Misplaced Pages

Do we normally have articles for minor league players? I thought we didn't. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor League players are a hot topic in AFD recently, easily WP:POINT creations. Jaranda 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some we do, and some we don't. Generally, a player doesn't get an article just for being a minor-league ballplayer, but there are a lot of minor-league players who qualify under other grounds: notable amateur achievements, membership on a national team/international competion, presence on a major-league 40-man roster, etc. There's currently some discussion of this on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people), which suggests extending it to a few other categories (players in the All-Star Futures Game, minor-league All-Stars, etc.), and if you have an opinion on the matter we could use some more feedback. As things currently stand, a lot of these player stubs seem to be the sort that'd be deleted with the current precedents in mind. -Hit bull, win steak 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Being on a minor league team simply can't be sufficient for a biography. First, the athlete's career isn't established yet. Second, the numbers are staggering. Third, the athlete doesn't rise to fame/notability beyond the very local area or the very devoted interest group of scouts. I'd want to know that the other notability is pretty danged huge. Otherwise, the person would just be a name on a "List of players in the all star minor league game" or something like that. A break out article suggests a biography rather than a fact, IMO. Geogre 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that some of these can be deleted as reposts of deleted content: see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kinston Indians. -Hit bull, win steak 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that normally minor league sports players aren't really notable enough to get their own articles unless there's some other fact that makes them notable. Pegasus1138 ---- 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible return under AFD WtH (talk · contribs), fyi. -- MOE.RON 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In case these keep getting re-posted, I'd advise against a {{deletedpage}} on one of the articles, specifically the one for Stephen Head. He's by far the best prospect in that batch, and you could make a case for keeping a good article on him, if there were one. He was a three-time All American in college, conference player of the year for the SEC in 2004, part of the 2003 US National Team that competed in the Pan American Games, one of five finalists for the Golden Spikes Award (the baseball equivalent of the Heisman Trophy), etc. The one-liner that got speedied is no loss, but I'd hate to see this mess end up blocking the one guy who really does deserve an article. -Hit bull, win steak 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

When he comes up to the Majors, then you or somebody else can go to DRV and request that it be unprotected. Until then, let's just keep things simple. User:Zoe| 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. With any luck, it'll all be a moot point anyway. -Hit bull, win steak 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would hope, though, that this isn't a general "minor leaguers don't get their own pages" suggestion. Certainly, clubs regularly engage in the hyperbolic "he's the next (insert superstar's name here)" but, if the article satisfies WP:N, I would hope it would stay. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Stalker/Outer/Vandal

I have a "new" Misplaced Pages editor, vandalizing my talk pages and edits. Arthur Ellis 22:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I warned him. He should stop adding suspected sock tags after RFCU was declined. Please post back on this page if he continues with unwanted edits. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A question: Pete Peeters, is a famous NHL goalie; is Pete Peters (talk · contribs) username in question? -- Samir धर्म 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Could be coincidental, being a common name, but combined with his behavior, I'd suggest going ahead and blocking. — Jun. 27, '06 <freak|talk>

Working with this one... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Move war

User:Lysy started a move request at Act of Kreva on 26 June, and just before submitting it, he moved the page to the location Union of Krewo where he, concluded from his vote, supports it to be. This no doubt was because he wanted to put the burden for getting a clear majority to burden his opponents, and not his own camp. This is why we generally frown upon and regard bad form, if a requester of move makes a move to his location just before the request. However, now the situation has escalated: some other users moved the page back where it was before Lysy's combined "move and request" antics. And Lysy has now at least three (Four?) times countered it. His last move was just a bit over 24 hours had passed from the previous. So his conduct seems to be circumventing barely the restrictions upon 3RR. We call it gaming the system. Situation seems to be that two or three others counter his moves, and on his side, he acts alone. Clear move war, and clear case where Lysy dos not want to respect a majority, but regards himself alone having the right to act. Of course he may be able to fill pages and pages with explanations why he is materially right and how everyone other is wrong and that all previous doings are in his opinion of course procedurally wrong. But that all should not matter much, in face of clear move warring when his own move request is ongoing. Lysy had been requested not to move the page to the location he votes for. So, warnings were sufficiently given, I think. Requests and warnings do not hnder his disruptive warring. I hope you mandate a longer block upon Lysy. Marrtel 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr sean chronic RSX (talk · contribs)

He's leaving a semi-legal threat at Talk:Canadian Federation of Students saying he's afraid Misplaced Pages will get sued over content in the main article. Ardenn 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

racist attack

Hi. Could an admin please have a look at this edit and editor and take whatever action is appropriate? Thanks. IronDuke 02:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin myself, but I would recommend a block, as he's a repeat vandal. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. -- Kjkolb 02:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. IronDuke 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark

I have blocked Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for violating the terms of his temporary injunction while his ArbCom case was still proceeding. The terms of the injunction were that he could only edit his user talk page and the arbitration case pages. I caught him editing a variety of articles as well as his user page. --Cyde↔Weys 02:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, it was RC patrol. Perhaps he should recieve a strong slap on the wrist, but it's no POV pushing of sorts. People have done worse. I was curious about it, but I figured someone on ArbCom had given him the go-ahead via email or something.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. It doesn't get any clearer than "any Misplaced Pages pages". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not our job to interpret ArbCom's sanctions. Not that there was anything ambiguous whatsoever about those sanctions, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 02:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The link provided shows an injunction that has failed to achieve majority, and the actual Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Blu_Aardvark page says "Temporary injunction (none)." Is there something I am missing? - brenneman 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't on the main case page, but he should have been aware of it if he had read his unblock message: . I'm not that familar with arbcom policy, but it appears that it should only be a 24 hour block: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_policy#Injunctions, not indefinate. Not that it matters much, considering he claims he'll leave wikipedia if he gets a ban out of arbcom which is currently one close vote away from banning him for a year anyways. Kevin_b_er 07:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And the log also says "(Unblocked to participate in arbitration)" so, yeah, the message was there. Taking into account (+) that it was new page patrol, (--) that he should have known better, (+) that there was no term specified, I lean towards reducing to 24 hours for forms' sake. - brenneman 08:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He said that he knew about it and ignored it. I see no reason why he should be unblocked at all. Let him e-mail arbitrators if he needs to weigh in on his case- we've done this before. Ral315 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, here, both in content and in edit summary, invoking WP:IAR. Problem is, there is a massive difference between ignoring the rules and ignoring specific instructions by ArbCom. I fully agree that he should now deal only with them for any further action. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it shouldn't just be a 24 hour block. The penalty for violating an ArbCom injunction is "stay blocked until an ArbCom member deals with it", not "stay blocked, but just for 24 hours". Hence the indefinite. In all likelihood Blu Aardvark is going to stay blocked for at least a year. --Cyde↔Weys 14:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course he should be re-blocked, what I meant was that he could have done something much more malicious. The ikiroid 14:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Provocative epitaph to Blu Aardvark as Wikipedian

Blu Aardvark started off, as many of us do, as a good earnest newbie Wikipedian. He did a few questionable things and got a taste of some of the Misplaced Pages community's officiousness. He did not handle it well and flamed out in a puerile fashion. He then co-founded a criticism site, quite likely with good intentions, but just stood by when it got out of hand and other members launched some vicious attacks. He had a change of heart and tried to come back to Misplaced Pages, but the community was unforgiving and reacted with anger. This time he left with class and maturity, trapping us in our own officiousness in a nice coup de grace. It sounds as if he has matured and learned from the debacle; let us hope that, in time, the Misplaced Pages community will as well. Martinp 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, his final actions were nothing more than an attempt to sow confusion by playing the "Ohh look at me, I'm making good edits but you're blocking me anyway!" card. That is to say, he wasn't editing because he truly cared about making the encyclopedia better, only to try to make us look bad. --Cyde↔Weys 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We really should avoid talking about other user's motivations, since it is complete supposition. - brenneman 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Charter of Rights content removal

This was a really tough call. I blocked User:70.48.3.174 for repeatedly removing content from Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms- an important note in an FA- even after it was referenced, after warnings and after one last attempt at discussion. His last few edit summaries included interesting anti-Misplaced Pages sentiment and personal attacks as well. Please review. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the anti-Misplaced Pages sentiment and personal attacks aren't interesting at all. Good block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL vandal

Some vandal has been repeatedly vandalizing carrot from AOL (using multiple IP addresses). I don't know exactly what to do about it (they have persisted despite multiple warnings, and from the edit descriptions it is obviously vandalism and not some newbie's tests). Mo-Al 04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is s-protected. (So now I suppose the AOLuser will simply indulge his squalid little masturbation fantasies elsewhere.) Hoary 05:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they've started on my talk page. (see User_talk:Mo-Al#Quick question!) Mo-Al 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page can be s-protected too. Do you want that? Bishonen | talk 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Not neccessarily. Can I post a warning on their talk page for that? Mo-Al 03:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the vandal edits (and the associated reverts) from the history of Carrot, since some of the vandalism was in the edit summaries (which were also quite long and typed in ALL CAPS). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to again. Looks like there's some more vandalism. Mo-Al 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Fixed it again. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

I strongly suggest that this IP be banned. They have recieved multiple final warnings, and recently vandalized Today's Featured Article by blanking it and replacing it with hundreds of lines of nonsense. False Prophet 15:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think maybe my userpage should be protected. It has been vandalized twice now. Mo-Al 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No more often than mine has. Though "vandalized" seems to aggrandize the relevant, er, contributions of this birdbrain, who seems to be under the delusion that various people here (you, me, whoever) are proctologists. Your user page is on my watchlist. -- Hoary 05:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not like the guy's blanking my userpage or anything, but I do think posting obscene comments counts as "vandalism". Mo-Al 05:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

IP adress 64.12.116.14 needs to be banned. It has recieved 29 warnings, 2 blocks, and 10 final warnings. It blanked yesterday's FA and replaced it with obsene comments. False Prophet 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AOL doesn't work that way. The vandal would continue and hundreds of other AOL users would be inconvenienced when their IP hopped through that number. (ESkog) 18:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, he's vandalized from multiple AOL IP addresses (so, for all I know, all AOL users would be blocked). Mo-Al 19:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

External Link Spam

I am requesting that the external link be blacklisted (or whatever it takes to block the whole domain) because it is being spammed on a number of cases by a number of IPs and forums are not appropriate external links according to manual of style. This is clearly just a case of trying to advertise. I am including some links to the IPs that are spamming them and every single edit done by these users (check user contribs) is to spam these forums. 200.55.64.219 (talk · contribs · logs), 200.55.75.96 (talk · contribs · logs), 200.55.87.45 (talk · contribs · logs), Carlatf (talk · contribs · logs)SirGrant 04:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Conduct Unbecoming an Administrator by User:Seabhcan

Moved to User talk:Seabhcan - brenneman 05:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider this ANI notice as a bad faith personal attack by those same Admin-trolls that I had been complaining about. Something needs to be done about this abusive and bullying cabal - Mongo, Jersey Devil and others. I am considering quitting Misplaced Pages altogether if their disgraceful behaviour continues uncorrected. A wikipedia which allows this to continue does not deserve my time. Seabhcán 09:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Devil is not an admin...I am not a troll.--MONGO 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of article maggot

What looks like one user (possibly two) has been repeatedly adding things like "Mysogynists" to the article maggot, using multiple IP addresses and one account (user:Sweet Pinkette). Mo-Al 05:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's somewhat long term addition of nonsense. I'm not sure it's vandalism, per se, but it's repeatedly adding unsupported private usage. (Misogynists do not turn into houseflies.) Geogre 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the page now, and no wonder the user keeps inserting it: the article is a wiki-mess! People are just adding every "maggot-" to it. Our dab pages tend to be undisciplined, but this one's just a dump. We really ought to disambiguate things known only as "maggot." Everything else is "me too." Further, the page hasn't a single reason for anything lexical, and yet a lot of lexical stuff is on there. Blug. Someone needs to come down like Thor from the mountain, kick out most of the stuff (not just the misogyny ref), put some hierarchy on the disambiguations, and then, on the talk page, explain to people what should and should not be disambiguated. Aren't there dab-warriors out there? (I ask honestly. There were some people who were attacking dabs rigorously and trying to make them have some sense.) I hope one sees this need and steps in. I just tried to organize Inspiration so that it moves logically from concept to specific item to artwork. Geogre 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel Shamir editing despite indefinite block

Although Israel Shamir was placed on an indefinite block on 18 June 2006, by 28 June he was again editing and reverting the article "Israel Shamir".RolandR 09:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked him. His block log does not show that he was unblocked so I don't know what happened there. Homey 09:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Impersonating sockpuppet: User:NikosPolitis alias User:Erdogan Cevher

(Sorry, moving this down here because it escaped notice yesterday.) Can somebody please block NikosPolitis (talk · contribs)? He is an obvious sockpuppet of Erdogan Cevher (talk · contribs), continuing a campaign of nationalist POV soapboxing over Cyprus on Talk:List of unrecognized countries. His new username is an attempt at impersonating Politis (talk · contribs) and/or NikoSilver (talk · contribs), both Greek contributors who have been opposing him on the same page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This should be filed at WP:RFCU. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Only I thought CU was not for the very obvious cases. This one is, if you look at the edit patterns. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing other editors comments in AfD

I have no idea of how many others he has edited, but this editor is editing my reason for deletion here: Please contact me on my talk page. Or in bootcamp.

Diffs editing my words:

• Kenneth Wapnick

• William Thetford

• Helen Schucman

• Foundation for Inner Peace

• Foundation for A Course in Miracles

• Community Miracles Center

Poster Boarding only:

• Attitudinal healing

• ACIM church movement

Ste4k 12:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that would fall under behavior that is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages (also see context "swizzling") but also likely Misplaced Pages:Harassment since it appears that you have been specifically targeted. If you haven't been specifically targeted then likely a warning is in order... but if you have then a block seems appropriate. You might want to notify that editor of your post here. Netscott 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay I am putting the list I found above. I would appreciate not speaking to him at all. He has been harrassing me about his articles over a few days now. I am too new to know if this should be handled at a higher level, or what level that would be. What I find detestable about what he is doing in articles of deleteion is: "How can anyone trust the words written on the page of those dicsussions now??" Ste4k 12:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He has made comments that are gender related, but that is probably because he believes I am male. I don't believe that he is doing anything more than taking an impersonal matter personally himself, getting excited about it, etc., and misbehaving as a result. That's just my guess. He believes that I am acting in bad faith, I think he actually believes that. Ste4k 12:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about your commentary here but if you yourself have been systematically targetting his articles (I'm guessing articles he created?) for deletion then your own behavior may fall under Misplaced Pages:Harassment. This of course wouldn't be the case if you were to have found an article created by him/her that was nonsense and from following their contributions history found other corresponding nonsense articles that merited deletion. This'll have to be properly reviewed to understand the full story of what has been occurring here. Netscott 12:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking closely at the entire category. It appears to be recursively linked and resting on very weak sources. There is a difference between a category and personal attack. I do not know if he created all of those articles, but I do know that he should be much less abusive. Ste4k 13:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other users of targetting other users articles. No one owns articles on wikipedia. Kindly assume good faith, until and unless you have reason to believe that the user is really harrassing someone. Most of the facts presented here are vague and clarity is required so that some valid action can be taken. The user here (Ste4k) needs to present all the diffs. Thank you. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And also where the same user has targetted valid articles made by the other user. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick, get your story straight, I didn't accuse anyone. I merely mentioned the possibility. There's a very significant difference. Netscott 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, with all due respect to you; I suppose the possibilities that a user might have targetted should be substantiated with diffs. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I made my (unsure) commentary based entirely upon Ste4k's response to my first post but in particular this statement, "That's just my guess. He believes that I am acting in bad faith, I think he actually believes that.". If an editor was going around submitting article after article for deletion that I created you can be sure that I'd be thinking that person was acting in bad faith, particularly if the articles weren't examples of nonsense. Netscott 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Warned Andrew Parodi (talk · contribs) re editorialising of AfD debates. If this is a crusade by Ste4k then it's one I can get behind, since this group of articles is a walled garden concerning an apparent cult. Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me that Andrew Parodi (talk · contribs) has now decided to make personal attacks against me by putting my name in topic headers and accusing me of a crusade against his ideals. Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles this has been going on long enough and I will put a notice on the adjacent Admin board. Thanks. Ste4k 06:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Threats by anon. user

I'll try my best to summarize. I am a registered user since mid-April. I have worked exclusively on Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) and the related article Steam (band). The former article was recently deleted because of lack of evidence to support this musicians claim to fame "Na Na Hey Hey". (In fact, newspaper articles and books indicate that the lead singer was another musician.) During discussion and mediation, the editor(s) who supported the Greg Bravo article ended up being blocked for vandalism.

Other editors have popped up to change the related Steam (band) article. I had revised this article to clarify who the lead singer was (I did this in response to the Bravo hoax). I added the newspaper and book sources. I am now being harrassed by an unregistered user on my talk page. There are veiled threats of legal action because he claims that I am cyberstalking. Another statement was that I would be easy to find. --Fortheloveofhampsters 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, unless you have given out personal information like your real name, address, etc, you are definitely not "easy to find." Unfortunately, threats coming from AOL accounts are hard to deal with because AOL IP addresses can not be blocked for any significant length of time. I'm afraid you'll just have to ignore it. If registered users make threats, or act in a way that ties them to inappropriate activity by anons or previously blocked users, you can report it here and they can be blocked if needed. It's hard to do anything helpful with AOL anons. Thatcher131 15:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What a lovely welcome for a new user. :-( Starting with a fake indefblocked template from an AOL IP we have seen before, the Edit Summary Vandal (this is one of many edits to the Main page article yesterday) as the very first edit on Hampster's talkpage, and followed up by a legal threatster, also from AOL. :-( And still no wikimedia software solution to the virtual unblockability of AOL vandals has been found. Or prioritized? Bishonen | talk 15:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC). P. S. I have done the obvious: semiprotected the user talkpage so new and unregistered users can't edit it. All established users still can. Fortheloveofhampsters, please let me know if you'd rather have your page unprotected, and feel free to remove harassing messages from it. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
    • Look at the bright side. As soon as 550 is accomplished and implemented, we can just block the whole range and force registration. Until then, oh well. Use regex and blacklist the whole lot in VandalProof, VandalFighter, Pgkbot... Etal. --Avillia 22:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Constant picture adding

MaindrianPace (talk · contribs) has constantly added pictures to the Gone in 60 Seconds article. He's uploaded about 25 unsourced images and keeps inserting them into the article, causing the page to become cluttered and out of format (see here). Repeated messages on his talk page have gone unanswered. I'm not sure how to proceed, but MaindrianPace was previously blocked for copyright violations on the Serpico page. PBP 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. As far as I can see the only way to proceed is to get tough. He has ignpored numerous warnings about image tagging - I say we simply delete any image he uploads without a tag until he gets the message. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Portugal

Jose Manuel (talk · contribs) keeps changing the infobox in the Portugal article, introducing 1910 as the date of formation of the country. That makes just no sense. I won't revert him anymore, he is a newcomer, I don't want to bite him, however, Portugal is an independent country since 1143, he is ignoring that, 1910 is the date of the Republican revolution. He also introduced some links of minor importance for the article in the external links section. What should I do? Afonso Silva 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Solved. Afonso Silva 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

I've been trying for some while to keep a lid on a series of articles about personal rapid transit (PRT), where there is a tendency among the small community of editors to let their enthusiasm for the technology overcome what I view as the appropriate scpeticism of a technology which, after forty years, has zero installed base.

As part of this a cartoonist called Ken Avidor made some edits a while back as User:Avidor in respect of the camnpaign for PRT in his town. There was apparently some good old fashioned pork-barrel politics there. Thisgs are often heated but usually civil, however at least one editor has it in for Avidor, representing him as an extremist (in the way that creators of huge articles on non-existent products are not). Apparently because I am sceptical of the claims of PRT as a widespread urban mode despite its approval byu the German government (which nonetheless never actually built it), I am a POV-pusher like Avidor. Ah well, I'm an evil rouge admin and I can take it.

However, there are a number of things in Talk:Personal rapid transit, Talk:UniModal and Talk:ULTra (PRT) which might be construed as attacks on User:Avidor, who is no longer active here. He has posted to my Talk page asking if this is reasonable, I'm inclined to think not. Since I am not considered neutral by these guys (in a he who is not for me is agin me kind of way) I'd appreciate someone having a look at the comments made about Avidor on those pages. Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the "enthusiastic editors" of which JzG speaks. I welcome more input into this issue. A Transportation Enthusiast 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed the pages quickly. Mostly the conflict is about figuring out what weight to give the companies' claims regarding PRT compared with independent analyses and analyses by other parties with varying degrees of involvement. I did find a number of comments (mostly on Talk:ULTra (PRT)) that could be construed as personal in nature, such as Avidor's positions are conspiracy theories with absolutely no verifiable basis. There is a certain amount of discussion of individual editors' motives (on both sides) that doesn't have any direct bearing on article content and could probably be deleted without harming the article's development. Thatcher131 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I await with baited breath some good citations fomr the engineering journals - thus far most of it comes either from designers of never-built systems or academics engaged in acrimony. Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for sources describing PRT technology, you might start with this volume that describes 8 years of US-government sponsored research from the 1970s. If that's not enough, take a look at some more recent research on the topic. There have also been fully functioning PRT prototypes built and tested in Germany, the UK, and Japan, and there are several others in active development.

Against this, the main sources of skepticism are:

1. An anonymously written unpublished article which is posted on the advocacy site of PRT's main transit competitor (light rail, which JzG favors), and which has been the subject of at least four rebuttals, and:
2. A political web site run by the aforementioned Road Kill Bill cartoonist, Ken Avidor, for whom JzG has expressed great admiration ()

JzG has balanced these two sets of sources and decided unilaterally that "skepticism is the majority view" on PRT, and used this as justification for suppressing verifiable information that runs counter to his skeptical view.

After three months, the debate rages on, as one admin has repeatedly reverted good edits from at least four different editors, based solely on the "article balance" argument. As you might imagine, things have gotten heated at times.

The debate is all there, in its full glory, if anyone is interested in reading in it. You'd better set aside about 15 hours, though. :-) A Transportation Enthusiast 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I removed some comments from Talk:ULTra (PRT) that might be broadly construed as personal attacks on Avidor. Since he has not edited PRT articles since April, I think it is unfair to him to have other editors talking about him and comparing their conduct to his (especially when the comparison is negative to Avidor). (He is not mentioned in Talk:UniModal, and on Talk:Personal rapid transit he was present at the time to defend himself.) Of course, in general I think that discussing the person rather than the content of his or her edits is generally unproductive, but at least the current participants can defend themselves. Thatcher131 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with anything you removed (and I appreciate your dispassionate assistance in this matter), but I do feel we are being a little reactionary here. When Avidor was active he regularly referred to us as "wackos", "con-artists", "cultists", and "crackpots". Nothing in what was just removed remotely approaches that. Does this have anything to do with the fact that Avidor has publicly criticized Misplaced Pages and has joined this forum? A Transportation Enthusiast 04:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of Avidor before today, much less his new associations. I also did not remove any comments directed to him or about him that dated to times when he was contributing and thus able to respond for himself. I just think it's poor form to make (arguably) negative comments about a user who has chosen to leave, because it forces him to either let the characterizations stand or to return against his wishes to defend himself, and I would have the same view about anyone else who has left the project. Thatcher131 04:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I didn't intend to question your motives. I was just curious if other factors were driving this. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No prob. It was a fair question. Thatcher131 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I don't have a problem with discouraging or mediating personal attacks. However, I very much do not like the idea that my, and the rest of our, edits have been censored. I will put the comments back in.

If you want to re"delete" them, please use a strikethrough so that future readers know what the hell we were talking about. Fresheneesz 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

These personal attacks on me in the Misplaced Pages Talk pages appear on Google searches of my name. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not an attack-blog. If A.T.E and Freshenneez want to keep writing about me, I suggest they create a Misplaced Pages page on Ken Avidor that accurately presents my views. If they want to attack me, I suggest they get a free blog at Blogger like David Gow did .Avidor 04:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you complain to Google? Misplaced Pages can't be responsible for what Google displays. A Transportation Enthusiast 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that's just silly. Google just indexes the web; unless you propose that google not index wikipedia at all, obviously wikipedia is responsible for its own content. I think anything said about Avidor while he was an active participant should remain but it is just bad manners to badmouth someone behind their back, even in real life. If Fresheneesz had allowed the comments to remain deleted, they would have disappeared from Google the next time it indexed the site. You could try archiving all the old discussions and tagging the archive page with <nofollow>; I don't know for sure that will work, but it might keep google from scanning the talk archives. Short of a mutual agreement to "censor" the old discussions (in Fresheneesz' terms) I suppose the only other option is to persuade an uninvolved admin to actually delete the comments from the history. Thatcher131 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was, the content had been removed (by you) and if Google still had the old content indexed then there was nothing that Misplaced Pages could do. I was not aware that Fresheneesz had re-inserted the comments.

But let me also make two additional points:

1. None of us could possibly know that Avidor had decided to stop editing. All we knew was that he hadn't participated in a while, and the fight that he had started was still raging between us and JzG. How were we to know he had left for good?
2. Almost everything that you removed referred to Avidor's well-documented views and claims. How is that considered a personal attack? We and JzG were debating Avidor's positions, which, by the way, are almost completely unfounded in reality. That's not a personal attack, that's stating what is verifiably true -- many of Avidor's claims have been shown to be innacurate or just plain false, including his most oft-repeated claim that PRT is nothing but a hoax, and its promoters, cultists and con-artists. Am I to be accused of hurling attacks for attacking someone's viewpoint that I'm a con-artist? A Transportation Enthusiast 14:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 (talk · contribs) threatening per email.

Jbolden has threatened per email to vandalise and/or troll wikipedia. He seemed ok before, so this is very unfortunate. I've already removed him from the mediation cabal. There's not much more I can do. Be on the lookout for any unacceptable behaviour. Kim Bruning 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a lie. I made no such threat. I will be filling an RFC to address what's going on here but I think a rumor on IRC has gotten out of hand. jbolden1517 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And where can we see this email you speak of? Lapinmies 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To defy Kim is to commit a act of blasphmey. All hail Kim! ALL HAIL KIM! --Avillia 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found JBolden's mediation help very useful in the past. I ask that you give him a second chance. DavidBailey 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

His mediation skills aren't in question, his ability to handle power is. Ral315 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect Kim Bruning as one of the few users left who manages to keep sane when all hell breaks loose, but I wonder quite how things are developing here. The last I was aware of the situation, the user in question was not quite able to grok the informal nature of the mediation cabal, and I (and several other users) suggested he go beat the mediation committee into shape. I saw no evidence to suggest he was a poor mediator at that time.

Now I see he's branded a troll and various other names under the sun, and I'm confused as to what snapped, and when. Let's all step back for a minute and remember that this is a person who's putting their patience and own sanity on the line to help resolve disputes with other users, and who now faces his peers, but is unable to proceed as would be logical for a bunch of mediators to do so. I don't want to accuse people of taking sides, but there's a hell of a lot of rapid throwing about of words here.

Let's look at this with a half-clear head. JBolden's interactions with other users sometimes leave a lot to be desired, but the same can be said of myself, a number of trusted users on Misplaced Pages, and even Kim himself. I'm quite convinced at this point that a lot of confusion from a lot of people is contributing to further confusion and a lot of needless upset.

If the mediation cabal is so informal, then where did you obtain the book you now appear to be lobbing? robchurch | talk 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Long story short, Jbolden slammed himself headlong into a wall. Sucks, I thought he was doing well up to that point. He was ok at mediation, he was less skilled as a (co-)coordinator.

I specifically delegated the mediation cabal so I have time to do other things. I kept having to pick up after jbolden-as-coordinator, and wasn't getting around to other things.

He refused to hand over to more competent people in any kind of nice way. I had no time for a lot of trouble. In the end I applied a PowerAnswer.

The mediation cabal is now in the hands of solid people, and there is even a measure of oversight over them. Kim Bruning 21:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bazzajf

I wonder if someone could look into the behaviour of Bazzajf . I am particularly concerned about this threat. I have been working with SP-KP to attempt to get a factual verifiable article and this is the response I get from a POV warrior trying to wreck the verifiability of teh article. Robertsteadman 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a month - looking over his talk page and his contributions, this sort of abuse and harassment has been going on for far too long. --ajn (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Robertsteadman 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to communicate rationally with the user, but Bazzajf seemed determined to continue to insult people despite the fact that the user has just been blocked for a month for it. I've not intention of letting Bazzajf continue to insult people, including myself. Usertalk page fully protected. --Lord Deskana 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bazzajf is relevant here - IP 62.77.181.16 (an Irish government address, apparently) seems to be only used by Bazzajf, and I suspect he'll pop up on his favourite articles again, so it may be necessary to block that too. --ajn (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this makes the connection quite clear - less the edit but the edit summary comment... As does the fact the anon has added stuff to Bazzajf's user page.... If it was me I'd block both - indefinitely!!!!Robertsteadman 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block is uncalled for, although it's fairly obvious he's evading the block right now. Frankly, I thought a month was too much, too, but that's within reason. Bazzajf has shown a complete inability to remain civil, but I don't believe he's beyond help yet, and he does have some value to the encyclopedia. Powers 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we pussy-foot around far too much with people who are consistently and unrepentantly grossly offensive to others. I've blocked the IP address for a month too, since it only ever seems to have been used by him. This is his sixth or seventh block for edit warring or personal abuse (depending on whether you count the penultimate one) in the month he's been here. The last time he was blocked for personal attacks it was for a week, I don't see that a month is at all excessive as a further step. --ajn (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IP address seems to be on a shared computer with several users, including one other registered Misplaced Pages user, so the address can't be blocked. --ajn (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits of Starsweep, created the day after I blocked Bazzajf, I'm convinced they are the same person. There's now a permanent block on Starsweep, and two months on Bazzajf and the IP address. --ajn (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

999

• Yes, Ordo means Order. But these are the names of organizations and like the titles of books, are exact. There are TWO FUCKING DISTINCT ENTITIES AND THIS REQUIRES TWO ARTICLES. DIDN"T YOU EVER LEARN LOGICAL DISTINCTIONS? -999 (Talk) 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is having a problem on the Ordo Stella Matutina talk page. I'm requesting something, if anything, can be done about him. Thank you. Zos 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• • User:999 has now AfD'd the article (which he started himself). I admit to having a little trouble understanding the ins and outs of the conflict and the anger, but I have voted opined "Speedy as copyvio", as the article is entirely made up out of quotes—some acknowledged, some not—from external websites. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

User:Homeontherange

Formal complaint about this User who, startlingly, is classified as an 'administrator'! He had for over 6 months attacked UK Tories in or associated with the Conservative Monday Club. This is clearly politically motivated and he is currently nominating numerous of these Tories who have modest biographies for deletion. If such campaigns are OK on Misplaced Pages I think you should say on your opening page that articles deemed to be giving any merit whatsoever to traditional Tories will be deleted. 81.129.155.181 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If we promise to spank him, would you like to watch? --ajn (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike Garcia has used AOL IPs to vandalize my original talk page in the past. Why isn't he banned? Why do trolls, vandals and malactors receive so much respect? Do i have to assume that RickK is right about Misplaced Pages? JohnHeph 22:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WiC?--205.188.116.65 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"JohnHeph" is, of course, Johnny the Vandal, and has been permablocked. User:Zoe| 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not that this has anythign to do with Gregory Lauder-Frost, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 22:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Perish the thought. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Not funny, really, just a bit sad. 213.122.71.45 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Raven Symone

Raven Symone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) registered and made all of her contributions so far on June 1. She rather touchingly put a "this user is a kid" userbox and a picture of Raven-Symoné on her page, wrote that she was Raven-Symoné's biggest fan, and enthusiastically edited some pages. The next day, along comes this mean old admin, me, and tells her, with a rusty, unaccustomed attempt at sounding reassuring, that she can't use the name of a real celebrity as her username. Somebody else deleted the fair-use photo. It probably didn't matter, any of it, as she had already stopped editing. Unless she stopped when she logged on and saw my message . Anyway, what's next? Do I have to be a monster and indef-block the username so the kid feels unwelcome when/if she next drops in? :-( Bishonen | talk 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

I suggest that no action should be taken for now, but if you really want a block to be done, I'll fall on the sword so yall don't have to. User:Zscout370 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, Zzzscout. No, *I* don't want any block to be done, personally. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

It sometimes helps to be able to say "We really can't let you use this name, but if you'll tell me another one you'd like to use, I'll change it for you." In future, if you'd rather not have to tell them yourself, I'll be happy to do it for you, since I can click "rename" and do it straight away. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rose State College and vandalism

Could someone consider blocking 72.198.39.16. There has been silly vandalism edits for several days which I have been reverting. --Bduke 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This anon is continuing to add the same vandalism to this article. --Bduke 23:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated personal attack by User:Rjensen

I'm getting a little tired of being called pro-slavery.

Rjensen (talk · contribs) removed sourced material from Alexander Hamilton, alleging a pro-slavery POV.. He repeated on the talk page that I was a pro-slavery editor.

The disputed text summarizes some of Hamilton's views, as expressed in this letter; I do not agree with Hamilton, and have said so., last paragraph of diff. Jensen replied that pro-slavery agitators would have minimized Hamilton's work, so I must be one of them. .

Not satisfied with removing Hamilton's words, he has now reverted, as proslavery, a direct quotation from James Oliver Horton, Benjamin Banneker Professor of African History. For the source, see the diff or here.

Would someone please deal with this. Septentrionalis 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Armhead!

I've blocked Armhead! (talk · contribs) indefinitely. While he supposedly was a new user his behaviour strongly leads me to suspect that he is a returned blocked or banned user on a serious vandalism spree. Specially he redirected every page he touched to a totally unconnected topic (an article on a British constitutional topic was directed to some town's article, for example!). Newbies don't start editing on WP by doing mass redirects. Usually they don't know how initially to redirect anything. The user seems to me to be someone with plenty of experience and to be deliberately trying to do serious damage, with a number of articles being wiped out and replaced by circular directs, so that they simply would redirect to each other ad infinitum. The fact that he had experience, knew what he was doing, and was deliberately making nonsense redirects, led me to think that this was no first time user, or first time user just messing, but a deliberate serious attack on WP by someone with a vendetta, as so probably someone blocked or banned, hence the block. FearÉIREANN\ 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism spree, armking3, armking, armking4, armsworth, etc... -- Drini 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Armsnacks ... Pete.Hurd 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked a few Armking accounts yesterday for the exact same behaviour. -- Longhair 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Insane accusations surrounding Armando (blogger)

Will some disinterested parties please review the discussions taking place at Talk:Armando (blogger) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar (2nd nomination) ? A fellow Misplaced Pages administrator has stopped short of accusing me of contributing to an article "designed to attack and harrass its subject". For the record, the subject of this article disclosed their name publicly on NPR over 8 months ago. Thanks in advance, Silensor 01:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I second this request, although not in the same language. I also want to know if a Template:Test2a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) left on a user page for the removal of an Template:AfD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from an article under AfD constitutes a removable personal attack. I also invite to review the 1st AfD and the Deletion Review and my contribution to comment whether any of the accusations against me are warranted. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments such as this are exactly what I'm talking about. Silensor 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy is policy. You guys want to include information that the subject of the article considers harmful to him - info that is related to his (non-notable) real-life career, not his (possibly notable) blogging career. WP:BLP says "do no harm"...and yet, Silensor et al. insist on including the information. The page was established as an attack page initially. It did it's job - he quit blogging because his identity became widely known (via the Misplaced Pages article). There's a campaign to include information about his his clients and the law firm he works for. The subject of the article considers it a threat to his job. I have no idea why certain editors are so hellbent on including that information. Either it's just raw abuse of power, or a concerted attempt to hurt the guy. And they seem to think that it's "insane" to expect them to adhere to Misplaced Pages policy. Very interesting. Guettarda 05:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

64.229.64.184 making a legal threat

This is how this user responded after being blocked for vandalism:

What shall we do? Should we block this IP longer, lock its talk page, or both? 69.117.4.237 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. User:Zoe| 02:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It does not read as a serious threat, and has been recanted in a similar tone of voice. Give them a chance to behave, I say.Tyrenius 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

War at Warren Kinsella

I've got a serious revert war + 3RR + litigation situation at Warren Kinsella, between user:Arthur Ellis and user:Pete Peters. See my talk. I blocked Arthur for 24 hrs for 3RR yesterday, but not Pete, b/c he didn't revert enough times. They're back at it. I need help - I am simply not experienced enough to know what to do with these guys. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to full protect the article in question so the two can come to a discussion instead of revert-warring with each other. If you don't want to yourself WP:RFP would let the possibilities of that be evaluated by other sysops. Cowman109 04:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

After attempting mediation with little effect (accusations of sockpuppetry continue to fly and both users are pulling some variation of "Block him!"/"No, not me, him!"), I'm ready to recommend that both user:Arthur Ellis and user:Pete Peters be precluded from editing Warren Kinsella. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky vote spamming?

Someone might want to keep an eye on 72.9.105.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). -GTBacchus 03:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for circle vandals

• I've blocked Armsnacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for creating circular redirects. Johntex\ 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a guess... see Armhead! immediately above... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency

I blocked this user for a week for several reasons. First of all, he was just coming off of a 4 day block. Secondly, he went right back to attacking others users here and here. We also have him putting Dhimmi up for deletion. It's an article that has been up for over 2 years now. Asking that an article be deleted to resolve a dispute is completely against policy and disruptive. And these are just the first few posts that I ran into when I looked through his contribs. He has an attacking style that I don't think we should tolerate here. And he has alot to learn in terms of civility. His email to me requesting an unblock talked about how he wasn't attacking others. The subject line? "Unblock me, you moron". --Woohookitty 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a discussion we had on PAIN regarding this. --Woohookitty 06:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This would actually be a significantly better link. :-) Netscott 06:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Either one works. --Woohookitty 06:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

True, true. Perhaps significantly was hyperbolic. :-) I just like links that zero right in on a discussion. Netscott 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion on Woohookitty's talk page is quite pertinent as well. Netscott 07:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

HE's latest gem on his talk page (in a reponse to Woohookitty): "Yes, I called you a moron in my e-mail to you. Quit whining about it; WP policy doesn't extend to anything off WP". . In the same diff, more personal attacks: "That Islamic articles would be flooded by people like yourself who fill articles with polemic rants masquerading as fact" which is directed to me; he even attacks Aminz: "Even Aminz is more concerned with not disappointing his Western friends." It doesn't appear as if there is anyone left in Misplaced Pages who he has not attacked. Perhaps he can go after Jimbo Wales next? - Merzbow 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the thing. In and of themselves, his diffs are not extreme personal attacks. But almost every post of his includes some sort of personal attack. We can't tolerate that. --Woohookitty 07:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I'm going to indef block him momentarily. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute! That's not enough evidences, I think! He is a helpful editor. It is not fair to block him indef. --Aminz 07:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There's tons more we can offer, Aminz. We aren't objecting to what his views are. It's how he expresses them. He's a helpful editor to those that believe in the same things he does in regards to Islam. To everyone else, he attacks, attacks and attacks. And he's been given chances. --Woohookitty 07:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No! Why is he blocked? He is just sincerely expressing himself. He says of what he really think of. His sincerity should be appreciated. Many of us have put a mask on our faces (that is our thoughts and words don't match), he hasn't. That's a point. --Aminz 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes and it's a violation of no personal attacks and also of our civility guidelines. If we allowed his kind of behavior, we'd become nothing more than a message board. --Woohookitty 07:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs)/His_excellency (talk · contribs)'s sincere expressions range from hostile trolling to outright libel, with a generous complement of racist and sectarian slurs.Timothy Usher 07:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot see why he was blocked then I seriously doubt that any amount of explination will help. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, That's all true but I am trying to show his positive side. We should also consider his hard work. Most of his edits are lenghty showing his interest in wikipedia. He is putting much time on wikipedia (which is also confirmed by his making another username). That's another point. He can be ""potentially"" useful, if he remains civil. But by blocking him indef, wikipedia is losing a "real" 'potential' contributer! --Aminz 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He's been given chances to be civil and if anything, he's digressing. I dunno. I can see scaling it back to 1 week but I just don't see any push towards change here. The 2 posts on Netscott's page were just yesterday. --Woohookitty 08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno and don't have enough evidence to believe he will become civil either. I haven't followed his edits closely. But Jeffrey O. Gustafson seems to have done so and accordingly he is very confident that H.E. is doomed and there is no way back for him. I am personally unexperienced and can't make a good comment --Aminz 08:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He has had enough time on Misplaced Pages to demonstrate his usefulness, which he failed to do. Thus, the potentiality argument is beside the point. Just out of the most the recent block, he has resumed personal attacks and incivility, also adding a WP:POINT nomination for deletion of Dhimmi to his record. Pecher 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at his edits in and around the Dhimmi fiasco, I agree with this block. --Golbez 09:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the Dhimmi fiasco"? --Aminz 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency's frequent lack of civility is problematic. His pointed commentary regarding User:Pecher, User:Timothy Usher et al is also very problematic as it sets up a battleground on Misplaced Pages which no doubt is disruptive (one can be sure that if I were in their positions I'd likely be making efforts to see his full departure). In my view his recent tendency to discourage Muslim editors from contributing to Misplaced Pages is additionally problematic (the way I see it when a person repeatedly does this it becomes rather trollish). I think it is wrong to think that his recent AfD for Dhimmi was done in bad faith. As I mentioned in the above discussion I have seen much good come from the AfD process in terms of article improvement. If there was such thing as a AfRC (Article for Re-Creation - essentially starting over from scratch on an article) I'm sure he would have gone that route as such was his goal... but there isn't something like AfRC so he went the AfD route. As I mentioned on Woohookitty's talk page I honestly believe that User:His excellency was acting in good faith in following User:Aminz lead in helping to improve the Dhimmi article of late and that I thought it was a pity that he was blocked in this regard. At this point this discussion may not matter as he may have already decided to just leave the project but if he expresses a desire, based upon what's happening on the Dhimmi article I think he should be given one last chance and have his block reduced back to 1 week. Given his "moron" comments I will understand if this suggestion isn't followed but under the circumstances I think such commentary isn't surprising being that he wasn't warned prior to this last block and he was not notified of his being discussed on WP:PAIN. Additionally it is true that his commentary on my talk page was a bit excessive but in the light of my own last semi-censored commentary on his talk page I feel that his response was relatively civil. Thanks. Netscott 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

His excellency disputes the NPOVness of Dhimmi. Instead of going through dispute resolution like you are supposed to, he put the article up for deletion. The deletion policy page makes it pretty clear that articles that one feels aren't NPOV should be edited so they are NPOV. --Woohookitty 10:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, but that's not "the Dhimmi fiasco"! --Aminz 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. I can call it what I want. I can call it "the Dhimmi kitty" if I want. It's my term. --Golbez 18:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion and I have no problem with that. For our purposes, it's disruptive. And after he was told that this was not something he should be doing, he responded with a sarcastic comment. AnonEMouse tried to explain to his excellency that violating NPOV was not a reason to delete an article, H.E. misquoted the AfD policy. AnonEMouse then nicely explained that His excellency was mistaken. His excellency's response was to take another shot at editors. My point here is that we have a user who was warned for no personal attacks, did it anyway, was blocked...came back...attacked people again...put an invalid afd vote...when it was pointed out to him that it was invalid, he misquoted a policy and then instead of responding back to Anon's note, he just attacked others again. It's very troll-like. It's disruptive. and we can't tolerate it here. I don't think he has any intention of following our policies. The users who tried warn him that his afd was incorrect were an admin (CrazyRussian) and a very good newer user (AnonEMouse), who both know what they are talking about. In other words, they didn't have an axe to grind. In fact, they were both trying to be helpful. And yet he ignored them just like he ignored the warnings and the blocks. He knew that what he was doing was against policy and yet he kept at it anyway. --Woohookitty 11:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Something that hasn't been mentioned

Before June 7th, His Excellency was contributing as User:Amibidhrohi. I just mention this because Amibidhrohi was blocked 5 or 6 times going back to January 7th, 2006. So this isn't new. It may look like this is a relatively new user but it isn't. He just changed usernames. So he's had lots and lots of chances. --Woohookitty 11:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is true and you are correct that he has already been given a decent number of chances but to his credit rather than do sockpuppet mongering with his new account he did identify it as being a new account (I think sockpuppet's probably a bit of a minomer now as his last edit under that account was 05:33, 7 June 2006 which inclines one to think that account has been abandoned). Netscott 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure we can give credit to someone for not violating policy. --Woohookitty 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, WP:SOCK says, "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name". So if the other account was effectively abandoned and wasn't subsequently used to edit does it still qualify as a sockpuppet? With that line if a person ceases editing on a previous account then if they start a new one, where's the policy obliging that person to refer to their previous (and abandoned) account. Am I wrong here? Netscott 13:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He didn't even edit under his new account until a week 16:34, 14 June 2006 after his last edit (05:33, 7 June 2006) as Amibidhrohi (hmmm sounds outwardly respectful of the 1 week block User:Tom harrison gave him on 13:06, 7 June 2006). Netscott 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My main point isn't that he was using a sockpuppet. My point was that this isn't something that just started on the 14th. He's been blocked for various offenses going back several months. I think it's a moot point whether this new account is a "sockpuppet" or not. Honestly, I don't really care. I was pointing out that his history goes back much longer than his time as his excellency. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I also don't think that we should give someone credit or "points" for not using an account as a sockpuppet. Points for making good contributions? Sure. But for not using a sockpuppet when he could have? I don't think we can. --Woohookitty 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not consensus for this block

There is not consensus for this indefinite block. I for one disagree with it, and I appeal to the people who want to keep His Excellency indefinitely from contributing to the encyclopedia to at least do it right: unblock him and request arbitration, with a writeup of actual evidence. What I see at present is a week-long block on the basis of listing an article for AFD (a listing I can't for the life of me see as trolling) and two instances of speaking sharply/sarcastically to a guy who was yelling at him (the "victim" Netscott seems to be in agreement with this view). And next I see an extension to an indefinite block, without any further specific evidence adduced. That's not the way to do it. Please use the dispute resolution process. What is the Arbitration Committee for, if not for things like this? Bans for exhausting the community's patience aren't for productive contributors with a sharp tongue, they're for people like this. Bishonen | talk 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

I will restore the 1 week block. I am not bending any further than that. honestly, that's all I wanted in the first place. --Woohookitty 14:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, please read through this discussion, Bishonen, if you haven't done so. Lots of evidence here. --Woohookitty 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm done. Woohookitty, I've spoken civilly to you. I wouldn't have expected you to advise me to "read through" a discussion I'd just commented on. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Well Bishonen, last night you posted on my user page and suggested that I could possibly have been influenced by Timothy Usher's statements on PAIN even though I hadn't been. Not sure what the difference is. You were suggesting the same thing, i.e. that I hadn't looked through His excellency's edits. --Woohookitty 14:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"two instances of speaking sharply/sarcastically"? You can't be serious Bishonen. Just last night on his talk page (before his new block) he attacked three people in one edit. Did you see all the cites posted in PAIN here? What about all his previous personal attacks under Amibidhrohi? The number easily runs in the dozens. - Merzbow 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What about them? The Amibidhrohi account hasn't edited since June 7. The list Timothy Usher posted on WP:PAIN is pretty old, too. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, they're supposed to stop something ongoing, and be based on something recent. Woohookitty's block was—on an AfD listing and two particular edits—that's fine, but I suppose I may have an opinion about the substantiality of the basis. I'm perfectly serious. Woohookitty, I'm sorry you don't see the difference. I was not suggesting the same thing, as I don't think it would have been in the least discreditable for you to be influenced by TU's list and his (actually untrue) claim that it was recent. It's good to assume good faith. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Rhadamanthus emerges from Hades for a brief moment

Folks, an AfD nomination is not part of evidence. This is very important. If a well established article is nominated, it's going to pass. We must never block and never make listing AfD's as part of evidence. The fellow in question is definitely abusive and inappropriate, but when you're blocking someone you can't take their response as evidence, either. If we start demanding that the people we block be nice in return, we're essentially asking people to apologize. We are not in power here. Administrators are not in charge. Administrators are the executive of policy, so we don't get to demand that nasty users apologize. Is HE worth blocking? Sure. Is he disruptive? Sure. I agree with moving to a second week's block, as the user is still fighting, but then go to ArbCom. Seriously. The insulted getting revenge with blocks just leads to more and it justifies every user who claims that "administrators" are the problem. Geogre 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"The insulted getting revenge with blocks just leads to more and it justifies every user who claims that 'administrators' are the problem." You are reading into my motives. I really don't appreciate that. I did the 1 week block BEFORE he called me a moron. I didn't do the indefinite block. Nor would I have. I'm ok with a 1 week block or an indefinite block. But assuming that I did this out of some personal vandetta is uncalled for. --Woohookitty 14:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Then use ArbCom. Once you begin renewing a block because he's personally unpleasant to you, you're involved in the conflict, and it is inappropriate to up the blocks. As for your motives, I'm telling you how it will assuredly look to others. Use ArbCom or hand off. It's simple, and the only reason not to do so is passion, and passion is the reason you must. Geogre 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:DR, WP:BITE. --Avillia 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who you are referring to. :) Geogre isn't new. Neither am I. And actually, neither is His excellency. He has been posting under that name and another name going back to January. --Woohookitty 15:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Geogre, that's nonsense. Nominating articles spuriously for AfD, when one should know better, is certainly disruptive, and just like any other act, it's something that can be used to suggest a block should occur. Responding inappropriately is similarly unacceptable. He merits a long block, and I don't think an indefinite block would be out of place. I understand there are people who have issues with authority who are out digging for things to be upset about them, but we shouldn't be afraid to do what's right for the encyclopedia just to keep such people happy. --Improv 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • • Nominating spuriously for an AfD can be part of a general pattern, but one when presented in evidence at ArbCom. However, I take a very strong line on this: an AfD nomination is not evidence by itself of disruption. First, it doesn't disrupt anything, as the AfD will go away automatically. Second, "spurious" is way too open to interpretation. I've seen many people want to hang people for nominating for deletion, especially during the moronic "all schools must be kept, no matter the content of the article, and all who nominate schools for deletion are trolls who should be blocked." Secondly, though, an inappropriate response is just nastiness. This user is nasty, but an indefinite block? No. That's ArbCom territory. Personal attacks being justification? Absolutely not. Finally, having the offended hand out the block is simply not done. This is not according to our procedures in any way. The advantages to handing off the block are numerous. The disadvantage is one: you don't get revenge. The long history of this user makes for a compelling ArbCom case, but not solo action. There is no divine right of admins. Insulting someone else vs. one of us is alike a hand-off to someone else for handling. Geogre 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think admins have divine right, nor do I think that insulting them is any more meaningful than anyone else. However, AfD for a topic that is completely within the bounds of an encyclopedia and clearly must be covered (unlike schools, which are contentious), purely for the reason that he does not like the content, is problem behaviour. The AfD was for the wrong reason, and was indeed spurious and a misuse of process. I think maybe the reasoning for an indefinite block would be a bit loose though (at least, provided the user has positive edits -- I have not checked), thanks to this discussion. Arbcom cases are generally reserved for when there is significant contention over a user's behaviour, or when the user has a long (and at least partly positive) history with the project. Admins should act, so much as possible, act as if they had no ego, thinking only of the good of the project. If Woohookitty was one of those insulted, then it probably would've been better if (s?)he had asked someone else to review the situation, blocking as appropriate. It is, however, inappropriate to assume that everytime admins make a judgement call, they must be on a power trip. --Improv 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Improv, you and I are generally in agreement, but I think that ArbCom is the proper court for very long blocks and hard bans. Short of that, we're being fickle and personal. If the argument is that ArbCom is slow and creaky, then we need to find a way to speed it, but if we unilaterally act and impose anything more than a week, we're turning Misplaced Pages into "I think you're bad." Because I don't trust any one, I trust everyone. I am often wrong, and so are you, but together we will be wrong much less of the time. This particular user is despicable, in my opinion. I think he probably is now irredeemable. However, I don't want any one of us making that call, as it should require many of us together to make it. If it isn't via ArbCom, it has to be via something beyond the individual administrator. I agree that admins have to act within their judgment in the interest of the project, but that judgment ought to be "Wow, this person needs to be examined by the community so that the community can speak." Traditionally, that has been via RFaR. If ArbCom is broken, we need a new fix, but when water flows around an obstruction in the stream, the result isn't always the best one. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wish I hadn't blocked him in the first place. Didn't want or expect a brouhaha. --Woohookitty 14:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think most of all it's the indefinite (which should be rare, handed out by ArbCom, and done after consensus, not before) and then the reasoning -- that he was nasty. NPA is not policy, and blocking for it should never short circuit all our rules, as it makes admins the lords and masters of the personalities on Misplaced Pages. We don't get to do that. Geogre 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Wrong on all counts. Admins do have the power to block people indefinitely, and they do so every day. If every single disruptive editor went before the ArbCom, we would need perhaps ten times as many arbitrators as we have now. WP:NPA is a policy, not a guideline; it's unbelievable that you, Geogre, keep claiming that it's a guideline even after it was demonstrated to you during the discussion of the previous indefinite block of His excellency that it was a policy. His excellency seems to have concluded from his previous indefinite block by Tom Harrison and the subsequent unblock by Bishonen that he has a blank check to do what he pleases; this case will only reinforce his conviction. Pecher 17:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are misreading a vast amount. It is not a policy in blocking. Read it again. Its policy force is, "It is our policy not to insult people." If indefinite blocks are going on every day, and if they're going on for personal attacks, then every one of those is out of process. In fact, if you read carefully, you'll see that they are not handed out individually for insults, and people are broadening, inappropriately, the "community patience" blocks. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

George, NPA is indeed policy. If you don't think it should be, maybe you should try to change it. Woohookitty blocked for a week, which you seem to agree (now) is appropriate. Jeffrey O. Gustafson extended the block to indefinite. Woohookitty took it back to one week. So in a week he can come back. I think an indefinite block is appropriate; that's what I gave him before. Based on past experience, when he comes back he'll spew more vitriol. Tom Harrison 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tom. I don't have a problem with a week but on the other hand, I don't have alot of confidence that this user is going to stop doing what he was doing. It's not about assuming good faith. I think when you have a user who has been blocked 8 times, it shows a certain inability to change. --Woohookitty 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to a week. I agree that he's awful, and I think that he should be RFaR'd. What I don't agree with it indefinite blocking for insulting language. NPA is a policy that says it is our policy not to attack. Note that there are no sanctions there. Note also that the proper course of action specified is the removal of the insult to an archived location with a placeholder saying where it went. Not blocking forever. I think this user should be gone, but not by unilateral action. It should be a slam dunk, fast ArbCom case, if ArbCom is meeting quickly. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my take... nobody is claiming that a single AfD in and of itself is disruption. But in combination with all his other disruption, and his clearly bad-faith misreading of AfD policy, it's a large strike against him. And as of yet I've seen only marginal evidence that H.E. is attempting to make productive edits. Within the past week to Dhimmi alone he has blanked material against consensus , quote-dumped against WP:NOT policy (with no references to boot) , added material using blatantly unreliable sources , and repeatedly re-restored examples of such after being reverted and chastised by other editors. Is he capable of contributing? Who knows. Combined with his dozens of personal attacks, racist statements, etc., I would say he's clearly exhausted the community's patience. But if the indefinite is not going to stick, then I'm all for sending this to ArbComm. Somebody want to write it up? - Merzbow 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's all I've been saying. I even think that you're right that this AfD was not the action, but rather the continuation of an action, that is evidentiary. However, I don't want any hint of a rumor of a whisper of a precedent set for blocking anyone for making an AfD, no matter how absurd or peevish it is. AfD doesn't hurt anything unless every voter there is asleep or crazy. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well doing what he did is disruptive. And I am sure that at some point, someone has been blocked for a disruptive AfD. --Woohookitty 15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rich Doctors For Choice

I blocked this account as an inappropriate username. Requesting review. -GTBacchus 05:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Not sure I agree. Pushing a POV in a username is against policy?? I didn't think it was. --Woohookitty 15:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's inflamatory (blockable per policy), in the same vein that Billionaires for Bush is... If one ignores (the whole 3) POV edits supporting this position, one could say the name is representative of a role account (which are, of course, blocked on sight). It's a good block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. Offensive usernames are unacceptable. User:Zoe| 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move of an in-progress requested move poll by an anon.

An anon, 72.60.226.29 (talk · contribs) cut and pasted the polls from Misplaced Pages talk:Central discussions/Apartheid to Misplaced Pages:Central discussions/Apartheid. That lost the edit history, which is needed for vote checking, and broke some links, so I reverted the page at Misplaced Pages talk:Central discussions/Apartheid and edited Misplaced Pages:Central discussions/Apartheid to explain what happened.

I don't think this was vandalism; more like overdoing WP:BOLD. The other edits by that anon look fine, although this anon seems to know Misplaced Pages rather well. I've left a note on the talk page for the IP address, but the anon may not see it. So I'd like to ask that that IP address be watched for unusual activity, and given a brief block if necessary to get the anon's attention. Thanks. --John Nagle 05:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am Experiancing Continous Personal attacks

I think I am having bad luck, because I already contacted two absent admin and left a message on a possibly wrong board? The user:Grandmaster has some sort of problem with me and insists on defaming me to other editors. He also leaves a angonictic message next to mine on talk pages or makes uncivil attacks. These are attacks are baseless and notting can validate uncivil behaviour and trolling!

These accusations have no sources and I even let them go out of good fiath originally, but they persist against me and now include user:Baku87 As show here for example.]. The user who made this also did not sign which put together with an anoymous comment is not a good sign.

I would like to know on what grounds user:Baku87 and user:Grandmaster are making these claims and how they can justify outright attacks. I have never made any negative comments or contributions. I notice also that one of the users has been warned continously to be civil. They continue to make these claims without any proof.

Here are more examples; Once, again can this user please provide proof for these claims especially if he is going to continue to make them, especially the anti-Azari statments he keeps claiming I made??? I have already warned but he ocntinues.

user:Grandmaster is continuing to make unfounded accusations and attacks against me. As shown here again . I left him a polite warning, but noticed that this has been a discourse of behaviour and that he has been warned for uncivil behaviour in the past. I told him once on his talk page to be polite and keep all comments directed towards edits and that he has no right to make such accusations and additionally no grounds; I said I will let it pass as a warning and act in good faith and consider it an honest mistake on his part. But after looking at his talk page and contributions I have noticed he is making accusations to other editors about me and is still continuing to do so as you can see above. Any comment I make on a talk page is labelled POV and attacked right away? It is automatically lablled anti-Azari! I have no idea how saying every human being is equal and that we are all brothers and sisters is bad or anti-Azari? These comments are groundless, uncivil and simple attacks.

Can an administrator please talk to him as an administrator. I do not appreciate this type of harassment. Like I have said and will continue to say again I am not here to fight, I am here to edit and to enjoy editing. Feel free to scutinize my contributions to Misplaced Pages and see if there is anything negative about them. I have expressed views that are commonplace amongst Iranian Azaris which I feel does not automatically categorize me as another user with the same views.

User:Grandmaster continues to accused me of being anti-Azari when I myself am a Azari!? I do not know what makes him an authority to make such attacks or conclusions? He is basing some of his rationale on articles I have edited and continuing to claim I am another user, which is okay as long as it is civil, but it is not civil these wrong assertions are expressed through actually uncivil attacks. Once again my views are a commonplace view amongst Iranian Azaris and that in itself does not mean anything. I have warned him and acted in good faith, but he still persisits with his attacks. I would like him to stop making uncivil comments about me to other users and on article talk pages. Can you please get him to provide proof about the anti-Azari statments I have made! I am pretty sure I would be blocked if I made any anti-anything statments! It is easy to make such assertions, but can he provide proof before attacking my name on talk pages?

His claims does not make personal attacks legitmate or okay nor do they allow uncivil behaviour. He continues to make them and say I am anti-Azari! I do not appreciate this type of trolling and personal attacks. Thank you all and my apologize for writting so much! 69.196.164.190

I suggest all the parties ignore each other, and keep discussion pages purely for discussion about an article's content, and not the article's subject. --Golbez 09:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:CB Brooklyn

CB Brooklyn (talk · contribs) has been using unnecessarily nasty edit summaries refers to others as "trolls", MONGO is a troublemaker and needs to be flushed out of wikipedia, and when I asked him to make sure quoted items he placed into the article Steven E. Jones are referenced, he removes my posts from his talk page stating, removed toilet stuff, delete crap from toilet head and my favorite so far, delete garbage written by sick fuck. CB Brooklyn was recently blocked for 3RR on the same article. . Would someone please ask him to be more polite in his edit summaries. Thanks.--MONGO 08:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. -- SCZenz 08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the user has already been amply warned about personal attacks. I gave him a reminder of NPA, CIVIL, and to not removed talk page comments, along with brief block (12 hours), and told him that blocks would increase rapidly if he made further blatant personal attacks. There's no excuse for name-calling of this sort. -- SCZenz 08:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that while CB Brooklyn's behaviour is clearly improper... MONGO himself has been calling Brooklyn and others 'trolls and morons'. If there is "no excuse for name-calling of this sort", which I agree with, then being an admin should not be a free pass to antagonize people and then say, 'look what he did', if they respond in kind. Admins are supposed to behave better than the average user, not worse. --CBD 10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your insults just keep piling up. I want you to demostrate in that edit you linked how I called Brooklyn a moron or a troll. It was a non directive comment...maybe I meant you...maybe I meant someone else, who knows. Point is, I can see no comparison to the edit you linked with the one in which Brooklyn reverts polite messages I post on his talk page and uses the edit summary of "delete garbage written by sick fuck".--MONGO 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You request 'demonstration' of a connection you cannot see. Very well. Cyde questioned your blocks of people you were in a content dispute with . You responded by arguing that your blocks were justified because those people were "trolls", "POV pushing morons", "conspiracy theorists", and "nitwits" who were "vandalizing" and posting "crap" -> . You used those terms to describe the people you blocked... namely (per your log of blocks) Pokipsy76, SkeenaR, and CB Brooklyn. Not me or "who knows". Those three people. Can you see it now? --CBD 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can break that down if we want to take up the rest of the noticeboard. I was conversing with cyde....Brooklyn was responding to me. Indirect-direct. If you think my actions so egregious, then why not block me...you seem to relish wheel warring, which is pretty much a big no-no as far as some lofty powers here think...but that didn't stop you, no, you're exempt! Special!--MONGO 14:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, calm down. The fact is, MONGO came here instead of unilaterally blocking CB Brooklyn. Let's not used this demonstration of responsibility on MONGO's part as an opportunity to criticize him. It's a bit odd, frankly, that a side conversation about a completely uninvolved editor is being brought into this discussion. JDoorjam Talk 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with JD. MONGO was asked not to impliment even obvious blocks against these users. Instead of using his tools in this instance, he did EXACTLY what he was told to do by his RFC - he was told to come here and present his case. He did. As such, he deserves praise for his appropriately changed behavior, not CBD going back to edits from just after the RFC was filed. If you, CBD, had wanted to block him for his edit on the 26th, you would have. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Coming here to ANI is what many in the RFC are asking of MONGO. CB_Brooklyn (talk · contribs) is clearly violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and a block by a third-party admin is justified here. -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the block was justified. Yes, it is good that MONGO got someone else to do it. No, MONGO calling CB Brooklyn 'troll', 'conspiracy theorist', and 'moron' and then calling for a block and misrepresenting the history when CB Brooklyn responded in kind does not "deserve praise". --CBD 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CBD, your harassment is getting tiresome.--MONGO 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe MONGO could use more polite words ("moron" is inappropriate). But, take a look at Misplaced Pages:What is a troll. -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on this specifically, if we could as admins, all begin to demonstrate civil behavior it would be easier for us to enforce civil behavior. Any time we use words like "troll" or "idiot" we're mostly doing so out of laziness. It's simply not helpful, is not required, and almost always results in pointless discussion. Use polite and precise language wherever possible, things will go smoother.,
brenneman 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For whatever my opinion as a non-admin is worth, everybody who has posted in this section has made a valid point. It probably deserves bearing in mind that everyone here has been engaged in a necessary, but very unpleasant excercise over the last couple of days. Therefore it is only natural that not everyone behaves the way they would like themselves to. I agree with the block, and I agree with Mongo referring it first. I also agree that comments on the block should not be made in the same nature as the reason for the block in the first place. In Mongo's defense, it would be hard for me not to be upset if edit summaries such the ones mentioned were directed at me. I'm taking an interest here because I would like it if we could edit articles without having to fight each other all the time. In my opinion, the articles would improve a lot better and faster if we didn't have to spend so much energy on conflict or resolution. I know that there are real issues involved in what should legitimately be included in the 9/11 articles, which naturally make for disagreements to arise, but please let's not try to be provocative with each other about it. I say that to all parties involved. I like to try and improve articles with whatever I might be able to contribute. I find it fun, educating, and challenging, but this kind of stuff makes it a lot harder for all of us when we spend our time on fisticuffs and what not instead of some nice writing or research or even just sharing some good information with each other. SkeenaR 06:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a little name calling as I do on occasion have a sense of humor, and CB Brooklyns edit summaries are less offensive than some I have seen. I am familiar with his other posts from elsewhere, and they show a similar temperment, but saw no reason to drag all that out...I wasn't even asking for a block if he would abstain from this manner of conversation, so all I was doing was requesting a neutral third party to step in, since his responses to my requests were simply becoming worse, not better. I do agree with the block, however. I also agree that all of us involved in the disagreements on the 9/11 articles, myself included, could tone things down a lot. Thanks.--MONGO 07:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's awesome, I just hope I'm not being naive in thinking that things are improving. Thanks for considering what I had to say. SkeenaR 07:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

user:AlexWilkes

I've been watching this user for a couple of weeks. He is going through the Misplaced Pages entries for English football league teams and making amendments. His usual practice is to add a summary of some recent information about the club near the top of the article, irrespective of the content of the rest of article. Cue alarmed response and warning messages from an editor with that article on his watch-list. This is odd behaviour... I'm inexperienced here, but I doubt that most of what he's done counts as vandalism. He ignores all messages on his Talk page. From the photos he posts (which get deleted) he's clearly young and he's also pretty new to Misplaced Pages. Please take a look at his Talk page and review his contributions... be glad of some more experienced (and heavyweight!) input here. Many thanks. --Dweller 08:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like a candidate for Misplaced Pages:Clueless newbies to me. If he still fails to correspond with other editors, maybe a short block will get his attention. - Mgm| 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV...

• 210.200.105.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The yearpage vandal is at it again, this time under only one IP (this one wasn't blocked, apparently.) Please block the whole range (I've seen 226 through 232 used) for a long period of time. Grandmasterka 08:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest the admins to read the information posted by Mikkalai at Talk:Heisei#Future Japanese dates yesterday before taking any actions in this matter, as well as this. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 08:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is that this IP range has not discussed these changes anywhere, AFAIK, and their edits continue to be reverted by half a dozen editors. They are changing other things without explanation as well. Grandmasterka 08:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This IP range has been making edits to the Japanese future year categories on year pages (changing them to "unknown") without any discussion. They have also changed categories in certain ways (sometimes removing decade categories, or placing an asterisk in categories (this is a prime example.) I'm honestly not entirely sure what to do about it, because changing the Japanese years may actually be valid; but I wish the IP would, you know, discuss this with someone. Grandmasterka 09:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User: F 22 - Users who exhaust the community's patience - well mine anyway

OK - I know I can look elsewhere but the puerile activities of F 22 (talk · contribs) are mostly pointless and breach What wikipedia is not with regard to user space. Do we do anything with such users or do we just ignore? Suspect this does not quite fit within Users who exhaust the community's patience--A Y Arktos\ 10:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage looks perfectly acceptable to me. Lapinmies 15:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's because I cleaned it. Of course, I wouldn't expect GNAA folk such as yourself to care much about keeping an appropriate userpage anyhow. --Improv 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmph, was that a personal attack? I am not amused. Lapinmies 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a personal attack, and a totally unwarrented one. Had the above exchange not taken place, I'd have looked at the user page and thought the objection was to the mass of boxen. I don't think that "Communisim Sucks a Fat one!" in enought to exhaust our patience. He's made very few article edits, but so what? They've been useful edits. Someone is already having a nice chat with him on his user page, so why does this need to come to ANI? - brenneman 01:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

GNAA Folk, as Lapinmies is just another in a long list of those who have or had a presence on Misplaced Pages, have a habit of intentionally inflammatory and bizarre userpages that have frequently shown, at the very least, a lack of interest in harmonious participation in the project. This is a matter of fact, holding from the various incarnations of SPUI (an otherwise good editor in modern times who, apart from some current disputes, does not push things *too* far) to GNAA Timecop and the various other now permabanned members of the club. I find the attitude unfortunate, but we should not shy from speaking the truth out of being politic. I don't think my statement above should be construed as an attack. --Improv 05:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not a member. My userpage is satire. Lapinmies 07:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless we have particular edits that are problematic, it's bad form to make judgements based upon identity. To use someone's identarian characteristics pejoratively is a personal attack. That seems pretty straight forward to me.
brenneman 14:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When an identity has as its primary goal to make trouble, I think it's wholly appropriate. I am unapologetic. --Improv 22:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I came upon the user because of problematic edits, perhaps not quite enough to warrant any action, other than a warning, which I gave, but ... and then you look at the sum of his other contributions, his user page, and I wondered, how do we manage? what should I do? - which is why I came here, for guidance.--A Y Arktos\ 22:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have blocked the user for two days for continuing to maintain inappropriate content on their userpage. --Improv 14:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Permanently Banned Sockpuppeteer Jason Gastrich on Meta

Misplaced Pages's worst sockpuppeteer, Jason Gastrich, is now operating accounts on Meta. See and for his continued abuse of Wikimedia projects to push his POV. He is sockpuppeting and vote-soliciting on Meta, too. I would prefer to remain anonymous due to his off-Wiki stalking.

• a) Why are you telling us here? Misplaced Pages administrators have no special powers on meta.
• b) Seeing as the account was created in January 2006, I don't see how this can be described as 'now operating accounts on meta'.
• c) The accounts' sole contributions are to the user page and user talk page.
• Are you trolling? Proto///type 14:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He is using Meta to further his agenda, and spamvertise his website. Given that Misplaced Pages projects are NOT for self promotion, it is asinine for anyone, let alone a permanently banned POV pusher, to self-promote. Should he be allowed to use Meta to promote his agenda when he is permanently banned from all Misplaced Pages projects? He has used sockpuppets on Meta (the most obvious of which is Ruth Ginsling) to keep his self-promoting userpage in place, and round up a posse of meatpuppets, in typical Gastrich fashion. I posted this here because I am not familiar with dealing with problems on Meta. Surely there are WP admins who are also Meta admins.

I agree with Proto; if he's abusing process on Meta, take it up with the admins on Meta. It's not like we can round up a posse here and charge across the border in hot pursuit. -Hit bull, win steak 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. We run into that on AIAV. "Someone's vandalizing the Korean Misplaced Pages". Great. Go tell them. :) Admins can be admins only on the project that they have been approved as admins on, no other projects. --Woohookitty 15:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no love for Jason, but reading his talk page on Meta, it looks to me like there are some users who just will not let it go, to the point of stalking and provoking him. This should not be spilling back over here, and really, shouldn't be happening at Meta either. · rodii · 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

160.94.224.179, Aluminium, Sulfur

Indef blocked User:Nokhc (aka User:160.94.224.179, User:128.101.29.12, User:Diched, User:RESURGAM, User:24.118.210.212) keeps returning to Aluminium, Sulfur, User talk:160.94.224.179, etc. Repeatedly blocked (currently 24 h), the IP has been static for a month with no other contribs, may I request a longer-term block on the most active 160.94.224.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Femto 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with User:Stephen Hodge

I posted the following at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration (edited for brevity):

User:Stephen Hodge attempted to invade User:RandomCritic's privacy by posting information that he believed would reveal User:RandomCritic's identity on User talk:RandomCritic.

In the course of discussion at Talk:Anatta#Response to RandomCritic I repeatedly told User:Stephen Hodge that I would not reveal personal information about myself and requested that he cease his demands that I do so. Further details are in the statement below.

In the course of a content/POV dispute at Talk:Anatta, User:Stephen Hodge began by criticizing my use of Misplaced Pages handle that was not my actual name:

"On the other hand, as you are one of these people who conveniently chose to hide behind a childish pseudonym..."

I responded by explaining why I did not use my real name:

"I am sorry that you find my handle childish, but it is a matter of no significance at all and I see no reason for you to bring it up. I am disinclined to provide any personal information on Misplaced Pages, as it easily opens up opportunities for abuse."

User:Stephen Hodge replied:

"I bring up the question of your pseudonym because it conveniently conceals your identity and prevents others from checking your credentials which, as in this instance, you choose not to share. Credentials are important when evaluating a person's articles and critiques thereof -- if one challenges the accuracy of some article, it would be nice to know what a person's qualifications are for doing this. Unless one has real fears of persecution, this habit of using pseudonyms is rather childish in my opinion and more suited to informal chatrooms."

I again rejected his call for my personal information:

"As for your demands for personal information about me and my history, they are impertinent and immaterial, and I have no intention of satisfying your curiosity and opening myself up to hate mail, the entire spectrum of internet harrassment, and other forms of attacks. You may stop asking."

User:Stephen Hodge responded with the following two messages at User talk:RandomCritic:

"I also note from Fanart-Central Net that you and Yoji are known to each other outside of the Misplaced Pages pages, as well as giving your actual identity and some other interesting information about yourself, if that can be believed.--Stephen Hodge 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)"

"Gosh, got that down quickly -- but it was a only pseudonym ! Don't worry: I won't divulge your real name, though it wasn't too hard to find -- I'm only interested in your Misplaced Pages input. Still, nice pictures. Have you done any more ?--Stephen Hodge 02:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)"

As a note of explanation, "Yoji" is User:Stephen Hodge's nickname for User:Vapour, a person entirely unknown to me outside of Misplaced Pages. The person User:Stephen Hodge discovered at Fanart-Central is not me and is a person unknown to me. However, I do not believe this is relevant to User: Stephen Hodge's attempt to find and publicize personal information about me, which (he believes) is accessible at this site. I note that Misplaced Pages:Harassment states that posting personal information is harassment, "regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct". I regard this as a form of intended harassment, and I take his message on my talk page as an implicit threat to continue to try to find information about me and publicize it on Misplaced Pages. And although there is no actual link to any correct information about me, I am concerned that User:Stephen Hodge's message may lead, or may have already led, to harassment of the person he has incorrectly identified as me. Given that this attempted harassment follows my explicit request not to seek personal information about me, I have reason to believe that User:Stephen Hodge will not respond to my own requests to cease his efforts to find and publicize my identity, and therefore request arbitration.

This request was rejected for arbitration with the following comment:

• Reject. The posting of personal information about other editors is already forbidden. Administrators are urged to handle this in the proper and normal way when it occurs, which may include the blocking of the offending user for a time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am therefore bringing the matter to the notice of the administrators. RandomCritic 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• You two are Buddhists, are you? Really? --ajn (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cicero Dog

I have now indef blocked Cicero Dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the second time (I shorted the first one, to give him a second chance), for disruption. A look through his edit history should make this fairly clear, here's a few, picked semi at random: (that links to Misplaced Pages:Orange Order, which I speedy deleted, feel free to restore and sent to MFD if anyone wants) . There's also the sockpuppetry, and creation of other 'projects' that got deleted (I can't remember their titles right now, I'm sure they can be dug out if needed. Posting block here for review. Petros471 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this. I, Ian, and many CCD members have warned him for action at CCD. I have suspended him once, and have now expelled. Action elsewhere is also unacceptable. Computerjoe's talk 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems valid to me (however since one of those recently disruptive posts was made to my talk and aimed at me, it is probably best I be ingnored...) Ian¹³/t 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Mouse Snuff Film"

An AOL anon has been persistently inserting a link to a "Mouse Snuff Film" to the House mouse article, which I've been reverting. I'd like to have an uninvolved party take a look at this, as it may not be obvious whether this should be considered simple vandalism or a genuine content dispute. (Also, if it's the latter, I'm running out of my three reverts.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's now sprotected. Gamaliel 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They make films on that? Boy, the stuff I learn on Misplaced Pages... - Merzbow 17:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User reordering talk page comments

I don't have much time to review the following, can another admin attend to it? El_C 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page: Hi El C, there are some antics occurring on the Fidel Castro talk page. No it's not a content dispute surprisingly, it's a user named User:Teemu Ruskeepää attempting a radical experiment in talk page restructuring. He's trying to have all comments pinned to his "discussion tree", rather than in the traditional chronological manner. He tried this on the blocked Cuba page which had some merit - but subsequently attempted it on the busy Castro page. Users gave it a go but universally became bamboozled by the lack of clarity and the apparent loss of comments.

Teemu took this badly. He tried to move everyone's comments to various points of the page - unilaterally rejected the concept of archiving and insisted that he had the answer to wikipedias problems. Of course, a consensus poll proved otherwise. This has not deterred young Teemu, and he is now adding lengthy polls to each discussion! With some rather uncivil comebacks to users calling for him to come down from his "discussion tree". I've laid out a programme of response if he continues causing talk page chaos , but need an administrator to enforce the will of the people if he continues. Do you know of any such admin?--Zleitzen 12:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)