is not, in my opinion, acting in good faith. Requesting that basic, well-known facts be sourced is unreasonable. To do so repeatedly is annoying at best, and may be regarded as trolling by some. If the anon has issues with any specific basic fact stated in the article, then s/he should provide an alternative, which would of course require appropriate citation. The point of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is not to source basic facts, but rather to cite facts that may not be accepted by everyone. Mindmatrix 19:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Personal attack by Alireza Hashemi

    He/she personally attacked me on this page: by calling me a racist vandal. MB 12:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Majalo

    Can someone keep an eye on User:Majalo. He's vandalizing and uploading useless images, but I don't have time to deal with him right now. Sorry if this isn't a good place to put this. I'm a little confused by the recent restructuring. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 14:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Netoholic

    Despite repeated warnings, Netoholic (talk · contribs) continues to insert the harmful "hiddenStructure" CSS hack (explicitly condemned by lead developer Brion Vibber) into templates (and to revert war with other users over its inclusion). This warrants a block, even without considering the fact that Netoholic is banned from the template namespace and limited to one revert per page per day (restrictions that are to be enforced when his edits are disruptive). Due to Netoholic's allegations of misconduct on my part (and pending arbitration against me), I'm listing this here. —David Levy 15:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Arbitrators have asked that I not be blocked unless being "disruptive". hiddenStructure is being added to many templates by many different editors. It's a very common practice... so how am I special, deserving a block? I think David is complaining about my edits to Template:Infobox Book, where I've described on talk my changes (to remove fields which give details on a specific printed version of a book, rather than the work itself). There is nothing disruptive about that proposed change, except the people who can't bother posting on talk. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    1. The template cited above is only the most recent example. 2. You're well aware of the fact that the "hiddenStructure" hack is harmful (because it breaks pages for some users), so repeatedly adding it to templates is quite disruptive. So is revert warring. Several users oppose your changes (and a couple have even requested on your talk page that you stop), but you insist upon violating your ArbCom ruling by forcing them through. Posting explanations of why you're right and they're wrong doesn't magically justify your stance. —David Levy 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I am not "well aware" that hiddenStructure is harmful. In fact, we did have one blind Wikipedian comment on it and said it wasn't bad if user properly, which is why there are guidelines on Misplaced Pages:hiddenStructure. Charging me with revert warring, when it is rarely anyone except you and Locke Cole reverting me, is disingenuous. On Template:Infobox Book, you did not explain why you reverted. I explained whyI made the changes, so why is there a double-standard? It seems to me the only harmful revert warring is when the reasons for the reverts have gone unexplained. You're not allowed to stalk me to a template, revert me with no reason given, and then claim I am the revert warrior. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    1. Brion Vibber clearly and unambiguously explained why the "hiddenStructure" hack is harmful, and you've been directed to his comments on several occasions. 2. Even if your premise that the opposition to your edits is confined almost exclusively to Locke Cole and me were true (which it isn't), so what? Do you deny the fact that you're revert warring? 3. I've repeatedly explained to you that your insertion of "hiddenStructure" code (in flagrant defiance of Brion Vibber's stance) will not be tolerated, so you knew perfectly well why I rolled back your edits (which were tantamount to vandalism). —David Levy 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Even in that statement by Brion, he advocated built-in conditionals to hiddenStructure. So far, we still have no built-ins. Brion also never advocated Template:Qif - neither as an alternative to hiddenStructure nor on it's own. He's shattered WP:AUM without providing alternatives. Without alternatives, there is no single solution. As such, removing optional fields from a template is a totally legitimate alternative, depending on the circumstances. -- Netoholic @ 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    The {{qif}} template doesn't break pages. The "hiddenStructure" hack does. Therefore, while {{qif}} is not an ideal solution, it certainly is a much better solution than "hiddenStructure" is. Feel free to discuss (but not edit war over) the removal of optional fields.
    And incidentally, Brion didn't "shatter" WP:AUM, which was overwhelmingly rejected by the community. He shattered the myth that the developers had promoted it to policy status. —David Levy 18:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    How can you justify continuing to accuse me of edit warring without discussing? Look at yourself, you've reverted me twice on that template without dicussion. I posted on talk when people raised a concern. Where are you? Do you even care about the particulars?
    I didn't accuse you of "edit warring without discussing." Your comments in question pertain to an unrelated debate. I only reverted the edits in which you inserted the "hiddenStructure" hack (which I have discussed a great deal). It's absolutely unacceptable to deliberately break pages for some users, and no amount of discussion is going to change that. —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with David and Locke on this and would like to thank them for their energy to tackle Netoholic. Most people have given up on this. Netoholic will never stop. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Concur with Adrian. Netoholic continues to advocate positions that other members have repeatedly and soundly rejected. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    So here we have it... I am being attacked just for advocating a position. I'll never stop advocating a position I feel is correct. I've greatly tempered my actions in recent months; whereas I'm now subjected to people reverting me on-sight without explanation. -- Netoholic @ 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    If you only would advocate, that wouldn't be so harmful. But you revert war on templates like a dick. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


    Out of curiosity, I see David Levy's link to comments by Brion why he doesn't like hiddenStructure. I've also noticed comments on Brion's talk page that suggest he has as much disdain for QIF. I haven't seen anything here suggesting that either one has been "explicitly condemned" per se. Mind you, I'm rather looking for something from Brion saying "Never use this!" since the obvious conclusion here is that both sides are reading different subtleties into his statements so far.
    InkSplotch 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Brion has indicated that both methods are "ugly," and that native support for conditionals would be preferable. He has not indicated that {{qif}} is inherently harmful. In fact, he shot down the primary reason for avoiding its use (a belief that it adversely affected server performance). He has, however, cited several ways that the "hiddenStructure" CSS hack causes harm. It's been clearly demonstrated that it breaks pages for some users by generating nonstandard HTML code—something that {{qif}} absolutely does not do. Netoholic believes that this is "OK" and "no big deal," and he claims that {{qif}} has the potential to break things (despite a lack of evidence to support this contention).
    Brion also stated that while {{qif}} is "ugly," he doesn't care if it's used as a temporary stopgap (until native support for conditionals is added, at which point it probably will break). Compare this to the aforementioned statement regarding "hiddenStructure," in which he cited three ways that it "harms both the primary site's accessibility and offsite reuse of material" (in addition to being "very ugly"). In other words, it's broken now.
    To be clear, I'm not here to advocate the use of {{qif}}. It just happens to be preferable to something that breaks pages. —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Anyway, considering an RFAr is already forming, is there anything here critical, or would this work better as a requested Temporary Injunction? OK, a question and a thought, then. :)
    InkSplotch 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    How about simply enforcing the terms of Netoholic's existing ArbCom decision? —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well said... Brion has not said one is preferable to the other. -- Netoholic @ 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    His stance (that {{qif}} is the far lesser of two evils) is abundantly clear. It's hilarious that you were willing to twist Jamesday's vague statements on meta-templates into a "policy," but you choose to ignore entirely unambiguous statements on the part of Brion. —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    So from that you imply that hiddenStructure is better than qif because it looks horrible in non-CSS browsers. I do not believe you defend a noble thought here. You only defend your outdated old stance, because you are unable to admit that qif is the better solution for now, because you have always said that metatemplates are bad. But you failed to prove that and nobody believes you, even Brion said the server load issue is a non-issue because there is no evidence. You are using this debate to hinder a viable solution because you are against templates anyway and you are opposing a Media-wiki built in conditional function. What the hell. When have you last time done something useful for this Encyclopedia? I can't remember. Your only goal seems to be to bind resources. Well then. Go for it. This is ridiculous. Let Neto have his hiddenStrucure on the templates or see what people say when he removes conditional things from the templates. We do not need to defend Misplaced Pages from him. The damage is obviously too little to be noticeable. We are just wasting our time here. That bladder needs to get bigger to burst. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I confess I've never understand why this debate generates so much heat. I use Lynx quite often and it negotiates hiddenStructure just fine. Sure, there's some excess data, but no worse than a normal template with missing parameters (a common occurence in the less heavily-traveled articles). I also confess that I've missed the statistics which demonstrated that Misplaced Pages was broken for a sizable fraction of the browsing public. This issue is surely not worth descent into a frothing rage. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Please see User:Locke Cole/Don't use hiddenStructure. And keep in mind, some screen reading software used by the disabled chokes on this stuff too. Also note the diff link to Brion's comment at the bottom of the page. And to be honest? The only heat here is coming from Netoholic. Everyone else seems to agree this is bad stuff, but he's revert warred over it (in defiance of his ArbCom ban) for the past two weeks. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    It doesn't "choke" or "break pages". At worst, the reader sees some extra empty rows in an infobox, as Mackenseon said. As long as one follows the guidelines on Misplaced Pages:HiddenStructure (to design your template with that in mind), there is no major problem. That point has been confirmed by lynx readers and one blind wikipedian that reviewed the material as well. If you want numbers, non-CSS browsers made up fewer than 0.04% of the hits on this website (as of Feb 2004, though I can't image that percentage has grown). -- Netoholic @ 02:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    I note, again, that you regurgitate your claim that it's causing no harm, while ignoring the people who say it is in fact harmful (of which Brion VIBBER is one, and the many participants at WT:AUM are another). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    A few blocks handed out related to Ian Lee and Clive Bull

    I just blocked User:. Westminsterboy as a possible imposter account of User:Westminsterboy. Related to this, I indefblocked ._JamieHughes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) primarily because he was moving around User:Arniep's accusations that . Westminsterboy was an imposter on Talk:Ian Lee and because his username was similar to User:JamieHughes...whose talkpage has a warning about vandalism to Margaret Thatcher from me and who was also contributing to the Ian Lee discussions.

    If another admin could review some of the contributions of ._JamieHughes and see if my block is reasonable I'd appreciate it. I don't mind any shortening of the block if you feel it is justified. Thanks! --Syrthiss 15:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    These impersonators should be indef-blocked, without question. I just got back from removing the 'actually I think Iain Lee really is gay' comments entirely (which is what the accounts were set up to do), replacing them with '(impersonator comment removed)'. The rest of the impersonators' comments I left up, but annotated with notices to the effect they were impersonators. Further oversight of Talk:Iain Lee and any other LBC-related articles would be appreciated. LBC seems to be a magnet for Misplaced Pages vandalism, not least because at least one DJ has encouraged listeners to vandalise Misplaced Pages - a spree of vandalism at Weetabix Minis, which at the time was a stub and not a redirect, was apparently at the behest of DJ James O'Brien. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I also find it an odd coincidence that the Zoewhatever user disappeared right after I blocked . Westminsterboy and . JamieHughes. --Syrthiss 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Um? Zoewhatever user? User:Zoe| 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Indefinitely blocked ZoeCroydon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not you. Unless you're another impersonator, who cunningly registered years before, made lots of edits and gained adminship just to make the impersonation more plausible. *glares* --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well of course I'm just a vandal, as lots of people tell me on my Talk page. User:Zoe| 01:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    I feel confident enough to say without reservation that the 'Iain Lee is gay' claim is complete bollocks, and the various IPs and accounts claiming that he is are, if not sockpuppets (or whatever the equivalent of a sockpuppet for an IP is - shadowpuppets?), at the very least meatpuppets. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yep, imo some kind of puppetry... Lack of understanding of how wikipedia works ("10 users say its so! PUT IT BACK IN YOU HOMOPHOBES!1!!!"), and lack of reliable sources. :) --Syrthiss 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, if y'all want to lift the protect and/or make it into an sprotect, I won't object. · Katefan0/poll 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I think that since its in full protection already per you, lets leave it for a couple days and see if the socks have gone home. --Syrthiss 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I stuck {{indefblockeduser}} on User:. JamieHughes and User:. Westminsterboy. Just checking that this was the right thing to do? Syrthiss' block summary of the JamieHughes impersonator said "indef block pending investigation of sockpuppetry and hoaxing", but despite the word 'pending' I can't possibly see how we'd allow this blatant impersonator account to edit Misplaced Pages again. If any admins are in doubt, here are the diffs: JamieHughes Westminsterboy--Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    The pending was in case someone here said "OMGWTFBBQ", but nobody has. I was trying to keep a small amount of good faith that . JamieHughes was just JamieHughes who forgot his login information when I made the block. Since nobody objected, they'll remain indefblocked...tho I thought I had dumped at least a username block template on . Westminsterboy. --Syrthiss 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Mmm, socky goodness. Has someone visited WP:RCU? · Katefan0/poll 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    CU reports . JamieHughes and the rest are the same editor, and the Iain Lee cutnpaste vandals are the same editor (tho the two may not be connected). --Syrthiss 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    These are about 7 users from different companies. Please unblock 84.13.84.22 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Leyasu violating revert parole

    Hi, we're having a bit of trouble over on the article Moi dix Mois. User:Leyasu is currently under a revert parole from Arbcom, limited to 1 content revert per day (see ). However:

    are all reverts done by Leyasu on March 14, 2006. While Leyasu's edit summaries call the reverts "reverting vandalism", what we have here is a plain old content dispute. I wasn't sure whether to place this here or on WP:AN/3RR; please bear with me if I've made a mistake. Could an administrator please have a look? flowersofnight (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Recently the user Deathrocker added an infobox to the article for the band Moi dix mois, .
    I corrected some gramma and restored the genres to what they previously where, before Deathrocker changed them .
    Deathrocker reverted this, marking the revert as minor .
    After reverting their edit , i posted to Deathrocker on their talk page, making a polite request concering the article, aksing them not to start a revert war and to post to my talk page if they have a problem with my edits .
    Deathrocker deleted this , and then went on to revert me, inciting a revert war and making personal attacks using the edit summary .
    I reverted this, noting that i had asked him not to revert war, and noted id be informaing an admin .
    He reverted me again, making yet more personal attacks in the edit summary .
    I reverted this again with some neutral wording , which then a user seemingly in the intrest of ending the edit war changed it .
    Deathrocker however immediatly went on to revert back to his copy, violating 3RR .
    At this point, i reverted his version again, leaving the note that the neutral attempt was good, but wasnt in Misplaced Pages prose .
    Deathrocker then went on to attack me on the Moi Dis Mois talk page calling me an idiot, , to which i responded , which he then went on to revert the Moi Dix Mois article calling me a troll 'unwilling to partake in discussion on the talk page' .
    He has also attempted to edit what i have written to you, changing what i have written to insult me , which i reverted, noting the vandalism .
    Its ironic how Deathrocker is in violation of 3RR and WP:NPOV, and that bears no mention. I also find it ironic how that, when the users couldnt bully me into agreeing with them, they chose to hide behind my arbcom ruling, even though Deathrocker is in violation of WP:3RR, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, and Flowers is defending the user.
    I also added a source for information, which is in compliance with WP:CITE, .
    Deathrocker replied by reverthing it back to his version, claiming that the source wasnt allowed without his permission , again violating WP:CITE and WP:NPOV.
    I also notifed admin Sceptre, who has had to deal with Deathrocker deliberatly vandalising articles and inciting revert wars before. Its also ironic how this notice was posted in an attempt of Wikilawyering in the hopes of making sure im scolded before admin Sceptre can intervene. Ley Shade 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Source was in violation of WP:CITE; Altervista pages are free personal blogs, not prominent music media or reliable for factual information, and it says "visual gothic metal" there isn't such a genre. Defemation of character by User:Leyasu, NOWHERE did I claim "the source wasnt allowed without his permission" - Deathrocker 19:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    WP:CITE says nothing about pages not being allowed. If it does, i ask the user Deathrocker to quote here the part that says that Altavista pages are not allowed, considering he has provided no sources of his own. Ley Shade 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I will block Leyasu for 48 hours. Leyasu, labeling another user's edits as "vandalism" doesn't exempt you from your parole when it's actually just a content dispute. What you did is *exactly* what the arbcom was trying to stop. I'm also going to block deathrocker for 24 hours for violating 3RR because he's a repeat offender. And as all will note, I am completely uninvolved. Honestly, until I saw this notice, I wasn't even aware of the arbcom case. --Woohookitty 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


    User:Leyasu violating revert parole for the second time

    Hi, I'm afraid this isn't the only time Leyasu had violated revert parole today, sorry to report this but I feel its my duty as a good Wikipedian. On the Gothic Metal article, that editor seems to be doing the same as above. As stated, User:Leyasu is currently under a revert parole from Arbcom, limited to 1 content revert per day (see ).

    Evidence however shows: - Deathrocker 19:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Its also ironic how the above statement was made by no other than Deathrocker, , who started the revert wat on the Moi Dix Mois article. Its also ironic how it was Deathrocker i was reverting on the Gothic Metal article, for removing cited information, , , , , . The user also is refusing to acknowledge the sources on the talk page that are in abundance. Ley Shade 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter, if you revert too much you've gone beyond the bounds of what's allowed. The other person could also be in the wrong too. --Cyde Weys 03:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Another Duffer1 impersonator

    DufferI (talk · contribs) just blocked. Watch closely for further impersonators of Duffer1 (talk · contribs). I will err on the side of not saying what the IP or range is, but I've made a note of it and will keep an eye out for future examples. See Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Sockpuppet - David Gerard 19:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Godmode lite

    Why does my GML rollback say:

    Please wait, reverting edits by 207.31.166.130... Bad authentication token!

    It just stopped working...even older versions don't work.Voice-of-All 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    but don't you have admin rollback?--Alhutch 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Even though semi-auto pistols have been around for awhile some people still just really like revolvers. --Cyde Weys 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, but the semi-automatic holds more bullets and kills more vandals (more quickly) than a plain ole revolver. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Misuse of usepage

    I've informed DickClarkMises that he may be in violation of WP:NOT by his mention on his userpage that he is currently running for political office, with the wording: "I am presently campaigning for the Alabama House of Representatives, District 79 seat, against Mike Hubbard (R; incumbent) and Carolyn Ellis (D)." A brief scan of the comment and the word "campaigning" links all readers to his campaign website. When I asked him to remove it, he stated that "I do not depend on Misplaced Pages for promotion, and I am not attempting to self-promote via Misplaced Pages." I would find this to be an incorrect statement and refer to WP:NOT, especially sections: Misplaced Pages is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and the fact that this also pertains to userpages.--MONGO 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I happen to agree here. I just finished a successful political campaign for public office myself and could have easily used my user apge to promote it but did not because I knew that it would have been wrong here. Please deal with this as you will MONGO.Gator (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I see no problem with it. He makes edits, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that he's running for office. Will we now prevent people from including links on their user page to companies they work for? WP:NOT, sure, but I thought we were allowed to have a post about ourselves on our USER PAGE. He has over a thousand of edits, so it's clear that's not the only reason he made an account.--Golbez 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    seems like he's acting in good faith, and a contributor to the enyclopedia otherwise. I don't have a huge problem with it.--Alhutch 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Please don't forget the fact wikipedia is not the site to promote seflish gain. The userpage is an asset to the site's resources as long as it productively contributes to the main goal. -Zero 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Part of the attractiveness of Misplaced Pages is the community. Yes, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia and not Myspace etc. etc, but fact is, a feeling of belonging to a community makes people feel more welcome to stay and write that encyclopaedia. Some of the things which help generate that feeling are policies and guidelines on how editors treat each other, projects like Esperanza, and the ability to have a userpage to identify oneself to everyone else. What would distract us from writing an encyclopaedia more - the odd notice on someone's user page about what they're up to in real life, or policing other people's userpages for anything that looked unconstructive?
    I don't believe Dick mentioned his campaign on his userspace to attract votes (what are the chances that someone would find it and live in his district anyway?), I think he listed it because part of the function of a user page is to tell people who you are, and he wanted to say 'I am a politician who runs in significant elections'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I think you have completely missed the point. This isn't about anything other than this editor posting links on his userpage to a current political campaign in which he is running for political office. This is a violation of WP:NOT and not to mention WP:SPAM. None of the information he has about his current political campaign has one thing to do with writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    As a point of information, I would submit that my involvement in political campaigns is germane to my Misplaced Pages activities given that I spend a great deal of time working on politics-related entries. I want to make absolutely sure that I wear my biases on my sleeve, so that others can be as critical as need be when reviewing my edits. If I were really trying to get every reader of my talk page to my campaign website, I would have posted a link to it at the top of my page, right where I put the link to Kate's tool. Respectfully submitted, Dick Clark 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    You think I've missed the point, but I think you've missed the wood in favour of a single tree. It's just one sentence in a single paragraph about what he does in real life. Many people post stuff about their personal life on their userpage, myself included (not so much as Dick, but then I haven't done as much interesting stuff as him). If you want people's userpages to contain nothing about their personal life, or even to have a limited amount on their personal life (perhaps a ratio of content about Misplaced Pages to other content?) then I have to say you're going to have to propose an actual policy. Singling out a single sentence on a single userpage won't do any good. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I am not advocating anything other than he remove the spamlink to his own personal political campaign. The rest of the page is fine. If the hand has a splinter, we pull it out, no. The policy already exists...did you not bother to examine WP:NOT and the sublinks? Or does the policy only apply when you think it should.--MONGO 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    No, but if the hand rests on a cane I do not take an axe to it. (Come on everyone, join in and break the Guiness World Record for most wood-based metaphors in a single thread.) I have examined WP:NOT, extensively. The policy, like all policies, applies not when I think it should, but when it's best for the encyclopaedia. Antagonising a well-established editor over a single sentence on his userpage is not good for the encyclopaedia. Like I said, if you don't want to see a single non-Misplaced Pages-related thing on any userpage, propose a specific policy on it, because Dick is far from the only one and there seems to be no reason to single him out. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think the link can be described in any way as spam... if you come across it that means you are reading a four-paragraph biography of this individual. Presumably this means you have some interest in finding out about him. How in that context could the link be described as spam? Basically, I see no problem with users having a short biography on their userpages; there's no reason for Wikipedians to be faceless. What is important is that the encyclopedia comes first (that is, that the site not become a place primarily for social networking) and that userpage content create a fruitful and collegial editing atmosphere that allows for cooperation rather than sabotaging the spirit of wikilove. I would say that the material in this case is fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, it's very different to link to one's place of employment and altogether a whole different thing to post links and information about the fact that they are running for political office. I doubt that he created the userpage just to use it as a political pulpit, but using it in this manner is completely different than and is in conflict with the areas I mentioned above.--MONGO 20:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    If he's not using his user page to promote his campaign, then he should have no problem removing the external link (which is the only part I think can be justifiably requested be removed). Interested parties can easily use Google to find out more about his campaign. I don't think this is a serious issue, however. android79 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    • I see no problem with the link to the political campaign. We allow people to link to campaigns for and against George Bush, for and against gay marriage, etc. It should be no different when the cause in question happens to be the campaign of the user. As long as the user page is being used primarily to help edit Misplaced Pages, then there is no problem. Johntex\ 21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      It's his own personal political campaign. Guess I'll email Jimbo on this one cause this will go to a higher authority. We already know where he stands on userpages. You look at my userpage...there is nothing there that identifies anything other than the articles I have written, some images granted to me and some of my open tasks. Userpages are "on loan"...they belong to Misplaced Pages, and as such, they are not to be used for personal gain...this is no different than if he was soliciting money for himself.--MONGO 22:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Um, why do we need to contact Jimbo? Do we have no more dispute resolution process that we have to run to daddy any time admins disagree? --Golbez 22:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
        I think that this is a serious enough issue to possible warrant the website owner opinion on the matter. I don't run to daddy, Golbez...I resent this statement and find that anyone that feels that is is okay to use our userpages for spaming for their political campaigns really needs to reevaluate what the purpose of this project is.--MONGO 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
        I don't think it's serious at all, and I'm wondering why you feel such urgency over it. He's not spamming at all - has he posted it on any other page? The purpose of this project is to make an encyclopedia, which he has been doing. --Golbez 22:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I wonder if this whole thing has caused more people to see his "campaign" than if it had been left alone. By drawing this large-scale attention to his user page and campaign website, it has done more for the visibility of his campaign than the original link ever would. Maybe DickClarkMises and MONGO are in political cahoots... ;-) But seriously, Johntex makes a good point above. There is a larger question at hand, Should we continue to allow users to add a link to their personal website on their user page? --LV 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I wholeheartedly agree that this is much ado about nothing. As for linking to one's personal website, this guy does it. -- SCZenz 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Given the context, I don't see DCM's userpage as a problem. It looks more like he threw it in as verification of the claim in his bio than as a promotional piece. Spam is usually more garish, y'know? -Colin Kimbrell 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I can confirm that DickClarkMises is a long-time editor who has always acted in good faith, to the best of my knowledge. I do not believe that he added the link with the intent of promoting his campaign, but rather to fill out his autobiography. -Will Beback 23:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed, I think that anyone who gets through the first three paragraphs of his bio is probably interested enough that he would genuinely want to know this. The manner of presentation is in no way promotional. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    The best thing for Misplaced Pages is if users can express themselves freely on their user pages. This stands whether they want to say which brand of caffeinated cola beverage they drink, which politcal party they have affiliations with, or where they stand on gay marriage. It is not good for Misplaced Pages if genuine wikipedians feel contricted in what they can say. —Pengo 00:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    It's policy...userpages follow the same rules as article space. If this webspam was in article space we would usually remove it for being what it is. One thousand edits or ten thousand edits makes no difference to me. I have over 12,000 edits and not anywhere on my userpage is one userbox, one piece of POV information about my politics, my religion, my biases. I link articles I started, a few images given to me and few tasks I have to do. Blatant spam advertising of this nature, in which an editor is using his loaned userpage, that is the property of the Misplaced Pages Foundation, to promote his own political campaign is: not what Misplaced Pages is all about. Now maybe this is going on in other userpaces and I didn't know about it...so I take it as an eye opener...a very disappointing one at that. "Manner of presentation is in no way promotional"...."Much to do about nothing"...."not spamming at all"....I've never seen so many erroneous comments in one thread in this noticeboard.--MONGO 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Except that it's pretty blindingly obvious that this is not spam. This link will be discovered only by people who are interested in finding out more about this editor. Presumably they might be interested in seeing his site. For the same reason John Kerry links to johnkerry.com, Coca-Cola links to cocacola.com, etc. A link to cocacola.com would be spam if placed on beverage, but on Coca-Cola it is not. Links to outside content are often very useful for providing further information, no less so in userspace than in article space. Further, in light of this being a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia, part of the purpose of userspace is to allow fellow editors to learn more about each other. DickClarkMises introduces information about himself in a way that is nonconfrontational, friendly, and unlikely to be intrusive for people that are not seeking out the information. Acting as if he is disregarding basic Misplaced Pages policy is fairly absurd, and conflating this with the userbox issue is even more so. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Except that this is blindingly obvious that this is not spam? Baloney. This has nothing to do with "learning more about the person"...it has to do with self promotion in a political campaign in which he is a candidate for public office. I would say your stance is absurd. His userpage is not a free webhost to link to these types of things.--MONGO 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's policy...userpages follow the same rules as article space. Ummmm... they do? And here I thought they followed the rules of userpages... -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Really...that's a revelation...userpages do not belong to the users...we simply borrow them from the Misplaced Pages Foundation. Obviously they are not supposed to be edited by outsiders without consent. He links to his campaign website...in userspace...WP:NOT: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox...see also, what can I not have on my userpage:....it also states that regular users are offered wide latitude...so what. Linking to a political campaign page for himself in which he is a candidate is advertising...it is spam and the equivilent of a weblog for all basic purposes.--MONGO 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's news to me that userpages are subject to the same rules as articlespace. Even those that relate only to Misplaced Pages violate WP:V and WP:NOR. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Then consider yourself enlightened. WP:NOT certainly seems to indicate that userpages are to follow the same rules overall as article space, as far as that policy goes.--MONGO 11:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    We're dealing in generalities here; there is no policy that Dick has clearly broken. WP:NOT says "Most of the policies here apply to your user page as well." (my emphasis). WP:UP says "Misplaced Pages offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space" and the section on removal of inappropriate material starts with "If the community lets you know..." To me, what this adds up to is that whether a userpage is being used properly or not should be determined by what the consensus thinks is good for the encyclopaedia. In this case it seems to me that the consensus is that Dick is using his userspace legitimately. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Even if we were treating userspace like article space, I still don't see the issue with this particular link. If someone wrote an article about a notable political figure with a line about how that political figure is currently running for a particular office, and they linked to a statement by the candidate saying that he's running for the office, wouldn't that just be citing sources? -Colin Kimbrell 12:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    You're talking about a third party report and you are correct that it may be citing sources, but I know I have routinely removed any links I have found in article space that lead to campaigns since it simply advertising.--MONGO 12:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    It doesn't seem to reach the level of abuse, it's a small part of a larger biography. Plenty of people here write about themselves, and some link to outside resources. While it may violate a strict reading of WP:NOT, I don't think it violates the spirit. I hope we're still able to judge issues on their merits and not just a reflexive exercise of rules. Rx StrangeLove 04:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    I agree with Samuel here, the link is nonintrusive, and Dick Clark is not using the userpage as a soapbox. Several people have links to their personal webpages on their userpage, including commercial links. It is no more offensive than campaign links in a candidate's mainspace article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    It's blatent advertising of a political campaign he is a candidate in. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Maybe I need to look at a lot of userpages and discuss the matter with the Misplaced Pages Foundation about people misusing their loaned webspace for advertising.--MONGO 11:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    There were some strong feelings, there. I hope that in time this will come to be regarded as a basis in the application of commonsense on Misplaced Pages. I hope future policy will take the opportunity to rule that the encyclopedia always comes first. No where in policy does it dictate that that editors are entitled to the freedom of userspace resources, offensive or not. As for the talk of following the spirit and not the letter, that is currently not an option. This leads to the conveyance of policy in one's own favor, and it must be followed to the letter whenever possible.-Zero 11:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Policy must be followed only when it is beneficial to the encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    I can't even begin to understand what you mean there. Policy was created for the sole purpose of benefitting the encyclopedia and dictating the main goal of the site. However you do seem to be acting like someone who believes this nonsense, so I'll remove the accusation that you're deliberately ignoring established policy and guidelines. You seem to be honestly confused. -Zero 12:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    1) Policies are not infallible and do not cover all eventualities; that's why we have pages like WP:IAR, to make it clear that policies are not laws to be blindly followed but tools to help with building the encyclopaedia. I am not invoking WP:IAR here because 2) prevailing opinion seems to be that Dick has not violated policy anyway. 3) What accusation? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    The infallibleness of policy pertains solely to its following when it interferes with the well-being of commonsense. It does not apply to the stability of constructing an coup out whenever one feels it is necessary. As for my alleged accusation of you and IAR, could you please show me that? I do not see it. As I recall, policy is to be followed to the letter whenever possible as by the encyclopiac intent. It should always be adhered to, unless for instance Jimbo or consensus decides to declare the policy changed. I can appreciate that some parties may want to undergo links and personal information in order to resolve their biased differences with one another, but I don't see why this should affect the following of dictated policy. Those who are not interested in the true purpose of an user page know who they are and should probably refrain from potentially provocative subjects in times such as this. -Zero 13:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    I think you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this - clearly we just approach the idea of policy from different angles. Regarding IAR, I know you didn't bring it up, I brought it up pre-emptively as it's a very tricky thing to invoke properly, so I was making it clear that I wasn't arguing that it should be applied here. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the perspective. There is a balancing act of IAR, and a rather delicate one, between doing what one thinks is right and keeping commonsense intact. I respect your opinion; there's certainly room for difference of views on the wiki. -Zero 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Cut the guy some slack. A user page can be a brief biographical article of the given user. This does not seem to be an effort at campaigning. El_C 12:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Oh nm, he's a libertarian; I thought he was an indepndent or something possibly progressive. Misplaced Pages is already too pro-libertarian. El_C 12:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Bio, absolutely! A link to his campaign website...I say no, obviously. I want Mr. Clark to edit with all the gusto he can muster. However, I do not think that this specific manner of advertising is in keeping with policy. That the concensus here indicates that almost everyone is in disagreement with me on my interpretation of policy, I can accept that. I may be wrong. I have never seen another userpage that links folks to that persons campaign website. If this has been going on in other userspaces then it is a revelation to me.--MONGO 12:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yes! I, too, support the repatriation of all libertarians to Bangladesh (there's enough room there for all 30 of em, including Jimbo!). El_C 12:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Libertarian Party? — the what? Exactly. El_C 12:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for lightening the mood, El C. For the record...I'm a Republicrat (Demolican?)...voting for the lesser of two evils and hopelessly confused.--MONGO 12:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sometimes people take themselves too seriously. (not me, though, never!) :) El_C 13:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Falkland Islands

    There has been a lot of editing back and forth going in at the Falkland Islands. The discussion is to lame for words, but it evolves around whether the commonly used spanish name "Spanish:Islas Malvinas" should be mentioned behind the name Falkland Islands. The main motivation not just to follow the proposed guidelines in Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) is political (giving the name would be an endorsement of the Argentinian claims, the islanders are offended by it etc). A staw poll clearly showed support for the names in the first line, now the editing is to minimise things, by adding lines like (sometimes referred to as the Islas Malvinas) while sometimes means many milion hits at google. --KimvdLinde 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I endorse the above comment. In the end it is undeniable that a substantial number of people refer to the Falklands as the Islas Malvinas; the reason for this, and the merits of the claim which underlies it, is, from the standpoint of the lead paragraph of an encyclopaedia article, irrelevant. CIA World Factbook has Malvinas in the lead, so should we. And I am British. Just zis Guy you know? 21:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:SweHomer

    This is regarding the abuses and violations of SweHomer (talk · contribs) on Sweden Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Mind you, he is a member of the politcal party being discussed in the article.) He wrote a section in the article in which he presents his personal opinions and conspiracies as facts and tries to argue their truthfulness with unverified/unsourced claims, which is a violation of WP:POINT policy.

    Another user and I tried to delete the section but he keeps reverting, breaking the three-revert rule. I think my version stands now, but I'm not sure. This user is hell-bent on advertising his conspiracies and personal views on Misplaced Pages articles. He threatens the integrity, truthfulness, and reliability of Misplaced Pages. I ask that he have his editing privelages revoked. WGee 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I left a message on WGee talk reminding about WP:BITE. I think WGee is a relatively new user. --FloNight 22:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Jackjohnson33

    If you get a chance, could one of the admins reading this please confirm to the above user that people aren't allowed to remove warning notices from their talk page? He isn't inclined to take my word for it, at present. -Colin Kimbrell22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'm sorry but what have you got against him removing the notice? It's in the history after all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    It does appear that User:Jackjohnson33's only contributions so far have been to harass User:Colin Kimbrell, but I agree with Theresa that there's no point getting upset over someone removing warnings from their talk page. I'm sure a good handful of admins will be keeping their eyes on this user now, and if he continues to engage in personal attacks, he'll be blocked soon enough, visible warnings or no visible warnings. -GTBacchus 22:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I told him not to do it because it's against policy to remove warning notices, and while I don't really care about him insulting me, an investigating admin might accidentally miss that he was warned if he decides to start posting personal attacks toward someone else. If he just spends the rest of his time here trolling on my talk page, then you're right, it's no big deal. -Colin Kimbrell 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    (teleposted by Colin) I strongly disagree with Theresa and GT. When I, and surely others, issue vandalism warnings on people, the major factor on which I base which testx (or NPA or whichever) to use is which ones they've had before, and how recently. I don't want to have to check their history to check that they haven't deleted any {{test3}}s in the past 24 hours before I post a {{test1}}. The 'Removing warnings' and 'Talk page vandalism' parts of 'Types of vandalism should, in my opinion, be followed, at least for recent warnings. The answer to "why not check the history?" is "why should I waste my time for a vandal when policy dictates that I shouldn't have to?" --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    The problem with that line of thought is that vandals, by definition, don't follow policy. Policy says you shouldn't have to check their history, but it also says they shouldn't vandalize. I always look at their contributions page, and if I see that they've edited their talk page, I check the diffs. -GTBacchus 23:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    There are vandals and vandals. Vandals who care enough to remove warnings are relatively rare compared to the usual sort. I operate on the assumption that if an IP deletes warnings from his talk page, people do what I do - see it on their watchlist, roll them back and possibly send them {{wr}}. It would save a lot of time if everyone was able to count on recent warnings staying up there. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    ...Though no-one can be forced to revert warning vandalism, so I guess this is just going to be a case of different strokes. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Probably a stupid question, but what does "teleposted" mean? -Colin Kimbrell 23:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I got an edit conflict (hence the slight duplication of your post). Reference to being telefragged. Normally I would say "edit conflict" like everyone else, but the word came into my head (it was the subject of the first article I created, now deleted). --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Heh, got it, thanks. -Colin Kimbrell 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Repeated POV insertion by User:200.69.24.9

    200.69.24.9 (talk · contribs) has been inserting blatent POV claims into the intros of a few articles, such as Freedom fries, Franco-American relations and 112 Gripes about the French. His edits frequently involve dropping large blocks of unformatted text at the top of these articles, which in turn seriously messes up the pages (e.g. ). This ordinarilly could be dealt with on talk pages, but the user is ignoring requests to stop or at least acknowledge the concerns, and keeps repeating the behavior over and over. His only explanation has just been to claim it's okay for him to insert POV . I've reverted and warned him, but given my involvement I don't feel comfortable blocking him since this is not simple vandalism, in my opinion. --W.marsh 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    In addition, every IP used by this vandal/POV-pusher is an open proxy (at least 100% of the ones I have checked); he quite clearly knows what he is doing; it's not just a case of a clueless newbie. Please block them all indefinitely. The silver lining to this one, as usual, is that he's outing lots of proxies for us. Antandrus (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Misuse of userpage (déja vu anyone?)

    Arlyn salido-acierto (talk · contribs) has two edits. One posting his resume on his user page, the other to the Help desk asking how he can make his userpage searchable on Google . I think he's misunderstood what Misplaced Pages is for. He's been here for a week with no other contributions.

    On the one hand this is so trivial I wondered if I should even bother drawing attention to it, on the other hand - compared to the discussion going on above - this seems to be as clear-cut a misuse of a user page as it gets. I considered blanking the user page as it seems unlikely he'll notice, but thought that would be unnecessarily unilateral. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Why does this need administrator involvement? You haven't even left the user a message yet. If his user page remains inappropriate, you can use WP:MFD. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see any evidence of political campaigning for himself with a link to his political political website...but policy applies here because this editor has two edits and the one above has a thousand? "compared to the discussion going on above - this seems to be as clear-cut a misuse of a user page as it gets"...oh please...spare us the opinions. What, not even a warning to him...but of course, since he/she has only two edits, they don't get a warning, right?--MONGO 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Fine, I'll repeat what I already told him on the Help Desk. If I don't get a response to that either I'll go to MfD - thanks Rspeer for pointing that out, it hadn't occurred to me. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, but that's always going to happen, wiki gets cached by google faster than any website I've ever seen, I've made up 3 or 4 entire people, and even though some will get deleted, the websites that mirror wiki, pick up the content so fast, that you can vrtually destroy google wacks, and simply make things up if you want to, most people realize this eventually--152.163.100.65 22:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    3RR Violation and defacement by User:Vigilant

    This user is violating 3RR at Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) and changing the identity of sources I uploaded and were mailed to me. I have resolved the issues however, this user wants to continue to misrepresent the sources. s/he needs to be blocked for 3RR. Waya sahoni 01:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    WP:AN/3RR. NSLE (T+C) at 01:04 UTC (2006-03-15)
    Besides being on the wrong board, you were the first to hit 4 reverts anyway. So you're reporting yourself for a 3RR violation. --BWD 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Check again, the user was removing citations for sources and sources from article content to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia -- I believe this is called "vandalism". I also only replaced the text three times, not four. The other edit was to refine the description of the source. Waya sahoni 08:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Checking again shows that MerkeySpeak for "removing citations for sources and sources from article content to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia" is actually 'returning the title of the picture to (insert some guy's name here)'s book". To be expected from Jeff Merkey though. BTW, I reported you for 3RR on the correct page. Vigilant 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    User DJAc75 is using obscenity, vandalising article

    In the Joseph Sobran article, DJac75 is adding random quotes from Sobran into a quote section that was structured to reflect the source of the quote. This seems to be a deliberate effort to blunt the effectiveness of the article. He has used obscenity in his responses to me. Is this behavior permissable within Misplaced Pages? I would prefer to settle this by sorting through the quotes and separating them by theme, however, in light of his use of obscenity, I would prefer not to deal with this person. Adam Holland 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Zmmz

    I was asked by User:Chick Bowen to keep him updated on the behavior of User:Zmmz, but he's not longer active so I was asked to post this here. Lately he has been vandalizing my talk page and personal user page about issues that have nothing to do with him. See evidence here and here.

    He has also been following my contributions and removing all of them indiscriminantly without much explanation. Some examples were recorded here. Most of my edits have been fully discussed in the talk pages and were implemented upon consensus. User:Zmmz has not even been participating in the talks.

    Could you tell me what I'm supposed to be doing about all these? This type of behavior has to stop. I left a message on his talk page asking for explanations, but the message was removed without any response. Aucaman 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    • I would propose the following simple, temporary fix, but I don't know if I have tha authority to come up with such a solution - at very least I would want the support of a couple other admins before I enacted/enforced this: simply that Zmmz cannot edit any pages in Aucaman's user space (except talk), and vice versa; also that neither may revert an edit by the other even once. Violations could lead to blocks. Is this something we can negotiate here (think a settlement to avoid a long legal battle), or would the rest of you be more comfortable waiting on the inevitable arbitration involving these two users and the other edit-warriors around "the Aryan question"? (ESkog) 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    I support this but I'm not sure there's a precedence for imposing sanctions like this via administrative fiat even if there is sufficent support. Jtkiefer ---- 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    In the mean time, the reasonable editors you two are, please open up a dictionary snd look fior the word Aryan, and Indo-European. If and when done, at least you`ll see that user User_talk:Aucaman is an unreasonable editor, since he insists the unconditional ban of any article that mentions that word.Zmmz 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    With all due respect, this is not a problem between me and User_talk:Aucaman; this is a problem betwen and entire community of users; we have brought this problem here over and over but you ignore us, yet as as soon as User_talk:Aucaman makes a complaint, certain admins come to his help. What User_talk:Aucaman has stated are catagorically false and demeaning. Also, the user consistently tries to attack or stop anyone who disagrees with him, and honestly this is not fair that one user should be allowed to insert highly controversial, racially motivated comments into articles, and others would not be able to take it out, so they can preserve the integruity of the article. For example in an article named Iran, recently he tried to equate the country with Nazism; even though, if one looks at the discussion page of that article, will see that not only such edits were irrelevant to the article, but also see most users disagreed with him in the discussion page. I actually thought I was protecting the page from sneaky vandalism. Furthermore, he was never asked by User:Chick Bowen to contact you, rather the admin mentioned simply told User_talk:Aucaman to contact another admin, since User:Chick Bowen will take an indefinite break from Wiki. I am disappointed that User_talk:Aucaman continues to this day to complain, initiate numerous revert wars, and personally attacks many good-intentioned editors in this site. He is very disruptive, and continually goes against the consensus. In fact, User_talk:Aucaman`s behavior has become so disruptive that there now is,

    • An Rfc page against him endorsed by 15 other editors
    • A complaint made against him here on this very same Noticeboard/Incidents page
    • A third complaint against him and two other users were submitted in Noticeboard/Incidentsthe weeks ago here
    • A fourth complaint set up against him here

    Aucaman has a history of attacking others and accusing them of vandalism, you may see the evidence page in the Rfc set up for him. I have never personally attacked him, or anyone else, nor vandalized his talk page. When are the admins going to look into this and help us? Thank youZmmz 04:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:ESkog, I couldn't help but notice that you have endorsed an extraordinarily lopsided, harsh, accusatory statement against Iranian editors, in favor of User:Aucaman. In light of this, I doubt that you are neutral enough to negotiate or mediate a "settlement" here. It's no surprise that numerous serious complaints against User:Aucaman are overlooked, but as soon as the User:Aucaman makes a frivolous complaint, certain admins are always there to help. --ManiF 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    But you don't have the power to make that call. Look here. From what I've skimmed through the RFC, none of the supposed 'personal attacks' made by Aucaman are personal attacks. I'd advise Zmmz to read WP:NPA to get an idea of a personal attack. Secondly, the section ESkog signed noted exactly what I've noted - there is no basis for the dispute. In my judgment, I'd agree with what Eskog has said above, that Aucaman and Zmmz should stay away from each other. NSLE (T+C) at 05:28 UTC (2006-03-15)
    Neither do you. Form what I understand, an arbitration committee should be set up to make such decisions. As for your assertion that "none of the supposed 'personal attacks' made by Aucaman are personal attacks", you just have to look further on this page to find a clear example of ethnically-motivated personal attack by Aucaman . --ManiF 05:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    His latest attack in another language is pretty vulgar, User:NSLE. How can any reasonable person say user User:Aucaman hasn`t been incivil? You`re kidding right? Hhmm, makes me wonder. Secondly, his other comments calling people, racist, go back to second grade, arrogant, anti-semites etc., are at best incivil, and he has a long history of that sort of bully behaviour. When was the last time I was incivil to any user in this site, or worse, personally attacked users here? If you bother to investigate this, you`ll see today it is me, yesterday and tommorow it`ll be somebody else. I didn`t follow him anywhere, and in fact, I am very active in the articles mentioned. Aucaman has this problem with many, many other users; to the point that user Voice of All gave him a 1rr limit per article . So, what are you going to do, eliminate every single person he disagrees with one-by-one?Zmmz 05:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Incivil, perhaps, not personal attacks. NSLE (T+C) at 05:51 UTC (2006-03-15)
    If "Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental." is not a personal attack, then what is? --ManiF 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    I can`t comprehend that calling others racist, go back to second grade, arrogant, anti-semites etc., is not a personal attack? But, certainly you are entitled to your opinion, or maybe I`m missing something here.Zmmz 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    No, since English isn't likely your first language let me explain to you. He called the content racist and anti-semitic, not the contributors. WP:NPA - "Comment on content, not contributor". He did not make personal attacks. NSLE (T+C) at 06:12 UTC (2006-03-15)
    Do me a favour please, don`t assume things, and I don`t appreciate your patronizing tone. I`m not sure if English is your first language, but you sound intellegent, and if one reads the comments user Aucaman says, Some are trying to insert racist, anti-semetic comments into this article, which at best implies, the editors who are doing so are racist themselves, let`s not kid ourselves here, the guy is unreasonable, and we know what he means. Thank youZmmz 06:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    English is, de jure, my first language. Read it again, he's talking about the comment. You're free to infer what you want from it, but from an official administrative standpoint per WP:NPA it's not personal attacks, in my view. Might I also remind you that I am an administrator, so I'd advise you cut the incivility towards me. NSLE (T+C) at 06:28 UTC (2006-03-15)

    Certainly, Aucaman saying, "Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental" #User:Aucaman is a clear attack the last time I checked. Also, I`m not sure exactly how I was uncivil to you, and although you may very well be an admin, yet, that does not mean you or anyone else can abuse your privliges, just be aware of that please. Thank youZmmz 06:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Fair enough, I appreciate that that quote is a personal attack. "I don`t appreciate your patronizing tone" can be construed to be incivility, depending on who you ask. And I'm just reminding you that as an admin, I do not wish to see or hear about any incivility, especally against me. All admins are empowered by the community to use their powers when/if need be. NSLE (T+C) at 06:37 UTC (2006-03-15)
    Administrator or not, telling a user "English isn't likely your first language let me explain to you" in a patronizing manner, goes against Misplaced Pages etiquette. --ManiF 06:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    That wasn't a patronising manner. I believe that it is fair to assume that Farsi (would Persian be the right term?) is his first language. NSLE (T+C) at 06:45 UTC (2006-03-15)

    From my writing it is clear that I have complete command on the English language. Why would you assume that I speak Persian, or Dutch or anything else--since I have never talked about my nationality? Where does that come from? Thank you Zmmz 06:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


    I think we should continue the language discussion off the admin noticeboard. NSLE (T+C) at 06:59 UTC (2006-03-15)

    Ah...that`s OK. I think it`s fair too say you assumed too much, but that`s fine.Zmmz 07:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Also--that would be about 15 of such incivil behaviour documented so far. When was the last time I was incivil to any user in this site, or worse, personally attacked users here? The answer to that is never. So that should be some sort of indication about the history of I, as compared to user Aucaman. Zmmz 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, and btw, I'm currently requesting a checkuser on the RFC signees. NSLE (T+C) at 05:53 UTC (2006-03-15)

    Your making this a bit one sided huh, aren`t you? What will that prove?Zmmz 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    It will prove if any of the signees are sockpuppets. NSLE (T+C) at 06:12 UTC (2006-03-15)
    Hi NSLE. In case you didn't know, this whole conflict started when Aucaman got into a revert war with an anon over a dispute tag. Aucaman mainly disputes the fact that the word "Aryan" is used in the article. Weeks and a large archive of talk page comments later, Aucaman removed the word Aryan , something that was done against consensus. I myself tried to meditate the dispute but Aucaman has refused to compromise, and continues to push for the word Aryan to be removed from the article. We have all explained to him that it is not considered racist in Iran and India, but it looks like this dispute may take a lot longer than I thought to resolve. --Khoikhoi 08:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    I just wanted to add that I have never personally attacked anyone here, however, recently on a page that I honestly thought was a nomination page for Aucaman as an admin, I wrote the following so others could be informed that the user may not be qualified as an admin--certainly not now--I wrote, I`m not sure if user User:Aucaman is qualified for such judgements since he has been reported as an abusive editor in Misplaced Pages.Zmmz 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC). If this has caused a problem, then in the intrest of civility, I apologize for that.Zmmz 01:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    User Foosher has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

    User:Foosher has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

    Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

    Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

    This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 02:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    This was definitely a valid block. The last two pagemoves were "on wheels" moves so I'm going to go ahead and block the user indefinitely. Feel free to correct me on this if I may have erred. --Cyde Weys 03:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    I just have been reading through the talk page etc, and I would not be surprised if it is indeed also WoW. --KimvdLinde 03:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    User Facts&moreFacts has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

    User:Facts&moreFacts has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.


    Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

    (fixed below)

    Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.


    Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

    This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 03:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    I don't see any page moves in the log? What's going on? --Cyde Weys 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    His contributions show 03:42, 15 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Square metre (moved Square metre to Square metre on wheels!). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, here's the actual move log: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Facts%26moreFacts&page= --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


    The ampersand in the username isn't being handled properly in the link in the above message. It doesn't show up properly either if you use the "vandal" template: Facts&moreFacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Try this instead: Move log
    -- Curps 04:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Freestyle.king (talk · contribs)

    This user has returned after vowing to leave Misplaced Pages, and is again injecting POV and making personal attacks. As I've perhaps had too much interaction with him/her, I would appreciate it if someone else reviews the situation and take appropriate action. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    After the user continued to troll on my talk page and on his own user page (see history of that user page), I blocked him for a week. However, if someone reviewing the situation believes that it's not justified, please unblock. Again, I'd like it for someone else to look into the situation. --Nlu (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have a suspicion that Fk might be (or have a connection with) GrandCru, since both users have focused on China/Taiwan pages and both have made personal attacks against users who revert their edits. (This is my personal opinion; don't use this as a ground for indefinite blocking just yet.) --TML1988 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    67.188.89.64 (talk · contribs)

    This user is injecting lots of POV into Chiang Kai-shek. I've removed his/her POV once and then reverted twice, but while I think I would be entitled to revert the POV further, I'm hesitant to do so. Can someone look into it and see if my judgment that his/her edits are too POV is correct? --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not an admin, but I can tell you that you definitely did the right thing. The paragraph that the anon added makes Chiang sound like the greatest guy that ever lived. That's why it's POV. I suggest you explain to the anon what NPOV is, and if they continue revert, ask other admins for help. --Khoikhoi 07:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Hitler

    Hi there my friends. can you please fix these npov paragraphs on hitler


    "Despite this there have been instances of public figures referring to his legacy in neutral or even favourable terms, particularly in South America, the Islamic World and parts of Asia. Future Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wrote favourably of Hitler in 1953. Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler.

    The "despite this" is adding in a pov making it seem as if you can't have the two together, obviously again the writers opinon. putting the "even favorable" line is 100 percent pov, it implies that it is amazing that someone could like Hitler.

    "While some Revisionist historians note Hitler's attempts to improve the economic and political standing and conditions of his people and claim his tactics were in essence no different from those of many other leaders in history, his methods and legacy, as interpreted by most historians, have caused him to be one of the most despised leaders in history."

    According to who has his legacy caused him to be one of the most despised leaders in history, we either need a source or remove it, the writers opinon doesn't count as a source.

    Thanks admin people! 203.112.2.212 20:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    This users contribution history should be reviewed. It is enlightening. Hpuppet - «Talk» 22:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)

    This user seems to be spamming other users' talk pages with very general yet accusatory statements without much evidence to back them up. He posted this on my talk page and this on another user's. I'm also warned him against this kind of behavior before. He needs to be seriously warned, if not dealt with. Aucaman 20:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    Warned per WP:NPA, mostly low level but undoubtedly personalising things. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    -Inanna- (talk · contribs)

    I don't know much about any of these users, but the comment left here requires at least an explanation. I also found this on his talk page. Aucaman 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    I have blocked him for 48 hours for personal attacks and extreme incivility. Even after being warned on his talk page he has continued his hostility towards other editors as can be seen here. Jtkiefer ---- 22:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    William Morgan (anti-Mason)

    I have a problem on this page. User:Imacomp placed a totallydisputed tag on the article and then fact tagged every line. I asked for an explanation of what he objected to and besides a fair amount of incivilities, the best I can figure out is that he wants every line footnoted. The article was clearly way undersourced besides a few links, but when I tried adding a reference he removed it without explanation and has since removed it three times. Morgan was a cause celebre in the 19th century so there are no shortage of possible references. But how am I supposed to source the article if I can't add references, remove the fact tags, or have any kind of coherent idea of what the real problem is? I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this. -- JJay 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Yes do take a good look. I'm not here to study either code, or Law. You decide, and inform MSJapan as he may be interested, as another editor. Thanks, and sorry if this is taking up your time. Imacomp 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    This is quite a common way of operating for Imacomp. His use of the totallydisputed tag (see Anti-Masonry and Catholicism and Freemasonry) seems to be an objection to the subject matter rather than to the article itself. Try and get him to give specific charges. JASpencer 13:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Ati3414 (talk · contribs)

    User:Ati3414 was blocked yesterday for violating 3RR because he kept trying to add himself to the list of notable Romanian-Americans. I also took the time to remove all his other self-promotion such as spamming external links to his work all over relativity and physics pages. Immediately upon the ban being lifted, he has adding all his self promotion spam links back onto the pages. Despite many warning he seems unable to learn that Misplaced Pages is not for self-promotion, and a ban seems to only have fueled his efforts. Since the ban lift this morning he has already added his self-promotion spam to:

    I and others have tried numerous time to explain to User:Ati3414 that Misplaced Pages is not for selfpromotion. Please do whatever you can to help rectify this situation. Gregory9 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Blocking of ip 69.124.123.9

    69.124.123.9 has vandalized a page (Realism in international relations) 5 times after being warned, and I think this IP deserves a temporary block (Even though I think it is public)

    Please bring these to WP:AIV for action. I'll give it a short block for now given the nature of the edits, but in the future please list them at WP:AIV. Rx StrangeLove 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Sarfatti

    Banned user:Jack Sarfatti is back, and getting worked up. I blocked an IP he was using for 24 hours. 69.104.61.108 (talk · contribs). -Will Beback 05:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Rattlerbrat

    I blocked this user yesterday for personal attacks and incivility (see WP:AN#Rattlerbrat for background) and she's returned from the block with a fury. See her contribs from today; it's pointless for me to link diffs because every single edit has been troublesome. android79 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    With a fury indeed, I'll give her another 48 to calm down if there are no objections. Rx StrangeLove 05:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sean Black indef blocked. NSLE (T+C) at 05:57 UTC (2006-03-16)
    Indeed I did.--Sean Black 06:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    And what a FINE job you did, Sean! I applaud you. FAREWELL, CRUEL INTARWEB!!!! - Jennifer (this comment was actually posted from the IP 81.168.162.201 -- Hbackman 07:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC))
    What's {{Ring of Honor}} ? Is it some sort of a ring ... of honor? El_C 07:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    IP 81.168.162.201 blocked as well. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm afraid that answers nothing. El_C 07:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, I solved the mystery! Template:Dallas Cowboys Ring of Honor. El_C 07:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, she orginally named it Template:Ring of Honor but I had to rename it to be more specific, of course. BTW, I did have a feeling she was going to be trouble when she made this priceless comment to me about a week ago before all of these incidents with her: Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Onefortyone

    Just thought it should be known that User:Onefortyone has been engaging in disruptive behaviour (edit waring, citing poor sources as fact etc.) in articles: Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia and Elvis and Me; violating his probation in the process.--Choco 06:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'll have a look. Stifle 09:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    The remedy is "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.", and I feel it has been violated in this case so I am banning him from those three articles for a month, renewable by request to me or any admin if the behaviour returns in the meantime. Please post again here if the ban is violated. Stifle 09:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Just a question. I have been banned for one month (!) from Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia, and Elvis and Me "for violation of probation by tendentiously adding links and poorly-referenced claims." See . I do not think that this was necessary. I have only discussed some newly discovered sources with other users on the Talk:Elvis Presley page. See . As for the other pages, I only reverted repeated edits by Ted Wilkes. Certainly this is part of a long edit war. His contribution to Elvis and Me includes false information. Original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:

    She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

    The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See , and . I corrected the text but Wilkes repeatedly reverted my version to the fabricated one he has written. See , , , , , , etc. For direct quotes from the book, see . On the Memphis Mafia page, Wilkes is frequently deleting two external links to sites related to the Memphis Mafia arguing that these websites are "improper" and personal websites. See , , etc. etc. It seems as if Wilkes does not like the content of these pages. Significantly, the two external links to websites he had inserted are also links to personal websites. Isn't this double standard? See also this comment by administrator Tony Sidaway and Talk:Memphis Mafia. So I don't understand why an administrator has now blocked me for one month from these articles, especially since my opponent in the edit war is also on probation (see ) and there is much evidence that he is identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack, etc., who was constantly gaming the system in the past. See . Onefortyone 00:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Inspite of his ban User:Onefortyone is continuing to make edits on the talk page of Elvis Presley: , Count Chocula 08:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Boromadloon

    My first indefinite block as an admin, so I wanted to toss it up here for validation. This is a self-declared vandal account, with only vandalisms to it's name, including user page vandalism of the main vandal fighter who had been cleaning up after him. - TexasAndroid 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Catholics for a Free Choice and User:Cberlet

    Ongoing edit war. Cberlet insists on placing the totallydisputed tag even though he has been shown that his claims that a statement is factually incorrect are without merit. He has been shown the right tag to use but refuses. He is violating WP:FAITH and WP:POINT to insist on his points of view to remove one statement. He claims the entire article is biased yet refuses to do anything except remove the actually correct criticisms. Request page protection and user education. -- Jbamb 15:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    No edit war, just a content disagreement, in which Jbamb seems to think he is the teacher slapping the wrist of a slow student. Entire characterisation above is false. I have posted numerous comments and made numerous edits. I am using the proper tag, and posted a request for comments on the proper page.--Cberlet 15:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)

    I just reported this user yesterday for spamming some users' talk pages with baseless accusatory comments. He received two warnings to stop personally attacking other users (here and here). And now today he's made yet another out-of-context, irrelevant accusatory comment in a discussion he's not even participating in. Frankly, I'm tired of putting up with his constant out-of-context accusatory comments (more examples can be found here). Whatever happened to the good-old Misplaced Pages saying, "Comment on content, not contributor"? The fact that he was just warned about personally attacking other users yesterday (not just once, but twice) and he still makes a personal attack today says that he's not taking the warnings seriously enough. I ask fot at least a short-term block to let him go over some of the things he's been saying before making more accusations.

    Right after User:69.196.139.250 has made his comments, User:Zmmz (who was also not participating in the talks) uses the opportunity to make a series of new personal attacks. This results in an unwanted discussion which further disrupts the previous train of thought and discussions. I want User:Zmmz warned against making such personal attacks on article talk pages.

    It would also be nice if someone can go in there and remove the personal attacks - so that we can carry on with the relevant discussions. As of right now the talk is simply dead and this is exactly what the attackers wanted.

    Update: He has left yet another accusatory comment on my talk page. Aucaman 17:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


    Blocked 48 hours for being blatantly attacking and hostile towards other editors. Jtkiefer ---- 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Aucaman what is wrong now? Why are you dragging my name into this without even letting me know, so I could respond properly? You already reported me here, yet, you were ignored by admins. Why do you have problems with so many people in this site? You keep reporting people frivolously, most of the time for invalid reasons and grudges, and annoy the admins. However, I see here in this case you goaded this user to lose his cool and attack you, which he shouldn`t have done. But, when did ever attack you, and why don`t you provide some diffs if you accuse me of attacking you? You can’t keep doing this all the time, and have the good intentioned admins turn on some editors here. There are at least two Rfcs set-up against you , and a pending ArbCom case. Please stop throwing my name around for now.Zmmz 03:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not having a discussion about this. Leave it up to the admins to decide. I've already explained what you've done wrong. You were not participating in the talks but used the opportunity not to talk about discussions we were having but to personally attack me. If you want diffs, I'm talking about this comment and this comment. Saying that I've beeen "hidding under the protecting umbrella of being a neutral user" and saying I'm "being unreasonable in order to push a POV" are accusatory statements that have no place on Misplaced Pages talk pages (where article's contents are supposed to be discussed). This user needs to be given a serious warning (on his talk page) and asked to stop posting baseless accusatory comments on article talk pages AND user talk pages (as he constantly spams new user talk pages accusing me of having Zionist reasons for my actions among other things). Aucaman 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    That was highly innapropriate, and I've given Zmmz a strong warning, and pointed him in the direction of Misplaced Pages:Harassment. This flamewar needs to end and it needs to end soon. For any admins just joining us, a group of opposite minded middle-eastern users have been having it out like this for some time now. It went from content dispute, to personal attacks, and is now a subtle war of harrassment, with both sides trying to get the others blocked (which, unfortunatly, seems to be the way this will end up). --InShaneee 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Aucaman, those are no personal attacks, as any reasonable admin will attest to that; secondly, those have nothing to do with your recent grievences with user with the IP address 69... . At any rate, my comments were mere observations made after seeing 20 others editors are ready to sign a complaint against you, and after noticing you relentlessly try to equate the country of Persia to Nazism. On the other hand, you have a history of always complaining, trying to game the system, and in a strange way try to bully others. This has no place in an encyclopedia, and a history of your profanity laced personal attack, and incivility can be viewed here.Zmmz 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Looks like you both need a hug. Chill out, relax, and love a brotha. ⇒ SWATJester Aim Fire! 05:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    208.31.155.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Recommend temporary block for User:208.31.155.254 as user(s) have been repeated warned today. - CobaltBlueTony 17:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    48 hrs. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Rhode Island

    At some point, someone embedded a spam link into the flag link. An anon tried to remove the spam link, but left the link in an unusable state. Since I am thoroughly clueless as to image links, can someone fix it? --Nlu (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    This seems to have been fixed. Mark 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Falkland Islands continued

    Several users Astrotrain (talk · contribs) Gibnews (talk · contribs) TharkunColl (talk · contribs) with strong political motivations keep on insisting to remove the commonly used Spanish name Islas Malvinas from the firt sentence with as argument that the Falklanders are offended by the name. As an alternative, it has to be make explicitly clear in that first sentence that it is not the official name of the islands, or that the name is linked to the occupation by the Argentinians (As if the name is only used in that cointext). Astrotrain (talk · contribs) has now inserted the {{POV}} tag to make his/her point which I think is a violation of WP:POINT. KimvdLinde 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

    I am torn over this one, but I am wondering if this an appropriate user name or if it too closely related to Fuck. Judging by the vandal like contributons of this editor, I am really wondering if the choice in name is in good faith. Either, way, would an admin give their opinion on this one? Thanks.Gator (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    I know of someone with the last name of Fecke; it's a perfectly reasonable username, IMO. (BTW, which contributions are you talking about? I get an empty list.) android79 20:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    At least one speedied article, I'm guessing from the message on the talk page. --Syrthiss 20:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    All of his contributons have been deleted because he/she just kept on creating the same attack page. That was why I began to wonder, but AGF likely applies here. Thanks.Gator (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, Feck is used in some countries as a milder version of fuck, but I would also WP:AGF until proven otherwise. Stifle 21:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    Especially in the BBC's Father Ted. Sam Korn 21:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    If we get rid of him, we can be fairly said to be feckless. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

    My user page was just vandalised by 67.165.85.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who checkuser has previously shown is an address used by currently blocked user Young Zaphod, who has done such things on other pages with some of his other socks before. Note that this is someone who I've been in a bit of a content dispute with on NiMUD and Online creation. If someone would look into this and take whatever actions are appropriate, I'd be obliged. Thanks. Ehheh 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Spam blacklist?

    Yikes. This person's adding tremendous amounts of adult linkspam. If I knew how to deal with the spam blacklist I'd do it myself. Anybody? · Katefan0/poll 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Now that's one darn bored person. I'm afraid this doesn't answer your question though... —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    Only meta admins can place sites on the m:Spam blacklist. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)
    Aha. I'll leave a message for Raul; the guy's blocked for the moment. · Katefan0/poll 22:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm beginning to think we need Misplaced Pages:Request for Spam Blacklisting, although it would, of course, be abused for minor cases and petty vendettas. (Not that *this* case is such, just that such a page would end up that way.) As it stands, anyone can request addition on the talk page of the blacklist, m:Talk:Spam blacklist and one of us will get to it eventually. Essjay 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Deathrocker commiting serial offences within 12 hours of being unblocked

    I logged all of Deathrock's offences on a page from my user page, so only myself and Admins can edit it. The link is here, . I urge yew to look into this matter immediatly. Ley Shade 22:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

    After only minutes from returning after a lengthy 42 hour ban, User:Leyasu who is currently under a revert parole from Arbcom, limited to 1 content revert per day (see ).

    Well exceded that and the terms of parole, in content disputes on pages, going against concencus, maybe its time to pull the plug? Can we get an admin to look at this.

    Gothic Metal:

    all reverts - Deathrocker 22:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Deathrocker misintprets users User:Spearhead, User:WesleyDodds, User:Sceptre, and several anons, and the Wikiproject Metal, as being consensus in his favour. The user has also violated WP:CITE by refusing to supply sources, and then removing information with sources from articles because 'he dislikes Gothic metal'.
    All this behabiour, and other violations such as the Vandalisng of admin pages and claims of 3RR not applying to him are documented Here. Ley Shade 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    I don't edit in favour or out of favour, when I edit articles I try to make them NPOV. Something which you have no interest in doing.

    It is however quite touching, although some what pyschopathic, that you have dedicated an entire section of your user page to me. You make up complete lies, claiming quotes that I have never said, the only quote regarding my like or dislike for Gothic Metal is "I actually like some Gothic Metal bands".... you delete reliable sources from pages and claim message board posts as validation for your ludicrus claims.

    However, this is about you... and your totally lack of respect for parole, which you violate within minutes of returning. - Deathrocker 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    If yew are in favour of NPOV, then why keep making comments that your POV superseeds everyone's, and that sources dont count unless they agree with you?
    Sources are sources, per WP:CITE, yew cannot decide a source is reliable simply because the other 8 sources dont agree with you. And its ironic, that within 12 hours of being unblocked by Admin WooWhoKitty, yew reverted other editors on the Moi Dix Mois article over 30 times. Also reverting users on the Selling Out article over 10, and users on the Gothic Metal article 20 times. Thats a bit disrespectfull of WP:3RR.
    Its also ironic that yew make claims that the policys dont apply to yew, seemingly thinking that its ok for yew to violate the policys whenever you want. Yes ive violated Parole, i know this, and i will admit to it openly. But alas, youve been warned now by FOUR different admins to discontinue, and have been banned a far greater number of times than me for POV pushing.
    Its also funny to note how yew delete every and all messages and warnings from Admins from your Talk Page, in violation of yet another Misplaced Pages policy. But then again, according to your claims, policys dont apply to you, so i guess its ok. Ley Shade 23:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Deathrocker has been blocked for 3RR, and Leyasu for Arbcom violation. I've noticed that Deathrocker is calling Leyasu a vandal (even on this page!) recently for any of his/her edits on the subject (3RR is more likely disputing instead of vandalism). Both are blocked until Monday evening, as I've dealt with these before. I'm also putting up a Request for Comment for the two Sceptre 23:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    High Traffic Reference to Project Entropia

    Our article on Project Entropia has been relatively stable until recently. Then this thresad appeared in the Project Entropia forums. The gist is that someone has a theory that the Project Entropia MMORPG system, which allows conversion between game dollars and real-world dollars, is analagous to a casino, and therefore is illegal due to US laws against on-line or over-phone-line gambling. It's basically a content dispute, but the extra traffic from non-regular Misplaced Pages contributors is having an impact. One of the editors has a username which is the same as a person involved with Project Entropia. Anyone who has time to help do a little mediation/education with these new users is very welcome. Johntex\ 23:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Seanver, User:Blisz, User:George McFinnigan and User:George McFinnigan ie

    There seems to be some sort of series of personal attack from the first three users aimed at the last one. I noticed it when closing Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blisz, although I cannot speak any spanish so I can't get to the bottom of it. However, User:Seanver blanked the mfd in question, , and a quick flick through his contributions, the majority of which are to the user space, turns up , , , , . I'm figuring a ban, but want to run it by people here, to get a gen on what the Spanish means. Steve block talk 00:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Apparently, it seems a few users from the Spanish Misplaced Pages are trying to uncover George McFinnigan's identity as Spanish, instead of Irish, to justify a POV war. It's simple attack page spam, which includes everything from IP edits in ru.wiki to whoises on entire ranges, to "prove" that he is from Spain. Apparently, they don't know about a proxy server, so their "analysis" doesn't prove anything. A ban was certainly warranted. Titoxd 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    Tracysurf (talk · contribs)

    This user put in images with spammy/advocacy edit summaries. As I am not sufficiently familiar with surfing, I am not sure whether the edits/uploads are spam, so I'd appreciate if someone else look into it. (I did warn him/her about replacing Chris Burke (currently a disambiguation page) with questionable nearly-empty biography of surfer.) --Nlu (talk)

    Wikt:ionary blocks AOL

    At present, Wiktionary is carrying a message saying "AOL users are presently blocked from editing Wiktionary pending contact from AOL. We apologize for the inconvenience. For more information please visit the IRC channel.". And it's not April 1. -Splash 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Good riddance to bad rubbish, we should block them on enwiki as well. Jtkiefer ---- 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    According to our article, AOL serves nearly 24 million subscribers. Whatever may be the difficulties encountered in dealing with sundry AOL users, the suggestion that they are categorically (or even generally) "bad rubbish" is wholly preposterous. Joe 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    No it isn't, it wouldn't be true if AOL would actually deal with their delinquent users but since AOL doesn't give a fuck many many many AOL users run rampant and commit huge amounts of vandalism to the point where it starts to become mind boggling. Jtkiefer ---- 02:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    The problem isn't that AOL subscribers are inherently worse netizens than individuals who use other ISPs. The problem is the proxy server system that AOL uses, where a single individual in a single session will appear to come from a new AOL IP address with each successive edit. This makes it extraordinarily inconvenient to deal with a vandal from AOL, because we cannot block them effectively without blocking all of AOL. In contrast, editors through most other ISPs will tend to have at least a semi-static IP address which makes it possible to block troublemakers without causing collateral damage to other editors.
    Additionally, the rapidly changing (apparent) IP of each editor probably makes it very difficult for AOL (if they wanted to) to associate specific edits with a specific real-world individual. This in turn hampers one of our last-resort options in dealing with vandals—contacting an ISP to get them disconnected. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    True, but it's great for file sharing, AOL couldn't associate a client with any specific ip, even if a court told them to, lawsuits are virtually impossible! oh wait, that has nothing to do with this--64.12.116.65 03:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • also, someone really should tell them that the 172.x.x.x users behave like normal static ips, so they dont need to be range blocked, same for AOl canada ip ranges, i think--64.12.116.65 03:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    Requireing them to log in would not be blocking the 24 million users, I think we should make them log in. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • At eBay in the early days, there was a similar problem with AOL, not just because of the IPs, but because AOL not only allows but encourages members to have multiple accounts -- and the promiscuous way in which AOL hands out accounts (how many AOL CDs can one person use?) compounded the problem. This was the source of a lot of the rules eBay had to develop on the fly -- for example, a list of domains from which eBay membership required further identification in the form of a credit card. This became onerous enough for AOL users that it was likely part of the reason AOL and eBay started collaborating on various levels, in particular user validation; my guess is that AOL based eBay users were numerous enough that their complaints to both companies caught AOL management's attention (eBay was aware of the problem almost from the very start.) Unfortunately, the only way this maps onto Misplaced Pages is to require registration with a validated email address from editors from AOL. Which isn't a bad idea; yes, it's making special rules for AOL users, but so what? AOL's overly trusting IP usage policy makes it necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    User SPUI has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

    User:SPUI has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

    Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

    Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

    This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 04:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Do not unblock. He is edit warring, see Med Cabal (link coming) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    If my memory serves me correctly, SPUI was snagged by the bot on several occasions before this. However, I will not unblock. User:Zscout370 07:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    I've already been unblocked - the bot is meant for permablocking page-move vandalizers, and any false positives are worrisome as an assumption of bad faith. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    User SPUI is always blocked by a bot (page moves), you call this entertainment? I want him to dance for us, at the very least. El_C 08:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    SPUI, while I think that Crups is doing a good thing for the project, but if you have been snagged by the bot a lot, then what I can suggest is to slow the page moving down by just a little notch. Please? User:Zscout370 19:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    Especially when his moves are not consensused or w/o controversy.JohnnyBGood 21:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    About the road stuff? User:Zscout370 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    Rollback abuse

    I seek advice on the disruptive behaviour of User:Piotrus who, as far as I can recall, never uses rollback for reverting vandalism, but reserves the button for content disputes only. I repeatedly demonstrated to him the impropriety of his behaviour and quoted the appropriate passage from WP:RV: Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it. If you use the rollback feature other than against vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to explain on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted. Yet he recently abused the rollback again and, despite my remonstrances, yet again. I wonder how this sort of behaviour can remain unpunished. Probably a short block is needed to stop his disruptive activities. --Ghirla 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'm going to let another admin rule on this one. But. Just wanted to say that there is no *policy* per say against using rollback in the way that he is using it. What you quoted isn't a policy. So I'm not sure it's blockable. --Woohookitty 11:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    I can't say that your reply is very helpful. As his actions clearly abuse admin tools, should I seek defrocking, as the guy also practises wheel warring, copyvios, etc, or should I request for comment and arbitration, as the standard proceedings are? --Ghirla 12:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is indeed poor Wikietiquette to use admin rollback for non-vandalism reverts. However, equally, looking at the edit history of that article I see you making uncivil edit summaries like "please stop reintroducing your sloppy edits, deficient spellings en masse" and "rm rant about Poles' civilisatory mission among those barbarian ruskies... yawn". Be nice to each other and move along. — Matt Crypto 12:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    81.178.78.149

    One of this friends completly changed the Clive bull article. Honestly the new changes do not flow well compared to the original version. He has broken the 'in good faith rule' by saying that everyone that disagrees with him ( from at least 4 different ip's in 2 different countries) is the same person.It is not fair to stifle debate on an article like this and I am sure the 'good faith' clause covers this. Could you please ban this fellow for a day or two so that newbies can make comments without being called sickpuppets. DebbieatCNBC 09:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


    He follows us everywhere where we post on wiki (other than being sad) it is like stalking?? 160.83.73.14 16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Zephram Stark sockpuppet

    Gpg dearmor (talk · contribs) seems to be another sockpuppet of banned user Zephram Stark. He even signed a post as Zephram on this edit. --JW1805 (Talk) 14:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    This has got to be approaching the record for most used header on this page. Any chance he will ever give up and just take his punishment like a man? --LV 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    I doubt it. Rampant immaturity is one of his most obvious traits.--Sean Black 19:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    I am bound to say that is great coming from you lot. ElectricRay 22:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Also, please examine User talk:ElectricRay/Conversations. This page seems to have been created by ElectricRay (talk · contribs) in order to continue to carry on philosophical discussions with Zephram Stark see this edit. I think all the contributors to this page are his sockpuppets::

    All of these should be banned. I'll try to rvt his edits. All his images should also be speedy deleted. I don't know what the policy is for deleting a page in the user space, but User talk:ElectricRay/Conversations should go too. --JW1805 (Talk) 14:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    • I find myself wondering if ElectricRay is doing something contrary to the best interests of the Misplaced Pages community by encouraging and colluding with Stark sockpuppets. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Then, in my humble submission, you have an overdeveloped sense of what is in the best interests of the Misplaced Pages community, Monsieur Gordon. Speak for yourself, by all means, but not "the Misplaced Pages Community", for which you have no mandate to speak, and as to the better interests of which, you have no better insight, than me. I'm just as much a part of the Misplaced Pages community as you, after all. Monsieur JW, why delete my user page? My contributions to it are perfectly legitimate, aren't they? ElectricRay 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    On what basis would you block me, JPG? ElectricRay 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm unsure about the answer, as I said. You're conspiring with a banned user to assist him in evading his ban. That might be sufficient, under the rubric of "disrupting Misplaced Pages". Proof of disruption? The time your collusion with Stark has caused us to spend on it here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    JPGordon, this is utter nonsense, as you know. I established a subpage in userspace, away from the Encyclopaedia, which virtually no-one could see, and on it conducted a conversation with a person you and your chums don't happen to like, because I had (at the time) no other way of communicating with him whatsoever, and I was interested in the conversation, precisely because I didn't want to disrupt wikipedia. If I could be bothered with the sort of pissy little squabbles you admins seem to revel in, I would challenge Sean's delete on the grounds that it is outside policy, but I really can't be bothered. The establishment of the page and the conversation on it had absolutely no disruptive effect on wikipedia at all, and indeed probably a negative disruptive effect because, for two weeks or so, you didn't even know it was there, and presumably got on with being oifficious to someone else instead, while Zephram and his sockpuppets were spending most of their time talking, inoffensively, to me. Eventually, between you, you hunted the page down - bully for you - but the page was disruptive in no way shape of form. As it happens, I now have an alternative method of communicating with Zephram Stark, so I don't need to establish furtive sub-pages any more.
    The page should be deleted. There is no reason we should be hosting a forum for chats with banned users. Jkelly 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have removed all offending images, and removed all text references to any blocked users. I have adopted the full content as my own, under the General Use licence. None of it is, to my mind, objectionable, although I will gladly remove any specific content that you can point to that you consider objectionable (for any reason other than the bare fact that it was originally generated by a banned user). I don't mean to cause the admins trouble. I'm just minding my own business, a course of action I commend heartily to you all. ElectricRay 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    I've deleted User talk:ElectricRay/Conversations because its mostly designed to host edits by a banned user, the content that is actually relevant to Misplaced Pages is mostly personal attacks on other users, and because it doesn't contribute to building an encyclopedia in any way.--Sean Black 19:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Sean, while of course I think what you say is entirey wrong, you hold the whip hand, and there's nothing I can do to stop you, but could I ask one thing of you: could you please email the text of the deleted page to electric dot ray at btopenworld dot com, simply because while you might not value it, I do. I give you my word I won't re-post it, or any reworking or other manifestation of it, on any Wikimedia site. ElectricRay 22:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • ElectricRay, you don't seem to understand that Zephram is banned from Misplaced Pages. It doesn't matter if his edits are objectionable or not. He is not allowed to contribute in any way, shape, or form to Misplaced Pages. It doesn't matter if it's a talk page, user page, or article. I certainly consider your attempts to help him evade the ban as disruptive to Misplaced Pages. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    No, JW1805, I completely understand that Zephram's been banned. I just couldn't care less. Would you like to block me, for being "disruptive to Misplaced Pages" as you put it? Will that make you feel better? Good grief. 00:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    ER, what you're doing is like allowing Al-Qaeda to operate in the western world, which is utterly unacceptable. If you wish to communicate with banned users, please do so in an off-Wiki setting. --TML1988 03:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    If nobody has done so yet, I am hereby inventing a new law which might not yet be valid but will be eventually: just take Godwin's Law and replace "Nazis" and "Hitler" with "Al Qaeda" and "Osama bin Laden" respectively. That was pretty over the top even for Zephram puppets and their fan club. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    So, applying Gordon's law, that means I win? "There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned al Qaeda has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress". I just knew you'd see it from my point of view eventually. Good show! ElectricRay 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    I thought the comparison of Zephram Stark to al-Qaeda was pretty accurate, actually. ;-D SlimVirgin 22:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    At the risk of stirring up a conversation that may have ended, I'd like to point out that there are a million websites on the Internet, some of which allow anyone to have concersations with anyone else. If you want to have a conversation with a banned user, please take it to one of those. I'm sure no one will mind if you leave a note pointing Zephram there. -- llywrch 04:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    New socks of Shran/CantStandYa

    Based on the IP and the edit patterns I would like to add 207.44.237.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.85.195.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the list of suspects. (See Misplaced Pages:Long_term_abuse#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa) Also used a very misleading edit summary here, as what he was really doing was blanking an entire section. I actually agree with the reason for his blanking of part of the Killian documents article but not the method, and I think it should be revised but not blanked. I have attempted to engage him on one of his talk pages. I'm posting this here to start a record since he seems to be active again and the last message about him just got archived. I don't advocate any specific action yet but I also haven't checked his other contribs for problems. Thatcher131 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Suspected sock of User:Dick Witham

    After talking with User:Chadbryant and User:FARVA, I have locked the "suspected sock" tag on User:FARVA's userpage, pending a check-user (which has already been requested by Chadbryant) to check whether farva is a sock of banned user Dick Witham. For more information, see Farva's talk page, Chadbryant's talk page, the link from the suspected sock tag on Farva's user page, and, to a lesser extent, my own talk page, to see the evidence that led me to believe that at least some suspicion of sockery is warranted. JDoorjam Talk 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Users Jonny Quest, Johnny Dumbledore, Johnny 2999

    On talk pages User_Talk:Johnny Quest User_Talk:Johnny Dumbledore and User_Talk:Johnny 2999 they are labeling themselves as every sockpuppetteer at once, multible times. I found this through watching a particular sockpuppet.

    Evidence:

    - Johnny 2999, reverted by Curps
    - Johnny Dumbledore, reverted by me.
    - Johnny Quest, not yet reverted.

    I believe they are all the same person. I don't know who. Thank you. Harvestdancer 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    And one more user. User talk:Canderous Ordo

    Thank you. Harvestdancer 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    And three more just discovered.

    User talk:Ualuealue

    User talk:82.61.57.135 - edit description indicated that the vandal is Mexican G.

    User talk:68.39.174.238.. - this is NOT and IP address, it is a user name. Notice the two dots after 238.

    ]

    Thank you. Harvestdancer 18:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Some of them (2999, Quest, and 68.. (with the extra dot)) blocked indef by me, Ualeualue blocked by Curps. All seem to be Johnny the Vandal. I left Dumbledore unblocked as well as the ip, but I won't scream if someone wanted to block them. I'm also going to update the Johnny the Vandal page on WP:LTV. --Syrthiss 18:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Block evasion

    Bitola (talk · contribs · block log) who is currently blocked for violating the 3RR, just evaded the block . I don't think the edit he made was trollish or unconstructive and I don't know what's done in such circumstances. --Latinus 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    I didn't know that leaving a note in the talk page and signing it is a block evasion, but I will know that from now. Do what you have to do. Bitola

    I don't think any action is required here. Jkelly 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's not a block evasion. A block still allows a user to edit their user talk page, so as to provide some means of communication. Mo0 20:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    The edit was to Talk:Bitola not User talk:Bitola. Jkelly 21:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/AN/I

    Vandalism Report

    You might want to check the user with IP 207.63.188.29` activities here; this might be a case that cries-out for an indefinite block. Zmmz 22:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    User JohnnyBGood has been blocked by a human (page moves)

    But only for 24 hours... This was in furtherance of a revert war with SPUI over the naming of roadcruft. I also have reason to believe JohnnyBGood is a sockpuppet of another user for the purposes of tag-teaming him. I'm tired of seeing this shit, and it ought to stop. — Mar. 17, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>

    I think you need to post this on Misplaced Pages:Bots' noticeboard so that they can check with the bot that runs the human. -Splash 22:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    Unblocking. If SPUI can get unblocked, JohnnyBGood can be unblocked. Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    SPUI's not a sockpuppet. — Mar. 18, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>
    JohnnyBGood is not one either. Read the discussion (I think it got archived, but basically where a CheckUser was done and came up blank). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mademoiselle Sabina

    On 16 March 2006 I made some minor copy-edits on Tasha Schwikert, including changing "alternate" to "alternative".

    Mademoiselle Sabina (talk • contribs • Sabina page moves • block user • Sabina block log) changed "alternative" to "revert" in this edit, with the edit summary: ("'Alternate' is a noun describing a reserve athlete; 'alternative' is an adjective and is inappropriate here. I've changed it to reserve.")

    I responded to the edit and the edit summary by leaving a message on her Talk page: "'Alternative' is both a noun and an adjective; 'reserve' is fine, though.". I thought that was a neutral-to-friendly response, and expected the issue to rest there.

    In fact Mademoiselle Sabina responded on my Talk page with the following rather hostile message:

    "As a professional writer and a native speaker of English, I am well aware of the fact that "alternative" is a noun and adjective. For what it's worth, "alternate" is a term that is completely appropriate and common in American English as a term for a reserve athlete. It was used correctly and didn't need to be changed in the first place. A quick look through Misplaced Pages reveals that it is used on many athlete pages in various sports. I'm ending this discussion here, because I really do not wish to continue it."

    She has since become increasingly hysterical, launching rather thinly veiled personal attacks against me on her Talk page, leaving accusations all over the place (e.g., Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts, calling User talk:Mel Etitis/Mademoiselle Sabina an "attack page" (I created it in order to make clear to another editor what had really happened, as her accusations of personal attacks made it look as though I'd behaved appallingly), and now apparently trying to get it deleted at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mel Etitis/Mademoiselle Sabina (though without letting me know). The case is so clear that I'm in no fear of anyone taking her seriously once they've looked at what happened, but for her own sake it would be good if someone with a good bedside manner could get her to calm down. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:InShaneee

    I would like to invite any neutral admin and user to look at this case:

    InShaneee has threatened to block me, because I asked a user to comment on something he posted on another users talk page. He believes that this action is a ‘blatant’ personal-attack, ‘plain and simple’. here, and of course he has removed my comments on this user’s page using his admin tools.

    The user in question is User:Aucaman, he is known for breaking many policies as reported in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Aucaman.

    InShaneee, an admin claiming to be neutral on the case has repeatedly given me and other Iranian contributors "personal attack" warnings. At first he was correct, I was knew to Misplaced Pages and did not know how to handle users such as User:Aucaman, however recently he has threatened to ban me, because I asked Aucaman to comment on this this where he called the founder of my country Cyrus of Persia, an illiterate murderer in Persian language.

    InShanee assumed good faith on behalf of this user (apparently), however when I reported the case to him, he came and warned me that he is going to ban me soon.

    I believe InShaneee wants to ban me for unfair reasons. I have only been active on Misplaced Pages as a contributor for less than a month and if you look at the request for comment section you will see what I have had to deal with. And now I am being threatened to be banned simply because I asked Aucaman to comment why he has said that about the founder of my country. This was of particular importance to me as he is repeatedly editing Iran-related articles and I believe such users who have anti-Iranian POV should not be allowed to do so (as it is creating a lot of hassle for the rest of the contributors to fix it all up again).

    If I am wrong in assuming that inShanee is ‘ought to get me’ on this case, please let me know. Thanks. --Kash 23:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    I must admit, the diffs provided by InShanee aren't what I'd call blatant attacks; they were a bit confrontational, but within the bounds of acceptability, and certainly not grounds for blocking. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Ah, good, I was just writing up my own summary to post here (as follows). I attempted to warn User:Khashayar Karimi about harrassing other users (this is one of the many users involved in the Aucaman RfC and whatnot). He's been posting on Aucaman's page demanding an apology over something he said on an article talk page, and has been getting increasingly abusive about it ("What do you have to say for yourself?", "You should be ashamed", ect), while spamming other user's talk pages in an attempt to get him banned ("Do you think he is fit to edit?"). My warnings were met with nothing but more accusations against Aucaman and, more importantly, repeated mocking ("I almost laughed when I read this", "such amazingly good faith", "such amazingly fair admins"). I didn't want to take any further action then and there since the last comments were against me personally, but I would appreciate any other admins looking into this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by InShaneee (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

    Whoops, must have lost my sig in the copy/paste from my work page. --InShaneee 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    InShaneee thanks for your comment here. First of all my object is ofcourse to your whole attitude! you call me asking about a user's comment 'harassment', yet you come and warn to block me for something which is obviously not personal attack! I thought an admin on Misplaced Pages would know the policies better than that!
    Secondly ofcourse as you said yourself - people get angry and especially someone like me who has spent the last few weeks trying to make this user (Aucaman) come to his senses, you should appreciate that I would get a little angry and ask why he has done this. 'What do you have to say for yourself' is not what I call abusive. He had called the founder of my country, whom I respect a lot, an illeterate murderer. You assumed no good faith on my behalf, yet you assumed all the best on his! why is that? and as we both know, this is not the first time. You have done this to several other Iranian editors too.
    Thirdly you did not submit this - I did, and I would like admins to look at it. I assume (and I think I have the right to on this case) that you would have probably banned me sooner or later if I had not got people to look in to it --Kash 23:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    This issue is going to need some attention, because the entire thing is getting complicated. I've been a bit involved in this issue, reminding some of the editors involved to remain civil. In an already controversial article, Aucaman made a pretty blatantly incivil and harsh comment, which he has since acknowledged was a mistake. There are now a handful of editors demanding that he apologize to them and repeatedly bringing the incident up. These other editors are actually getting to a point where their demands are starting to be disruptive, and now admins are getting pulled into the conflict. Because the comment by Aucaman was made several days ago, there's not much administrators can do except tell him not to make more offensive comments, which I have, and to which he was amenable. All that administrators can do is enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA so that they do not occur in the future. The editors who were angry about Aucaman's edits are now even angrier because it appears that we're siding with Aucaman, when really, we're just trying to start enforcing the policies in this situation. As the above comments indicate, some editors believe it is their role to get Aucaman to "come to his senses", when, of course, that's not their job. Compounding the issue, of course, is the actual encyclopedia article which it will take some cool heads with strong understandings of the related suject matter to get any sort of resolution to (and even then, I suspect that the page won't cool down too much). I don't have the expertise in the subject to weigh in, except to enforce the policies when they get stepped on or broken. In any case, long story short, I don't think InShaneee is "out to get" anybody, and the notion that InShaneee was gearing up to ban anybody (barring, of course, the type of gross policy violation that would get anybody banned) is just silly. It's just a very touchy issue that's going to need more sets of admin eyes on it before it can get resolved. JDoorjam Talk 23:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you JDoorjam. OK - I understand that it is not my or anyone else's job to bring him to his senses, correct. I agree and I apologize for mentioning that. I must admit I will be happy as long as admins to get involved in this issue, because some admins (and I am greatful) do acknoweldge that he is not helpful, which is great! however as seen for example in here no one wants to take the case on board properly. I mean Aucaman made this comment while trying to say that he is innocent at the same time on his RfC!
    Also I would like to assume good faith on this case with InShaneee..but I have been threatened to be banned for 'personal attacks' which was clearly not the case here! atleast I'd appreciate it if admins (atleast a neutral one) could explain to me what he is warning me for using proper terms so I would not do it again. I am still learning. --Kash 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    Acceptable User Name?

    User:The Molester has just been created. Their only edits so ar are to Talk:Lolicon. Is "The Molester" an acceptable user name? It seems like an offensive user name to me, but maybe that is partly due to the location I first encountered the user (implication of child molestation). Opinions? Johntex\ 02:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    blocked. — Mar. 18, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>
    Note: This is probably User:ThePedophile and User:Convicted Criminal. I'm pretty sure he's not really a pedophile, just trolling. --Rory096 02:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Reviewing The Molester's edit summaries, he's almost definitely the same person. --Rory096 02:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks freakofnurture, did you block them indefinitely? Johntex\ 02:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Looks like he's trying to make more socks now, but they're being blocked on sight. John: yes, they're all blocked indef. --Rory096 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Also, the block has now been questioned by Lord Algezera, a relatively new user who has some interesting edits in his/her short contribution history as well. , . Advice? Johntex\ 02:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    To be honest, I wouldn't disagree with a username block on Algezera (see al-Jazeera). Anyway, just tell him that they were in violation of WP:U. --Rory096 03:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    See also Mr.ped0phile (talk · contribs). Harro5 03:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    I guess JDoorjam agrees. --Rory096 03:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    That sounds sensible. They are brand new so they have invested little in the name, and their first edits are not constructive at all so they are probably just here to troll/disrupt. I'll block them indef and cite WP:U on their Talk page. Johntex\ 03:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, Rory beat me to the message. I've banned that name because of its similarity to Al Jazeera, as Johntex said above. JDoorjam Talk 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    And I was beaten to the block! I love it when their are enough people in capes to get the job done quickly! Johntex\ 03:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    See also Child m0lester. I blocked indef. Johntex\ 03:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Ditto User:Child_lover - I blocked indef. Other socks appearing now as well.Johntex\ 23:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    Sockpuppet?

    Is this user ThoMas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sockpupprt of Rgulerdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is blocked because of 3RR? User appears, and starts immediatly posting within context of the Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics, and appears to know the rukles of wikipedia pretty well. KimvdLinde 04:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    5 of the new users 8 sizeable edits are idential to the blocked user. ॐ Metta Bubble 04:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked indef, puppeteer's block extended to 50 hours. NSLE (T+C) at 04:35 UTC (2006-03-18)

    Karmafist is pasting links to his manifesto to new users again

    etc. <sigh> --Gmaxwell 05:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    To be fair, the agreement at his RFAR was that he could use it in his sig, and there was never a ruling passed that he couldn't use the normal welcome templates. NSLE (T+C) at 07:47 UTC (2006-03-18)
    Did you read the edit summaries of those five welcomes? It's still a grossly inappropriate 'welcome' however you look at it. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 15:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Read his talkpage. Karmafist is just gaming the system as of late. -Zero 15:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    This is going too far, we can wikilawyer about sigs, or we can say that recruiting newbies to a partisan manifesto (whatever its merits) before they've had time to work out wikipedia for themselves is unacceptable however it is done. The arbcom case should be reopened and Karmafist given once last chance to behave, before we ban him for good. --Doc 16:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    The arbitration case is still proceeding. Two arbitrators have voted to close, but another two have voted to keep it open. The case would need four net votes to close and has 0 (2 supports - 2 opposes). --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    I should update that, I suppose. One supporting arbitrator has withdrawn his support, and another arbitrator has voted oppose. So depending on whether or not you count Sam Korn's withdrawn vote as an oppose, it's either 3-1 or 4-1 against closing the Karmafist case. --Tony Sidaway 05:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    The edit summaries on those welcomes are unacceptable; it would appear that Karmafist has abused the assumption of good faith that led me to propose closing the case. I've told him my thoughts on this, and I hope he takes the opportunity to explain himself and proceed in a different manner; if not, well, I've given him a lot of chances now. -- SCZenz 17:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    I have blocked Karmafist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours due to his continuing disruption. He already has an ongoing arbitration and he's going totally out of bounds now. He needs some time to cool down. --Cyde Weys 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    I don't see this block as being particularly productive, and it isn't supported by the blocking policy. I have unblocked Karmafist. —Guanaco 20:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    And if the disruptiveness continues, what then? --Cyde Weys 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, no, Guanaco unblocking somebody without consensus? Who would have thought that that would ever happen? User:Zoe| 23:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    I can't believe you're still whining about my actions in dealing with Michael. —Guanaco 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have reblocked him for 24. In addition to the above he has resorted to calling a fellow admin a 'thug' and a 'vandal' . He just keeps pushign it, well enough. --Doc 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with this re-block. The welcome edit summaries are not the only issues here. Rx StrangeLove 21:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Someone who professes to want to clean up wikipedia, can't go arround calling other admins 'thugs'. He of all peiople should know better. --Doc 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Some admins on Misplaced Pages act like thugs; the term is often appropriate. Of course, it generally should be avoided (NPA). —Guanaco 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    My two cents on all this. First of all, Guanaco (and everyone else) should know that blocks for disruption, with administrative consensus, are supported by blocking policy. I should note, though, that Karmafist did explain and apologize for the edit summaries at the top of this section. I would not have done this block myself, but Karmafist is either playing games with us or is very angry, and in either case some time to cool down might improve the situation. -- SCZenz 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    I talked with him on IRC about this. I think the main problem is that he's very angry and doesn't have an outlet, so he makes provocative comments in edit summaries. I told him that if he's having a bad day, it's best to take it off-wiki and conform with WP:CIVIL. Sometimes it's just best to write a bunch of insults in a text editor, and then trash the file. Better to release it all in private than let it bottle up and then escape onto the wiki. Johnleemk | Talk 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    That's an excellent idea. You should put that into whichever is the relevant guideline/be-nice page. -Splash 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    I am fine with the new block, but 24 hours is unusually long for mild personal attacks and disruption by an established contributor. —Guanaco 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    24 hours is not too long of a block for disruption, especially when hundreds of innocent newbies are being caught in the crossfire of some silly wikipolitic war. --Cyde Weys 00:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Actually an 'estabilished contributor' should know better, and the behaviour is not issolated but compounding earlier disruption and misue of edit summaries. Actually, I think 24 hrs is extremely light, and certainly should not be shortened. --Doc 00:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is light, but blocking is not intended to be used as a punishment. —Guanaco 00:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well in this case it's being used to prevent him from disruptive welcoming after he was repeatedly asked not to do so over a period of weeks. If he continues after the block expires he will merely earn himself a longer block. --Cyde Weys 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, I think the block was probably a very good idea in this case and I support it. My interpretation of Karmafist's recent statements is that he is intentionally and maliciously setting out to break Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution system. If I'm right and we don't block as and when appropriate, we're sending him the wrong signals. --Tony Sidaway 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Raul654, the proposer and last remaining supporter of the motion to close, has withdrawn it, saying: "I think it's clear from these recent edits he made (look at the edit summaries) that he's gaming the system. I withdraw the motion." --Tony Sidaway 07:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Edit war at Abortion

    I think some admin attention, perhaps to remind edit warriors not to disrupt, may be in order. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 08:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    One of the editors has passed the 3RR point. AvB ÷ talk 09:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    User:Pro-Lick, a recently registered editor whose activity is essentially limited to fighting over the abortion article, seems to have some ideas about organizing talk pages in certain ways and removing comments of other editors that don't fit his scheme. I warned him about that, as did another editor, and he removed most of our comments from his talk page in reply, but he hasn't removed anything else at Talk:Abortion. However, he's begun making personal attacks, so I warned him about that as well. I'd appreciate it if another admin or two could keep an eye out, and maybe step in if necessary, so that there are voices other than mine telling him just how we don't operate here. I think he thinks I disagree with him politically, which is funny because I think I don't. Maybe a liberal more flaming than I could have a word with him. Anyway, thanks. -GTBacchus 18:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Deathrocker

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

    This user has been blocked for violating 3RR seven times in the past three months; twice in the past three days. He's taken swings at everyone who has come near him, especially Sceptre, who gave him a four-day block for his latest (read: seventh) 3RR violation. This is becoming a disruption This has become a disruption, and needs to be dealt with before it becomes an ArbCom case. I'm inclined to support a month long block, to enforce enough time for him to read WP:3RR very carefully and get the picture that disrupting the site will not be tolerated. Of course, before doing so, I want to hear others' opinions; opinions? Essjay 09:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    3RR blocks by six different administrators, a tendentious history, and now he's starting to blank portions of his talk page. I'd say a month off is entirely appropriate. There's no reason why people should have to keep putting up with this. · Katefan0/poll 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Especially me, just clean off a wikibreak close to taking another one (WP:ESP/ALERT). Or User:Leyasu, who got an arbcom ruling restriction to one revert a day while warring with this user. Sceptre 19:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, the user blasted me on IRC for dealing with their unblock request and was promptly kickbanned, no proof that the IRC user was the WP user but its too close not to raise an eyebrow -- Tawker 19:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    The talk page-blanking is nothing new; Deathrocker has continually done this since December. As a result, he/she received several redundant 3RR warnings from users who probably didn't realize that he/she already had been warned (1, 2, 3, 4). He/she also routinely removed messages pertaining to various other issues (including general edit warring, vandalism, incivility, and the talk page-blanking itself). A one-month block seems appropriate. —David Levy 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Im violating my Ban by doing this, but im using an anon to add this comment here. Ive set up a rather extensive list of Deathrockers actions as part of my user page, which is linked here, here and here. This also includes the extensive revert war on his talk page. All diffs are supplied so there is no hear say or attacks by me or anyone else. I hope this helps somewhat for the purposes of deciding his case, wether for, against, or just for reference/comment. 86.132.130.69 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (Ley Shade)

    Tawkerbot2

    Tawkerbot2 is making reverts in wrong namespaces at the moment (see User talk:Tawkerbot2). You should block the bot as of now until error fixed. →AzaToth 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    The bot made an error (see here) but I don't think it's a namespace problem. It got confused about who had vandalized and where to revert to. Unless this is happening a lot, I think the proper thing to do is notify the bot's owner rather than block it. -- SCZenz 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    I am aware of the problem and am looking at it, I've killed the revert/warn functions for now, but if any mass attacks show up, I'm re-enabling it. Presently it mis blames 1% of the edits or so, I'm still not sure what the cause is but I'm looking at it -- Tawker 20:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    Human

    Human needs at least one neutral admin to step in and ensure accordance with policy. Too many editors are attempting to edit war their way thru a very tricky minefield of POV, and the article is suffering.

    I think it is clear from recent edits, and especially edit summaries that FeloniousMonk is not the neutral admin to do that.

    I'm not saying people w opinions arn't welcome, but thats not what this situation needs. What we could really use are some cool heads to remind us of policy.

    Cheers, Sam Spade 20:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    Sam, it's pretty clear that you're trying to interject your specific religious POV into multiple parts of the article, including the lead-in. What this has to do with WP:ANI is lost on me. --Cyde Weys 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed with Cyde; up to your normal tricks again, I see. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed with both. Sam's use of the NPOV tag is specious, and is now past the threshold of vandalism. Additionally, Sam lost any semblence of a preseumption of NPOV he may may ever have had, and any need to apply WP:AGF to his edits or proposals when he commented, "In sum, teach the controversy, rather than telling mankind "your a dirty ape; get used to it."" Jim62sch 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    I never have read the page before, and as neutral reader with a biology backgroud, the inclusions of Sam Spade are strong POV, inaccurate, and do not improve the article. KimvdLinde 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    I said neutral admin, not anyone with an outstanding gripe against me. Sam Spade 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    KimvdLinde isn't an admin. See Jim62sch 12:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:CrnaGora and User:Ottoman Sultan sockpuppetry to disrupte RfA

    As noted on this RfA: , Crna Gora and Ottoman Sultan are the same person, using multiple accounts to disrupt the RfA process. Not only are they posting misleading information that there is a hard-coded edit count limit under which you ware not eligible to apply for admin (which is incidentally what tipped me off that they are the same person) but they are also both entering votes. I've warned them both on their user pages, but I feel this is very disruptive and shouldn't be allowed. I asked on #wikipedia and was told that I shold bring it up, so I thought this was the most appropriate place. Note: I first noticed that they were the same person because They both left the same reason for opposing on two different users (regarding the admin edit limit). I noticed that Ottomon Sultan's user talk link wikilinks to CrnaGora's. Their User pages are written in the same style, and I would be highly surprised if a CheckUser turned them out to be two different people. ⇒ SWATJester Aim Fire! 21:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    Can't comment on the sockpuppet allegations - though it seems very strange to bother using them to vote 'oppose' twice on an RfA that clearly won't succeed, sockpuppetry or no. However, as has already been pointed out, plenty of users look at editcount to judge adminship candidates. I suspect Ottoman's only crime in this respect was to omit the magic words 'in my opinion'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 00:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    And what if the RfA had beem very close to the 80% consensus mark, or whatever the 'crat involved uses as his guideline? The principle is still the same: It was an attempt to disrupt the system, though admittedly so poorly chosen that it had next to no effect. I'd point out that one or both of the accounts (haven't checked to see if both are) have been advertising a wikilink to some sort of poll for wikipedians to "vote" on the "montenegro independence referendum" or some such. Now, obviously such a vote has no effect on anything, but what if they were using both accounts to disrupt an AfD, or some other sort of vote? ⇒ SWATJester Aim Fire! 04:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Northmeister

    User:Northmeister has been making reverts on my reverts of other edits for the sole reason of trying to get me not to make reverts on his articles. He keeps on trying to promote the American System (economics) article by putting it into articles (a system advocated by Larochites). He tried to link it to the Pat Buchanan article and I reverted it out. The user then has gone to article in which I contribute to revert my reverts.

    He keeps on trying to promote this system by placing its internal link in other articles as well.

    And when someone reverts it he claims "vandalism", "trolling", or "stalking".

    Another poster, User:Will Beback asked him to stop in his talk page and he replied by telling the poster "you can go to hell" . I asked him to "remember to be civil" and he replied in a similar fashion telling me to "go to hell". --Jersey Devil 01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    I have blocked Northmeister for forty-eight hours for incivility and disruption. Tom Harrison 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you.--Jersey Devil 02:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Northmeister (talk · contribs) thinks my block is unfair and that I am biased against him. I invite others to review my block and lift it if they think it's unwarranted. Tom Harrison 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Northmeister is a newcomer, unfamiliar with Wikipolitics, and has something of a temper. That being said, it is apparent to me that Jersey Devil and Will Beback were deliberately goading him, violating the spirit and the letter of WP:BITE. Will Beback in particular should be admonished, or possibly blocked, for violation of WP:NPA in calling Northmeister a "LaRouche supporter." Will knows very well that Northmeister is not a LaRouche supporter, but continues to taunt him with the term as an epithet (see ) and as an implicit threat: Northmeister is aware of the sanctions which may be applied to "LaRouche supporters." As far as I know, I am the only LaRouche supporter left at Misplaced Pages, since Cognition has apparently left. --HK 15:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    The mess at User: Halliburton_Shill

    This article has been a storm of ill-applied Misplaced Pages procedure for days and something needs to be done. The administrators working at the article have done nothing in the way of concensus, except placing unannounced blocks on those who disagree with them.

    The user's page is certainly in error due to misunderstanding of WP procedure, however, the responses by administrators have been immature and ineffective in solving the dispute.

    The user's page is being blanked repeatedly due to a very tenuous charge of "googlebombing"—to hell with 3RR.

    Even if the user in question is entirely to blame, the whole "dialogue" (mere POV pushing via Administrative functions) is disgusting and I have not seen its like in my two years at Misplaced Pages.Yeago 02:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Um. I'm not sure what you are talking about. There have been 4 posts TOTAL in the last 4 days. --Woohookitty 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Removing the objectionable content, protecting the page, and asking the user to choose a new name all seem like pretty mature and effective responses to me. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages is Communism Sock

    See diff. Werdna648/C\ 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Asking for a block for User:Benjamin Gatti

    Per his arbcom case, Ben is on General probation and regular probation for continued disruption. Well, a couple of days ago, Ben was banned from Nuclear power and Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for disruption. His response? He put an arbitration request up for nuclear energy. It is completely ridiculous. He's pulled this stunt before. It's Wikilawyering at its finest...and it defines disruption. He was blocked a week under the general probation provisions in February. I am asking for 2 weeks this time. We need 3 uninvolved admins to concur. If the block is performed, it needs to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thanks. --Woohookitty 05:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    PS - If people think that a longer block is warranted. I would not object. I just asked for 2 weeks since we need 3 admins on this. --Woohookitty 05:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    user:SPUI again

    I'd like to ask for someone else to review the User:SPUI situation. For his/her latest personal attacks/vandalism, I've blocked him/her for a week, but I am not sure if the block should have been longer. (I don't think it should have been shorter.) --Nlu (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    If you read the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads case you find that SPUI has been conducting a massive edit war involving over 200 pages. Considering his probational status this is probably a good minimum. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Talk page protection seems pretty needless, no comment on the block though. Protecting the talk page of frequent editors is pretty annoying, so should only be done in cases of genuine vandalism and personal attacks, which this was not. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    The implied invitation to a wheel war is, however, vandalistic, I believe. And his responses to Rschen7754 are personal attacks. I am asking for a review of the situation as a request from myself; I am not implying that SPUI is entitled to appellate rights, and I think it would be bad precedent to allow a blocked user to keep putting {{unblock}} back on as many times as he wishes until an admin unblocks him. He got his chance to proffer good reason to be unblocked. He proffered non-reasons and refused to apologize. That's not good enough in my book. --Nlu (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    In the three edits since you blocked him there have been no personal attacks that I can see. The addition of {{unblock}} is annoying, I suppose, but the worst that happens is that an administrator takes a look at the situation and feels the block was unfair (again I haven't looked). It's certainly not a problem severe enough to warrant the disruption caused by protecting his talk page. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Talk page unprotected, so he can communicate with admins. User:Zscout370 08:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Taking a look at the actual issue, I'd classify Rschen's posts on SPUI's talk as fairly rude as well. SPUI's edits were decidedly not vandalism, and the use of both rollback and template anti-vandal responses were quite needless. No dispute with the length of the block, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    I still don't understand your point on protecting his talk page being disruptive, though. Disruptive of what? If he's properly blocked (an issue that I asked for review on), he's not going to be editing articles, and there is no real reason for him to be communicating with anyone anyway. --Nlu (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Ugh. I've unblocked SPUI, perhaps after an incomplete review of the issues and edits involved here. After now having read the above, I'm not certain I would have unblocked him. I am not going to reblock him, but am also not going to again unblock him if he continues to be disruptive. I am hopeful he can edit productively (because if he doesn't, I look like a jackass). JDoorjam Talk 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    It appears that you've unblocked User:User:SPUI but not User:SPUI. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 09:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Disruptive of the normal functioning of Misplaced Pages, obviously... usually when I have a question to ask another editor about an edit he made I post to his talk page. Given that SPUI has 50000+ edits, I imagine that over a weeks time a few people might have questions for him over the course of a week. I don't see what it would help to prevent them from asking. This is aside from the general philosophy that without a good reason to protect, which there certainly was not, protection is an evil. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    And you think this is not disruptive? --Nlu (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    No, not especially. Frankly, I think Tawker's being a bit silly about it and is edit warring to no purpose. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    How can my actions be classified as rude? Adding "profit" to the WP:CASH page here and here is vandalism, and I responded with the correct templates. (WP:CASH has nothing to do with money). And then when I noted this at the MedCabal page he annotated it with {{fact}} which is for use in the article space and when something is uncertain. Especially considering that I am an admin but did not block SPUI myself, I feel that I took the right actions here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 09:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    We're talking about an obvious joke on a project page. It was clearly not intended to damage the project, which is the basic definition of vandalism. "You are potentially offending people...in the wider readership?" Do you really think a lot of readers are checking out the California Highways Wikiproject? In general, I think you were pretty damn rude, yeah. The fact that you're involved in a dispute with him is all the more reason for you to maintain a cooler head about things. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with Rschen (particularly since the templates used are standard templates. It should be further noted that since then, SPUI has resorted to sockpuppetry to try to get unblocked. See . Still think that unprotecting the talk page does any good? --Nlu (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    I can understand that you think SPUI is an annoying git. But adding "profit" to WP:CASH is a harmless joke and not blockworthy. Please don't use anti-vandalism templates on the talk pages of good users; in my opinion it is actually more rude than SPUI's retort to it. Rschen7754 was, as he points out, right not to block SPUI himself but I don't feel any block is warranted at all. Haukur 10:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages is not the place to 'joke' in this manner. Think: if this edit was made by an anon, none of you would have any hesitation in reverting and warning, and I'm not sure what it is that makes this acceptable here. This wasn't just a one-off joke, SPUI made the same edit again once he was reverted. I do not see how this was not disruptive, especially the second time. Raven4x4x 11:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is not necessary to use the vandalism templates. They are plainly a shortcut (not the only method) to warn new users. I'm sure an experienced user deserves a fuller explanation. Sam Korn 12:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Linkspamming by User:Stang281

    User's sole contributions have been to insert links to his webshots albums for various aircraft. Three separate editors removed his links on the basis of questionable worth (duplicates content from other sites) and questionable copyright priviledges (they're never established on the page).

    User has fought this on F-22 Raptor page; a further 2 editors have discussed this with him and concur that the link should not be in the article.

    Have suggested that the user assist in putting public domain images into Misplaced Pages commons, but user is adamant that his webshots album is superior.

    User has now resorted to slapping a copyright examination on the page . Will admit he has a point about applying the criteria for copyright violations; but it was cut and dried to apply in this case as the content was nothing more than pictures copied from other sources.

    User has violated 3RR several times but this is a bit more complex than just 3RR.

    --Mmx1 10:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Blocking IP 82.42.237.114

    After a good long look at things I'm blocking IP address 82.42.237.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Talk page of the IP claims to be a shared IP and not to block, but the only "legitimate" user of it is claimed "reformed vandal" Sunfazer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bluntly, I don't believe the reform. I don't believe the story about it being a shared IP from public terminals. I think it's all the same user, and the tricks are unchanged. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    It doesn't look like a shared IP to me either. Shared IPs generally have a schizophrenic and immature pattern of vandalism, mostly test-style edits mingled in with good edits. Basically, it's obvious that different people use it. Whoever uses this IP to vandalise seems to have an advanced knowledge of Misplaced Pages - enough to add a bogus protection notice and remove notices from vandal accounts' user pages . There is only one actual 'normal' test edit that I see, and it's to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection, which is an unlikely place for a genuinely new user to stumble upon. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 13:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    My technical knowledge on things like shared IPs is so limited that I wouldn't want to intervene, but I have seen Sunfazer being genuinely helpful, when he didn't have to be, and I'm inclined to believe what he says. AnnH ♫ 14:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Repeated POV vandalism of Kenneth R. Conklin by User:Redflea aka User:67.49.170.87

    I've asked nicely on User talk:Redflea and User talk:67.49.170.87, but they still keep reverting to POV pushing versions attacking Dr. Conklin personally. Please warn, and block both accounts (should be the same person). --JereKrischel 12:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Image:Tom cousineau.jpg

    Could someone take a look at this and then have a word with User:Jaranda?12:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    Category: