Misplaced Pages

3. You made no attempt to resolve the dispute. You protected the page in its POV form after DELIBERATELY removing the Dispute tag.

For this, and saying that he failed (IMO) I was blocked indefinitely; it is admitted above. I don't care if the block was lowered, I feel the application of an indefinite block for that almost entirely cogent email is highly irresponsible especially because it made it very difficult to argue my case. It's like all of a sudden going to DEFCON 1, then going back to DEFCON 4 and acting as if "no blood no foul, right?".

Although a warning or 24 hour ban would have been preferable, the situation escalated because, in my opinion, Sandover was for the most part refusing to acknowledge the points I was making on the Talk page. I was also frustrated by the fact that my very small additions/omissions were being completely reverted while I allowed his entire section to remain essentially intact. On top of that, the POV tag that I inserted (for both the anti-gay blurb and Sandover's edits) was being removed again and again without dialog. This was especially annoying because the tag was also intended for content that Sandover had nothing to do with. Even though I initially added the POV tag and explained it, I was in part banned for a 3RR, again, even though no one bothered to explain why it shouldn't be there. At that point, I was pretty comfortable calling the whole incident "fascistic" simply because the editors/Admins were moving along without me while silencing me by force. Haizum 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Threat of Arbitration: Simply not represented fairly. Based on several complaints and my own personal experience with this Administrator (that I felt was contra the role of the Admin), I said "You're on your way to arbitration." Inflamatory? Perhaps, but this comment was made in private via Wiki email. It is not, "I'm going to get you arbitrated," and it is not worthy of an indefinite ban. Haizum 03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on my userpage and elsewhere

68.112.25.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made numerous personal attacks on me as well as User:Abu badali, such as here, here, here, and here (as well as other edits in the users contributions). This seems to stem from the fact that I have removed images from articles (that this user may have uploaded as User:Padgett22, User:Onlyslighted, and/or User:Steph11 ... I am not sure how to report/check sockpuppets, though User:Meegs seems to think Padget22 and Onlyslighted are one in the same) that are either unsourced or images that are not being used in fair use (most particularly when the image is from a DVD cover and is being used illustrate the person, not the creative property). Also, he vandlised my user page four times in a short amount of time. -- MOE.RON 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. Previous (and possibly) relevant ANI discussions can be found here and here as they deal with the same actions and possibly the same user.

The user vandalised my page this morning for the same reasons; I had reverted their attempts to place pictures into articles where they have been told many times they can not because of violating fair use (as well as continually trying to change release dates in select Phish albums). I would really appreciate an admin looking into/commenting on this. Thanks. --MOE.RON 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I share MOE.RON's concerns over this user's behavior. The personal attacks are unnaceptable and the continuos readd of the "fair use" images are highly annoying. --Abu Badali 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

An outside view on Linuxbeak's RfC.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Linuxbeak#Outside_view_by_FuCyfre - FuCyfre is a non-existent user; and the view I find rather divisive. Any comments? Werdna_T@CL 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the outside view as trolling due to its forged signature and inflammatory content. JDoorjam Talk 04:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. May not be forged. Looks like it was added in this edit by a user who did have that name at that time, but is now SnarkBoojum (talk · contribs). See name change request at: Misplaced Pages:Changing username/Archive11#SnarkBoojum - Fan1967 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• However, it does look like he blanked Guettarda's comments in the process. Fan1967 04:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Quite wrong. Nothing was blanked. The name change was duly presented. I find this process telling. Have a nice day. SnarkBoojum 15:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is Alkivar allowed to be an admin?

le Alkivar uses profanity in his edit summaries and practices incivility. Here are just a few examples. Check his user contributions, and you'll find regular use of "shit" and "fuck". Check out his talk page in which he routinely removes comments that are not vandalism (also notice the number of complaints he receives on his talk page). Only administrators can do this, but notice his inappropriate use of deleting histories. Check out the brassiere page where he tried to add some awful picture to it that everyone hated, and then he insulted everyone (except one user) who complained about the picture. He also seems to be in the habit of provoking vandals by making his feuds with them personal. Why hasn't Alkivar ever been blocked for this kind of behavior or been removed from his position as an administrator? This is a travesty. Duckdid 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't any opinion with respect to most of the points you raise, as I've only a passing familiarity with Alkivar and am disinclined to spend time reading through his talk page. Apropos of his profane edit summaries, though, one finds that his profanity isn't directed in specific at other users (as would perhaps be in contravention of WP:NPA and would, in any event, be disruptive), save for those linkspammers whom we block straightaway. To suggest that his edit summaries are in bad form, then, one would have to argue that profanity is disruptive per se, irrespective of context, and I suspect that many users, like I, aren't willing to make such an argument. As to the history deletion, the last two months of his admin activity seem to have comprised no deletions of specific versions of a page/image (i.e., "history deletions") save for those in which an image was compromised (viz., either by an unencyclopedic image's being uploaded in its place or by a non-fair use picture's being uploaded). Now, I've seen several complaints here and elsewhere about Alkivar, and I think perhaps his style sometimes could be more decorous; I don't think, though, that any Wikipedian can say that he/she has never phrased something in a fashion he/she later regretted. Alkivar doesn't appear to be disrupting the community and appears to use the admin tools properly and constructively (if sometimes with terse explanation), so I can see no reason for which Alkivar ought to be desysopped. Of course, per WP:RfDA, one may always construct an RfC, which will surely bear out any actual malfeasance (even as I suspect none has occurred). Joe 06:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of some comments I found in his edit summaries and other places by searching just for a minute or so: "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards", "why do idiots insist on adding images without reading the HELP documentation first?", "All i've gotten is shit over this picture ... fuck you all its deleted", "Fuck You." Yes, Alkivar breaks incivility and he uses profanity to further that goal. Please, don't try to ignore this obvious fact. Doing a search on Misplaced Pages, I also found a reference to Alkivar deliberately trying to lure a guy he was feuding with into a 3RR block. Duckdid 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the feeling when people add in the worst-written shit you have ever read. Makes me want to say that first think, too. However, the rest is just unexcusable. Either this is a different user than the person elected to admin, or it has gone to his head in a bad way. --mboverload@ 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've talked to him about this, which should be the first step rather than taking it here. Talk to him first, try to work it out, and if that doesn't work bring it here. I'm tired of people complaining on this NB without first trying to actually resolve the issue (wow! what a concept!). Snoutwood (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Talking to him is a great idea, but it's not a terrible idea for a fellow admin to do the talking. As it stands, he appears to be an ongoing embarassment to less potty-mouthed admins.

When you loose a cannon, you have the responsibility to reign it back in. Every person who voted in support on Alkivar's RFA should be jumping down his throat right now. Al 07:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. He made what may or may not be a mistake, and going "Ohnoes, sysop abuse!" is absurd (as per "why hasn't Alkivar ever been blocked for this kind of behavior or been removed from his position as an administrator?"). Talking to him is exactly what should be done here, as always. Snoutwood (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying we have TWO standards? Because when I once made a single edit comment that could be taken as an insult, I was blocked for a week. This guy is cursing out people repeatedly, but since he's an admin, all you suggest is that someone speak to him politely about it? With all due respect, there is clearly at least the appearance of disparity here. Al 07:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Alienus. Admins should be blocked, or not, for violations according to the very same standards (at least) which would be applied to any other editor.Timothy Usher 07:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But I'm not playing a double standard, see below for details. Snoutwood (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know your situation, but I reckon that you should've been talked to first as well. If you'd already been talked with or warned or whatever, then I'd understand it. No one's brought up the subject with Alkivar. In fact, no one who brought this topic up appears to even have had the decency to let him know that he's being talked about on this noticeboard. Talk to him, take it to RfC. That's the dispute resolution process. The whole way this wiki works is through communucation. A lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that when they don't like something, the best thing to do is shout over here, Abuse! Abuse! and then not bother to tell the "abusing" person anything about it or do any leg work themselves. If you'd mentioned the issue and then he'd said Fuck off, this post would be far more reasonable. But then that hasn't happened. Snoutwood (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. If a user is uncivil, why are we shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the problem. Fine, if Duckdid is a banned user, ban him again. But don't just assume that because a banned user brings something up, the complaint is ipso facto invalid. Alkivar's edit summaries DO contain problems, regardless of whether someone haas talked to him about it yet (and maybe no one has talked to him about it because of the perception that it will do no good, vis double-standards?). -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not shooting the messenger, nor do I think that the complaint is invalid. I'm saying that the messenger is taking the wrong steps. If I have a problem with a user, I talk to him about it. That I've assumed that he'll respond poorly is no reason to not talk to him about it (I may be wrong, he may say, "Oh, feck, right, sorry about that," and the problem's solved. I've seen it happen). If he responds poorly, then that's a good reason to bring it here. It's just plain rude to post a message here before first even going over the problem with the person you have a problem with. Talking to them first is indeed the first step in our dispute resolution process, a long-standing policy. Try it, and you may get good results. If that's done, then come here with the problem and we'll do our best. Snoutwood (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys have to realize the near impossibility of not being an “insider” and trying to get things done. I’ve been told that I shouldn’t have posted this concern here, even though the directions at the top of the page say this is where to do it. I’ve been told to talk to Alkivar, which is impossible since he has removed my comments from his talk page in the past. I’ve been told that I should appeal to a committee instead of creating a sockpuppet if I’m blocked, but how do I do such things if I’m blocked to begin with? And what about Snoutwood, who appears (though this could be wrong) to be interpreting everything in the light most favorable to Alkivar? Snoutwood claimed no one had the decency to tell Alkivar that he’s being talked about, and that’s a non-issue. Alkivar tried to have me blocked about thirty minutes after I posted here. He knew about it. He just didn’t want to say anything here.

No one has looked at this from my perspective. Administrators go around making binding decisions with blocks and deletions and so forth. I just make a few edits and create a few articles here and there. When people talk about needing to do a WP:RfA because the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL were violated when there was a WP:3RR or whatever, I don’t know what any of that means. I have to sit here for an hour clicking on the links to figure out what those acronyms mean and what the substance of those policies are. So, I’m stuck hindered by an overly bureaucratic process that I don’t understand (and several in this conversation have interpreted differently) while groupthink and the good ol’ boys network run amok. Dizzied 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, where's your proof that Alkivar tried to have you blocked?

As I've said, I don't have a stand in regards to Alkivar, and if it's in the interest of the encyclopedia for him to be desysopped or whatever else than I would wholeheartedly support it. I think that there's very much an isue that needs to be addressed here, and I think that you're going about this the wrong way. However, that doesn't have anything to do with what I've been saying. What I've been saying is that he needed to be talked to first. As that still hasn't happened, I left a message on his talk page asking him to talk about this here. I won't have anything else to do with this: all I was trying to do is bring in some dispute common sense, and since it's being ignored I won't reiterate it any more. Snoutwood (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment: Duckdid appears to be a reincarnation of User:Beisnj, please see the respective logs or email me for details. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to talk to him before under just my IP address before I had an account, and he just removed my comment. His explanation was that he doesn't respond to anonymous users. Later, someone made a similar complaint under a real account, so I thought that would settle it, but he just deleted that one also. I also realize this next comment will likely result in getting me blocked indefinitely, but the Beisnj account was my account. An admin blocked that account indefinitely, however, please note that none of my edits were vandalism, I never harassed anybody, etc. Under this account, I have continued to make appropriate edits as well. I could have easily hidden that the Beisnj account was mine simply by not adding to my user page the list of articles I've created. I just want to edit on Misplaced Pages from time to time and be left alone while I do it. The only people I've ever complained about was one guy who tried to overtake an article about French military history, and Alkivar because of his string of abuses. Two mure notes: (1)As an added note, I see that his RfA was approved by a 28-21 vote. Now, I don't know much about the inner-workings of Misplaced Pages, nor have I ever attempted to be an "insider", but that doesn't seem like a very solid vote. Most of the "oppose" votes voiced the same concerns I have voiced here. (2) This entire conversation is hypocritical. I'm being asked to go talk to Alkivar about it, but he hasn't attempted to talk to me about this. His immediate response was to petition to Jayjg to have me permentantly blocked. Notice in Alkivar's complaint that he doesn't have an argument of substance against me, he just saw a previous block and is hoping for the easy way out. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he uses my "self-incrimination" above to permanantly block me himself. Duckdid 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Duckdid indefinitely as a self-confessed sockpuppet of a banned user. Sockpuppetry to evade bans is not acceptable, no matter how well the sock contributes. Inicidentally, the RfA Duckdid refers to failed. Alkivar's third RfA was the one that got him promoted, by 69/20/8. The allegations of incivility are disturbing, but an RfC sounds like the proper venue for this, with evidence that people have tried and failed to resolve this with Alkivar, and allowing Alkivar a response. --Sam Blanning 08:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, RfC is the place for these kinds of complaints. ANI has become almost a replacement for RfC. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then the header for this page needs to be reworded. Currently it says:

If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both.

-- nae'blis _(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He also called me a troll and blocked my user page for having a creative user name. (User:Can sleep, clown will not eat me) I saw someone named User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me in the Special:Recentchanges, and thought it was good user name, so I created a similar one. It is not impersonation.--4.19.93.2 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar didn't block that username, Jni and FireFox did. Snoutwood (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Although i have no personal insight into, or interest in, either editor's behaviour, i have to say that reading this section hardly instils confidence in our administration system. I reads very much like Admins covering each other's back, selectively quoting policy to justify awfully poor behaviour, and a warning to any non admin who dares to point out that some one may be abusing their tools. Per WP:AGF, i'll accept that is not the motivation of the admins here, but its hard to deny that is what it looks like. Irrespective of where or whether a complaint has been made, in light of the evidence quoted above would it not make sense of one of you to say youl will have a quiet word in Alkivar's ear and point out that such language and behaviour is unbecoming on an admin? Instead we say to the person making the complaint: "talk to him/her about it" then immediately we block them. Result? The problem goes away. Until next time. Rockpocket 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're worried that Alkivar will block you for criticising him, which I think is highly unlikely, I will personally supervise the exchange and make sure that it doesn't happen. O.K.? I'm not "covering" Alkivar, I've no particular attachment to him or admins as some sort of cabal. If an admin came here without discussion with the person they're having trouble with, I'd say the same thing. Discusison with the user is first and foremost, that's all. People seem to be forgetting that these days. Snoutwood (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was more that of nae'blis'. Irrespective of the situation, an editor had pointed out out what appears to be a very valid concern. That user not cannot resolve the situation him or herself (as soon as they self identify they will be blocked again, moreover he tried to talk anonymously and was ignored or the comment removed). So the situation goes unresolved and Alkivar will continue to edit in a frankly, occasionally offensive manner. Although it has nothing to do with me whatsoever, i'll happily ask Alkivar if he would mind toning down his language and improve his behaviour, seeing as User:Duckdid no longer can and no administrator appears willing to. I'm not concerned about being blocked for that. But its unfortunate that one of the admins here doesn't see that as the commonsense way forward, instead of telling him to resolve it by talking then banning him. Rockpocket 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Since no one else will, I guess I have to. Hopefully this shows that I'm not necessarily supporting these actions, a point which no one seems interested in trusting me on.

I just went over the history of Alkivar's talk page, back to January. No anonymous edits talking about this stuff. I didn't see any other edits talking about this stuff either. Course, I could've missed it. Can anyone provide the diff?

Until I see that I just don't believe that Alkivar would block him for raising a valid concern. If he would, that's a Bad Thing and certainly needs to be dealt with. Rocket, since you've got a problem with this issue, why don't you just go and deal with it rather than saying that it's an admin problem, or that we're covering each other's backs? I don't understand why you don't just go and talk to him (still not done by anyone who is involved in the dispute). I don't understand why you don't see talking to him as being the commonsense way forwards.

As for User:Duckdid, he was blocked, NOT by Alkivar or in a way having anything to do with Alkivar that I can see, for being a sock of User:Beisnj, whose story I don't know. However, if he'd like to appeal that block, he can always go to User:Jayjg, the blocking admin, and talk to him. That hasn't happened either, unless it happened via e-mail where I wouldn't know about it. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this, and I don't understand why people think this is "admin abuse" or that I'm "defending Alkivar," when all I've said is to TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND TRY TO RESOLVE IT. Snoutwood (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Yes, Alkivar knew about this comment on the ANI, and his response was to attempt to get me blocked. I posted here at 05:56, 5 June 2006. At 06:28, 5 June 2006, Alkivar requested from Jayjg that he run checkuser on me and block me. Alkivar hadn’t even posted on Misplaced Pages in three days, but he responded to that comment in roughly 30 minutes by trying to get me blocked. (Note also that Jayjg did, in fact, run Checkuser on me. As far as I can tell under these circumstances, that was not an acceptable use of Checkuser privileges.)

(2) There is plenty of evidence that these problems have been brought to Alkivar’s attention. At this point, you’re making it hard for me to not think that you’re not blatantly ignoring the evidence. At all three of his RfA the problems of his incivility and poor edit summaries were talked about extensively.

(3) A good example of Alkivar ignoring and deleting posts about his behavior can be found on February 8th. He went on a roll deleting comments critical of him with such edit summaries as “poof” and “wipe away useless post.” On December 6th, 2005, he deleted a comment from his talk page asking him to be civil, and Alkivar’s edit summary was “rv vandalism.”

(4) I was given the same kind of run-around as I’m being given now when I tried to get out of my block. I e-mailed Jayjg, and he basically said he wasn’t going to do it. I listed the unblock template on my talk page, and people basically told me that wasn’t the right way to handle it (which seems to be a common response to attempts to follow the bureaucratic process). Dizzied 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I see. Yes, you're right about that, and that he didn't respond to the issues listed is a problem. Note that I don't see you being blocked as necessarily being a problem, as the way things work around here is, if you're blocked, you don't create sockpuppets to get around the block, like you've done. You e-mail the blocking admin with your main account and talk to them about the issue (which it sounds like you did, but I don't know the story). In case you didn't see, I've already asked Alkivar to contribute to the discussion, and we'll see what comes of that.

2. I don't know almost anything about Alkivar. There are over 900 admins on this project, and there's no way I'm going to remember the issues brought up in each one's RfA, especially in ones where I didn't participate. Indeed, however, apart from this your point is well made.

3. Yes, those edits are definitely problems. However, they took place some time ago... I mean, they don't have any impact on current events, except to note that this has been going on for a while. More recent examples would be more germane to this thread.

4. I'm not trying to run you around, I'm trying to have you solve your own problems before coming to the admins' board. The block template just don't work well, unfortunately, e-mail is best (people don't notice the template). Now that you have shown that Alkivar didn't bother to deal with the issue although he was aware of it, then your position makes more sense. It appears to me that his civility is certainly an issue that he needs to address, and much as I don't want to get more involved in this I've posted a message to his talk page. It's important that he respond to criticism. Note that while I say this I don't expect anything to happen while you refuse to directly talk to him about your trouble with his behavior. Snoutwood (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood, when an admin deletes good-faith complaints and requests, I don't see what options are left other than ANI and RFC. Whatever the details, it's still clear that this admin made many uncivil edit comments and has not been warned, much less blocked, for it. It's also clear that the person who made this complaint has been banned. The end result is that justice is not served and it looks a whole lot like admins sticking up for each other. However untrue this may be, this is genuinely how it appears, and this appearance itself causes harm.

I suggest that we put aside all this endless debate and solve the problem: an admin who violates the very rules he is charged to enforce and gets alway with it. Ask him to stop. Block him if he doesn't. That would be productive. Telling people to go talk to him is clearly not. Al 07:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood has kindly requested Alkivar respond to these allegations. I think he deserves the opportunity to have his say. However, should he decline the offer to explain his contested edits or fail to justify them (admittedly, i can't imagine any valid justification for leaving an edit summary "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards" when an editor had used "An" instead of "The" ) then i would also suggest that a process be initiated in the same way as it would if a non admin showed this pattern of behaviour. I concur with Al in how it "looks". That is unfortunate, as i don't believe there is any conspiracy here, but as he suggests, appearance itself can cause harm. Neverthless, i don't believe this is necessarily Snoutwood's problem and, at this stage, either of us could as easily engage Alkivar in a discussion about this since we are concerned. Rockpocket 07:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just talked to Alkivar on IRC, which I know isn't a substitute for onwiki comment, but it just sort of fell together and I seized the opportunity. Since no-one's bothered to show the "good faith" efforts to deal with the situation, I'll show the two edits shown to me by Alkivar as being the most likely to have been the "criticism" from Beisnj, seeing as they edited the same pages as Beisnj and he said that he posted anonymously: and . Jusge for yourself; those strike me as defiantly trolling posts and as such I refute Duckdid/Beisnj's opinion of himself as being the bearer of good-faith criticism, pending further information. As for the incivility and cursing, he said that he'd already begun to tone down on that and would continue to do so (there have been a few recent bits of cursing in summaries, but as the edits weren't inicivil or in any way attacking I don't really see a problem). Seeing the situation in that light, I'm inclined to agree with the block of Duckdid and Alkivar's opinion that he shouldn't respond to a post from a troll, which is what this appears to be. As for the incivility, if it continues, which hopefully it won't, we can deal with it then; I don't believe any further action is necessary. Course, if you're inclined you can still talk to him about it, but I think it superfluous. Snoutwood (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you will note on the Duckdid user page that there is a list of pages I have created, and some of them were created from IP addresses. Those addresses were 209.30.22.214, 209.30.41.59, and 64.233.47.250. Dizzied 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Until you provide diffs of your "polite, civil, anonymous, criticism," I can't say that I really care what other IPs you've used. Snoutwood (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Snoutwood, you'll see above that Alkivar took three RfAs to gain the mop; part of that was likely his promise in that 3rd RfA to be civil and polite in his intereactions with others. So all arguments that he is "unaware of the problem" should be null and void; like any other user, he had been warned, repeatedly! Then above it's stated that his incivility lies in the past, citing diffs from as long ago as December 2005. This ignores the why do idiots comment from June 1, SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS on May 22nd, and the gratuitous usage of fuck or fucking in edit summaries from June 1 and May 30 respectively. Is that what he's calling "toning it down"? -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I believe you to be an honest, good-faith user, I'm going to say this one more time and then be gone from this thread (barring further information, of course): I have no interest in solving your problems for you, with no help. If you have a problem with Alkivar, talk to him. If you're worried about being blocked, I personally swear that if Alkivar blocks you for politely criticising him I will unblock (course, this isn't actually going to happen, since Alkivar isn't stupid). And, since I'm an idiot and can't help myself, a parting note: I see little wrong with any of your diffs, they're hardly admin abuse (not even admin related). None of them really attack anybody, and although they could certainly be better I think that he'll respond if you just try and talk to him about it. Snoutwood (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as i'm concerned, Snoutwood has taken this as far as he should, and i'd like to go on record in thanking him for that. Its clear that Dizzied was less than frank about his "good-faith criticism". Similarly Alkivar has been less than civil in the past, and while he recent summaries as still not what i would expect of an admin, they are not quite as blatantly offensive as some older examples. He has said he is working on it and now Snoutwood has expressed further concern, Alkivar will realise that this problem is not going to go away unless he pulls up his socks. Should he continue to be uncivil then this exchange can be used as evidence of his lack of progress in that area. Thats my opinion anyway. Rockpocket 05:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Its clear that Dizzied was less than frank about his 'good-faith criticism'." So, apparently, criticism of Alkivar requires several days, multiple posts, and a series of evidence. But "clear" proof against me requires nothing. Hey, wasn't Alkivar supposed to come by and say something? Dizzied 09:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't've put it better myself. Very well put. Snoutwood (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rex071404 is "retiring"

Rex071404 (talk · contribs) has left a very entertaining message on his talk page, admitting to being Merecat, among other things, and says that he is leaving the project. He asks that his user page and talk page be deleted. I would tend to agree with this request, with the caveat that if it becomes clear that he has not truly left, they will be undeleted. (At this point there is a long checkuser history on him and a lot of editors who can recognize him.) Thatcher131 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to investigate his claim of being an inactive admin, this page may help since it includes the promotion dates of inactive admins. The closest fit I see is Oven Fresh, who interestingly enough has returned in the past 24 hours to delete his user pages (his new edits makes doing a checkuser possible). But I would not want to falsely associate anyone with a known troll, although 2 of his new edits are quite odd.. NoSeptember 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete. His contribs list and the block tag are useful refs for the willing editors who haven't found out yet that User:Rex071404 / User:Merecat / User:Wombdpsw / etc is an unholy troll, and might want to check back some of his edits. I only recently found out, unpleasently. Also, he seems to be consistant in one thing only: coming back after being blocked and start trolling again. -- ActiveSelective 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of people requesting that their talk pages be deleted. Jimbo deleting... Locke Cole's page, I think it was, has set a bad precedent. User pages? Sure thing. But what's wrong with blanking user talk pages instead of deleting them? Nothing. Unless there are privacy concerns in the history of the talk page, in which case, only those privacy-defeating edits need be deleted from the history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Deleting talk page histories should be the rare exception, not the rule. NoSeptember 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How about deleting the user page and blanking the talk page? It may need to be protected in case certain users try to re-add the sock tags.Thatcher131 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the generally-accepted forms of action for users who leave and want their user pages and talk pages "removed" from Misplaced Pages. You should ask Rex to blank his talk page and place a {{db-author}} to his user page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this user and his puppets have spread a multitude of uncivil remarks about other editors throughout Misplaced Pages, I think it is inappropriate to delete the evidence of his unsavory behaviour from plain sight. Also, Rex had already retired was the common defense by several other editors. Clearly he was still among us, and in light of his addiction to being disruptive it would surprise me if he did not reincarnate again. Therefore leave the proof of who this abusive puppetmaster is on his page. Blank it if necessary but do not delete. Nomen Nescio 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the "confession" should be kept and protected. KWH 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If the talk page is blanked but not deleted it will be in the history, should this user become a problem again. Thatcher131 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good contributors generally don't get their talk pages deleted when they leave the project, and I don't see why disruptive editors should get special treatment. I support the suggestion of blanking and protecting the page. Also, a crash caused the loss of deleted edits and it might happen again (now they only go back to the date of the crash). While it may be possible to salvage deleted user talk pages after another crash, it's a lot simpler to just blank them. -- Kjkolb 18:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We do tell users that they have the m:Right to vanish. We should stop saying that if they don't. Jkelly 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We also say "As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally." --pgk 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the hurry? The body may be dead but it is not cold yet. Some editors still need to realize they've been duped by this troll and might want to trace his edits/tags/comments back to his visibly blockindeffed userpage. -- ActiveSelective 18:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete User:Rex071404's userpage, talkpage, or Any evidence of his 2 years of tormenting Misplaced Pages. Rex has said on numerous occasions in the past that he is quiting Misplaced Pages. He didn't. I don't even think he can. Rex's sockpuppets lied repeatedly saying they weren't sockpuppets. Rex is a self-admitted Liar who gave up the normal rights of a good-standing Wikipedian long ago. We have no reason to trust his word and a hell of a lot of reason to distrust him. We need Rex's userpages, talkpages, and all evidence pertaining to his 2 year legacy of disruption, deception and bad faith to remain untouched for the rest of time. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be wise to block his admitted socks. Derex 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kozlovesred

Could an admin please take a look at the blocking of user User:Kozlovesred, the admin has cited "admitted political bias, lack of regard for opposing views and editors, stated intention to "guard" articles related to socialism/communism from opposing views and editors, incivility to other editors and administrators. I checked, and have found no evidence of any violations, only the usual debate surrounding a contested subject. --Zleitzen 13:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you asked User:PMA to be more specific about his reasons for the block? If PMA can provide us with some diffs or point us at talk pages, then the reasons stated are valid reasons for a block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a glance over the lengthy debate going on at several talk pages and I agree, the disagreement is largely a content issue. The blocked user makes good use of talk pages, discusses major article changes and generally interacts with other editors in an effort to resolve problems regarding content. I don't see any evidence worthy of a block this lengthy and support unblocking this editor. I'll try and provide some diffs but as this user posts and replies to many comments at once, they're not easy to read. -- Longhair 15:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a diff regarding the "guarding articles" comment above, and will try to add the remainder as I discover them. -- Longhair 15:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe another administrator has requested more information about the block, which has yet to be publicly provided. I was alerted to the case having seen this entry written by the administrator of the block.

"probably get in trouble for it but I believe my stand is totally justified - something has to be done about the communist infestation at some articles."

It should be noted that this administrator appears to be also personally involved in the dispute. --Zleitzen 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through his controbutions a fair bit. Less thanb ideal behaviour but not yet reached the point where admins can block for it. I've pulled the block and left a forceful note on Kozlovesred's talk page.Geni 17:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this unblock. Even in his unblock requests, the user was incivil, saying that the situation was like "Stalinist Russia" and that PMA's "methods don't belong on Misplaced Pages, but in a police state." Perhaps 2 weeks was a bit long, but shortening a block, and unblocking, for that matter, should be discussed with the blocking admin first, don't you think? --Rory096 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No. If the blocking failes to provided a ligt blocking rational definetly not.Geni 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So if the block summary isn't good, the user should be unblocked? PMA still said that he was blocking him for disruption, just not in the summary. --Rory096 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You should at least give some hint of which policy you are useing. In any case Kozlovesred was not dissrupting the normal functioning of Misplaced Pages. I deal with more anoying people around the alt med articles all the time.Geni 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean what policy I'm using? You said you unblocked him because he didn't give a valid block summary. I said that he told the user that he was blocking him for disruption. As for whether or not he should be blocked, don't you think you should give the blocking admin the courtesy of a discussion before unblocking the user? --Rory096 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Particularly in cases that are unlikely to be time critical.Geni 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely if it's not time critical one should wait before reverting another admin's actions? --Rory096 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No because haveing people blocked worngly isbad. As long as unblocking them isn't going to cause serious short term problems it is best to discuss any action while they are unblocked.Geni 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - look at Kozlovesred and his mates talk of protecting articles from the so-called "right-wing army" - and Zleitzen is hardly an innocent party given his coddling of pro-communist/socialist users at Cuba-related articles - ask Adam Carr or 172 or Rebecca. i hadn't been involved with the Lenin talk page for some time anyway - the continued behaviour of them prompted me to act. I am seriously tempted to just walk away from Wiki if something is not done. PMA 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC, WP:RFM and WP:RFAR. That is what has been done. Some of them work quite well. (there is also the medation cabal somewhere. They can do good work).Geni 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Geni's unblock. Geni's action reminds me of the (unhelpful) attempt by another administrator to unblock the vandals Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs) and Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs). when admins acts as the tools of disruptive users, it is a big slap in the face of serious editors. The community should have learned this lesson following the depature of SlimVirgin, which was triggered by the rash unblocks of Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle. Administrators are supposed to protect legitimate content editors and show disruptive users the door. PMA's blocks should be restored immediately, before another valued contributor like SlimVirgin is forced to leave Misplaced Pages in frustration. 172 | Talk 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you show where Kozlovesred has been carrying out large scale ofsite anti wikipedia activities? Frankly anyone leaveing over this is so close to burn out in any case there isn't much to be done.Geni 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot grasp how frustrating disruptive POV-pushers are to legitimate content editors, then you're too pretty close to burn out. Perhaps you should take a break as an admin. You seem to be losing sight of the goals of the project. The goals of the project are non-negotiable; as for the rules, see Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. 172 | Talk 04:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also see: Misplaced Pages:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules BruceHallman 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I understand I just not view your way of attempting to deal with the problem as acceptable.Geni 11:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If Kozlovesred's behaviour was blockable – and I'm not reassured that it has been – PMA was probably not the right admin to do it. He is regularly involved in editing articles related to Communism, and takes a stance opposite to Kozlovesred's in his editing. Stating that he is defending us from the "communist infestation" doesn't really convey the level of impartiality we usually hope to see. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quoting PMA out of context. PMA referred to a "communist infestation" in a message on my talk page meant only for me. It was not his stated reason for the block, which read: I am following Misplaced Pages blocking policy on disruption per Misplaced Pages:Disruption. You're not getting blocked because of your political orientation per se, your ideology is only relevant insofar as it seems to be the motive for your disruptive behavior. PMA 04:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 172 | Talk 04:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am quoting PMA's own description of his simultaneous blocks of Kozlovesred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Solidusspriggan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is a public wiki, and everyone would do well to remember that our words can and are seen. The point is not that the message was a 'private' one to you, 172, but that PMA has a conflict of interest on this issue.

PMA used the same block summary for both blocks, as well as for another six hours later of GeorgeSears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All three editors have been editing with a similar slant on Communism-related topics; PMA, meanwhile, has also been making Communism-related edits but from the opposing perspective. He has been reverting edits that might be perceived as pro-Communist, often without edit summaries.

For none of the three blocks did PMA notify the editors blocked on their talk pages (or, apparently, elsewhere). (He added the terse explanation you quote to Kozlovesred's talk page nearly a day later and after prompting, and just quoted text that 172 provided.) PMA did not provide diffs or explanation of the blocks here or on the involved editors' talk pages. None of the three editors had been blocked before, for any reason. None of the editors blocked had even edited, let alone engaged in disruptive behaviour, in the three days preceding the blocks; it is difficult to argue that the matter was urgent, and such a long first-time block should have been discussed here. Neither PMA nor any other editor had warned the three about their editing practices, save for what appears to be a well-received and understood explanation of 3RR to Solidusspriggan back in January.

I strongly urge PMA to lift the remaining blocks. While he meant well, his actions are the sort that can lead to the torches and pitchforks and cries of 'rogue admin' that make it more difficult for the rest of us to enforce policy. I would encourage him to do what we're all supposed to do with a conflict of interest—bring the matter here, with appropriate diffs and explanation, and seek neutral third-party comment and action. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar questions were raised six weeks ago with Cuba/ MichaelW block by PMA BruceHallman 15:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since PMA has lifted the remaining two blocks, I consider the matter settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Permanently blocked editor User:Rgulerdem now formulating WP policy

Greetings, having been following the mailing list WikiEn-I, I recently caught notice of Resid Gulerdem formulating a policy entitled: WP:OURS. User:Raphael1 has just begun steps to put User:Rgulerdem's policy proposal in place on Misplaced Pages by starting its page and shortcut. I think it is rather obvious that permanently blocked users formulating policy is bad and due to this I am inclined to submit Misplaced Pages:OURS for speedy deletion but without previous experience concerning such a situation I've submitted it as a miscellaneous for deletion. Does it make more sense to speedy delete this banned user's proposed policy outright to clearly demonstrate that banned user's formulating policy is bad or should the MfD be allowed to continue? Thanks, Netscott 17:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Large parts of this policy has been formulated by myself. Though discussions on the WikiEn-I mailing list admittedly have been my inspiration. Raphael1 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be a lot of tag-team editing between Rgulerdem and Raphael1. User:Zoe| 17:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well viewed Zoe, well viewed... I think that such editing is described as "proxy editing" no? Proxy editing for a banned user is bad is it not? Netscott 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, why can't we simply judge this on its own merits? --Irishpunktom\ 17:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That would seem a reasonable response considering the involvement of a non-blocked editor. As for "proxy editing", I don't think engaging in conversations via paraphrasing and discussion outcomes qualifies as "proxy editing" as such. In such a case as this, wouldn't assuming good faith on the part of Raphael1 be in order? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, "good faith"? It's getting a bit difficult to assume good faith when User:Raphael1 goes around making "hit" lists of Misplaced Pages admins and disruptively editing on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Raphael1 would not have started the WP:OURS policy proposal (the name given it by Resid Gulerdem) on his own and is in fact acting as a proxy for the highly disruptive banned editor User:Rgulerdem. Netscott 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

irrespective of who wrote this, i don't really see this as becoming policy anyway. --Irishpunktom\ 18:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Irish's point that we oughtn't to be as concerned with the identity of the contributor as with the quality of the proposal is an important one. Notwithstanding that I am in any event inclined to assume good faith here (even as I disagree with each most strongly on most Wiki-related matters, I can't imagine that Resid and Raphael would continue to spend time here and on the mailing list were they not interested in helping to ameliorate what they see as problems), never should we reject a proposal (even where repugnant to policy, except where designed exclusively or serving primarily to disrupt) simply because the user offering it may not be acting in good faith or is blocked or banned. Joe 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Image vandalism

Someone's busy vandalizing a bunch of images by uploading new images over them. He's done this under at least three accounts: WikipediaSandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not blocked), ZapperNES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked indefinitely), FallOutChoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked for 24 hours). He seems to hit roughly the same set of images every time, so checking the history of the images in question should find any other accounts being used. Someone should probably also run a checkuser to see if the underlying IP address can be blocked. --Carnildo 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also DoubtingElDandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WikipediaSandal is now indefblocked by me, and FallOutChoi should be indefblocked. Syrthiss 19:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• There is also HerkimerCountyBlowhole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whom I have blocked. Now I am purging the vandalized pictures from history. (A tedious work; there really should be a way to select and remove several versions at once. And to provide an explanation for the removal!) - Mike Rosoft 07:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Peter Tatchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I initially blocked User:Irishpunktom for edit-warring and trying to game the system, based on this edit summary: self revert - gotta wait an hour or so. After looking more closely at the edit history, I decided it would be more useful to lock the page. So I did that, and unblocked Irishpunktom. If anyone else has suggestions for a solution, I'm open to discussion. Tom Harrison 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that he is blocked for 24 hrs, because as the diffs show in the 3rr report that I filed, he already violated 3rr before his 5th revert that he himself reverted again, with the mentioned edit summary. So in any case he's in clear violation of 3rr. Another thing is that he also violated 3rr on the "islamophobia" article a few days ago, and he wasn't blocked for that eighter. He has already been blocked for 3rr 10 times, so he know the rule, but de just doesn't respect it. I am sure that if it is no longer enforced in his case, he will violate it even more than he usually do. -- Karl Meier 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't particularly offering a suggestion for a solution, but just going by those blocks recorded in Irishpunktom's block log, this 3RR violation was at least his 10th violation of the three revert rule. Most people tend to find themselves banned before reaching that number. And that edit summary does not bode well for future behavior. While the protection and unblock look like a good call, it is probably time for someone to bring an arbitration case against him for the long term solution. Dmcdevit·t 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Has someone already done the RfC dance? Tom Harrison 18:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Dbiv has one ready, but he haven't filed it yet. -- Karl Meier 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While I am of course not fluent in the circumstances, it is my opinion that anyone who has reached that level blocks for edit warring is probably going to be accepted with a coherent case presented to arbcom. Something can be a "last resort" a number of ways. In cases where it looks useless to go through other dispute resolution, or where the necessity of an enforceable remedy appears inevitable, we accept cases without an RFC. Dmcdevit·t 19:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Even without an Arbcom ruling, I think longer blocks are in order for any further violations. I initially was going to block for 24 hours, but when I saw his previous blocks I went for 31. He's been blocked for as long as 48 hours in the past. I'd say that or longer would be appropriate if there is any more edit warring. Tom Harrison 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that punitive blocks aren't encouraged on Misplaced Pages but User:Dbiv, User:Karl Meier and myself have all experienced this brand of "bad faith" ("self-revert - got to wait and hour"?) editing on the part of User:Irishpunktom and this latest example appears to be reason for another block. Irishpunktom unfortunately has been violating 3RR as though it was a right across a number of articles and this is but the latest violation in a series of his continuing pattern (see his block log). Netscott 18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Between March 14th and today I have been blocked four times, I believe, which would be the same amount of times as Netscott for that period. Its no surprise that Karl reported this either, he was critisized for stalking before and has seom personal issues with me going back a while now. He was a founding member of the anti-muslim "SIIEG" guild, which was banned. While i do revert too much, the same is, obviously, also true of those who are also engaging in the edit war with me, which tends to be a rather short list. even so, i shall try to cease. --Irishpunktom\ 19:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

1. If you don't want to be reported for 3rr then stop violating that rule. 2. If I has any issues with you then it is about that you keep POV editing and make very strong personal attacks against me on your userpage and elsewhere. (you have been warned about this) -- Karl Meier 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

False analogy and infactual statements there Irishpunktom, I've in fact only had 3 total blocks for 3RR with 2 of them being unblocked upon explanation of the nature surrounding how I arrived at being blocked. Two of my blocks involved yourself (one of which I reported myself for re:Infidel) and the only one that wasn't unblocked (the very first one) actually was spurred on by you. I'm beginning to think that there's likely others who've born the bad faith nature of your editing and would surely add themselves to the list of editors who you've demonstrated bad faith towards. Netscott 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Have only just come back after an evening meeting. It's sadly true that I have encountered Irishpunktom before, especially on Peter Tatchell but also on other articles. The dispute arises because of his habit of automatically reverting without stating reasons, or stating uninformative reasons. Irishpunktom is a muslim: I often find his edits are highly POV (others may wish to check for themselves), but what sparked this recent problem was the addition of large amounts of detail on Peter Tatchell's views on Islam. This creates a POV problem of its own in that it distorts the significance of this part of Peter Tatchell's opinions, so I tried to prune the section back while not losing anything important. I'm not absolutely set on what came out, and I'm willing to debate what is the right way of the section, but I don't see why I should accept a blanket revert. Irishpunktom has not explained his objections to my edits on the talk page. David | Talk 21:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've found it annoying myself; Tatchell has a long history of fighting for gay rights going back 30 years, yet the current article devotes almost a third of its length to Islam, and has gone through numerous edits in a (in my view) twisted attempt by Irishpunktom to portray him as an Islamophobe rather than a simple defender of secular rights versus _all_ homophobic belief systems. --Paul Moloney 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I may add here that Irishpunktom exhibits this sort of behavior on many articles. On Dhimmi, Apostasy in Islam, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other Islam-related articles, Irishpunktom only reverted without saying a word on the talk page. He moved Islamic extremist terrorism without even attempting to discuss the move, just because he disliked some recent additions to the article. I could continue for several more paragraphs, but administrators' noticeboard is probably not the right place for that. Pecher 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Lindsey Graham

Repeated POV insertions & reverts by User:72.242.65.58, despite repeated warnings. Was posted on WP:AVI, but an admin took off since content-related and not merely vandalism. (I'm also worried that I've violated 3RR trying to keep POV out of the article). --mtz206 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another day, and another round of WP:POV edits by this IP without comment or heeding numerous warnings. Someone please help me get through to this editor. No one else at the article is intervening. --mtz206 (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if this will get through to them but I blocked them for 24 hours. If they persist after this block I'm willing to block further, as it doesn't appear to be a shared ip (they only have contributed to this article). Syrthiss 13:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a vandal...

I know right about now you're probably reaching for your ban buttons, but wait, not so fast.. as I was saying, Hi, I'm a vandal, in fact I'm a very powerful, virtually unstoppable vandal. I could go on being a vandal from who knows how long, but I've decided not to. The way I see it, If i were to put my vandalism beind me, I could be a valuble insight into the twisted mind of the wikipedia vandal. I could be your informant, your inside man, heck, just think of me as your very own hannibal lector, only without all the canabalism, just think how the CVU could advance with the insight of an ex-vandal?! Just think about it. block me if you want to, I'll just make another account. Think about it, consider my proposal--Sloeque Von Cheeseburgen 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you proposing? You realize that nothing like this can happen while you're vandalizing Misplaced Pages, right? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you don't see any vandalism coming from my current account, now do you? surely an act of good faith--Sloeque Von Cheeseburgen 19:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't proposed that you do anything. What are you proposing doing? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey all of us were once 13 years old, we already know how a vandal thinks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Moshe, I fail to see that you offer anything of value. KillerChihuahua 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Sloeque Von Cheeseburgen You appear to be trolling. If you want to actually fight vandalism just go ahead and do it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked. AN:I troll, anyone? --InShaneee 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has no need of a wannabe "Hannibal Lector's" insight. Now the REAL "Hannibal" would be a different story, what with his experience in culinary adventurism. But a vandal with a big ego, nah, Wiki's got ban buttons to take care of the "powerful, virtually unstoppable" vandals. -- Daniel Davis 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially repeat offenders like this guy. --InShaneee 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Request block: User:Dennv

This user has edited the Norman Lowell page for the past few days and it's all evident vandalism. These are some of his comments:

• "You sick neo-Nazi pervert: pan-Europeanism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with that sick fuck Lowell. His views are NOT "pan-Europeanism". Sick neo-nazi fucks.) "

• "It's great he's all for homosexuality. He'll have a lot of practice over the next few years."

• "This sick pervert's ideology is an ideology of tyranny."

Please block him, at least from editing this particular page. Thanks. Drew88 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV, please Will (_@) T 19:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AppleJuicefromConcentrate

I have now permanently blocked AppleJuicefromConcentrate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for persistent re-creation of the hoax article, sockpuppet abuse, and threats to continue with his actions. I have also blocked all his sockpuppets I have discovered. Several of them (namely, Motorox2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Motorox3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Motorox4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Metrolox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) may need to be checked; they may have been operating through an open proxy which needs to be blocked. - Mike Rosoft 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Add TurkeyJuicefromConcentrate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I guess no edits but created in roughly the same time frame. --pgk 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:86.139.119.115

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

I am not sure if this the right place for this, but I pinged 86.139.119.115 and I am positive that it is an open proxy or zombie computer being used to remove links and references from several articles. --Azerbaijani 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reported to WP:OP. Joe 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I did my own investigation of this IP and was unable to find anything suggesting an open proxy. Portscan follows. --Cyde↔Weys 22:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Starting Nmap 4.01 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-06-05 18:02 EDT
DNS resolution of 1 IPs took 0.00s. Mode: Async 
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan against host86-139-119-115.range86-139.btcentralplus.com (86.139.119.115)  at 18:02
The SYN Stealth Scan took 36.61s to scan 1672 total ports.
Host host86-139-119-115.range86-139.btcentralplus.com (86.139.119.115) appears to be up ... good.
Interesting ports on host86-139-119-115.range86-139.btcentralplus.com (86.139.119.115):
(The 1646 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
PORT     STATE    SERVICE        VERSION
21/tcp   filtered ftp
23/tcp   filtered telnet
43/tcp   filtered whois
79/tcp   filtered finger
80/tcp   filtered http
135/tcp  filtered msrpc
136/tcp  filtered profile
137/tcp  filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp  filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp  filtered netbios-ssn
161/tcp  filtered snmp
205/tcp  filtered at-5
445/tcp  filtered microsoft-ds
512/tcp  filtered exec
683/tcp  filtered unknown
989/tcp  filtered ftps-data
1029/tcp filtered ms-lsa
1214/tcp filtered fasttrack
1434/tcp filtered ms-sql-m
1521/tcp filtered oracle
2009/tcp filtered news
2307/tcp filtered pehelp
4000/tcp filtered remoteanything
4500/tcp filtered sae-urn
5432/tcp filtered postgres
6346/tcp filtered gnutella
Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 37.282 seconds
               Raw packets sent: 1807 (79.5KB) | Rcvd: 3543 (181KB)

I noted Cyde's result on the OP page; I'd simply copied Azer's reply there without comment. I'll leave it for someone who knows more than I (read: basically anyone) to resolve. Joe 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Five week block for spelling change?

I've just come across what looks like a case of severe injustice. User:Pnatt has been blocked for five weeks for changing the spelling of television program from programme in Australian articles. "Program" is the correct modern Australian spelling, and "programme" is regarded as archaic. The blocking admin is not Australian and has promised to keep adding one week to Pnatt's block every time he returns and corrects the spelling. Understandably Pnatt is upset over this. Could someone please calm down what should be a simple discussion about consensus? --Jumbo 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There's some context missing from that post, mainly this. 5 weeks seems a fairly minor escalation from the last block, which was one month and ran its full course, at which point the user again began doing exactly what got him blocked last time - uncivil edit warring over local dialect spellings. This seems to be practically all the user does, and I have no objection to this block. --Sam Blanning 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be upset as well? Looking at Pnatt's contributions, any incivility seems to be on a minor level. I've asked him to try to keep calm. The response of the blocking admin seems disproportionate and likely to further inflame the user. Pnatt's preferred spelling has been endorsed by other Australian users, and this really should not be this big an issue. --Jumbo 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It actually was not five weeks for a spelling change. User:Pnatt has only been on Misplaced Pages since April. In that time he had received continuous last warnings and 5 previous blocks, climbing from 24 hours right up to 1 month for continuous edit wars, misleading edit summaries, personal attacks, etc etc etc. Every time a block was imposed he was warned when he came back to stop behaving as in the past or he would be blocked again. Every time he would only be back on WP when he would take up where he left off and start the same behaviour all over again. On his second (yes, second) edit after the expiry of his last one month block he began the exact same edit warring on the exact same issues, abusing the exact same users, and carried on as if nothing happened. He had already been warned many times that such was his behaviour that the length of blocks would climb every time he was blocked until he stopped the edit warring and attacks. Given that it was a repeat performance of his previous behaviour, and the last block was for one month, this time, as warned, the block was upped again, this time to 5 weeks. BTW this user, when blocked, has also a habit of posting constant {{help me}} messages on his talk page, to the annoyance of many users who keep telling him to stop doing it. For his last block, his posting of false templates and attacks necessitated that his talk page also be protected for the duration of the block. Already since this block another user have had to threaten to protect the page again to stop him posting the disruptive templates. At this stage this user has been blocked for more often than he has been allowed to edit Misplaced Pages. He had contributed little but edit wars and attacks. It is getting to the stage where quite possibly he should be blocked indefinitely. In less than two months he has contributed nothing but aggro and edit wars. FearÉIREANN\ 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Thanks for chiming in. --Cyde↔Weys 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On investigation of Pnatt's edits, I must respectfully differ. His second edit on returning was this one, where he changed the archaic "programmes" to "programs". He was absolutely correct in this, and he has cited several widely used sources, such as current Australian dictionaries and the Australian Government Style Manual. He has not been abusive, nor has he made misleading edit summaries. He referred to correction of vandalism, which from his perspective (and mine) it certainly is. Articles on Australian subjects should use current Australian spelling, and when such a conservative network as the Australian Broadcasting Commission uses "program", we may safely say that this spelling is current. He does not deserve a five week block for making beneficial edits. New editors should be guided rather than chastised, and whatever his past sins may have been, he does not seem to have resumed them. --Jumbo 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to others' good faith edits as vandalism is provocative and incorrect. I'm not surprised it upsets people. "Vandalism" is when someone is trying to make the encyclopedia worse, not better. There's no compelling reason to think that someone using the spelling "programme" is trying to compromise the quality or integrity of Misplaced Pages - they probably think that's an acceptable spelling. I suggest that this user (and everyone) refrain from characterizing the other side of a style dispute as "vandals". -GTBacchus 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a few comments:

• Six different admins have blocked this user. This isn't just one admin getting over-zealous.
• Some of his edits have been very blatant vandalism (e.g. , )
• The user is occasionally very incivil in his edit summaries (e.g. )
• This user spends a lot of time in revert wars, often with really strong POV statements such as this one
• This user has almost no productive edits
• The user does not seem to listen to warnings. See the user's talk page

Although I personally saw this latest edit war and was not planning on blocking him myself, I do support the block. -- JamesTeterenko 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Some of those early edits are disturbing. However, I note that since returning he has made no similar edits. Maybe he HAS listened to advice this time? He has hardly been given a chance and if we can make a productive editor out of him than turning him into an embittered critic of Misplaced Pages, then so much the better. --Jumbo 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the very brief period before he was reblocked, his edit summaries included the misleading "revert vandalism" twice and he tells an editor " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" . That does not suggest to me that this editor is close to being 'reformed'. Note that "being right" is never an excuse for continuous edit warring (since everyone's right in at least one person's opinion). We have a dispute resolution process for people who think they're right when the other editors don't, and "edit warring" does not feature in any stage. --Sam Blanning 09:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He is not alone in stating that he is right. Other Australian editors prefer "program" over "programme". The naming of articles and categories such as List of programs broadcast by Seven Network indicate that this has been the preferred spelling for some time. Government and university style guides state "program not programme". The Macquarie Dictionary - the acknowledged standard for Australian English - has a headword for "program" and not for "programme". (See here for a page scan.) I had not given this matter much thought until this morning, but all my research indicates that he is entirely correct, and quite entitled to think of reversion to an archaic form as "vandalism". I note that it is common practice amongst established editors to label such small details as vandalism: here is one from the blocking editor, who could be described as Misplaced Pages's revert warrior par excellence, judging by his extraordinary edit history.

However, some of Pnatt's early edits and attitude (as pointed out earlier, for which many thanks, JamesTeterenko) trouble me deeply, and if he had returned to this style of editing, then I would not feel inclined to defend him at all. But there seems to be a gradual improvement in his attitude, and I feel that imposing a five week block and threatening longer for such a small impoliteness in a new editor is going too far. Such long blocks are more properly the preserve of the ArbCom, imposed for more serious and protracted matters. I feel that this matter should have been handled so as reduce confrontation and encourage co-operation. --Jumbo 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have protected User talk:Pnatt after he added the {{unblock}} template after I had already removed it. This is the fifth time the page has been protected to stop him abusing the template. I will not be lifting the protection until his block expires, as every time protection is lifted he goes right back to getting in the way of users who have a legitimate reason to be unblocked (see the log). --Sam Blanning 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this comment from him was extremely encouraging: "After the recent 4-week block I made a choice that if I wanted to stay on Misplaced Pages, that I would have to make reliable and factually correct edits." Now one more avenue of communication has been blocked off, and heaven knows what his opinion of Misplaced Pages management is now. Perhaps he's altering the template text because he feels that he's been, oh I dunno, harshly and unfairly treated? --Jumbo 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't altering template text, he was adding a template that he knew damn well he wasn't allowed to add again. That's not in the least bit encouraging, he seems absolutely incapable of learning from mistakes. If he feels he's been harshly and unfairly treated then he can wait for consensus to build up here that the block is unwarranted. --Sam Blanning 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, this behaviour came after he received a block of five weeks! I suggest that with sufficient provocation even the most angelic editor is going to get hot under the collar. On being unblocked - after a four week block - his Wikistress was at three. It quickly jumped to five: "Run for cover!". In such circumstances it seems reasonable to suggest that he's not going to be the perfect editor, and he should be calmed down instead of being provoked further. --Jumbo 11:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I repeat - his page has been protected five times now for abuse of the {{unblock}} template. The first time can be put down to ignorance, the second to frustation (or 'provocation'), but the third is downright refusal to listen, and the fourth and fifth are just taking the piss. It looks like no-one is willing to lift or shorten the five-week block, so I simply don't buy that throughout his block he should be allowed to continue adding {{unblock}} templates and get in the way of legitimate requests because he was 'provoked'. The block is, after all, already under review - the {{unblock}} template is for getting a second opinion and there are plenty of those here. --Sam Blanning 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on your reading of his motivation: "just taking the piss". It seems to me that this new editor feels he has been unfairly blocked and nobody gives a damn, except to kick him in the face longer and harder. I ask again, wouldn't YOU be stressed and upset under such circumstances? If your Wikistress level was set to "ready to pop', then how much would you care about niceties of policy? This editor started off on the wrong foot with some attitude problems, but all I see is steady improvement despite severe provocation. I'd like to see understanding and co-operation next time around. If he feels interested enough to return. In the meantime I can only imagine what he is saying about Misplaced Pages. --Jumbo 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He can have all the understanding he likes when he stops doing the same things that get him blocked and his talk page protected, over, and over, and over again. I don't know what he's saying about Misplaced Pages, but the truth would be along the lines of "Misplaced Pages has better things to do than act as the battleground for people who obsess over dialect spellings". --Sam Blanning 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, you shouldn't lump the two misbehaviours together. It takes two to make a battle, and his changing of "programme" to "program" was quite correct, in Good Faith and he provided sources. See the discussion here. This should have been discussed at the time by the other parties, but apparently they chose to revert without discussion. His edit summary when he was reverted was perhaps a little incivil, but certainly not worth a five week block, which is what he got, with the promise of a much longer one. On that note, the blocking admin appears to be a big booster of monarchies and nobility around the world and User:Pnatt is apparently not. There may be some issues there. However, as has been pointed out, there are far worse examples of incivility in edit summaries which go unpunished.

After he was given a five week block for doing what he regarded as improving the encyclopaedia, then he sought outside assistance. I imagine that, as his Wikistress level indicates, he was quite upset. It is quite unfair to justify this very long block by what he did after getting it.

I am also quite concerned that the increasing improvement in his behaviour has been met with increasing harshness of treatment. He has also stated that he wants to be a good editor and this has been ignored. Surely he should be assisted in his stated aim rather than beaten and abused until he gives up in disgust? --Jumbo 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just asking for information, but how is the edit summary " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" a problem, while "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards" reflects that the editor "sometimes could be more decorous" (Joe), and has "a few recent bits of cursing in summaries, but as the edits weren't inicivil or in any way attacking I don't really see a problem" (Snoutwood) in #Why is Alkivar allowed to be an admin? above? JackyR | Talk 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If Alikvar had been blocked six times for a total of about 40 days for that behaviour, that would be more of a valid comparison. --Sam Blanning 16:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a specific question. I'm not asking are Alkivar and Pnatt overall "good" or "bad". I'm asking, when assessing evidence, how is the first edit summary evidence an act <JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)> of wrongdoing, and the second not? JackyR | Talk 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC ) <rephrased to make less ambiguous JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)>

The first is part of a continuous pattern of disruption that has led six different admins to block the user and four to protect his talk page afterwards. The second is not. --Sam Blanning 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Still missing the point. You make a specific complaint about this edit summary, over and above the edit to which it refers. And you appear to be agreeing that a pattern of uncivil edit summaries by Alkivar is not a problem (did you mean to?).

Look, what I'm highlighting is how easy it is to make an overall judgement of a person, and then interpret all their actions accordingly (person X is bad, so action Z by them is bad: person Y is OK, so action Z by them is OK). This is the very heart of many accusations of admin abuse, and so unnecessary. Folk on this page routinely have to make evidence-based judgements – it's an important and often thankless job, and I'm grateful someone does it – but often end up putting the cart before the horse. Please, stop and think about this for a minute. I'm not getting at you: I'm just alarmed by what I see every time I'm stupid enough to come here. I care rather a lot about WP, and this needs to be dealt with – by everyone. JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said! I'm starting to regret that I ever stumbled across this, but I had to speak up. Admins do a wonderful (and largely thankless) job, but I am sure that mistakes are made, and it would have been remiss of me to walk past while another editor was calling out for help. --Jumbo 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked by how poorly this editor has been treated, especially when certain admins routinely leave uncivil edit messages yet are not blocked for even a minute. Al 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Appealing the speedy delete of our content

I am writing this to you requesting that you forward this message to the correct forum, re appealing “speedly deletion” for (1), and suspected linkspamming’, from what I can make of it. The intent of our organization is to get our information out and not be stifled. I have looked at the mediation pages and a fair number of other methods, none of which are seemoingly clear and straightforward, that is not to say they are incoherent. If this message finds its way to someone that can help us resolve wiki problems, Great, if not then the information will be stifled until we on this end can figure the process. In any event; Thank you! Please advise. Mark, ceo, (ph 805-886-4773) The Organic Channel, Inc. The natural Channel, Inc.

OUR COMMENT: Our intent is to include our entry consistent with Misplaced Pages rule. Our organization has maintained links to wikipedia for a number of years already. There is nothing in our wiki content that seems to me to violate the four cardiinal rules. I am unaware is any url listing is contrary to wiki rules, if it is it is a rule not easily appearant, but we desire to comply with wiki rules and yet be included. We are a progressive organization that deserves simple inclusion in much the same manner as http://en.wikipedia.org/The_History_Channel http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Learning_Channel http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Discovery_Channel}}

THE ORGANIC CHANNEL(TM)(SM) (The Organic Channel, Inc. A California Corporation) A channel devoted to education and entertainment, broadcasting and advertising especially regarding organic, organic lifestyle and organic products. A trademark application is pending in the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the mark. Presently the mark is in use in interstate commerce in at least international trademark classes, 035, 038, and 041. Currently avaliable programs include: The Farmer's Market Show(tm) The Organic Farm Show(tm) The Organic Show(tm) SEE:

</nowiki>

Do

You can appeal deletions at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, or discuss it with the admin who deleted your article (I don't know who that is, as you didn't provide a link to the deleted article, but you can see who it was by going to where the article was and clicking 'deletion log' in the text). However, it would be better for everyone if you waited for someone independent of your organisation to create an article about it. If it's truly notable, that will happen sooner or later. Misplaced Pages discourages people and organisations from creating articles about themselves, as Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for self-promotion. --Sam Blanning 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Samuel; I read what you wrote. I think there should be a distinction here at least regarding being deleted for self promotion, (is that a basis for deleteion in and of itself?) and the issue of whether a basis of being deleted for self promotion is even valid if nonetheless there is viable and valid content. There is an objective factual basis to our corporate existence, our filed trademark application(s) and the existence of video programs that can be viewed on our website, and thru limited public access televisions stationsall the result od hard and altruistic work. To be reduced to a speedly wiki deletion, is to me indicative of form over substance, maybe? We are prone to error as much as anyone else. Thank you!

I think we would be happy to include the article once you actually got on air... Sasquatch t|c 05:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL MollyBloom

Five edits in a minute or two with WP:LEGAL diff being this one. It is a bit of a pattern, not just with me, and the range of interest is impressively narrow. POV, SOAPBOX, WP:BIO --> living persons, etc. Midgley 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this "incident". Jkelly 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he's implying that she's implying that he may be sued for his actions. --InShaneee 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From a very brief examination of the interaction of these two editors, it looks like they both need to dial it down a notch. There are serious lapses of WP:CIVILity from both editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. Molly has lapsed into civility on a couple of occasions. I find her difficult to deal with, it might be possible to do it better, and some colleagues have offered advice, as have I, but her single focus is a problem and potentially one for WP. The AfD would best be closed - concensus to delete is not there, and some very prominent arguing from recklessly false assertions is in there. Midgley 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective, there is clear hostility on all sides of this conflict. There isn't necessarily one user who instigated it all. It appears to be a simple AfD that kind of flew out of control. Cowman109 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It goes back to April and the breast implant article, I'll add a diff. if I find myself there. Quoting WP:LEGAL

• Misplaced Pages has had bad experiences with users who have made legal threats in the past, and by making legal threats, you may damage your reputation on Misplaced Pages.
• A legal threat may lead to you being blocked from editing (on a case by case basis), so as not to exacerbate the problem through other than legal channels.

Midgley 09:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe is back and hes angry

For a long term I was an administrator here, routinely infuriating other administrators by not allowing them to abuse their power, until they finally got together & gave me the boot. Since then I've had about 3,000 edits as User:KI, for the most part minding my own business and ignoring the same BS from the same people again and again.

Now I've been blocked for 3 months for one instance of vulgarity - which was in response to repeated vandalism of my talkpage by several administrators. Every account I've created to get around this ridiculous abuse of power has been indefinitely blocked as a "sockpuppet."

I caught someone using sockpuppets which is the real reason I was blocked. I was reblocked for longer - and note there was no justification for doing so - when I revealed that I was freestylefrappe.

I appealed to an administrator who has seemed reasonable in the past, but he was unwilling to unblock me because I used the phrase "bullshit."

I would like to be unblocked (both User:KI and User:Tchadienne) so that I can run for adminship and infuriate all of you other admins asap. Thanks, freestylefrappe 00:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I hate you all.

Edit summaries like this one make me rather uncomfortable at the idea of you editing at all. --InShaneee 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I thought my edit summaries here and here were much worse than that! freestylefrappe 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I seriously considered doing so until I saw this edit. Ral315 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe, I know you're frustrated, but please remain civil at all times - you're not going to improve things by being tactless. (And as Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe demonstrated, civility is a must on Misplaced Pages.) I haven't reviewed the situation, nor do I wish to, but I would recommend you continue to talk with Sasquatch, the blocking admin; I see that he's already aware on his user talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked 1 hour for making incivil comments and personal attacks. Could another admin check to see if it is worth extending a block? Also, is an indef-ban for this disruptive user out of the question? NSLE _(T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-06-06)

If you wish to seek a ban (note: I make no assertion of whether I agree or disagree with that), I would recommend going through ArbCom because there's already been a case, and the Arbitrators could decide the appropriate remedy, if any. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe, you are engaging in the some of the same behavior which got you deadminned, that being rude comments and removing other people's comments from your talk page. I think nobody will take you seriously unless you keep your cool and civil manners. Grand insinuations like you were given the boot because you were preventing admins from abusing their power don't help either. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I was heavily involved in Freestylefrappe's RfArb, I won't take admin action against him, but I urge that he be blocked for at least a week immediately -- that's the current block on the account he said he wanted to use, User:Tchadienne. Sasquatch blocked User:KI indefinitely and lowered Tchadienne's block from indefinite to a week as as part of an agreement to let him make Tchadienne their main account ; he shouldn't be editing as Freestylefrappe in the meantime, especially not in the abusive manner he has so far today. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

For the time being I'll block user:Freestylefrappe indefinitely, and leave the one week block on User:Tchadienne. For whatever reason, this editor appears to be provoking trouble. Perhaps a break will settle things out. -Will Beback 04:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be too much at this point and it would just provoke Freestylefrappe more. I think we better wait and see how things develop. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I have unblocked the account. However the "main" account of User:Tchadienne is still set for a one-week block, which seems to have been earned. Let's see what happens. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, just noticed this thread. Anyways, I'll be monitoring the situations as well. Best thing anyone can do. Sasquatch t|c 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING Frater Fiat Lux

Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs) has uploaded legal documents currently listed on WP:IFD which are being used solely to attempt to slander a living person on Golden Dawn tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Talk:Golden Dawn tradition. These are affidavits in a lawsuit which has not yet been tried. It has been privately communicated to me that this is being used as a tactic to "try the person in the media" possibly instigated by one of the opposing legal teams. This sort of abuse does not belong on Misplaced Pages. -999 00:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to do much speculation about the motives behind the upload, but they are PDFs, which we really don't make a habit of hosting. Anyone have strong objections to me speedying them? Jkelly 00:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to know who had the bright idea of even ALLOWING PDFs on Misplaced Pages. --mboverload@ 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I support several MediaWiki-based sites, and by default, PDFs are disabled. --999 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Maker has arrived

Apitchlev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the first arrival of the promised Maker. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 00:37

That's Jimbo's sock? --Rory096 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually this matter should be taken seriously. It's a returning vandal (see the immediate featured article history who uses multiple sockpuppets. It seems some progress has been made by the deletion of the disturbing image the vandal uses, but still, it will be a long night of spontaneous featured article protections if the vandal continues on as he's done in the past, unfortunately. Cowman109 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the same vandal who used to attack George W. Bush back in November/December, then moved on to main page featured articles, replacing the contents with various pictures of penii. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 02:00

It's a vandal, big deal. There are a million of them. --Rory096 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep we've managed to survive them all so far. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Iamfscked

Iamfscked (talk · contribs · count) Does this violate WP:U? Yanksox 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Rory096 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, really old account though. --Rory096 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 'fsck' is a Unix command which checks the integrity of file systems. :-) -999 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Even so, it seems to be trying to imply the word "fuck." --Rory096 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially in the manner that it is being used, "I am fscked." Probably a play on words, but it worries me due to WP:U. Yanksox 03:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps but FCUK did that for quite a while. I think it is harmless.Geni 03:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest a change of username, since he has a non-trivial set of contributions. — Jun. 6, '06 <freak|talk>

I think it's harmless. I don't think a change of username is needed at all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Snoutwood (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If their fsck concluded successfully, they must be clean! Kim Bruning 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just wondering what the consesus was. Yanksox 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy on inappropriate user names says: Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre. This is obviously the case here, whether intentional or accidental (doubtful) or this conversation wouldn't have started in the first place. Tyrenius 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This use of fsck is an old old joke in unix circles. Coming down too hard on this username might be a bit over the top, even if it's technically not in compliance with the stated guideline. But letting it slide is a bit of a camel's nose problem I guess. Just thought I'd throw that out there. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Any admins here have GameFAQs account

If you are an admin and have a GameFAQs account, please give me an email. I need an investigation to be performed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser/Sceptre. User:TheCoffee has a GF account too. Will (_@) T 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Request that Admin Ask Fellow User to Cease Personal Attacks

Moved discussion to User_talk:MikeWazowski - KWH 05:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Need watchers for Al Seckel

Done. Yanksox 05:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Due to an edit conflict, I hadn't explained the problem yet!

The article Al Seckel was largely written by Al himself (an anon IP signing himself "Al" on the talk page. Two days ago new user Tmciver (talk · contribs) nominated the article for deletion; evidently he has a lot of animosity toward Seckel (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Al Seckel and Talk:Al Seckel). At first, Tmciver's comments were helpful to me in removing various unsourced glowing claims about Seckel and providing references. However, Tmciver now persists in adding negative information based on his own original research. He claims Seckel never graduated from Cornell. The article does not mention Seckel's credentials at all; Tmciver adds them in in order to make his allegations, which are based on a 1991 newsletter called Saucer Smear and Tmciver's own alleged phone call to the Cornell registrar. I have gone over this on the talk page, apparently to no further avail. I have to work and sleep; Tmciver seems not to be bound by these constraints. Can a couple of people put this on their watch list? Thanks. Thatcher131 05:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

added to watchlist. -- Kim van der Linde 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have posted some comments along these lines (see below entry). Appreciative of all your help.

Al Seckel

User proclaiming sockpuppetry

I have been given evidence that a user has proclaimed on an off-site webforum to his sparring partner that he has hundreds of IPs ready to sock-swamp his way to victory in an edit war. A screenshot is available on my talk page. This screenshot was verified to be true by PS2pcGAMER, who is a member and has access to the forum. The user has been involved in edit wars on a variety of pages without any discussion. I think a substantial block is in order. Thoughts?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd support simply asking the user in question first, and trying to convince them that they shouldn't do that. If that doesn't work, a block, yes. The user hasn't done anything yet, I think we should give them a chance. --Lord Deskana 08:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:PatCheng has been engaging in extreme edit wars with no attempt at consultation on a variety of pages, in a manner which seems not to be NPOV. He has been battling the other user everywhere for a long time now. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

So this is the user this post is about? I'll have to think about this... something's telling me we should just block this user based on the fact that they're threatning to do something, despite the fact that they've already been involved in lots of edit wars. I'll get back to you... there's no rush, right? --Lord Deskana 08:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the user in question has also launched personal attacks on other users, and was blocked by me yesterday for swearing.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

After seeing the screenshot, it looks to me like "your mama"-style trash-talking. I'm not too worried. Just keep an eye on any relevant pages. What makes you think it's PatCheng? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoutwood (talk • contribs)

Well, "Fenriswolf" is later asked whether he contributes as PatCheng and is stalking, and he shows more bravado.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Still, I wouldn't be overly concerned about it. Like I said, keep a eye on any relevant pages, maybe talk to the user about the issue, but apart from that I don't think there's too much reason for concern from this particular incident. Snoutwood (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's an admission of stalking then that is serious, as they are always in the same place. PatCheng started editing long after the other guy - he started in March 2005.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the forum post image is here -- Longhair 08:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am PatCheng and I proclaim my innocence. In that Gamefaqs topic, YINever claimed that "RevolverOcelotX" and "Fenriswolf" are my alternate accounts. Looking at Fenriswolf's profile at Gamefaqs, he created his account on 11/3/2002 5:39:52 PM. I, however, did not create a Gamefaqs account until early 2005. As for RevolverOcelotX being my alt, it has been proven false by CheckUser, but nevertheless YINever keeps insisting these are my alts in that topic. PatCheng is my sole Misplaced Pages account, which was created to organise the contributions my previous IP-based ones, and not for the purpose of "stalking" TJive. My first edit occured in late 2004 and did not even come across TJive until late early 2006. I revert some of TJive's edits because I find many of them questionable under NPOV policies, such his reference to Cuban government as "Castro regime" , and the Tiananmen Square protests as "bloody supression" , and that he uses three different accounts to evade 3RR TJive (talk · contribs), YINever (talk · contribs), 72.65.77.79 (talk · contribs) --PatCheng 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems like alot of hearsay. Is there any evidence that "Fenriswolf" contributes as PatCheng? Is there a screenshot where "Fenriswolf" says he is PatCheng and agrees with battling on WP? --RevolverOcelotX 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see this entry from new user User:151.205.8.146 which again refers to PatCheng "wiki-stalking". I'm not interested in the dispute between these two users, but it's spilling out all over the place, bothering a lot of articles and innocent bystanders whose work is getting messed around in the warzone. --Zleitzen 00:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been reviewing PatCheng's edits and there are a lot of posts which are very innappropriate.

• Extremely Racist comments : , , ,
• Insults towards other users : , , , , , ,

, ,

• Swearing at other users: , , ,
• Calling for death/ Inciting hatred: ,
• Attacking another's userpage: ,

He has complained to me that he has a balanced view and wants democracy but in the diff regarding inciting hatred, he says that the only wrong thing that Mao ever did was not kill Jung Chang. I have not extensively looked at his editing of articles, but giving the repeated racist comments that he has made, I doubt whether he is here to write an encyclopedia or to push POV and indulge in ideological head-banging. In the screenshots shown and further evidence verified by other admins who have access to GameFAQs that the screenshot is real, "Fenriswolf" brags that to "TJive"/"YINever" that he doesn't care about WP policy and his block, and has hundreds of IPs ready to sock-swamp to victory. PatCheng has admitted to clashing on the webforum (admitted by both parties) and is the only person fitting the description of being blocked on June 5 relating to a dispute with YINever/TJive and using the GAMEFAQs forum. "Fenriswolf" is then confronted as to whether he is using User:PatCheng to stalk TJive, to which he reacts with pride. Later, a series of posts arose where "Fenriswolf" claimed to have taken control of User:PatCheng and User:RevolverOxelot, who have been team-edit-warring on various Chinese Communist Party related political articles with no discussion from either side whatsoever. "Fenriswolf" then deleted the previous comments. As a block is a preventative measure, I feel that it can be applied to prevent sockpuppeteering. Given the serious infringements performed by PatCheng in the past, I have indefinitely blocked him as a temporary measure pending some kind of final resolution.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that some of the edits were from an IP, which PatCheng later redirected to his user account after registering.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, again, what hard evidence do you have that "Fenriswolf" is indeed PatCheng? That one screenshot you have only shows that the GameFAQs user "Fenriswolf" is bragging.

And Blnguyen your accusation that my account is taken control by this "Fenriswolf" is rediculous. On what grounds do you want to block my account? You can't block my account just because a random user on GameFAQs claims to "have taken control" of my account. And your accusations of me being a sockpuppet of PatCheng have already been false by this CheckUser.

Indeed, I have not been "team-edit-warring" with PatCheng on any articles. I have only edited some articles out of concern for NPOV. In fact, I haven't even "team-reverted" any articles ever since I was blocked for 3RR on Mao: The Unknown Story. The only people that are edit-warring are PatCheng (talk · contribs), YINever (talk · contribs), TJive (talk · contribs), 72.65.77.79 (talk · contribs), 151.205.8.146 (talk · contribs), 65.33.167.138 (talk · contribs). In fact check the contribs of those IP addresses, almost all their contributions are reverts against PatCheng's edits. --RevolverOcelotX 04:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Fenriswolf" has been stalking me ever since late last year when he vandalized my user page, claiming I insulted his grandfather at GameFAQs. At first he used anonymous accounts to summarily revert any contribution I made. These all trace to Australian providers - a couple of them are from different locations but the main ones use Optus. These include two accounts used to launch personal attacks on contributors, which can be seen if one follows off the talk pages. In the case of the last known IP, its talk page was redirected to User:PatCheng's. "PatCheng" himself started his career here by attempting to cull Misplaced Pages editors against me, in his very first two edits. He then moved on to three articles I was editing at the time, in order to revert my edits. He would continue to do this unabated until earlier this year, when I took an extended break due to time constraints. The moment I left he reverted my contributions for what he thought would be the last time, and the moment I returned to contribute again he has picked up his disruption right where he left off. As I explained here, he has been stalking me, even leading into successive accounts of mine. The story I gave in that link was verified by PatCheng himself here and here.

There have been a couple instances where Fenriswolf has acknowledged his behavior at Misplaced Pages but I never thought to record them. So when "PatCheng" was blocked for personal attacks and "RevolverOcelotX" was blocked for 3RR violation the other day, I made a topic on GameFAQs mentioning the blocks to see what his response might be. Unsurprisingly, he was unrepentant and gloated that he was flagrantly violating policy:

And do you know that I don't give a **** about looney wikipedia admins? I can obtain hundreds of IP addresses to revert your trash on wikipedia.

I posted his user history and examples of his reverts, and a denial of the comment he alleges that I made, which strangely he took for an admission.

So you're admitting it huh?

By this time he was made aware of the posts concerning him and decided to backpeddle in a way that would throw the whole thing into confusion:

LOL PatCheng was blocked for personal attacks and RevolverOcelotX for 3RR. I really don't care about these two idiots considering that I own neither of these two accounts and merely guessed their passwords.

He would later make a mistake. When some users confronted him for lying, he responded by saying that PatCheng and RevolverOcelotX were "only two" of his accounts, but he deleted that message and posted this in its place before I grabbed a snapshot:

You're not even close to finding my real account or my hundreds of IPs.

The actual forum post can be found here, but only members have access, and messages are regularly purged within a few days regardless of what anybody does. A couple administrators were sent there to verify some of these pictures. I don't believe they saw the deleted message but they did see the rest. "Ashibaka", seen in that last picture is an admin here. This is a flagrant admission of policy violation and disruptive intentions, looking past the braggadocio about "hundreds of IPs". Fenriswolf's half-concocted tale of merely finding the passwords for the accounts is proven false in the case of PatCheng simply by looking at his first contributions. It was not an accident that this account was following me; it started out that way.

As for RevolverOcelotX, he has the same posting habits as PatCheng - they both have been trolling through Asia and China-related articles watering down critical views and words about the Chinese government and communists. They both accuse me of "whitewashing", Fenriswolf's traditional description of my behavior. They discovered a mutual interest in the following articles, which they would revert in tandem.

• Military budget of the People's Republic of China
• The Epoch Times
• Human rights in the People's Republic of China
• Mao: The Unknown Story

At this point, "RevolverOcelotX" began to place a great deal of templates on the talk page of my sockpuppet in an attempt to get me blocked for "vandalism" which saw two bad reports deleted. Not only did PatCheng and RevolverOcelotX manage to trump reverts in the four mentioned articles, but RevolverOcelotX himself committed a 3RR violation. When I reported him, he posted a bogus retaliatory report which had to be dismissed as well.

In other words, "RevolverOcelotX" quickly took up "PatCheng"'s hobby of harassing me, immediately prior to, and during, PatCheng's 24-hour block. That may be coincidence, and "Fenriswolf" may well just be blustering to avoid wider blocks, but I seriously doubt it. If "RevolverOcelotX" was lily-white in this manner he would leave well enough alone rather than attempting to present the defense for unblocking a disruptive and hateful user whom he pretends not even to know. He has taken up the cause, not only here on ANI but PatCheng's talk page, as well as the pages of administrators where administrator Blnguyen has merely asked for separate opinions, of unblocking PatCheng and launching into further polemics about my accounts. The difference is, I have not been demonstrated to have violated a single policy but have merely been defending my ability to edit at this site, whatsoever, without a stalker over my back every moment. As other users have noted, this warring is disruptive, is unhealthy, and many pages have been caught in the crossfire over one individual's bizarre personal feud with myself. The block should remain in effect on PatCheng and any subsequent sockpuppets. If "RevolverOcelotX" wishes to maintain any pretense of distinction from this issue then he will refrain from further violating policy and not simply pick up right where "PatCheng" left off. --TJive 06:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I have been using "TJive", "YINever", as well as anonymous IPs while logged out. None of these have violated policy alone or together. --TJive 06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive, for the record, I am NOT one of PatCheng's sockpuppets as proven by the CheckUser, and I have no intentions of "harassing" you. I don't know who "Fenriswolf" is but from what you've posted here, it seems clear that "Fenriswolf" really is PatCheng. "Fenriswolf" aka User:PatCheng is clearly lying about "guessing my passwords". The only reason I was edit warring with you the other day was out of concern for NPOV, not because I wanted to help YINever/TJive or PatCheng. But I haven't been edit warring with either of you ever since my block for 3RR.

Now the only reason why I presented the defense for unblocking PatCheng was because there didn't seem to be any hard evidence and his block seemed unfair. But, now that I see that "Fenriswolf"/PatCheng is clearly lying about "merely guessed my password", I don't really care if PatCheng is blocked or not, since I don't even know him or you. And I have not violated any policy ever since my block for 3RR. I know see that "Fenriswolf" really is PatCheng. --RevolverOcelotX 07:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Abusive editor in Bulgarian Misplaced Pages

We have a very interesting example of abusive editor in Bulgarian Misplaced Pages that is using very dirty language, threatening other editors, and using vulgar language. Recently he abused 2 of the administrators in Bulgarian Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately there is no Arbitration Cometee and Bulgarian Comunity in Misplaced Pages is not very well organizes to restrict the actions of that editor. In addition that editor has some contributions for the developement of the bulgarian project of Misplaced Pages and other editors are protecting him from ban.

The situation started 2 years ago, it escalated and a lot of new editors left the project because of the constant abuses from that editor. I tried to contact English Misplaced Pages 3 months ago, but I was not able to find the right procedure to report that case. The last resolution when I made the complain against that editor is in my discussion 1 There are multiple examples of abuses from that editor, many discussions for that case in bulgarian Misplaced Pages, but all of them are in bulgarian language. Please advise what we can do to stop that abusive editor. He is proud of his actions and nobody can restrict his violations.

Bogdev 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing the English Misplaced Pages can do, as it isn't part of this Wiki per se. Admins here do not have the same privileges there, so you need to make your case there, or in Meta. Titoxd 07:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bogdev 07:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have some sort of administrative process in the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages for these sorts of things, then take it to Meta (somewhere like m:Requests for permissions, where a Bulgarian editor with community support could gain administrative powers and block the user). Surely there's an admin who can block him already, though? Snoutwood (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are administrators, that editor was blocked temporary many times and there is ongoing discussion to ban that editor permanently. But in the meantime that editor continue to abuse people, he is very proud of his actions and he is a very bad example for that comunity. I hope that bulgarian comunity will find the solution for that situation, at the same time I see that this is a problem for more that 2 years, dealing with that kind of abusive people is waste of time and energy for a lot of people. And allowinig abusive activities is also not acceptable.Bogdev 08:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is true. Sounds to me like a permanent ban is a good idea. If that's a problem while disussion is ongoing, I would block him temporarily, and then if the discussion decides that he should be permanently banned, do so. I would try that and see how it works. Snoutwood (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

I have just permanently blocked I have verve! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a self-admitted vandal (created Misplaced Pages vandilism unit). I think you ought to know about it, because he may be preparing a sustained attack on Misplaced Pages. - Mike Rosoft 11:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

People need to stop worrying about vandals returning (not just you, a lot of people). If they do, we block them. Simple as that. Ral315 (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Attempted password theft?

I blocked 193.39.172.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for repeated vandalism, after s/he had been reported at WP:AIV, and left a message about the block on the vandal's talk page. A few minutes later, NINETEEN e-mails came in from wikimedia, telling me:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 193.39.172.1) requested that we send you a new Misplaced Pages login password for en.wikipedia.org. The password for user "Musical Linguist" is now .

You should log in and change your password now.

If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

The new password was different in each e-mail. I just ingnored the messages, and everything is working fine. After reflection, I increased the length of the block from 24 hours to a week, but thought I should report it here. AnnH ♫ 11:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

long standing trick. TRhey just repeately hit the email new password button.Geni 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if you ignore it, your password remains the same. If you come under fire and it's jamming up your inbox, a simple mail filter will take care of that problem. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:EnthusiastFRANCE

This user has been creating mutiple socks posting abusive and obscene messages to evade a block. Many on the sock are concentrated on attacking User:Aknorals. I have created Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of EnthusiastFRANCE and tagged as many socks as I could find so far, some of them were created by sock usernames and this showed up on the username creation bot which is why they may have no edits. Anyway, this situation needs to have a eye kept on it, The IP's are probably open proxies and sock creation is still continuing. For evasion of the block, I have lengthened the orginal block to 1 month. pschemp | talk 11:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Egregious personal attacks by Dabljuh

Normally I would just leave a warning, but User:Dabljuh has truly gone off the deep end here. This is an extended rant on the talk page of a mediation I was involved in (which is why I am not taking action myself) and which has closed. You really have to read it yourself to fully appreciate it, but let's hit the highlights:

• "Because there is this other policy, "No Original Research" - that can be summed up as "Misplaced Pages is fucked proper since its obviously run by total morons"."
• "That person hates wikipedia and wants it to contain shitty articles"
• "That person somehow has his head several miles up his ass"
• "Any person that has or had opposed the inclusion of this information is a huge asshole that should not be allowed to edit anything on wikipedia, or consume my oxygen for that matter."
• "GET THE HELL OFF MY INTERNET, YOU LAME-ASS FUCKTARDS"

This user has been warned about personal attacks before (see here). Obviously I'm an involved party — as the person being told I "should not be allowed to consume his oxygen" — so it's hard for me to be objective. But I think this is way beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. Like, several hundred miles beyond. Nandesuka 11:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That is one helluva rant. I'd say we give him a cookie along with a nice long block. --Cyde↔Weys 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You should take a look at this and this. -- Grafikm 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Snoutwood (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion

...by Sami44 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • logs) See User talk:WAvegetarian#Are you that thick? and history of James Purdey and Sons for evidence —WAvegetarian•(talk) 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As the user admits that it is a proxy, it has been blocked indefinitely. . If it happens again via another proxy, report here again. Kilo-Lima| 18:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television Stations

Most of the active people on the project need a block for a day or two. Endless, endless fighting, reverting of each others' work, labelling it as 'vandalism'. Violations of 3RR, WP:Civil, legal threats, wikistalking, stupid requests for comment, harassment, much more. They've even taken the fighting to MY talk page, when they have no fight with me. Users include (but are not limited to): User:CFIF contribs, note the mass reverts), User:CoolKatt_number_99999 contribs, note the mass reverts), User:Boothy443 contributions, note the many reverts, User:Kirjtc2 contribs, note the mass revertions, User:Rollosmokes contributions, note the mass revertions. All five need a wikibreak. I don't want to go to MY talk page and find a bunch of fighting on it, from people I'm not even arguing with. I've tried to talk with them, I've tried mediating. Nothing works. The most immature "group" on Misplaced Pages.--Firsfron of Ronchester 13:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion report

User:Stephan KŒNIG was blocked on May 15 for one month for vandalism as well as continually adding blog-like, irrelevant material to talk pages as well as chronic uploading of non-fair use images (with no apparent intent to use them in articles), and finally he began vandalising the Bill Haley article itself. His targets tend to be articles relating to Bill Haley such as Bill Haley, Bill Haley & His Comets, Jodimars and others. KŒNIG is apparently working from a rotating IP server as he has continued to post to the above articles (again almost exclusively their talk pages) despite the ban being in place and signs his talk page messages with his name or initials. Evidence: Talk:Bill Haley (see additions by 81.246.223.29 (reverted), 87.64.184.168, 81.245.68.169); Talk:Bill Haley & His Comets (see 81.244.63.70, 81.246.205.39, 81.243.173.11, 81.244.38.179) ... you get the picture. To be fair not all these edits are nonsense, but he is still evading a block that isn't supposed to expire until June 15 and that's the issue. 23skidoo 14:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The user should be blocked indefinitely per WP:USERNAME, similar to the American author, Stephen King. Kilo-Lima| 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, this is beyond the scope of that policy. While it might be convenient, I disagree with the common over-extension of that policy to ban people whose true offences are other. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WCityMike

I believe we have a problem with WCityMike - he's started a mass AfD against many Star Trek fanfilm related articles, and has apparently gone after several people, myself now included, who have questioned his actions. He's placed a warning about canvassing for votes on my talk page, when I have done no such thing, just reverted an edit he made that was critical of his actions and asked for an administrator's input. I would like an adminstrator to look into this situation, please. TheRealFennShysa 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second that request -- I've noted the same issue this morning, and would like to have a third party (preferably an admin) look into this as well. --Mhking 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed remark began, "I have just found out from my Watchlist that there appears to be some sort concerted action against Star Trek Fan Films" and was on fan film talkpage. Removal of remark followed same methodology employed last night uncontroverrsially from BigDT. Note that complainant is a Trek fan film director, BTW, according to his talk page. User who posted original removed remark (Kirok) has made all sorts of sinister implications on his talk page based on my use of the afd_helper code. He's done wikistalking (investigating my monobook.js), personal attacks, bad faith assumptions, and incivility -- which I did not bring here per the way MikeW...'s similar incident was handled here last night, but instead merely asked him politely to cut it out (see talk page). Merely asked user to stop being incivil/stop the personal attacks/etc. Complainant above restored vote-stuffing query from original user, thus restoring the canvassing for votes -- if the canvassing warning isn't policy (despite ArbCom rulings?), then why is it even on the warning page? — WCityMike  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Small point here - although I have an interest in the genre, I am not a Trek fanfilm director, and have never made a Star Trek fan film. Perhaps you're confusing that with Star Wars - it's such an easy mistake to make. TheRealFennShysa 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the clerical error. However, I've seen a great many Trek fanfilms on TheForce.net, and in my desire to get a response on the record to your charge above, did not read further in your profile. — WCityMike  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no Star Trek fanfilms on TheForce.net. TheRealFennShysa 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, those who oppose the deletion of the cited articles are assuming, without any proof, that I brought these nominations in bad faith. (That in and of itself seems to be not only textbook assuming bad faith but also personal attacks.) In actuality, I did not. Were you to see my bookshelves at home, you'd see I'm not precisely a detractor of Star Trek. However, it is simply that the extreme proliferation of fan-film-related articles, including each and every one I cited, has led to a large collection of non-notable articles that I felt merited exposure to a AfD vote. Nomination does not equal deletion. Nomination states, "This user feels that the community should come to a consensus about whether this article deserves to be on Misplaced Pages." I don't think that that opinion is out of line, but evidently by expressing that opinion, I've given license to many hordes of Trek Wikipedians to engage in personal attacks and indignant outrage. It's a shame people (in general, not just in this incident) sem to have lost the ability to respectfully disagree. Those who can still pull it off usually come across as class acts. — WCityMike  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I could suggest moving this conversation off to a talk page again, but you're clearly looking for an administrator to act as a mediator or referee in this dispute. There's no blatant vandalism, attacks, or activity by blocked or banned users here. Again, you're looking for someone with administrative powers to simply witness and/or referee your content dispute. Administrators have the capability to delete articles, block/ban users, and maybe 1 or 2 other things, but they are not Solomonic judges. Work it out amongst yourselves and you'll be better for it. KWH 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, with regards to the "you're clearly looking" (as I'm not sure to whom you addressed this remark — it's an indent underneath my statement), I would note that although I brought the matter to WP:ANI last night, I didn't bring this complaint. Or, to use a legal analogy, yesterday I was the plaintiff, today I'm the defendant. I wouldn't have brought things here this morning, as last night I was told this wasn't the place for such differences of opinion. — WCityMike  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• This editor has now moved onto Lost-related articles. As he has stated above, he is on a mass AfD campaign ("the extreme proliferation of fan-film-related articles has led to a large collection of non-notable articles that I felt merited exposure to a AfD vote.), which appears to be contrary to WP:POINT. Rather than constructively aiming to develop consensus (or WP-policy improvements), he has chosen to list numerous fiction articles under the pretense of calling them "fancruft". I'm as against cruftiness as the next editor-- in fact, I have a back-burner proposal about the topic-- but disrupting WP/antagonising other editors is not the appropriate way to demonstrate the rightness of that belief. I would suggest that WCityMike should refrain from mass AfD nominations, and if he continues, to face appropriate sanctions. --Leflyman 00:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't appear he's nominated anything in the last few hours, but I do think a block may be neccisary should he begin again. --InShaneee 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I take respectful issue with InShaneee's comments. I have done my best to demonstrate good faith throughout the rather large outpouring of angry editors who have repeatedly taken issue with my nomination of articles that I felt did not meet Misplaced Pages's criterion for inclusion.

For example, I engaged in extremely long dialogues with NickC and Kirok on Kirok's talk page (dialogues which were time-consuming) to address their concerns and in an attempt to make peace with them, despite Kirot (as a new editor) posting rather egregious diatribes about the AFD Helper code and making incivil remarks all over the votes. And, indeed, with each of these individuals, I left the issue having made peace with them, as you can read for yourself.

The largest majority of other editors who have attempted to speak with me personally (including the two individuals bringing complaints in this section) have not demonstrated assumption of good faith or civility. But certainly, administrators should uphold these policies in their official actions as administrators. I have asked every single person who has accused me of bad faith in my nominations of articles to provide proof that I have acted sinisterly or with malicious intent. None have responded with same.

I respectfully posit that it would be a poor choice for an administrator to issue a block — which, from my understanding, is a preventative measure ("blocks are preventative, not punitive," I've heard several admins say) — to attempt to cease measures which are done in good faith.

Prior to reading this remark, and prior to posting this remark, I had nominated a handful of articles to AfD this morning. I emphasize that this was done prior to reading this comment, so it was not a retaliatory action to InShaneee's comments. However, it can now be argued I have "begun again." In these nominations, I did my best to offer more precise, reasoned criteria as to why I believed the article merited deletion, avoiding the seemingly inflammatory "fancruft" phrase, and I think it would be extremely difficult for anyone to argue that these nominations were made in bad faith and deserve blocking. (Indeed, no one has decided they need to take me to task on my talk page, as they had been doing yesterday.)

I am writing here not to prolong the issue in your eyes — as you can see above, I have attempted to make peace without administrator invention, once it was suggested that this issue was better handled without administrator intervention (see WP:ANI#Request that Admin Ask Fellow User to Cease Personal Attacks above).

But I did monitor this complaint when first brought against me, and I find it quite disturbing that an administrator is now seemingly ready to levy a block based on popular sentiment with no proof of the various accusations of disruption and malicious intent that have been tossed about by the people here and elsewhere. Thus, I'd respectfully suggest that said administrator reconsider their readiness to do same.

Thanks. — Mike •  18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not currently following the Afd discussions, but if (for example) the articles you nominated yesterday are generating strong keep consensus, it probably doesn't make sense to nominate more in the same class. If the consensus is mixed, with some going each way, I would proceed with a small number per day. Having fanfic based articles for a few extra days is worth fostering an environment of calmness and deliberation that focuses on the article content and not the nominator. Thatcher131 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your query, Thatcher131, without grabbing all the votes and calculating percentages to give you a precise answer, it's roughly a mixed bag. A very good portion of them are generating a delete consensus, a few are no-consensus, and I believe one or two are definitely leaning towards keeps (Star Trek: New Voyages, for example). — Mike •  19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like on June 6 you nominated about 35 articles (Trek and Lost, mostly). I'd say that a high rate of deletions demonstrates good faith, and that somewhere there is a number (less than 35, obviously) that will let people focus on the article rather than you. Thatcher131 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I just gotta say that I looked into Mike's history of communications with others on this and I think that he's got a good head on his shoulders and his commitment here is exemplary. I'm not even saying that I have read all the individual AfDs and judged that I agree with deleting them—just that Mike has used the AfD process correctly. KWH 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

user:Hoof38 clone?

64.192.106.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) may be an incarnation of banned user Hoof38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=End_of_planet_Earth&diff=57184900&oldid=56363005 , reinstating edits made by User:Hoof38 and reverted by me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Science3456 socks have reappeared to continue the tradition of adding unneeded redirects to Jonathan Bowers, which Hoof38 also liked to do (see Bongulus). To wit: Freee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Lockser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Boar34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -Big Smooth 19:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Go for it!

Go for it! (talk · contribs) is trying to make all editors communicate with him through email. He had directed his Talk page to his User page. When I edited his Talk page and indicated that he should leave it available for editing, he moved my communication to another page, then moved his User page to his Talk page. I have reverted the moves and once again left a message on his Talk page, and have indicated that he needs to leave a Talk page available, or he will be blocked. User:Zoe| 15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems a bit suspicious, maybe he/she is trying to harvest emails?--Andeh 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

His talk page must remain available. E-mail is secondary to on-wiki discussion. Snoutwood (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Go for it!, from April. User page moves were a problem then, making communications with the user difficult. He stopped editing in April, and returned a few days ago. I wanted to leave a message, welcoming him back, but noticed the instructions about e-mailing. At that point, his talk page redirected to his user page, so I was unable to leave the message. I hope a solution is worked out, and he stays (contributing constructively). But the recent user page moves indicate continued problems. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 17:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Frater FiatLux

Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading two speedily deleted PDF files, File:Document4-1.pdf and File:FyttonDeposition.pdf. These files were deleted because they contain libel against a living person in violation of WP:LIVING. Also, Frater FiatLux claims they are in the public domain as government produced files when they are not. They are not court-produced documents, but affidavits submitted by private parties. Thus they are publicly accessible on the court website, but the authors of the documents would still be the copyright holders and control other uses.... -999 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are, your completly wrong, I will be reporting you. The Cicero affidavit is a factual court file and does not in any way infringe on painting Cicero in a bad light, nor is it painting a living person in a negative light. The document should be looked at more carefully. The file is indeed a court produced document you can gain access to the COURT records by following the information at the very bottom of this page.

User 999 is not correct, please see my infra comments on the last file that user 999 is in an unprincipled manner harrasing. Frater FiatLux 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, if they are actual court documents, they can't be "solely to slander" (or rather, libel). They are, at least, factual as evidence that a court case exists and that certain allegations were made. They don't, of course, prove the claims in the case. --FOo 07:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This file comprises of fully verifiable information from the original public domain source. Information on how to download these documents for yourself are provided on the files pages themselves. They should not be deleted as the user that is attempting this “999” is of a rival order and is attempting to sabotage and interfere with present discussions and litigation to their own biased POV by deleting these public domain affidavits from the original source. -Frater FiatLux 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Frater FiatLux:There is minimal fee for downloading the documents through the official courts web-site. Instructions are given on the page of the file on how to do this. To make the files immediately assessable to mediators, editors and people that want to view this verifiable original and factual information. They can simply do so by clicking the link in the talk page and going right to file, where they can open and browse at their leisure, without paying for it, or applying to the court for the records. The file is linked to in many of the current talk threads and should not be deleted, as they are integral to some of the entries. Any opposition to remove these files is a clear, biased attempt at trying to interfere with the present talk, discussion dispute that is currently being considered by the mediator. Furthermore the mediator handling the disputation hasn’t made any remarks to me -whatsoever-to remove the file. -Frater FiatLux 23:55, 5 June 2006

I will reiterate what I told you, to in reply to your threat to me on the talk page I will be reporting you to the relevant admin pages for this threat and for also tampering with the files I uploaded. Suddenly one or two have conveniently gone missing.

I have already addressed the legal threat directed at myself with the relevant comment, however, I appreciate Kephera’s support. Any other comments on this matter though I feel are rather unnecessary and will only further perpetuate the schism makers, and further add to the burden of the mediator. The relevant comments have been made; I now feel it best that the outright threats by these schism makers should be treated with the appropriate disdain. I consider it very appropriate to treat such misleading, defamatory attacks on the HOGD/A+O's integrity seriously, to which I'm a member, and feel this rightly constitutes a formal and proper form of correspondence. This is not to be misinterpreted as some have in a very ill judged manner, to claim that I am legally threatening users, or that a formal comprehensive style is slanderous. User 999, your message supra however, is a direct threat and a perfect example thereof. I have only stated the facts and have not therein my posting attempted to deliberately slander Cicero, although, to biased eyes it could be appear that way. The fact that Cicero doesn’t appear to have a whiter than white background when the facts are compiled, or that these facts do not live up to expectations of Cicero supporters or licensees; frankly is not my fault. The sources in my posting cover a range of books, some of which are even written by Cicero, and original from the source court affidavits; and these aren’t all based around Cicero, or with the sole intent to slander Cicero, whatsoever. I am not interested in -anyone's- opinion of my writing style, and furthermore my writing style has nothing -whatsoever- to do with any of the matters at hand in this disputation. The fact that I treat correspondence seriously with schism makers attempting to misrepresent and defame the order I am a part. I consider is highly appropriate and should not be misrepresented as slanderous or threatening. Although, user 999 has given us a perfect example of what a direct threat constitutes. "/User:Frater_FiatLux" 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: By Frater FL Your threat of informing Cicero’s lawyers doesn’t bother me -Whatsoever-; he cannot do a single thing about anything that I’ve written. I’ve back up the articles entries with comprehensive sources that are in the main, books in print that are verifiable, and even written by Cicero. The affidavits are publicly available documents and are open to anyone. I am in violation of nothing, therefore he can do nothing, so your threat is unfounded. All important points of the disputation are verifiable from books in print with relevant quotes, to which I have duly, and comprehensively given in my posting. The affidavits are only therein included to back up verifiable information that is obvious, and are the only integral documents to back certain claims in the HOGD/A+O entry. Such as the agreement between Griffin and Behman. This type of biographical information can only be soured from actual publicly available original sourced documents, that are signed by the hand of Griffin and Behman. To which I might add, is comprehensive factual, and accurate information. "/User:Frater_FiatLux" 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is direct information on how to download the affidavit direct from the COURT:

Please find infra: the ECF link at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You can find the original court affidavits I used supra in my posting with: The case number which is- C05-432 JSW, and the ruling court for this case is the San Francisco Courthouse. ""https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/index.html"" Furthermore, please find again infra a message served to the Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn public forum, at Yahoo groups: ""http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn/message/5095"" The message served to HOGD public forum contains clear and comprehensive instructions on how to download the original court affidavits, from the original public domain source.

Frater FiatLux 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just left a note at your Talk -- the WP:LIVING concern and the copyright concern are sort-of red herrings. We're really not in the habit of hosting reference material of any kind locally, and we also avoid hosting PDFs. Jkelly 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

scifi articles & WP:POINT

I hate to even bring something so petty here, the AFD on star trek sort of peeked my interest in the matter, it seems like people are going on a WP:POINT spree, and nominating scifi related atricles left and right, some sort of 666 related practical joke? I'm not sure, but it's going to become messy I think--152.163.100.65 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New class of warning templates re: WP:POINT

Please see this regular noticeboard post. Thanks. Netscott 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin threatens block for oppose vote

Check this out. He is threatening to block me now for opposing his friend's RfA. Incidentally, a month ago, the same abusive admin threatened legal action like this. That harangue was duly reported in WPANI and WPVP. Anwar 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think he is threatening to block you for opposing an rfa. He is warning you that making personal attacks could lead you to getting blocked. You are free to debate if the comments you made on that rfa are personal attacks or not; I don't deem them to be, but at least a couple of users believe that they tantamount to personal attacks. However, you cannot twist the language of Bhadani's message on your talk page in this way. Also, please understand that the last time you posted here, the consensus was that your "refactoring" was wrong. (Associated thread here). However, you chose to ignore the messages on this forum and retained the messages as they were. Please do not expect people to give a patient hearing when you are not ready to offer the same courtesy. As the saying goes, people who live by the sword, die by the sword. Translated, people who defy consensus cannot expect to formulate consensus. Good day, --Gurubrahma 17:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The comments were clearly not personal attacks, but commentary on a person's edit history when that person is a candidate for adminship. The reason that comments about people's personalities are discouraged in article talk pages and other general discussion is that they are not relevant. However, in reviewing a person's application for administrative access, that person's personality is central. The comments, by raising concern about a potential administrator's editing habits (and that is a lot of reverts!) are in fact praiseworthy as a contribution to the review of the application for adminship. Threatening to block was harmful and chilling to the consensus-making process. --FOo 03:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; however this reasoning would apply if and only if the reverts fall into edit war category. Almost all of them fall under reversting vandalism category. Anyone who has even a cursory look at his edits would understand it. Anyways, it was great that you could take time to comment here. It would be much appreciated if you can also look at the reverts by him and how many of them correspond to edit warring. While I absolutely agree that commentary is essential, for an oppose vote, diffs are even more essential. In the absence of diffs and given the pattern of Anwar's voting, other editors would feel justified in forming an opinion that he is only rabble-rousing. The diff that Anwar provided doesn't refer to POV warriorship. --Gurubrahma 03:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello FOo, I think it was a typo on his part. His sentence should have read "Significant edits are unacceptably low - just 22% of his edits". My reverts were just 8%. Please check contribution section on my RFA. I mention this since you said, "that is a lot of reverts!". - Ganeshk (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)