Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Broughton (talk | contribs) at 15:19, 25 October 2006 (→[]: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

RfA vote spamming

I would like to know if vote spamming in WP:RfAs is permissible, as was done by various (also anonymous) users in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi 2. All anon users seem to have been blocked. However, there is one registered user, User:Mustafa Akalp, who hasn't. He is a Turkish user, who right before initiating his spamming, decided to become incognito by moving the Turkish flag from his userpage () to a subpage (). He later posted several vote-bullying messages that request users (in Turkish) to vote Strong oppose, as seen in the following diffs: (,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,) There are many more (check contribs). •NikoSilver• 13:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa's spamming should be rollbacked and the guy blocked for disruption. This is the worst thing that may happen on RfA: the nomination may be derailed for good. --Ghirla 13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it is questionable whether the votes brought through the vote stacking made by Mustafa Akalp can be considered legitimate; probably they should be discounted from the vote, as is often done with the disruption of polls. And yes, the spamming should be rollbacked to set an example, and its author blocked.--Aldux 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone translate the turkish comments in some of these posts? Thatcher131 14:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here is my point of view and replies;

Here is first alert message for about campaign is not allowed ; message from Gwernol

Here is ,my response to that admin.

I stopped to send any message to any user anymore. see my Contributions. I will check the rules more detailed. It seems some complexs, to make a campaign in the vote in any country obviously free, but not in wiki. I will learn and discuss the rules asap.

I will send some messages to some admins about my alleges before; see this,

see this, see this This my oppinions is not new..

Flag about in my page. It is a comic idea, to change flag.Why flag is distruptive for my alleges. My alleges not belong today(as you see above) and flag was there in all times.

Here the reality about flag; Old version was animated one that User:Tekleni had complained about copyvivo to an admin User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, I took an alert from that admin User_talk:Mustafa_Akalp#Copyright_violation and I send my first response first response and second response

Now I transferred ( not delete!!)flag to my sadbox to replace a new pure-self made animated flag.

That is the reality.

Regards to all. Note; I can help for translations on my messages. Mustafa Akalp 14:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm rolling back the spamming now. This type of behaviour is never acceptable. I'll leave the decision on whether or not to block up to others; a stern warning may suffice depending on the translation of the comments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Naconkantari beat me to most of them. Oh well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Agree with reverts. Agree with possible block depending on comments. Noting here that there's been a bunch of IPs going around adding nonsense regarding this RFA to articles, which should probably be blocked on sight until at least the end of the RFA. – Chacor 14:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)~

• Here is the traslations of Turkish to English;

Lütfen acilen oy kullanın: Please come in vote urgently.

User:.. admin olmak için oy topluyor.-User.. in vote to be admin. Lütfen hemen oy kullanın.;Please come in vote immediately. Görüşlerinizi yazın.; Wtite your oppinions. İşte benimkiler; Those is mine.....Görüşlerin iletilmesi çok önemli; It is important to put oppinions/poit of wievs.

.Selam.:Regard. İlgili link..;related link

It is possible to have traslation from another source of course.

As you see, I never invite any body to an oppose vote .I required their oppinions at vote page.

Regards Mustafa Akalp 14:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First you included your own opinion in your spam messages, which shows a clear bias. More importantly you have selected which editors you advertize the RfA to. This introduces tremendous bias into the process and is unacceptable. Gwernol 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting out of hand. He is now continuing his spamming activity in the Turkish WP. Contribs. •NikoSilver• 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. :-( I didn't check the times. The usual wrong assumption that something is done when you see it done, and not when the timestamp reads. My apologies to all involved. However, these contributions in the Turkish WP above can be used as evidence for Aldux's proposal above. ("it is questionable whether the votes brought through the vote stacking made by Mustafa Akalp can be considered legitimate; probably they should be discounted from the vote, as is often done with the disruption of polls.") •NikoSilver• 16:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(Having received an e-mail from Mustafa). While agreeing with all said above, I'd propose to the community that the block is lifted. I think that 48 hours for the first offense is way too much, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive; the crime he commited is serious and took a while to repair, but I don't think he was really aware how much it was against the rules. The thread above shows that Mustafa was civil and kind in response, as is my experience in contacts with him so far. I do agree what he did was way out of line, but I have a kind of understanding (if not sympathy) for what he perceives as team-tagging in Turkey and Greece related articles. He has simply chosen a very bad way to combat it, and (I hope) he learned his lesson. Duja 12:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. I may not be fully neutral on the issue, as I supported his nomination, but I feel that no tolerance must be shown to blatant attempts to disrupt a Rfa; IMO, it must be clear that all such attempts to carefully select the editors on a national base so to sink a rfa must earn a block.--Aldux 12:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Aldux. I also received an email from Mustafa Akalp which clearly shows he does not understand that what he did was wrong. He claims: "my messages is not include any comment to receivers for 'opposite vote'" despite the fact that his messages all included his strongly worded oppose in them. He openly admits he was trying to taint the RfA pool "I sent my messages to some users that possibly had problems previously with Khoikhoi" and sees nothing wrong with this action. He genuinely believes he has proved his case against the candidate despite not providing any evidence. This is an organized witch hunt against Khoikhoi where allegations alone are expected to be accepted as evidence of serious wrongdoing. We must take a firm stand against this. I strongly oppose lifting this user's block, and personally consider a 48 hour block to be too short. There is plenty of reason to believe Mustafa Akalp will continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages's processes and articles as he doesn't understand what he did was wrong and has open and clear biases. Gwernol 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would support shortening the block (I've already asked jossi to consider it), merely because I'd like to give him the opportunity to withdraw his comments from Khoikhoi's RFA before it closes. If he doesn't wish to do so, then a longer block may be in order, but I think we should give him the opportunity. Yomangani 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support this but only with the specific condition that Mustafa Akalp agrees to withdraw his oppose on the RfA and apologize to Khoikhoi for his accusation. I don't see the benefit of lifting the block unless he agrees to this beforehand. Gwernol 13:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's RfA is to be completed within 24 hours. I don't think it's necessary to unblock Mustafa until the deadline. His behaviour was not acceptable and he should have ample time to reflect on this. --Ghirla 13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Shorten the block? No way! I'd support lengthening it to indefinite. We don't need any nationalist struggles on Misplaced Pages. That's the worst kind of disruption. --Cyde Weys 14:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just received another email from Mustafa Akalp in which he claims his spamming was intended to "reach consensus" and in which he makes the claim that "from a neutral POV, No body had accused with like an allege before, in the history of wiki. More than 10 different users have this allege. This allege will have a stamp on this Rfa for ever." (by "allege" he is referring to his allegation that Khoikhoi was orchestrating edit wars by email off-Wiki). It is clear to me that Mustafa Akalp sees nothing wrong with his actions, is intentionally attempting to blacken the name of an editor in good standing and is an inveterate WP:POV pusher who will do anything to oppose those who are trying to maintain WP:NPOV. He has clearly declared that he will not remove his oppose contribution. I support an extended block or indefinite ban on this user, per Cyde. Gwernol 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I may dazzle you with this comment, since I am the one who initiated all this, but I'll go ahead and say it (and it is not a pretence of goodwill): Mustafa probably hasn't understood that vote-spamming is bad, because nobody explained it to him adequately (forgive me if I miss something). I suppose that if we explain why the community has decided that this practice cannot be tolerated, he will reform himself, as he shows many signs of goodwill (i.e. self translation of Turkish messages etc.) I am willing to proceed in doing this but maybe I am not the most welcome e-mail correspondent of his! I propose that someone does it, and if he is convinced to strike his unfounded comments from the RfA, he can continue to edit. That's my two drachmae! •NikoSilver• 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the problems with his actions have been explained to him in meticulous detail over email (he sent email to me, I replied). His response is above, a firm belief that he has done nothing wrong, is trying to maintain WP:NPOV and reach WP:CONSENSUS. He genuinely does not understand the notion that spamming people known to oppose the candidate with his Oppose statement in the email might in some way bias the RfA proceedings. He also clearly stated that he intends that his allegations will leave " a stamp on this Rfa for ever". He simply won't admit any wrongdoing and has no intention of removing his comments. Someone this far from the vision of neutrality should not be participating in Misplaced Pages. Gwernol 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I support an indefinate block in this case, and in the case of all knowing vote spammers, especially in such a serious case as an RfA, and especially when used to display such a nationalist agenda. --InShaneee 15:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also consider that an indef block is appropriate in the case of such a serious disruption. -- Grafikm 16:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider my previous comment retracted then. After all, we use cents now! :-) •NikoSilver• 15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

He has been clearly told that his actions were wrong; and he appears to be unrepentant, and by his last messages, continuing his groundless accusations. As for that all this was done to "reach consensus", i.e. calling all the fellow Turkish editors he knew. He simply refuses even to remember of a simple thing called WP:AGF. For this I support Gwernol and Cyde's positions.--Aldux 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, then, I'll go ahead and extend the block. --InShaneee 19:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I just would like u to remind that Mustafa is not a native English speaker and certain things might get lost in translation :)).. I share Nikos' opinion on this.. He is a relatively new user and I don't think that we are being able to communicate with him effectively. I voted strong support for Khoi, OTOH I think that we shouldn't just bang up on people who might feel differently, especially if they r not native anglophones.. Instead we should try to improve mutual communication.. Believe me, there are much more serious nationalist POV pushers here, but they are native speakers and know their way around, so they never get caught; Mustafa however is relatively naive coz of the language barrier and hiw rookieness.. It would not be fair just indefinitely blocking him just coz of that. As for the vote spam.. He also sent me the same msg as email even though he knew I was a Khoi supporter beforehand from previous discussions.. I voted support and I find racist the suggestion or implication that all Turks r against Khoi's membership for whatever reason, TR users voted support more than oppose.. People have the intelligence to make up their own mind u know :))) Baristarim 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request the rest of the users here to give Baris the chance to explain to Mustafa why vote-spamming is not tolerated in WP in his own language. Baris, if you don't know either, it is because the participation in the polls has to be from all wikipedia in a proportional way. Specific groups may have made up their mind for or against an opinion, and inviting only those that you presume will share your views is not permissible. As I responded to you in the RfA, it is not a matter of racism or IQ. It is a matter of POV, and there are many smart guys out there with a strong POV. In case the other users agree, you will have to convince Mustafa to retract his unsubstantiated accusations for Khoikhoi in the RfA, and acknowledge that vote spamming is not permissible. •NikoSilver• 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with the inef. block. First off, I don't think it's appropriate for a first offense. Most importantly, I believe that Mustafa is a good editor, and has contributed positively to articles such as Imbros. Does anyone mind if I unblock him? —Khoikhoi 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He can be told to behave better and be given a last chance I think. I support it mainly because of the extreme, damning irony involved in Khoikhoi unblocking this guy. ;-) Grandmasterka 08:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Khoikhoi, Niko and Baristarim for their efforts at giving Mustafa another chance here. I've had previous dealings with Mustafa and have found him generally good-willing and prepared to learn, but of course quite strongly hampered in his interactions on Misplaced Pages by his rather poor command of English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This talk is continued in WP:AN#Requesting consensus to unblock Mustafa Akalp. •NikoSilver• 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User: BhaiSaab’s block and allegation of provoking anti-Semitism

I noticed that BhaiSaab was blocked for “a week” mainly due to User talk:Hkelkar#Ahmadinejad. BhaiSaab has requested for unblock.

Here is the description of the reason for block:

You have been blocked for 1 week, mainly due to User talk:Hkelkar#Ahmadinejad. Since Hkelkar is a declared Jew, and Ahmadinejad is a well-known holocaust denier and virulently anti-Semitic, I can only presume that you are trying to provoke something from him. Add to that, a lot of edit-warring and general fighting.

BhaiSaab’s request for unblock is the following:

Ahmadinejad is not anti-Semitic, so what's your problem? Does denying the holocaust automatically make one anti-Semitic and would this ever take place if he was anti-Semitic? Considering that Hkelkar goes sprouting opinions about Ahmadinejad all over the place, then you don't allow me do the same I would consider this a double standard. Another admin reviewed the same edits and I received no block, then you come in and look at the section on Hkelkars page without seeing what he did elsewhere, and decide to block me. Very irresponsible.

First of all, I should mention that I, for one, do not support Ahmadinejad in anyway. He can be very well, and in many cases rightly, criticized but fair is fair. I don’t agree that he is anti-semitic. Some may think he is but that’s a POV. As Bernard lewis writes anti-semtism has some marks:

He writes:

There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitism is something quite different. It is marked by two special features. One of them is that Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others. We see plenty of examples of this at the present time. But there too one has to be careful. There can be different standards of judgment on other issues too, sometimes even involving Jews, without anti-Semitism or without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism… The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil.

Thus we should distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I haven’t seen Lewis mentioning new anti-Semitism in Iran but rather among Arabs. Ahmadi nejad is definitely anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. Ahmadinejad’s denial of holocaust, while definitely unjustified, only meant that why Arab’s should pay the price of west’s anti-Semitism. I think

Aside from these comments anti-Semitism shouldn’t become a catch phrase to condemn someone. There are academic scholars who share BhaiSaab’s view (like the distinguished academic scholars of Islamic studies, Montgomery Watt). These are his words:

I do, however, think that the US is following a very dangerous policy in relation to the Middle East. The root of this trouble is that the US gives too much support to Israel. They allow them to have nuclear weapons and to do all sorts of things, some of which are contrary even to Jewish law. Jewish families occupy Arab houses without payment. That is stealing. I think that the US should be much firmer with Israel and put a lot of pressure on them, though this is difficult because of the strong Jewish lobby. Unless something is done there’ll be dangerous conflict in the Middle East. Such danger would be less likely to arise if all three Abrahamic faiths - Jews, Christians and Muslims - paid greater respect to what God teaches us about living together.

.

I would be thankful if the bhaisaab’s block could be removed. BTW, It seems that it was the other user who first brought up this issue and not BhaiSaab.

Thanks, --Aminz 05:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just reviewed this unblock, wherein I discovered the following niceties for which BhaiSaab was blocked: Ahmadinejad I think he's an awesome guy. (which I agree was meant to provoke), Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place. and Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the United States. I declined the unblock as I viewed these comments as inappropriate. Agree entirely with the blocking admin -- Samir धर्म 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel tells quite a tale as to Ahmadinejad's side of the story, and BhaiSaab knows that he is talking to a person who is declared as a Jew User:Hkelkar. As for claims that I am pro-Hindu or something I also blocked User:Subhash bose for religious inflammation (calling Muhammad a pedophile) and User:FairNBalanced also for a week (uploading Allah=pig photo) in the past. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To Samir: Samir, please note that 1. it seems that the other user brought up the issue first. 2. The majority of people in Iran voted for ahmadinejad. So, please respect it. There are people who think he is a nice guy. 3. Israel being on the map is the POV of many people. I personally think Jews and Muslims should live peacefully together, but maybe under a common goverment. 3. He said: "Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the United States" during the discussion. --Aminz 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, see, I am an Iranian. I want a proof for your allegation of anti-semtism against Ahmadi Nejad who is a living person. Fair is fair. He is ruining many things and undefendable in many cases, but he is not an anti-semitic. I think I have the right to ask why you called him an anti-semtic. --Aminz 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• One week strikes me as excessive. User:Hkelkar was dishing it out pretty well him/herself: , "oooooooooooh! I'm so scared!I hope he is as awesome when he tries to "wipe Israel off the map" and gets blasted into a hole in the ground.Hkelkar 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)" , , "We'll see who tries to harm Israel. Israel is too prosperous, wealthy and successful to be threatened by some mad mullah.Israel has first world technology, art, science. Israel doesn't ram planes into buildings or behead journalists on television. No medeival dump with a theocratic mullah running things can be a threat to the holy land. Nor any other Arab/Persian/whatever country for that matter.Hkelkar 01:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)", "Like I said, we still win. You still lose.Hkelkar 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)". (→Netscott) 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that Hkelkar was leading the discussion and BhaiSaab was merely responding. --Aminz 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

While Hkelkar's comments were not appropriate, they do not justify BhaiSaab's in any way -- Samir धर्म 06:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to analyze this issue in its context. Hklekar was the initiative and that's important. BhaiSaab's comments were short and in response to his comments. And again, I know that it might not be appropriate to write so in wikipedia, but BhaiSaab has a POV which is not far from that of some renowned academics. But I agree that he shouldn't have wrote them on Hkelkar's talk page, but again, the initiative was Hkelkar. --Aminz 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that context is important. However, this is not a POV block issue, it is a block for inappropriate comments, which BhaiSaab made, regardless of the context thereof; the bottom line is that his comments were inflammatory even if he was provoked. As such, I think the block was appropriate. I have to leave but, I agree that the comments of Hkelkar should probably be reviewed as well -- Samir धर्म 06:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't justify BhaiSaab's statements, but I think the fair thing would be to block both. Hkelkar's comments were obviously provocative. Titoxd 06:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Samir, apparently those were the last in a line of inappropirate commentary by User:Hkelkar. Have a look here. Hkelkar's sarcastic use of terms like, "Halaal?" and "..should regard me as the Mujaddid.." and "infidel" while referencing User:BhaiSaab appeared in the lead up to BhaiSaab's blocking and I suspect there are other examples of such commentary as well, Aminz? Equally inappropriate commentary should merit equal punishment no? I see a 12 hour block for User:Hkelkar, but no 12 hour block for User:BhaiSaab (obviously he got a week). (→Netscott) 06:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To be frankly honest, in this sphere of editing it is basically close to worthless to police for mild personal attacks as it is more or less standard amongst this lot. I have already blocked HKelkar for the ad hominem Jihad references. So that leaves religious and racial inflammation, which BhaiSaab appears to have done. Hkelkar's personal jibe is more or less the norm in this area. Things which are meant to raise the ire of others by insulting religious figures or ethnicities is what matters more. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, I agree with you about the propensity for personal attacking in the sphere of these topics and the virtual pointlessness of trying to police this but are you denying the religiously inflammatory nature of User:Hkelkar's commentaries? (→Netscott) 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But it is clear that Hkelkar was actively provoking BhaiSaab. BhaiSaab mentioned his POV(which by itself is a POV), which he shouldn't have mentioned. A week is too much seeing that Hkelkar was blocked for only 12 hours. --Aminz 06:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(leftshift after edit conflict) Let's make something clear. This is not about Ahmadinejad, and this is not a mere political dispute. This is about BhaiSaab's behavior and being uncivil. Let's note that this user did not think twice before using offensive language. Holocaust denial indeed constitutes antisemitism (and not "anti-Zionism"). I strongly support Blnguyen's decision on this matter. ←Humus sapiens 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss it whether Ahmadinejad's denial of holocaust was anti-semitism or not, but did BhaiSaab deny it? He just said Israel shouldn't have been in the map in the first place. That is not a good comment to be made in wikipedia, but why is it anti-semtism? --Aminz 06:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also support Blnguyen's actions - BhaiSaab's comments were completely uncalled for. Hkelkar is a seperate issue - his frequent appearances on WP:PAIN to report people show a pattern of provoking others, that however, is a matter for RfC not a reson to unblock another editor. Shell 06:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you if you consider prof. Edward Said an anti-semitic? Again, I think BhaiSaab comments were not proper but not anti-semitic. A week is too long, given that he was provoked. --Aminz 06:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the comment "Does denying the holocaust automatically make one anti-Semitic". To Aminz question: please read New anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, let's note that this was only one of many offensive things that BhaiSaab said. And for the record, I don't recall ever seeing contribs by Hkelkar (talk · contribs). Please let's not make this a political talkbox. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 06:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen New anti-Semitism and I think the views of some scholars such as Lewis are downplayed, or not properly reflected. BhaiSaab didn't really said much offensive things. His comments were short responses to Hkelkar. This discussion shouldn't have take place in the first place and it was Hkelkar who started it. --Aminz 06:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm an anti-Zionist (heck, I'm an anti-nationalist) and I'm not an anti-Semite. I don't think BhaiSaab should be given extra punishment because an admin doesn't like one of his political positions. This isn't to say that BhaiSaab is a model editor, but then neither is Hkelkar. We're seeing Indian domestic politics erupt in WP and it's an ugly sight. Zora 06:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, anti-Semitism means a discrimination against the jews simply because they are jews. BhaiSaab's argument wasn't hanging around the fact that Israel was formed by Jews but that why Israel was formed. It is a political position and has nothing to do with anti-semtism. --Aminz 07:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe I haven't read well all of the details of this but where has User:BhaiSaab denied the Holocaust? Obviously he's pro-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who himself alludes to such thinking) but can one not be generally pro something while concurrently against certain aspects of that thing? (→Netscott) 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Errr, this isn't about BhaiSaab's political opinions. It's about him making in this case an ethnically inflammatory jibe – irrespective of what anybody thinks of Ahmadinejad, he is inextricably associated (regardless of anybody's opinion of him) as being anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying and Hitler apologist and the use of the jibe could only be seen as an attempt at ethnic/religious bloodboiling. Such incidents as the Muhammad=pedophile comment by Subhash bose and the Allah=Pig comment by FairNBalanced have also been met with a one week block.

In the case of Hkelkar, the type of behaviour he engages in more or less the norm in this sphere of editing we are talking about. Both sides more or less assume bad faith, accuse the others of being out to get them, siege mentality, sarcasm, calling each other bigots, extremists, fundamentalists, arbitrary sock allegations etc. - see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy_Watch andMisplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Category:Patriotic Indian Wikipedian's Guild – as such this kind of behaviour is more or less ignored or else we would have no coverage of India-Pakistan religious politics articles. I have found it useless to police people for this type of behaviour (See my talk archives – if anybody wants to start trying to police this area properly, then they are welcome to try), so the line is basically when somebody makes racial insults or religious lampoonery akin to the Muhammad cartoons etc in an attempt at bloodboiling. In the case of Kelkar (a declared Jew) here, he has claimed that the other users are doing an “Ahmadinejad” on him – this is the standard in this area of editing - to claim that users with opposing POV have an agenda. I do not see how this is equivalent to what BhaiSaab, bose or FairNBalanced have done.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Subhash Bose case but as far as User:FairNBalanced is concerned the comparison of User:BhaiSaab to him isn't fully justified imho. User:FairNBalanced had been inserting himself into a group of Muslim editors and making religiously hateful edits for a long time prior to his final insult with the AllahPig image and it was for that reason that his weeklong block was merited. I've seen the ridiculous Muhammad=Pedophile idiocy bandied about repeatedly (User:Mike18xx comes to mind) and not seen blocking for it but merely warnings. In a similiar vein Andy Rooney recently made the argument that it was ridiculous that the American government should be hypocritically saying that other countries like North Korea and Iran shouldn't have the bomb. One could argue that he supports these countries because of this... but in reality that's false because his opinion is that no country should have the bomb. User:BhaiSaab was certainly baiting User:Hkelkar with his pro Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and anti-Zionist commentary but I don't think his having done that was much worse than what User:Hkelkar himself has had a pattern of doing. (→Netscott) 07:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I blocked Bose was new and I blocked immediately for that one, because that kind of inflammatory hate-speech isn't allowed. As for FairNBalanced, I had never heard of him and when Crzrussian reported it, I blocked immediately and asked people who appeared very familiar to adjust as necessary as I didn't have knowledge of what his past was. I am not comparing the records of BhaiSaab and FairNBalanced, I am referring to their singular acts. I asked people to modify FairNBalanced's block based on their knowledge of his past and nobody did anything. I don't feel that your comparison to N Korea is valid. People on WP repeatedly show their political opinions on political leaders all the time and nothing happens. I myself have been aware that BhaiSaab feels that Israel is illegitimate since August and declined a block request from his sparring partners. What happens here is that the uncontrollable norm of incivility, AGF violations, personal jibes, bogus accusations of misbehaviour and mudslinging etc in this area has crossed into the RED ZONE of making ethnic or religious jibes, which is where the magnitude of the block comes in. These guys have been doing the standard niggling tactics for 2 months. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab just said that Israel shouldn't have been formed in the first place and that Ahmadinejad is nice. That's it. --Aminz 07:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone supporting this week long block provide a diff showing solid proof of anti-Semitic commentary/trolling on the part of User:BhaiSaab (anit-Zionist commentary is readily apparent)? Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are two that strike me as uncivil and intentionally offensive: Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place. Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the United States. But I can imagine for someone who doesn't know the History of anti-Semitism, these won't ring a bell. ←Humus sapiens 07:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you response Humus sapiens. Those are undeniably anti-Zionist statements but can you honestly argue that they are undeniably anti-Semitic? I see confusion on the part of commentators here between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism... the arguement to new anti-Semitism is a weak one as the whole phenomenon of "new anti-Semitism" is debatable given the arguments of folks like Norman Finkelstein (see this). (→Netscott) 07:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens, thanks for sharing your thoughts. As far as I know anti-Semitism didn't happen in Muslim lands. Muslims were not treating Christians and Jews differently in any way, and traditionally Jews and Muslims were closer to each other than each of them was to Christians. It was only after the establishment of Israel that we observe this unfriendly conversations between Jews and Muslims. Otherwise, they were very close to each other, (and I would like to think they are). That's all I know about the history of anti-semitism. --Aminz 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect.My own matrilineal ancestors came to India from Iraq to flee the persecution of Jews there. This was in the 18th century. Read about the history of the Baghdadi Jews in India, particularly David Sassoon.Plus, the Jews in Pakistan were ethnically cleansed together with the Hindus during partition in 47. Read about the now nonexistent Peshawar jewsih community. Khushwant Singh's "Train to Pakistan" also talks about the ethnic cleansing of the Pakistani Jews. None of this had anything to do with Israel.Hkelkar 07:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

For the reference to my comment, please see Mark Cohen (1995). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press. p.xvii ; Lewis (1984) Jews of Islam p.85 and Carl Ernst Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World, UNC Press, p.13 All I said was quite factual. --Aminz 08:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

All right. Let me add my own two cents. It is my goal to make scholarly and well-referenced edits to wikipedia.However, I am a human being with human flaws, including the tendency to get provoked. Bear in mind that it was BhaiSaab who started the talk page conversation regarding the holocaust denier who's currently running Iran.I reacted aggressively, and for that I am regretful.However, let me add some more facts.Prior to the talk page incitement, I was on #wikipedia-en chatting about an unrelated matter when Bhaisaab showed up and PM'ed me. He made some of the most frightening comments I had heard in my life, up to and including polemical attacks against Jews (not Israel, but Jews as a people). A lot of these statements are considered as anti-semitic. I did not react well to those statements and was in a very agitated state.

However, since these statements were made off wikipedia, I ask that it be entered into evidence only as context. The context establishes that he intended to provoke me with inflammatory comments following the outcome of an edit war in another article (which, when thankfully stopped by administrator intervention, did not leave the situation in his favor). His support of the holocaust denier's call to eradicate Israel is a follow-up to that off-wikipedia conversation. When I first referred to the holocaust denier who's presently running things in Iran, I was addressing neither the user BhaiSaab nor the holocaust denier in the first person. Ergo, the comment, not directed at any specific person, does not count as an incitement. The only way it could have incited BhaiSaab was if he already had the view that any reference to the holocaust denier in a negative vein had to be responded to aggressively and with malice against the one who made the statement, and I cannot be held responsible for such an attitude.

Plus, regarding the apparently overwhelming support for BhaiSaab, I ask reviewers to dig a little deeper into the users who make such statements.Specifically, the block logs, and the temporal correlations with their reactions to the blocks and those of BhaiSaab in prior incidents.Also, glean from all this the apparent "Quid-pro-quo" system where BhaiSaab has similarly raised a stink when some of these users got blocked.Plus, cross-reference the users who speak "on his behalf" and the members listed in the Muslim Guild page, as well as the edits of these users in earlier debates, some of which are quite prejudiced against specific ethnic and religious groups and point to a level of hate that I had not expected to see on wikipedia. Correlate those ethnic groups to the ones involved in this issue, either directly or peripherally, and you will see that there is far more to this matter than meets the eye.

Now, like Pontius Pilate, I shall wash my hands of this matter altogether. Do whatever you please.Hkelkar 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"...Some of which are quite prejudiced against specific ethnic and religious groups..." Is it a personal attack?--Aminz 07:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, a personal attack from me? On whom?Hkelkar 07:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, cross-reference the users who speak "on his behalf" and the members listed in the Muslim Guild page, as well as the edits of these users in earlier debates, some of which are quite prejudiced against specific ethnic and religious groups and point to a level of hate that I had not expected to see on wikipedia. Dear Administrators, the only person talking on the behalf of BhaiSaab is me, and I am the only member of Muslim Guild here. Kelkar says I am quite prejudiced against specific ethic and religous groups which I consider a personal attack on myself. --Aminz 07:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my statements were very carefully worded. I did not say that there was a connection between the Muslim Guild editors here and prejudiced comments. There are several users speaking on BhaiSaab's behalf. If A is a subset of C and B is a subset of C then that does not mean that A=B. See Venn diagram to understand this point better.Hkelkar 07:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Subhash Bose used to this type of Venn diagram stuff tooTerryJ-Ho

The logical fallacy in this claim is obvious if you can draw some Venn Diagrams.Your argument is problematic. The contrapositive of a logical statement WOULD be true if you have firmly established that EVERY INSTANCE OF set A leads to EVERY INSTANCE of set B, and you haven't established that at all.None of these so called "scholars" (with no background in mathematics or logic it would seem) have.(Netaji 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Yes many wikipedians like to use logical arguments. So every logician on wikipedia is my "sock" ^__^.Hkelkar 19:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not many work in the same laboratory,study in the same university,work almost on the same set of articles with similar perception,use similar sources,are common friends,express the same love for Zionism,act in the same aggressive manner,lie indiscriminately.One can recognise Bakaman's language,Bhaaisaab's language,Zora's language before reading their names.TerryJ-Ho 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:BhaiSaab#Misplaced Pages:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23User:_BhaiSaab.E2.80.99s_block_and_allegation_of_provoking_anti-Semitism

Thanks --Aminz 08:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Posting an IRC log is a policy violation: see . ←Humus sapiens 19:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not a channel log, its the log of a PM. --NuclearZer0 00:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the admins actions here. The language the blocked user used was completely inappropriate and completely against the spirit and the letter of the law on Misplaced Pages. A week block seems fair. Elizmr 20:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also must voice my support for Blnguyen's and Samir's action. Nothing justifies BhaiSaab's behaviour; I have been attacked, insulted, provoked in far worse ways, and have never dreamed of awnsering them how BhaiSaab has, earning him is well deserved block, that I invite not to shorten. Yes, Hkelkar's behaviour is very far from exemplary, and may deserve also a block, even if it is, sadly, normal behaviour in certain areas of wikipedia. And yes, holocaust denial is antisemitism.--Aldux 23:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well this isnt the first time BhaiSaab has made anti-Israel/Semitic comments .Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And not the first time HKelkar has used provocation TerryJ-Ho 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well BhaiSaab has been blocked a multitude of times (9 to be exact), mostly for contentious edits and revert warring. It would be 10 but for the fact that he misled an admin to believe I had vandalized an article (while he was doing the blanking) under the canard of "copyvio". Terry, if you havent forgot, you yourself have given users nice names like "fascist" and "paid agent".Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The admins should take into account that Hkelkar is systematically taking an extremely provocative attitude with people he disagrees, by constant edit-warring and playing with the 3RR rule (he provokes, waits for reaction, then provokes again, and let the counterpart edit a 3rd time, then he requests for blocking under 3RR violation). User Hkelkar has triggered unumerables threats of blocking, personnal attack action etc. Just check his account and see. Hkelkar never takes the time to elaborate his viewpoint on talk pages, he just can't argue normally and has no precise perspective. He's just a provocative hate-mongering trying to block as much as he can. One week block is excessive. Really. But the important point is the following; admins take into account: I've also been accused of antisemitism by Hkelkar simply because I used the word "neocon" in an article see ; hence, for Hkelkar just using the word "neocon" is a mark of antisemistism... That example should put Hkelkar's accusations at the level they deserve: these accusations are void. TwoHorned 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but there have been other instances of bhaiSaab hatin on the Jews. Anyway, you have been apt to defame Koenraad Elst and Hkelkar has merely let you commit your own mistakes on the page. You obviously have no idea of BhaiSaab's block log, his contentious edits, his anti-Hindu stance, or his hatred for Israel. Putting things in bold doesn't automatically make it correct.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also read Blnguyen's comments, Assuming Bad Faith, comes much easier to us than AGF. BhaiSaab has engaged in rampant baiting and bogus warnings, and misrepresentations to get me blocked. Look at 8 archives of my talk page, and User:Shiva's trident, Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, etc. The point is that this has been a growing problem and we need to draw the line, just like they did with Subhash_bose. I have no idea who Aminz is, but my dealings with Netscott have not been positive either (see arx's on this noticeboard itself) with him accusing me of being a sock and vandalizing my comments when I confronted him about false allegations of socking.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong Bakaman. I never made defamation on Koenraad Elst page: over all the discussions happening there, I've always given references and arguments. As opposed to Hkelkar, whose mere edits were: "Indology is not a science" or "referring to Daniel Pipes as a neocon is a mark of antisemitism". Hkelkar plays it the disruptive way. Nothing else. TwoHorned 06:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick

Can someone block the vandal who keeps hitting the Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick articles? User:208.251.92.67 and User:65.241.54.173 (Likely the same person, since both IPs trace to Los Angeles, and are used by someone making the exact same changes), keep deleting material from these two articles, including the accompanying photo in the case of the latter, even after I and another editor keep reverting it, and refuse to engage in dialogue on the appropriate talk pages. Nightscream 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora sprotected. pschemp | talk 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This may have some relevance to Dollys (talk · contribs) who was on a campaign to recreate Brian Quintana (Afd'ed here in February), repeatedly recreating it, ignoring all messages about G4 and Deletion Review, until the article was salted. Apparently, there's some ongoing feud between Winick and Quintana about Zamora. Dollys' Talk page messages (like this one) assumed that editors involved were somehow involved with our "Jewish friend Judd Winick". Fan-1967 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what good that level of protection will do, since it appears that the unregistered Dollys simply reversed the edit that implemented it, and Quintana is now a registered user who himself has begun re-inserting his vandalized edits. He has been given a warning on his Talk Page (without the red octagonal stop sign, mind you), and if this continues, something more decisive may have to be done. In addition, someone is also vandalzing the Judd Winick page, which is not similarly "protected" (though I cannot be certain it's the same editor(s). Nightscream 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

TV Newser & Ponch's Disco

I have filed this case for mediation, but these guys are taking this to a new level. Please see The American Card Catalog article and the discussion for more details. I do not care to discuss anything with these individuals (or perhaps socks) any more. Just get them to leave me alone please!! I have removed their warnings from my talk page because they are completely bogus. I do not have a problem with being "warned" if it is for just cause.Tecmobowl 08:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Tecmobowl is acting like one of the vandals in the Spotteddogsdotorg/Scott Brown sockpuppet ring switching from television to baseball and staying away from his main targets of abuse. The patterns are obvious, even down to the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents posting and playing innocent. I first suspected him a few weeks ago. TV Newser Tipline 09:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't think i've ever edited a tv page. Looks like people seem to agree with me though on his/her talk page. I don't care to continue discussions with this user, I just want to make the information out there reflective of the wiki standards. --Tecmobowl 09:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Tecmobowl has never once edited a TV article, the hallmark of a SpottedDogs sock. These sock allegations are completely out of the blue, have lasted for weeks, and just make no sense. I have asked TV Newser before to cool it with the sock allegations and it just hasn't stopped. I have blocked user:TV Newser for 24 hours for disturbance. I welcome review. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. Baseless claims are disruptive and highly uncivil. – Chacor 09:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse as well. These actions were pure harrasment, with no evidence. Daniel.Bryant 09:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• TV Newser is part of the CFIF/Splash cabal that sees socks everywhere. They think I am a sock and will claim that me defending Tecmobowl is more evidence that I am a sock and he is a sock. I am not a sock, he is not a sock and he as only made good edits and really understands the concept of wiki. TV Newser, CFIF, and Splash should all be banned forever! Belly Flop Patrol 09:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Another stupid ridiculous baseless outbreak like that would probably see you banned forever. – Chacor 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, looking at your contributions, you've only pretty much acted like a troll today - your first edits in a month. Very suspicious. – Chacor 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I just got edit-conflicted at an AFD this new guy just participated in, by someone who signed as Tecmobowl. I definitely smell possible sockpuppetry here. – Chacor 09:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What exactly are you accusing me of? Wouldn't be surprised if this was TV Newser or a buddy. --Tecmobowl 10:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hallmarks of a standard troll. I welcome any admin to have a look. – Chacor 10:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what's going on with Special:Contributions/85.214.27.102, but it looks potentially relevant to this whole situation. Impersonator or troll of some sort? Luna Santin 10:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it is, IMO that IP needs to be blocked. The way to settle this whole thing would be an RFCU. – Chacor 10:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. Now I'm off to bed, will try to investigate further tomorrow. I appreciate all the input from Chacor and Daniel, and the investigation by Luna and Chacor. Thanks, all, and good night. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 10:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm so totally confused, is Chacor accusing me of something or not? That being said, is it safe to say that unless something is done to one of the pages in question, I can leave this issue alone? --Tecmobowl 10:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone signed as you at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FEMA Trailer. Was it you logged out? If it wasn't, then we're dealing with IPs trying to cause further havoc here. – Chacor 10:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, that wasn't me. This is me signed out71.56.127.218 10:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't get drawn in to this people. Belly Flop Patrol (talk · contribs) is clearly a sock since he knows far too much about a situation he's never been involved in. I've indef blocked. TV Newser is flying off the handle as usual, and needed to be blocked. End of. -Splash - tk 10:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with that block, as well as the earlier one of Newser. Newser appears to be trolling here. His post here uses diffs from Tecmobowl's reponse to the constant talk page reverts as evidence that Tecmobowl himself is the harassing one. Not funny. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, Special:Contributions/User:Ponch's Disco seems to be following TV Newser's lead. Please advise. Tecmobowl 06:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Endgame1 (talk · contribs) again

There was a similar post here regarding this user. The thread died out when it appeared that the user was leaving. But he did not leave. Since then he has continued his bizzare edits - , . At present the message on his user page reads "I QUIT - I WILL DO MY OWN RESEARCH AND NOT SHARE BECAUSE I AM VERY SHELFISH.". It would be better if some admin would take a look at this matter again. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He looks like he has begun to vandalise since he posted his intention to quit. I've reverted and warned him, but I can't keep an eye on him today. Can somone else do this? --Kbdank71 13:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He has continued despite his warnings. I have an eye on him for the moment. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Very shellfish? Danny Lilithborne 22:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Nearly everything he does has been reverted by someone (like massive tagging of archived pages for speedy deletion!) and the rest are inane votes on mfd with no reasoing. If he keeps this up after the block expires, he needs to be blocked even longer. pschemp | talk 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Very shellfish? Presumably it means he'll clam up and not move a mussel. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This user knows entirely too much about Misplaced Pages process for how new they are. Any other banned users with this bizarre behavior? Grandmasterka 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Endgame has already been indefblocked by Tawker (talk · contribs). About banned users, I don't know. He was in hibernation for a few months and then suddenly came up with those wierd questions on my (ongoing) RfA. But I don't recall ever coming across any user related to me with similar patterns of editing. So it must have been a coincidence. - Aksi_great (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Woodking24 (talk · contribs)

This seems to be single-purpose account used to spam articles with links to furniture companies in India. I had issued a spam warning to him ealier in the year which was later removed by them. I don't think this account is going to be used to make any contructive edits to wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. pschemp | talk 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This section was recently deleted and spammed by 59.95.207.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who clearly is identical to Woodking24. Please, block this IP. --Wasell 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

IP blocked and sites added to m:Spam blacklist Naconkantari 04:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Spambot is back (somewhat)

Ok, latest spam attack on my userpsace is User talk:Cool cat/archive/2005/search/. Please sort it out. :) For previous discussion on the matter see:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive138#Spambot_attack_on_talk_archives
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive139#Spambot_alert

--Cat out 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Page deleted and IP bloked for 24 hours.--Doc 23:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cat out 23:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2005/Discussion/ too. --Cat out 00:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

These IPs should really be blocked for a minimum of 1 month; most are likely zombies or open proxies. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I started a Spambot tracker.

From what I understand this bot isnt just targeting my userspace. Unfortunately, I can't view deleted pages. So, I welcome compiling of a list of similar activity elsewhere on that page.

I just dont want to start a new thread explaining the issue since the bot doesnt seem to be about to go away.

--Cat out 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You can find most of the spam that slipped through the cracks using Google, an example would be . Though we really need to equip our antivandalism bots to take care of these things. MER-C 03:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

More spam: . MER-C 04:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest reporting spam IPs to WP:OP encase they are proxies or compromised. Thanks.--Andeh 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Desperately Need help on blanking and POV editing of Tamilnet by User:snowolfd4

I have been making some edits to Tamilnet which have been repeatedly reverted with POV and propaganda from the ministry of Defence, Sri Lanka without any qualifications of the text by user User:Snowolfd4. I have added a list of justifications for my changes. But this user has never bothered to answer them and gone ahead given very terse statements for his reverts. This is pretty much vandalism. I have in turn added citations from a reputable source, namely a journal article on Tamilnet.com by Whitaker, Mark P. "Tamilnet.com: Some Reflections on Popular Anthropology, Nationalism, and the Internet" Anthropological Quarterly - Volume 77, Number 3, Summer 2004, pp. 469-498 George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research. He has reverted my citations claiming in effect that this peer-reviewed scholarly journal article is the following:

According to Official WP policy Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

He has claimed pretty much all the sources, including the journal article not to be a reliable source, with very very dubious edit summaries. I desperately need administrator intervention on this. This is getting to be very frustrating when a user claims that a peer-reviewed scholarly journal article is an unreliable source and then goes ahead and blanks legitimate cited contents. He has already been blocked for edit warring and has a history of POV pushing and blanking. Elalan 04:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking out verifiable info is def'ly vandalism and this needs to be warned clearly. This is an attempt by user Snowolf to show all articles showing the other side of an issue as derogatory or false. This is a much serious concern for Wiki's 5 pillars. Pls intervene. Thanks Sudharsansn 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Infact my talk page is being vandalized here Pls help. Thanks Sudharsansn 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Incivility complaint re: MONGO

Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process.

This is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. If you came here to complain about the actions of a user or administrator, or if your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.

This concerns a discussion Mongo and I had been having on his talk page.

A few months ago, I had written an essay which, passing, included in a link to Encyclopedia Dramatica. As far as I know, the link is uncontroversial and doesn't in any way involve harassment. I'm not an ED editor or anything-- I only recently became aware of what a big drama ED actually is-- I myself just copied the link from Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words because my essay was on a similar subject.

Today, Mongo deleted the link from the essay, citing a recent arbcom decision. Since that time, I have been engaged in a dispute with Mongo to either help ME understand why Misplaced Pages is better with that link deleted, or to help him understand why it isn't helpful to delete _all_ ED links, regardless of the linked to content. I want to stress, and I mean this sincerely, that I was genuinely trying to have an actual dialogue, truly open, and indeed eager, to understand how the deletion improves Misplaced Pages. At no time have I attempted to re-insert the link in question, nor do I have any intention to do so.

I post here not because of the deletion itself, but rather because of the extereme rudness Mongo has shown me in my sincere good-faith attempt to have this dialogue. If you look at the discussion, I haven't insulted him, I haven't been rude to him, I haven't slandered him-- I have sincerely been trying to understand his POV or convince him of mine. I sincerely expressed my frustration with the deletion, and honestly asked him to help me understand it. Mongo has responded with extreme rudeness, generaly dismissed my concerns, aggressively told me to "find a better use of my time... NOW.", and snidely remarked "I hope this isn't too frustrating for you". In his last response, he promised to block me if I continued the dialogue, and terminated the discussion by saying "NOW GET THE HELL OFF MY PAGE ABOUT THAT GODDAMN WEBSITE."

Despite this behavior, I actually have alot to say in Mongo's defense. I'm only marginally familar with his on-going dispute with the ED webmasters, but it seems like he's had a very hard time of things and they've been very, very rude to him, even posting person information about him, and saying things that are so slanderous I won't even repeat them. I can only guess that his behavior towards me is based on the assumption that I am a sockpupppet of that person, and that my questions to him are actually bad-faith attempts at annoyance and harrassment. However, I assure you, I am not the webmaster of ED, I have no ties to him, I have a relatively-long editing history here at Misplaced Pages, amd I was trying to have a good-faith dialogue with a Misplaced Pages Admin who was enforcing his interpreation of policy on an essay I had written. Mongo's behavior to me is completely and utterly uncalled-for, and honestly, very upsetting.

It seems like Mongo has a long and outstanding edit history here, and has been a valuable member of the community-- and his attacks towards me are probably nothing but shell-shock-- the jitteriness of someone who has been attacked by others for too long, and has gotten very tired of it. That said, his behavior towards me _is_ inappropriate, and I would ask the Wikpedia community to help him understand that, and to understand that I, and more importantly, other users he might encounter in the future, are not necessarily trying to harass him when we ask questions of him, even if we are slow to understand his thinking, and even if we are persistent in our sincere inquiries.

I would explicitly ask that he not be blocked for his-- I don't know if that's even something that would be considered, but i'm quite convinced he's just suffering from "diminished capacity" caused by being under attack by persistent trolls,and that blocking would only aggravate the situation. I also am not informing him of this posting, per his request that I not post on his talk page anymore-- someone else can contact him regarding this discussion if such contact is appropriate.

--Alecmconroy 14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to offer my support for MONGO, who has been targeted for months and continues to be 'pecked at' by vicious ED trolls. I know few people who would show as much restraint as MONGO if they were similarly targeted. While his comment was uncivil, his capacity is not 'diminished'. I'd leave the link off of your essay and leave MONGO alone. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my comment stands...if the ED trolls don't stay off my talk page, I will block them. I made myself clear many many times on my talk page, but that wasn't good enough for Alecmconroy. No, he has to try and wikilawyer repeatedly the same stuff over and over like some kind of deranged parrot...it that isn't trolling I don't know what is...somebody block this guy for disruption for pete's sake.--MONGO 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should bare in mind that the arbcom ruling on this matter says 'may be removed' not 'must be removed' or similar, so this users questions about whether the wholesale deletion of the links is necessary are indeed legitimate. You conistently refuse to actually discuss the matter simply referring the editor to the ruling and telling him to 'do something better with his time'. I would simply say that regardless of any history with other users, WP:AGF still applies and was ignored here with a new user with a legitimate question.

On the other hand, Alecmconroy did persist a little too much over the issue as it was obvious an answer, which didn't simply point to the arbcom ruling, was not going to appear. This gives the impression of trolling.

So, I would say that both editors are in the wrong here, Mongo for not assuming good faith and incivility and Alecmconry for not just letting it drop. I don't think it really needs to go any further than this either, as both users should learn from this.-Localzuk 14:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• All MONGO needed to do was state "The matter is closed, take any further questions to ArbCom". The statement made was way out of line. I commented on his talk page as follows:

MONGO, certainly you're aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, specifically "Profanity directed against another contributor". Whether his actions constitute harrassment doesn't excuse a like reply. You might want to reconsider the tone of your above statement.

Which he proceded to remove without comment, a fairly WP:UNCIVIL edit per Help:Talk_page#Etiquette. While Alecmconroy might have been overly persistent, such a comment to him, and a removal of what amounts to a Npa2 warning, only strengthens the idea that MONGO is acting in an uncivil manner.

Just as I submitted this for preview, MONGO again removed my warning and posted on my talk page the following: The discussion does not involve you and you are trying to antagonize me...so here is your warning from me, an administrator. I'm not quite certain how putting a npa2 warning on a user page is any sort of violation, so I don't appreciate his threat. *Sparkhead 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

He did exactly what you suggested and he was badgered beyond that. He said take it up with arbcom 2 more times after that. After that, I would argue further debate is severe trolling by the complainant. --Tbeatty 14:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, my suggestion was that's all he should do (and no more). I'd agree with your argument, but that still does not excuse profanity and a personal attack. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. I stated such in more technical terms on his talk page and he deleted it as me "antagonizing him". *Sparkhead 15:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

MONGO is absolutely in the right. If he believes it is productive to find and delete all references to ED he may do so according to the arbcom ruling. He should not be badgered indefinitely by persons who disagree with an Arbcom ruling. In fact, anyone who reverts those deletions is subject to immediate block/ban (after being informed about the Arbcom ruling). To argue that they "may" be removed does not grant authority for MONGO to delete them all is specious. There are no rules about what priority an editor may place on any particular edit. If MONGO believes that removing ED is his highest priority, then he may do so. --Tbeatty 14:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Of course MONGO is absolutely in the right regarding the deletion actions. I even agreed with him on his talk page. However he is absolutely in the wrong in spewing profanity at another editor, as well as removing a comment that is essence a npa warning. *Sparkhead 14:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough of this. Repeated trolling needs blocked - wikilawyering be damned. I don't think MONGO should have to deal with this, or block these lusers himself. I'm now going to watchlist his page - and I call on other uninvolved admins to do likewise. Let's see for ourselves what is happeing and take the appropriate action.--Doc 14:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc glasgow, do not use threats such as that. I am a long standing editor on this site and do not like being referred to as a 'luser'. This is a simple case of incivility that has blown all out of proportion. Removing npa warnings is a bad thing, especially by an admin who should know better - I do not really care about the removal of the link, just the incivility and, now, removal of warnings.-Localzuk 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to examine the full conversation between myself and Alecmconroy clearly shows that he was persistant in asking and trying to wikilawyer about the arbcom ruling. I in fact deleted less than 20 links of a possible 200 I could or you could remove. Sparkhead is not a "neutral" party as he is unhappy that I protected a deleted article from being recreated and did not like what the concensus was on the section heading of another article he was arguing with me and other editors on recently, so he is just trying to stir the pot. If you are unaware of the full story, stay out of the firing line.--MONGO 15:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would concur that both users have some reason to be unhappy, but after a reading of the conversation on multiple pages I would admonish Alecmconroy to drop this contest to put that ED link in. Arbcom says that link can and (more important) should be removed at discretion. If he ignores the import of the arbcom ruling (5-0), he's pushing a losing agenda. MONGO has indeed been through a lot recently, but Arbcom backs him 100% (5-0) on his actions. Good for Arbcom (they've endorsed his prior actions completely, which says "Good for MONGO"). Someone has to stand watch at this gate, and MONGO has demonstrated vastly more patience than I might, and certainly more patience than Alexmconroy (though Alex's original message here has all the appropriate caveats, to his credit). Alex should understand that linking to ED will always be controversial, and stop doing it. MONGO has an obligation to himself and others to make his intention to delete such links clear on the ED talk page, and IMHO he should stop blanking valid comments from his talk page (they call that vandalism, even for testy admins). And I'd like to buy MONGO a beer; he's my new hero. BusterD 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I was on your talk page for the protection thread, saw this, and completely agreed with you on this topic and defended your actions, but when I pointed out you violated npa you deleted my commentary. Profanity is clearly out of line, and warning blanking is often considered so. Not your deletion of ED links. *Sparkhead 15:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that profanity is 'out of line' (although I rarely employ it myself). Calling someone a profane name, for example, is out of line because it's name calling, not profanity. Profanity is a part of language and isn't bannable unto itself (but it can be uncivil). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Interpret as you will, WP:NPA#Examples of personal attacks: "Profanity directed against another contributor." Seems clear he was directly addressing another contributor with profanity. *Sparkhead 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to me. If he called the user a 'shithead', that would be clear. If he called the user a 'fucking troll', that would be less clear (but still a personal attack). But he said 'get the hell off my page' and 'goddamn website', which, while uncivil, isn't a personal attack. I'll repeat what numerous users have told you (but which you seem to ignore) - that your persistence here is not speaking well of your ability to concentrate on content rather than contributors. Such conduct can be seen as harassment and trolling, and to demonstrate that you are not trolling I strongly urge you to change your focus to another topic besides MONGO and ED. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What's more incivil, make it clear as a bell, after trying repeatedly, that my answers were going to be the same, or use the mighty Banhammer on him. He got off easy.--MONGO 16:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me state this quite clearly, here, and anywhere else where I need to state it. If I find any ED links or edits, I will delete them, explain to the person who put them there why, and, if they are restored, I will block the editor. The arbcom ruling is clear. Now, get off Mongo's page and leave him alone, or you will be indef. blocked as a troll and disruptor. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see , , . User has had multiple warnings. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him on both his Talk page and the RfAr page. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Best bet is to remove or unlink everything in Special:Linksearch/*.encyclopediadramatica.com, then ask for blackilsting at Meta. This is what was done with YTMND. Guy 20:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to the complaints that I "harassed", "badgered" or "wikilawyered", let me just explain my point of view. An admin comes to a page I'm on, deletes a link, and tells me no to add it back. I, or any user, am going to want to know why that has to happen, and ideally, I'd like to actually understand how wikpedia is better because of that rule. And "because arbcom said so" doesn't cut it. That explaination is certainly sufficent to persuade me not to break the rule-- I haven't disobeyed it, no will I. But that doesn't quench my desire to understand why that link was bad, just because of an unrelated dispute between Mongo and the domains's owner. I'm sorry i was persistent in my inquiries, but I legitimately don't understand why anyone wanted that particular link gone, and I don't guess I'm going to understand.

That's fine. Take the link--- it was a dumb little humor link anyway. Don't explain to me why you want the link gone-- just point to the law that allows you to remove it. okay. But please-- don't get mad at ME for even asking the question! Don't call me a harasser or a badgerer (or god forbid a lawyer). ya know?

Anyway, I'm dropping this, as I've been strongly encouraged to do. I question the wisdom of deleting all links based not on the linked-to-content, but based just on the domain name. I question the wisdom of being so mean to people who question you. But that will be up to someone else to convince people of those things-- I'm politely exiting the whole mess, grumbling as I do so that I sorta got a raw deal in the whole matter.

--Alecmconroy 21:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Waa! Waa! Censorship! Anyone else find it ironic that the same people who cry censorship about no ED on Misplaced Pages are also really quick to cite WP:CIVIL? Danny Lilithborne 21:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The deeper irony is the lack of civility from those looking to have the supposedly uncivil links removed, but whatever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The even-deeper irony is that we have to bring up this exhausted topic again and again without changing the status quo, but only to insult (and hypocritically accuse of incivility) each other and end up in another WP:RFAr case, hence causing a recurring spectacle/scandal. --physicq (c) 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The wikilawyering is disturbing, making me sincerely doubt that the purpose of this link was in good faith. -- Samir धर्म 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Samir, I promise you, it was in good faith. I've only added the link once, way back in july, when I copied it from the policy page Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words along with other text that was on the page at that time. I had no way of knowing what a huge bru-ha-ha ED was (if indeed it even was such a big deal back then). I haven't added a single ED link since that time, and I'm not gonna. It completely was good-faith, as has all my behavior since then. Really.

I mean, the link itself isn't that big of a deal. I mean-- here's an easy way out-- I notice that linked-to-page (which I won't post here) has since added a very offensive and disgusting pornographic image which wasn't there when I first visited that page. So, right there is a reason we shouldn't link to that page--it's a really gross image. I completely understand that kind of reasoning.

I just don't get why Mongo, or others, want to delete links to stuff just based on who's hosting it. To make light of what I can see is a tense situation-- I really hate AOL (all those stupid AOL cds cloggin up my mailbox)-- but I wouldn't delete links to un-objectionable pages just cause hosted on AOL servers. Anyway-- I don't mean to redebate the issue-- Misplaced Pages seems to have spoken on this issue through their elected representatives, so that's a done deal.

I'm just saying-- if you see bad faith in my actions, you're wrong. Dead wrong. I never even heard of Mongo two days ago, I wasn't trying to harass him, I wasn't trying to be rude, I was sincerely just trying to have a discussion. In doing so, I seem to inadvertantly stumbled into a landmine, and since then have been insulted, cussed at, threatened with blocks, likened to a cry-baby, and in general, seen as whole side of Misplaced Pages that I didn't know existed. And I'm telling you-- I don't deserve it, I wasn't trying to be difficult or annoying or anything like that. If you see bad faith, hear me looking you square in the eye and promising you-- I wasn't trying to harass, annoy, or otherwise. Seriously. Word of honor.

So, next time-- everyone just be a little more willing to accept that someone might be acting in good faith, and a little slower to hit incivility. For my part, I apologize that I didn't pick up earlier on Mongo's wikistress in the discussion on his talk page-- if I had known earlier what a hot-button topic this ED thing is, I would have taken extra care to distance myself from that group of people, to reiterate to Mongo my regret at what they've done to him, and to be extra clear that my concerns and questions about the deletions does not in any way imply that I condone the rude way he's been treated by those people.

--Alecmconroy 00:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we maybe stop the incessant "wikilawyering" comments? There's legitimate criticism of how Arbcom handled the linking issue, and the fact that some people are indeed going overboard in enforcement isn't much better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a finding of excessive zeal in the arbcom case, and it appears that Mongo took the "No action is taken..." response as a license to go back to behaving rudely, when it really should have been taken as a clear warning that there is a line in the sand. This seems to be to be a serious mistake, from MONGO removing the ED links himself, to escalating to highly rude responses when people ask why. Another sad day. Georgewilliamherbert 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:SafeLibraries.org's inappropriate username

Misplaced Pages usernames are not intended as vehicles for linkspam. However, every edit that User:SafeLibraries.org makes inserts another link to http://www.SafeLibraries.org into Misplaced Pages. As this user now has 1099 edits, he has now inserted at least 1099 spam links into the edit history of various pages. This continued linkspamming is disruptive. Misplaced Pages:Username#Inappropriate_usernames recognizes this problem, and states that

Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked.

User:SafeLibraries.org was asked to change his username on July 31. So far, he has stated on two occasions that he intends to do so , but has most recently implied that he will not change his username. However, no user acquires the right to an inappropriate username by long use, provided that the username was inappropriate when it was created. Heavy use of inappropriate usernames simply represents a greater injury to Misplaced Pages than inappropriate usernames which are indefinitely blocked on sight. Therefore, I suggest that User:SafeLibraries.org be blocked indefinitely. John254 14:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Usernameblocked. -- Avi 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer you didn't block yet. (See the block log, the messages to the user, ect) The user seems to understand now why the username needs to be changed, and seems willing to do so. If not, I can always reblock. Prodego 14:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh... And so this makes the linkspamming OK? Just trying to understand. BusterD 15:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand the "link spamming" is that every time the account edits it leaves the URL in the page history. However, these pages aren't even counted as links by search engines (only pages with / in the URL are cached by search engines). Of course, a username change would change the history pages anyway, so... I was in the middle of discussion with this user, and he said he would change his username, and I would assume that is in good faith. Also, I left a note to John explaining what I did, but he decided not to leave me a message, as I requested he do if he had a problem, but instead made a report here. Prodego 15:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Since users can edit their talk pages even while blocked, User:SafeLibraries.org can specify a new username on his talk page. A bureaucrat can then change his username and unblock him. Until his username is changed, however, there is no need to continue to allow him to edit. John254 15:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As John said. Also, BusterD, the name is inappropriate regardless of "spamming". See Misplaced Pages:Username#Inappropriate usernames. Once the user posts a request for a name change on User talk:SafeLibraries.org, any admin will gladly unblock him so that he may post on Misplaced Pages:Changing username. -- Avi 16:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Does he need to post a request on Misplaced Pages:Changing username personally? If a request is posted to Misplaced Pages:Changing username on his behalf, with a link to the diff from his talk page as evidence that he is requesting that his username be changed, I believe that the bureaucrats would act on it. John254 16:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm a sysop, not a b'crat, so I'm not 100% sure. We can always try . -- Avi 16:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Site seems like self-promotion, and behavior appears unreliable. But if the user name change is agreed, problem looks solved. Curious: how did this get to 1100 edits before blockage? Was no time frame agreed upon in first contact? This seems open and shut to an outsider. Thanks again–I'm trying to decode what is done on these pages. High-entry level of knowledge. Understand most but need to read more. BusterD 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are tens of thousands of wiki editors, some things are bound to slip through the cracks for a while. Thankfully, the majority of editors and sysops have wiki's best interests at heart so it is a pretty robust self-correcting environment. Thanks again! -- Avi 16:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. He was already given the opportunity to change his username multiple times; if he wants to continue editing now, he should get a new account. --Cyde Weys 20:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sandover, Senate vote, and habeas corpus

User:Sandover has started adding the following paragraph to the biographies of a number of Senators:

On September 28, 2006, voted (with a Republican majority) to suspend habeas corpus provisions for anyone deemed by the Executive Branch an "unlawful combatant", barring them from challenging their detentions in court. X's vote gave a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed acts of torture and abuse, permitting the use of statements obtained through torture to be used in military tribunals so long as the abuse took place by December 30, 2005. X's vote authorized the President to establish permissible interrogation techniques and to "interpret the meaning and application" of international Geneva Convention standards, so long as the coercion fell short of "serious" bodily or psychological injury. The bill became law on October 17, 2006.

For some individuals, he's actually created whole sections to discuss this. So far he's added it to the bios of Joe Lieberman, Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey_Graham, Gordon Smith, Pat_Roberts, and others. Aside from the fact that the wording is prejudicial and not supported by the sources, it seems to me that this kind of boilerplate insertion is spamming for political purposes, and a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Will he insert this paragraph into the bios of every single senator who voted for this? Is this particular vote of each senator notable in some way? Have reliable sources actually commented on these specific votes of these specific individuals?

Not only is Sandover adding the material to articles, but he is also reverting anyone who removes it. I suggest that this behavior is disruptive, and that Sandover should stop doing this. If he wants to list every senator who voted for the bill, he should do so in the article on the bill. Jayjg 16:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

He continues to add it to articles, for example Olympia Snowe. He's now inventing his own reasons as to why each specific vote is "notable" in some way; clearly a case of original research. Jayjg 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention he appears to be adding any dispariging news links to the articles besides just this. --InShaneee 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Password Request Bug

Hopefully, this means the password request throttle has been implememnted, but I'm not very familiar with bugzilla, so maybe someone else could take a look?

I don't know Misplaced Pages release process well, but all that necessarily means is that there's been a change written and accepted by the MediaWiki maintainers. Actually getting that into the "live" copy which runs Misplaced Pages may take a little longer. Zetawoof 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks active to me. Prodego 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Actually blocked users are blocked from making password requests now rather than a limit being set on how many can be made per day, but whatever works is fine with me. pschemp | talk 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Iwazaki in the Velupillai Prabhakaran page

Iwazaki (talk · contribs) is on a vandal spree and also a personal attack campaign. With scant respect for fellow editors, this user is continuing to add content to Wiki not complying to NPOV, Verifiabiliy, Civility or simply anything else apart from the fundamental policy of 'anyone can edit anything' policy of Wiki. The user has also been issued a final warning for Civility but continues his spree of personal attacks and diplomatic vandalism. Check this Iwazaki Talk page Infact he questions the very claim of Civility to the admins who have issued warnings to him in the same page as above!!

To add to this, the user is quoting incidents from the newspapers that he has read someday. sometime ago!! Here Iwazaki has framed up two entire sections of his own, literally without any citation at all refer here. The citations he has pointed to refer to a newspaper article which he has read sometime ago and is not a piece of evidence which can be verified by everybody who would be reading that article. It is something like 'I-saw-that-in-news-once' kind of a link. It is a blank newspaper name link which isn't a hyperlink or anything at all. Check the talk page for his spurious justifications and more personal attacks He is also reverting it to his own versions also making sure he isn't under the 3R rule.

For your convenience, I have created a list of a number of such attacks from the report concerned, and listed each as linked to the diff from which they were copied...

1. "written by someone with a kindergarten level knowledge",
2. "Speak for your self, all my comments here are in reply to what others asked..Whether they are related or not, i normally wont disappoint anyone who asks questions from me.A habbit which comes from my fathers side!!" - He is talking about his upbringing on a Misplaced Pages Talk page.
3. "I bet your self had a rough time ,esp about the copy-righted pictures..So before advising and playing with sarcasm why dont you look after your self ?? i mean afterall u needed advice" - This is really too much.
4. "Since you have done such a poor job in this article,and its not surprising considering your pre-school level knoweldge of hostory and amazing logic !! And this kid is here to make things better."
5. "if you have problem with that, please purchase the book and read it."
6. "it would be really nice if you work on your reading comprehension skills..All my points remain valid and u only have one kindergrten level article to back up what ever you claims",
7. "i mean afterall u needed advice from a probably another pro-srilankan to grasp the idea of copyright policies here in wikipedia..",
8. "i have an enormous respect to wiki and its editors..But like in every society ,there are a few here joking around..And for them i have no respect..Since i take my history very seriously, i dont want kids to come here and screw things up.kids should grasp more knowledge before coming here.",
9. "didnt i tell you to speak for your self ?? what you have written here is not only in low quality ,but lack truth too.some of your sources are highly ambiguous, and do not qualified to be in the article.And thats what this kid do here, pointing out your "hypothesis" to save the standards of wikipedia..You have shown here so many things, lack of "reading conprehension skills" , "kidergarten level logic" , "lack of knowledge in srilankan crisis" and most importantly "lack of(or NO) knowledge in our history"..So shouldnt you think ,better to get some history lessons in school ,before even coming here to edits ??",
10. "YOU dont need to take a day-nap to see that truth..",
11. "and unlike some i dont have any hidden agendas.I honor my state, SLA or anyother thing, with a reason..And condemned them too, with reason..Since you have done such a poor job in this article,and its not surprising considering your pre-school level knoweldge of hostory and amazing logic !!".

...Please be advised that this is not a complete list and has been jointly compiled by User:Crimsone.

This seems to be going on for almost a month inspite of several friendly suggestions and also Admin warnings. This is a serious problem in that page and quite naturally it is spreading to other pages too. This user doesn't like Wiki policies as per some of his replies to Admin warnings and friendly suggestions by fellow editors and I really don't know what he is upto after his aforesaid statements which are listed. Quite understandeably all his actions are outside Wiki's 5 pillars!! Kindly help. Thanks Sudharsansn 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Again (didn't notice this earlier) - there is a world of difference between "jointly compiled byCrimsone" and "includes a list compiled by Crimsone used to show the user which edits he had recieved a final warning for and why". Please be more accurate in your language when describing such things, as your statement implies my taking of sides in this latest report, which is most certainly not the case. I do not wish to be drawn into a content dispute that I know little about, nor an ongoing incivility dispute between two editors I have no real connection with. All I have done is given a list of comments to the user that made them in explanation of a final warning given by an admin in response to a WP:PAIN report. Many thanks --Crimsone 21:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, pls do pardon my ignorance in editing this list. No offense meant, I just felt the urgent need for admin intervention in this issue. I had only appended to this list as I had done there. If there is anything I need to do with regd to the list here, do let me know. Pardon me for my ignorance and the copy-paste. :-) Thanks Sudharsansn 23:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Jgp blocked

I have blocked User:Jgp indefinitely for restoring the ED link to SchmuckyTheCat's User page. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Before he was blocked by Zoe, I asked Jgp to revert the page back and he curtly refused. While I'm disappointed that this indef block was necessary, his conduct was completely indefensible. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts he'll be back regardless, but indefinite blocks seem more than a bit harsh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, an indef block looks like overkill to me. User:Jgp doesn't look like a troll or someone who has never done anything useful for the encyclopedia. --Conti|✉ 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Any user who has made it clear that they will not abide by arbcom decisions has no business being here. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I give you a list of folks to indefinitely block, then? Back to reality, though, he has no prior block history and a legitimate complaint, and while profane defiance isn't the way to change things, an indefinite block seems completely out of control given his history and the circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

An indefblock for an editor in good standing is extremely out of line. It appears he only did this restoration of a link once and now he's indefblocked and has quit the project because of the indefblock.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

He is indef blocked, not permanently blocked. If he announces that he will abide by the ruling, instead of calling it "fucking stupid", he can be unblocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The decision is "fucking stupid," and he's entitled to that opinion, as is anyone else who holds it. If he continues to re-add the link despite warnings and this block, then feel free to extend the block further. To indefinitely block on the first offense with no prior issues whatsoever is completely absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read User:RyanFreisling's comments above? He was asked to remove the link, and he refused. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And RyanFreisling has about as much cache in such a discussion as I do. Please read my point again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

An indef block does not mean permament. If the user takes a break (no socks), makes it clear that he understand what he did wrong, asks for a second chance in proper place, then there is a pretty good chance he will be given one. Best to let a bit of time to pass, though. --FloNight 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No one has to implement arbcom decisions, but no one gets to interfere with those who are. Tom Harrison 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting very disappointed with the actions of various admins regarding their crusade / witchhunt against ED, which, with the extreme zeal by which it is pursued and the need to demonize and marginalize all opposition to the policy, is starting to take on a resemblance to the War on Drugs. *Dan T.* 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jgp stated "if I'm unblocked, I won't bother re-adding the links", so that should be enough to unblock him, right? --Conti|✉ 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think so, with the proviso that a significant block is re-enstated if he were to knowingly go against an ArbCom decision in the future. -- Avi 01:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If he doesn't abide by the arbcom ruling and knowing adds links to the website in question, he can and will be blocked, as can any editor who knowingly violates the arbcom ruling. It's that simple. That the block is permanent is another matter, but wheel warring over a block applied that is backed by an arbcom decision would be a bad idea.--MONGO 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The exact arbcom wording is:

Enforcement by block 1) Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users. All blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block is clearly a strong penalty. A link to the ED homepage is not a link to material that harrasses others. Indefinite is not "appropriate" for a mere link to the ED homepage, though it's clearly compliant with the decision to do a more limited block.

I strongly support not linking to ED and the arbcom decision, and an appropriate block on those who violate it, but Arbcom sent two messages over this: one, don't abuse WP admins, and two, don't be abusive in return. If Arbcom had meant inserting any link to be indef-blockable they would have said so. And the block here has not been listed as the arbcom decision requires.

Zoe, please follow the rules. Georgewilliamherbert 05:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

She did follow the rules...what rule did she violate? I see nothing to indicate that she violated anything.--MONGO 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1) No listing at the Log.

2) An indefinite block is a strong penalty, which may only be applied to those linking to or importing material which harrasses other users. A link to the ED homepage, which currently (without following any links) only has one Misplaced Pages reference on it, and nothing related to any WP editors as far as I see, is not harrassing other WP users.

2a) Jgp is not a naive user, knew what he/she was doing, and the second sentence does not apply.

2b) Jgp did insert a link and per Arbcom may be blocked for an appropriate period of time.

2c) In no prior arbcom decision has a single act of defiant disagreement with an Arbcom decision by a non-party been justification for an indefinite block. Arbcom decisions have been treated like any other normal policy, and violations thereof as for any other policy.

2d) One time ordinary wilful violation of WP policy is normally appropriately and consistently handled by 24-48 hr blocks and appropriate warnings.

2e) WP blocks are, by policy, preventive rather than punitive. Given a single wilful violation, other than a catastrophic attack on someone or on WP, an indef block is punitive.

As I said: Jgp shouldn't have done this and "a" block is within policy. An indef block is not, and should be overturned by Zoe, or should rightfully be overturned by another admin after 24 hrs or so if she won't. This would not be wheel-warring - it's enforcing the Arbcom decision as written.

Acting too harshly and arbitrarily lends credence to WP critics. Arbcom carefully phrased its decision. This was not a carefully phrased or carefully thought out response. Georgewilliamherbert 07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Baloney...comments in the edit summary he made clearly indicated he knew what the ruling was and he clearly called another editors attempts to enforce the arbcom ruling as vandalism. His comments on his own talk page initially indicated he was both hostile and unremorseful for readding the link. The appropriate period of time as far as Zoe was concerned is indefinite...and that is not the same thing as permanent per se. You have virtually zero experience dealing with trolls, no experience administering blocks and no experience explaining why you deleted an article, so your commentary is based on a lack of experience. Zoe has been around for a long time, and I can find zero fault in what she did, especially with the remedy that was unanimously selected by the arbtrators that voted on the arbcom case.--MONGO 11:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have been dealing with Internet Trolls since 1987. My relatively short experience with WP is not indicative of a lack of experience administering moderated internet discussions. Please believe me that I would not be bringing these issues up without having plenty of background (in other internet media) with the general problems. Georgewilliamherbert 18:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your labelling of a good-standing editor who has never been blocked prior as a "troll" is ridiculous and uncivil. I do not see where "inexperience" with "trolls" comes into play here. George is telling it as it should be. – Chacor 11:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, people who disagree with a) arbcom, b) admins, and/or c) you are not necessarily trolls. There's nothing to indicate he is or otherwise. Please stop attacking people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You can read I hope...I did not call Jpg a troll...I told Georgewilliamherbert that he has no experience dealing with trolls as part of the discussion that he has no admin experience and is hardly in a position to render as good a judgement as someone who has been an admin as long as Zoe has. Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.--MONGO 11:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, can everyone just cool it? Although technically correct, MONGO, think about when you were an aspiring user, and how you would have felt if some criticized your position, and it's implications on your ability to render as good a judgement as some other users. Misplaced Pages aspires all users to give their input, and the community can decide whether someone's points are as important/knowledgable as others. It's similar to the way the B'crats give weighting to SPA's in RFA. Jeff and Chacor, please refrain from pestering other users - assuming good faith, you misread his comment, however criticising MONGO's opinion of certain editors, whether they are valid or not, only leads to more conflict. Let's aviod making this end up somewhere we all don't want it to. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to the point: Jgp has said that he won't reinsert the link anymore, so does anyone still disagree with me unblocking him? He, like anyone else, can of course be reblocked when the links get added back again. --Conti|✉ 15:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked him based on the link you provided. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Conti|✉ 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jgp is saying that he is autoblocked. I can't find any outstanding autoblocks, and the autoblock search tool isn't working. Can anybody help? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Leoboy725

I believe that this account qualifies for blocking as a vandalism-only account. His most recent edits include insertion of photographs of people that he uploaded into the prostitution and prude articles in an evident effort to defame the people depicted . My report on WP:AIV was removed by a user who is not an administrator because User:Leoboy725 has received "no warnings". However, Misplaced Pages:Vandalism does not actually require that users be warned prior to being blocked for vandalism. Furthermore, users are commonly blocked without warning for extreme cases of vandalism, such as inserting the photograph of a person into the prostitution article for the purpose of defamation . John254 21:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Zoe warned him, and I speedily deleted the images he uploaded as vandalism. --Coredesat 21:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Trouble on the Andy Stephenson DRV

The deletion review on Andy Stephenson is starting to turn into the conspiracycruft circus that the AfD was. It might need a few other admins to help keep it under control. --Coredesat 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And Tbeatty keeps deleting and editing other peoples contributions. I added this:

• Comment :Comments from the deletionist hit squad, suggesting malfeasance:

• 04:22, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (noting no more AfDs)
• 04:21, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (all gone! now what will we do for fun?)

Hit Squad History What an outrageous misuse of the AfD process! Deleting articles 'for fun'. NBGPWS 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And he deleted it. NBGPWS 06:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hit Squad History" is a clear WP:NPA violation. You'd be better off not reinserting it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Oyo321

I'd like to request another admin to review whether the edits today of Oyo321 (talk · contribs) constituted improper personal attacks. (I believe they do, but I think an uninvolved admin should review the situation.) Further, if we have an admin who can read Korean, please check to see if the Korean writing the user has been writing on some talk pages constitute personal attacks, since I have no way to check those. --Nlu (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• A request for assistance over on WP:RD/LANG will probably find you a Korean speaker fairly quickly. There's no reason he/she has to be an admin as long as he/she can report back here on what they read. --Aaron 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A few more eyes are needed...

The situation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life diff is really getting over the top. User:pschemp got involved as an unimplicated admin, but an RFARB took place almost immediately, and it's not fair to ask her to wade in further.

Note that User:Brya is banned, and his/her comments on his/her own talk page have been copied into the wikiproject talk space, where he/she cannot respond. The previous discussions had been archived, now brought back and added to. A cool-off period seems in order, and bringing in some cool heads and objective pairs of eyes would be a great help there. --SB_Johnny||_books 22:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

KPBotnay has been asked not to put such comments on the talk page of the project but to use dispute resolution instead. The comments were reverted and no longer exist on the page. As long as he doesn't re-insert, there's nothing more to deal with. pschemp | talk 04:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image question

This woman on a toilet (non-nude) was uploaded and inserted into the prostitution article as "A typical North American whore."

It has GFDL-self, which appears to invalidate WP:SPEEDY criteria. How should this image be processed? Gotyear 23:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The image was being used solely for vandalism. Deleted per CSD G3. --Slowking Man 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:IFD I would say list it there as UE (Unencyclopædic) and OR (Orphaned). But if it was just being used for vandalism, a CSD:G3 would work even better. -- Avi 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I was looking solely at the image criteria. Thanks both! Gotyear 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:StalinsLoveChild

First of all, Hello to you all. Straight to business. I've had a minor tiff with StalinsLoveChild (talk · contribs · count), and although I admit that I am at fault (and will accept any comments on my conduct), I've a bit worried through his comments on my talk page and on his own user and talk pages. It looks like he could be evading a previous indefblock, although i'm not entrely sure how to go about finding this out or if it's even a problem. Most worrying is his final message on my talk page - "I have had numerous past accounts on Misplaced Pages, which usually get shut down due to the ignorance of people like you not knowing what's best" - combined with his User page, stating that "If my userpage gets deleted AGAIN I will be extremely angry - and this time, you SHALL FEEL MY WRATH. ". Is this a problem? I don't profess to know much about indefblock polciies, and if they can create another account afterwards to evade the block? it doesn't look like he's learned his lesson, regardless. Here's to a quick reply, HawkerTyphoon 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well its a big issue, you can file for Checkuser but there is always the issue that while they had previousa ccounts they did not actually get indef blocked and simply left the account to avoid stigma, arguements, harrassment etc. You can file a check user WP:RFCU, however you need to present evidence that they did something wrong, not simly that they had past accounts. You also, I believe need to provide a name to check against, so if you do not know who you want to accuse of being his past account there is not much that can be done. The real issue is finding out if they actually got banned before or simpyl left the accounts. --NuclearZer0 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for info, I'll bear it in mind, but I don't think I'll take it any further. I was just intrigued as to the rules regarding this. Thanks for clearing it up, though! HawkerTyphoon 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never been indefinitely blocked, and that's fact. This HawkerTyphoon dude has a vendetta against me for some reason - read his comments on my talkpage yourself, he has breached numerous rules, only I'm not so petty as to report them. If you can find ANY instance of me breaching ANY of Misplaced Pages's rules, I should like to know. StalinsLoveChild 15:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked this editor indefinitely for trolling and harassment, which is just about all he's done since posting here. Have a look at this particularly fine edit in case you missed it: . Antandrus (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Usernameblockable too. ~crazytales56297 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This user has now asked to be unblocked, and I've been asked to explain my reasons for blocking. SLC is clearly a trolling account. Most of the mainspace edits are minor grammatical tweaks which change nothing, null edits (adding or removing a space), or vandalism/trolling (, or especially -- make sure you read all the way to the bottom). After establishing a mainspace presence, he proceeds to troll, and every single user talk edit is a nasty one indeed. After Hawker's apology -- he hadn't really done anything so bad -- SLC began the harassment campaign, targeting Hawker's own picture. Look at his last edit -- this is harassment, and has no value towards our goal, which is building an encyclopedia.

When we face users like this, we need to ask two questions: 1) is this person here to help us build an encyclopedia? 2) if not, is this person actively interfering with those of us who are? When the answers are no and yes, respectively, I helieve it is our duty as administrators to show these people the door, with as little drama as possible.

If no one else declines the unblock request, I'll go and do it myself, but I think it's better if someone other than the blocking admin does it. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:TTTTrrrrrrrrroooooooooolllllllllllllllll

I just came across TTTTrrrrrrrrroooooooooolllllllllllllllll (talk · contribs), a user who has joined wikipedia a few weeks ago, but hasn't yet made any edits afaict. Is this username allowed per WP:USERNAME or not? Aecis 00:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it spells troll, it falls under Names that give the impression that you intend to cause trouble, such as "Vandal", "Hacker", "Spammer", or "Troll". I believe it's not allowed. I'm reporting it to WP:AIV. Gotyear 00:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it was blocked quite a while ago: --physicq (c) 00:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Physicq210. My bad. I forgot to check the block log before reporting, which is always linked via User contributions. Fyi for anyone else who looks at this, it's under "User contributions" in big letters for every user. Talk, block log, and logs. Gotyear 00:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

John M. Walker, Jr.

Pursuant to WP:LIVING, I recommend careful monitoring of John M. Walker, Jr. Walker is a federal appeals judge in the United States (and distant relative of President Bush) who was recently involved in a traffic accident in which a pedestrian was killed. (For sound reasons I do not feel comfortable editing this article myself with respect to controversial matters.) Newyorkbrad 00:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I flagged it for attention and I'll try and keep an eye on it. -- Avi 01:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis socks to block

Please block JarlaxleArtemis (talk • e-mail • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) socks Grockenheimer (talk • e-mail • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Krimgrock (talk • e-mail • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). They've been posting spurious speedy deletion notices. See Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis for more info. —Psychonaut 01:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Naconkantari 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD G12 and {{copyvio}}

It appears Jimbo has done away the 48 hour and commercial purpose requirements of CSD A8 a.k.a. G12, and with it has virtually obviated {{copyvio}}. Am I understanding this correctly? I asked Jimbo to clarify. Should we modify the {{copyvio}} template to reflect the change? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We probably should modify {{copyvio}} to that effect and maybe start dephasing it slowly. However it could still be useful in less straight-forward cases of alleged copyvio. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We should retain it for that reason. There are cases of genunie confusion and uncertainty. And then, giving someone with the interest the time to look it over is useful. There's no need to deprecate {{copyvio}}, although it's use should naturally decline. -Splash - tk 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Zarbon evading 2 month 3RR block

User:Zarbon was recently blocked for 3RR (5th offense) on Dodoria. He has an exremeley out of control WP:OWN issue with Kiwi (Dragon Ball), Zarbon, and Dodoria (see his talk page and the page histories for examples). He is now evading his block with his IP adress, 72.227.129.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (See the IP's contribs for proof that it is his).--KojiDude 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --InShaneee 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I should create a new section or not, but he's also using Recoome and 149.68.168.154 to also avoid the block. The edit histories should be enough, but if they aren't, I can find more. Nemu 17:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

removing afd tags

I hope this is the right place for this. Anonymous user 208.104.149.167 removed an afd1 tag from Halloweentown: She's a Witch while debate was still open. I have informed this user that the action was unacceptable and restored the tag. Is there anything else I should do?Natalie 03:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not unless they do it again. pschemp | talk 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you can just drop a {{drmafd1}} tag on their talk page rather than coming up with something. Easier for you and more specific for them. Zetawoof 05:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks folks.Natalie 14:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Duke53 posting warnings without merit

I am not sure this is the correct page, please direct me if it is not. Duke53 has posted several warnings on my user talk page, but either lacks an understanding of policy or is attempting to intimidate me. I have reviewed his contributions and he seems to be using warnings as threats with others. It may be helpful if a 3rd party reviews and comments directly to him to achieve acceptable behavior. Thanks. Storm Rider 04:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Duke53 has been argumentative upon occasision. You can see one such discussion at Talk:Crystal_Gail_Mangum#Race.3F. I removed Duke53's last reamrk,, but most of the conversation is still there. He is also being somewhat uncivil at Talk:2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal#Background_of_the_Accuser and also making semi-off-topic posts. further down the same Talk page. Johntex\ 05:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I also found this warning given inappropriately for this edit. I think Duke just has a fundamental misunderstanding of vandalism, personal attack, or any other potential warning. He passes them out haphazardly and inappropriately. Storm Rider 07:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add a mention of the blatant incivility demonstrated in this thread. --Masamage 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Zisoc?

Zisoc (talk · contribs) has done almost nothing other than to add {{db-noimage}} to 1.3 zillion image files. Can he be mass-rolledback w/o doing so being called "disruption"? Even w/ image files one has uploaded oneself? Tomer 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've just done a mass rollback, even though some of them may have been rightful taggings. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that some small number of them might possibly on the remotest chance have been rightfully tagged with {{db-noimage}}...but the 6 I looked at, including the one I uploaded, clearly were not... Tomer 06:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What? The ones I looked at were properly tagged, for image files from commons that did have empty (blanked instead of deleted) image description pages here. Which one did you actually have a problem with? - Bobet 07:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh...one of us has got to be smoking too much crack...Image:Eiao map.jpg is the one that set me off... Tomer 07:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Am Í missing something? Why are you adding categories here for images that only exist on commons? Why won't you create an account at commons and categorize them there? If the description page only has a category, it's not useful. - Bobet 07:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, it's not "my" image, I simply used it. I don't know what you might be missing, or what, for that matter, I might be missing, but I've responded as best I can to the question I think you're asking, on your talk page. Cheers, Tomer 07:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, and on afterthought, I think I may finally understand what you're driving at with your characterization of categorizing an image as "not useful"...and I have to say, I fundamentally disagree with the assertion I think you're making. Categories are not designed to be useful to the editors of wikipedia, especially not to experienced editors...as useless as they are to the complete novice, categories are designed to be useful to readers untainted by the jaded stains of trollabused wikieditors. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any "feature" of wikipedia that's designed to alleviate the strain on editors--everything is done to relieve strain on the readers. Tomer 07:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The commons category that contains the image in question (among others), is linked from the equivalent wikipedia category. Creating a page that only contains a category for an image that's already in the same category in commons is redundant (in my opinion). - Bobet 08:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Lemme try to figure this out tomorrow when I get home from work. For now, I've gotta get some sleep. Just don't do anything drastic on me while I'm gone. :-p Cheers, Tomer 08:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

possible mass link spamming

User:Keytoart appears to be engaged in mass link spamming in art-related articles.

• Links contain the phrase "works_for_rent".
• Editor's user name is in the URL: "www.keytoart.org.ua".
• Editor inserted links at the top of a list of external links and added a boldface title.
• Editor added links that are not directly related to the subject of the article.
• Editor has been warned before and has twice removed a spam warning from his talk page.
• Editor does not leave an edit summary.

--Jtir 07:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, (s)he's been under the radar for a long time. Blocked indef, and I'll get the sites he kept linking to put on the spam blacklist. Thanks a ton. --Slowking Man 12:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! There have been two sites AFAICT. One, which is now blocked, and the earlier: http://users.iptelecom.net.ua/~keytoart/, which appears in Dmytro Horbachov. (It looks like all of users.iptelecom.net is being blocked and I am not sure that is what is wanted.) --Jtir 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I got www.keytoart.org.ua and users.iptelecom.net blacklisted. I can't imagine any article in which you'd need to link to the latter, but if such a situation ever comes up, the specific URL can be locally whitelisted. --Slowking Man 22:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I see what you mean — the latter is for user pages. I didn't think of that. Thanks. --Jtir 22:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyay Parivar

The article Swadhyay Parivar is abused constantly if some one adds the critical information about this information. There are some people and obviously anonymous users who always delete the information which is critical about this community. They want to post information which only talks nice of Swadhaya Parviar and Jayashree Talwalkar.

The critical information / the converters about this community highlighted in the article have citation and were greatly highlighted in Indian media and throughout the world by Gujarthi media. Can some one please block new users / unregistered users edit this article.

• User:89.240.152.14 is one such instance.

--IndianCow 07:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff

A sysop protected this a few hours ago and now has a "wikibreak" sign on their talk page. The article was protected with a high degree of pov-pushing by the supporters of Ignatieff who is right now in the middle of a political election campaign. There was no reason to protect it and to do so right after 1 side of the edit dispute had their way is a misuse of the "protection" option. Ottawaman 12:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am the sysop who protected the article, that wikibreak notice means I am not so active because of exams. I protected the The Wrong Version because I discovered there is a content dispute going on, with no knowledge of the election campaign. --WinHunter 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Stevensons88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Greetings, this user appears to have chosen a name to impersonate myself and is editing negatively in the same Islamic topics as myself. Given this user's knowledgeable editing this is an obvious sockpuppet. This editor has been vandalizing Islam related articles by adding spurious {{Unreferenced}} and {{Citecheck}} tags. The vandalism extends to blanking and heavy negative and uncivil POV editing (which admin User:FayssalF issued a warning for). To top off this user's short editing history they've been adding {{indefblockeduser}} to User:FayssalF, User:BhaiSaab, User:HighInBC and my own user related pages. A permanent solution relative to this user name would be most appreciated. Thanks. (→Netscott) 13:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just added this user to WP:AIV, I don't consider his antics any more special than regular vandalism and am treating it as such. As for the name, it is a very common last name, do any of his edits support the idea that he is trying to impersonate you? HighInBC 13:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for one week...and if he returns and continues along the same path, the block will be longer so don't hesitate to let me know how things transpire.--MONGO 13:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO, keep up the good work. HighInBC 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO for the prompt assistance. (→Netscott) 13:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate username

Hope this is the right place - User:Andministrator has an inappropriate username. Natalie 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'right places' according to process seems to be AIV if it's obvious or a username RFC (much lighter weight than most sorts of RFC!) if it isn't. I'm not sure, but I suspect AN/I will do just as well in practice. --ais523 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How to handle this situation - advice needed

I am under the impression that WP:V applies to all articles. When I come across a series of articles that have been on Misplaced Pages a long time and have no sources cited, I put the unsourced tag at the top under the belief that, in the long term, identifying and sourcing these articles is for the betterment of Misplaced Pages.

Today I was adding the Blues Foundation Hall of Fame Induction list for 1980 on the blues artists inducted. I noticed that all of them were unsourced so I added the unsourced tag and clearly noted the reason in the edit summary. Now someone has systematically removed the unsourced tag from each article under the edit summary of "cleanup" or something similar, but without adding any sources.

How do I handle situations like this? I contacted the editor in question and she says I have no business adding such tags. She considers my tagging driveby tagging and made assumptions about my knowledge of blues and intentions. She noted that I was not part of the Blues Project and have no right.

My question: Is this ethical behavior on her part? She not only removed the tags without asking me my intentions (i.e. was I contributing to articles about the blues -- which I have as well as writing them -- and also her removing the tags under misleading edit summaries.

Should I just ignore this and leave blues subjects alone (back away from such situations is the more frequent advice I get) or is it in Misplaced Pages's best interest that unsourced articles be tagged as such to inspire those interested to improve the articles? Thanks for any input! Mattisse(talk) 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Removing an unsourced tag without supplying a source is vandalism. Might I suggest a politely worded comment on the editor's Talk page, and ask why they did the edit they did? If they persist, list them as a vandal. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for answering. Mattisse(talk) 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem appears to be that you are conflating citing sources with a specific style of citation. You are tagging articles because they don't use <ref>, rather than because they don't cite sources. (Several of the articles that you tagged did cite sources.) {{unsourced}} is for where there are no actual (usable) citations, of any style. The tag that you are looking for is {{citation style}}. Before going overboard with that tag, note that citation style should match the breadth of applicability of the source to the article. This often leads to a mixed citation style. See Vince Foster#References, for example. Uncle G 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am going by a long standing discussion with User:TomTheHand.Please see recently User_talk:Mattisse#Uncited_template and User_talk:TomTheHand#So.2C_would_you_say_._._. This administrator has been very clear and consistent over time. Other than TomTheHand, I can not find a reliable source of guidance on this isuue. If you can point me in the direction of one, I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article in question cited 7 sources, all listed in Robert Johnson#References. The problem here is not that sources were not cited. They were. A citation, giving the author, publisher, title, and date of a book, is a full citation. It provides the conventional information necessary for a reader to locate the source, which is what citations are for.

    The problem that you are addressing is not lack of citations, but, rather, which part of the content is supported by which cited source. In the absence of <ref> or Harvard-style notations in the body of the text, there are no explicit links between content and citation. That doesn't mean that the article is unsourced, however. It merely means that the exact source to consult for any specific part of the article isn't being spoon-fed to the reader. In many cases, the article can be improved, by linking sources to specific article sections, or to specific paragraphs, using <ref> or Harvard-style notations. But, conversely, note that there are cases where sources can encompass wide swathes of, or even the whole, article, and the link between citation and content really is best left at the level of the article as a whole.

    Our Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy merely requires that sources be cited, somehow. The (minimum) author+publisher+title+date information for (say) a book source, enabling readers to locate the book, must be present, in some fashion. The exact cross-linking of content and citations is a matter of style, some differences of opinion, and (anyway) what the cross-connections are in each specific case. For more information see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. Uncle G 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Tonycdp wants to be indefblocked

We're not supposed to indefblock people who want to leave Misplaced Pages. But, this guy threatens that he'll get himself indefblocked by disrupting Misplaced Pages if I don't block him. Do we have a procedure for this kind of cases? --Dijxtra 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say block him indefinatly, and if he ever wants to come back, let him consider the consequences of being disruptive to get what he wants. --InShaneee 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him. It's quite sad to see a person requesting a block, but I think that at this point we are loosing too much time on this discussion because it is evident that he decided to be indefblocked. Of course, everybody's free to wear suns^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hunblock him, I don't want to have anything with this any more, if you think I shouldn't have done this, just unblock him. --Dijxtra 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We really need to advertise the WikiBreak Enforcer more. I just unblocked someone else who was blocked at their own request. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Street Scholar

I recently had a run-in with this user over the speedy deletion of some pages he'd worked on. I offered to restore two of them (without going through DRV), but his sexism and personal attacks quickly made the conversation turn. (See the conversation I removed here, as well as my comments (admittedly not the calmest I could have written) here.) Another user alerted me to the fact that he'd been warned for personal attacks in the past (which I had gleaned from his talk page), but I did not realize he had a similar incident report just a few weeks ago (see here). While this was amicably resolved, it seems that he did not learn from the incident. While a person's beliefs are his or her own business, attacking a person based on gender is a clear violation of WP:NPA, and requesting all womankind to respond to his attacks is using WP as a soapbox. I'm not sure if this should go to RfC, since the first attempt to resolve this was "successful". Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- Merope 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have encountered similar irreverence to wikipedia norms from this user before.I'm not sure how to link to this, but he made several uploads of images that were blatant copyvios (he put one in Mountain warfare here) which were speedily deleted. However, he had uploaded several such images from the same website that had a clear "All rights reserved" statement on it and, if an admin could assist me, then I can cite the records of the speedy deletions.This shows an irreverence for copyright rules on wikipedia. In addition, a mediated debate progresses on Cheema (see Talk:Cheema) where he continuously misrepresents sources and tries to push a POV without adequate WP:V. Most of the sources cited in the article are fabricated or misrepresented and, when confronted about this by a mediator here ignored the mediator completely and still continues with such tendentious editing (see mediator's assessment here). He has also made numerous veiled ethnic slurs on Talk:Cheema and further misrepresented the facts to try to bait users into argument here is an example. He remains unapologetic for these acts and continues on Talk:Cheema.Hkelkar 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not sure if this should go to RfC, since the first attempt to resolve this was "successful"."

To be honest, I considered it closed at that time for that reason (assuming of course you were referring to the incident on my talk page and elsewhere). However, this doesn't appear to be the case! If the previous incident had been resolved successfully, then surely the same problem wouldn't have arisen again. While this user does have many good and invaluable edits among his contributions, it's also evident that he has displayed/aired these very offensive views on wikipedia throughout the history of his membership and is unlikely to change them. I would say that a firm message needs to be sent - the question of course is what that message would entail, which is a question I cannot answer. The eeasy way has been tried already. --Crimsone 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

he persists with his remarks even after he got admonished . He does not seem to have reformed at all.Hkelkar 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of those attacks (and this edit), I've blocked him for 48h. I'll monitor his edits once the block expires. -- Merope 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This user is thoroughly unpleasant and seems to want to push his distasteful view of women on anyone nearby. It doesn't help that he's insulting and demeaning to those who disagree with him. My own peace of mind (and civility of comments) has slid downward such that I doubt I can interact with him civilly, and that's even without having the gender his bile targets. Misplaced Pages doesn't need behaviour like this, and he's expressed that it is his God-given duty (literally, as he's excused his words on religious grounds) to not keep it to himself. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

38.119.52.98 (talk · contribs)

Please be careful about blocking 38.119.52.98 (talk · contribs), this is a school IP - and if there's vandalism, please leave a message on my talkpage. Any blocks will cause collateral to me. --Pajnax 18:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all - for several months we've been able to block anonymous users only. --Sam Blanning 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Internet for Learning: Vandalism traced to schools

I am an employee of Internet for Learning, and I have just spent hours trawling the firewall logs to see which schools are responsible for the vandalism on this site.

The schools include:

• Formby High School (www.formbyhigh.org)
• Ainsdale High School (www.ainsdalehope.co.uk)
• Greenbank High School, Southport, Lancashire (http://www.greenbank.sefton.sch.uk/)
• Marling School, Bath, Somerset
• Estover Community College

along with 2 other schools in the West Midlands, and 2 in the East Midlands.

The vandalism seems to emanate from the 3 5 educational facilities mentioned above; I will post back any more information when I can find it.

Apparently students seem to have used the IFL grid to access pornographic material ('Nuts' magazine) and Misplaced Pages; these two sites appear most frequently in our firewall logs.

I would like to apologise for the behaviour of the students and I assure you, there will be an investigation into this (however, due to confidentiality, I cannot discuss the ongoing investigation any further). --Neil McCarthy (Internet for Learning) 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, school IPs usually do commit a lot of vandalism. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

AN:I troll? Anyone? --InShaneee 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

refer to WP:AGF... ~crazytales56297 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is genuine, I have checked the logs, and they trace to user logins on terminals at these 5 schools:

• Formby High School (www.formbyhigh.org)
• Ainsdale High School (www.ainsdalehope.co.uk)
• Greenbank High School, Southport, Lancashire (http://www.greenbank.sefton.sch.uk/)
• Marling School, Bath, Somerset
• Estover Community College

Contact the relevant schools if you wish to discuss IP blocks - thanks. --Neil McCarthy (Internet for Learning) 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But we can't do much because you haven't provided the school's IP addresses. We block and warn the IPs, we usually don't send emails to the districts' headquarters. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where we're being asked to do anything. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it as that he wants us to take action on the issue. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

These are the relevant IPs:

• 62.171.194.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 3 times - used by Formby High School library (http://www.formbyhigh.org)
• 62.171.194.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 16 times - used by Greenbank High School (http://www.greenbank.sefton.sch.uk/)
• 62.171.194.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 13 times - used in Formby High School library
• 62.171.194.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 10 times
• 62.171.194.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 6 times

What I am saying is, contact any of the 5 schools mentioned above to discuss blocking issues and repeat vandalism from students. That is the only way forward.

I have checked the firewall logs, and they trace back to the 5 schools above. --Neil McCarthy (Internet for Learning) 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also be careful about blocking 38.119.52.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - see the IP's talk page for details. --Neil McCarthy (Internet for Learning) 11:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks & incivility on WP as well as offwiki meatpuppet recruitment

Will314159 has taken a consistently incivil position towards myself and other users. He has increasingly engaged in this derogatory attitude, including personal attacks. I also recently discovered that he had written similar statements online (outside Misplaced Pages), including requests for meatpuppets on the specific article that we both often edit. I suggest that he be blocked for 1-4 weeks in order that he might have a better appreciation for acceptable behaviour, though I ultimately leave that up to the relevant administrators' prerogative. Tewfik 20:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Online:

• "you should try your hand at editing the Misplaced Pages article http://en.wikipedia.org/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict there's an Israeli there user:Tewfik that's made 1,000 edits to the article and "owns" the article. He pushes his POV there unmercifully."
• "There's an editor there called Tewfik, an Israeli, who owns the site, who has made over a 1,000 edits. He has been deleting my edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict" "I guess this is an invitation for neutral military types to get involved in these Misplaced Pages history and military conflict articles and bring some balance to them."
• "The illustrious Tewfik of the 1,000 edits deleted it..." "Warning, this is a solicitation for more people to become involved as Misplaced Pages editors. see http://en.wikipedia.org/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict"

General incivility, personal attacks, and assumption of bad-faith:

• "why do you hate the Palestinians so much? It is a full time cottage industry for you. Going around WP burning them"
• "It's a very elementary point but you don't get it. I feel for you"
• "ISArIG, Isarig always always wikilawyering"
• "ISARIG lives to abuse 3RR..."
• "Will the man of a thousand edits (Tewfik) allow it? I sincerely doubt it. Maybe he will surprise us?"
• (edit summary) "Isarig don't be boorish..."
• "...your invidious POV not surprising Tewfik, the man of the thousand edits, and the owner of the July War article. For now, WP is your POV's playpen..."
• "...whether the 10-12 editors that give Misplaced Pages its Likudnik slant continue to rule."

Although off-wiki actions aren;t technically punishable, this user invited further disruption of Misplaced Pages in addition to the disruption he himself has already caused here. Everything taken togehter, I have decided that a block of 10 days is appropriate. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think any off-wiki action that cases on-wiki disruption is can result in a block to help protect the wiki further. But blocks are never punishment anyway... ---J.S (t|c) 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Link spammer

User:Hrist is persistently spamming and has ignored warnings. Is this the correct place to report the issue? Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism doesn't appear to include linkspam. —Celithemis 23:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Grandmasterka . --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:SafeLibraries.org's inappropriate username (again)

For months, User:SafeLibraries.org has been using his username for the purpose of linkspam, as explained at . After several months of promising to change his username, he was recently blocked, but was then unblocked to request that his username be changed. However, the request he posted on Misplaced Pages:Changing username was rejected because the new username he requested was also inappropriate. After being unblocked, User:SafeLibraries.org has continued to edit articles, thereby adding further linkspamming to their edit histories. Since this user has persistently refused to allow his username to be changed, I submit that his linkspamming needs to be stopped. John254 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Just block him until his username is actually changed. An admin can post the change name request to Misplaced Pages:Changing username on his behalf. --Cyde Weys 01:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He can't block him, Cyde; he's not an admin. (I would, but I'm not going to be around for a few days, so won't be able to follow up.) —Cryptic 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez people. I just blocked him. Grandmasterka 02:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding something in these speedy delete images?

Image:CloudOpticalThickness.jpg, Image:Cincinnati-procter-and-gamble-headquarters.jpg and Image:Cord Front Drive Model 812 (1937).jpg are a few of a bunch requested for CSD because "This is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image" but they appear to be the images from commons, not just a duplicate. Am I misunderstanding something, or is the template incorrect? Gotyear 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are ;). See the vs. , and notice the odd question in the image description on the Misplaced Pages one. That's the bit that needs speedy deletion. 24.76.102.248 01:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history you will see it is a new user either being ignorant or malicious. I am trying to determine which. And 24, that is not enough to qualify it for speedy deletion. HighInBC 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, look at this, I don't have time to fix this right now, but he needs a swift block in the pants. HighInBC 01:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The template is incorrect, he is a vandal, feal free to revert any or preferably all of his edits to images where he puts incorrect templates. The vast majority of his edits are vandalism if not all, so mabye an admin could fix it faster. HighInBC 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all his edits are vandalism. I sampled one lower down, and it does indeed have no license info, as the template he added indicates. Since I created none of those images, and I'm now pretty sure the templates with that reasoning and a "from Commons" description are incorrect, I'll remove a few, but he has 130 edits. If a majority of them are bad, I'll need help. If an admin can rollback, that'd be great. Gotyear 01:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

At least one of the images user tagged did not have an empty description page. Many of the blank ones have history that may be worth saving. The template was edited October 14; is this not in accord with I2 or should this be reverted too? Gimmetrow 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of these images were uploaded by the User:Aka - is a connection possible? Gimmetrow 02:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

With a lot of help from Grandmasterka, I believe all of the commons images are now off CSD. The rest have "no source/copyright info, delete in x days" tags, which I didn't scrutinize but generally look correct. Gotyear 07:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, how is tagging empty image description pages for commons images with the correct template vandalism? I thought we already went through this a day ago. - Bobet 19:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So deleting those pages will not affect the pages that link to those images? If so, then I admit I'm completely in the wrong, which is why I waited for more opinions on AN/I before proceeding. I and others who responded were concerned the images might be CSD'd incorrectly and lost.

Considering this incident and another you mention, the template should have a bold note so it's crystal clear slapping it on images with "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." is exactly what's supposed to happen.

While it's clear to you, it's not clear to the people who responded here, all in good faith. I had no knowledge of the previous incident and noticed this one when I browsed some images in CSD.

I apologize for my actions.

I'd be willing to revert the edits, though I'd be doing them manually. Is there someone who can revert all of ours in just a few keypresses? If not, I'll do my part. Gotyear 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the description page here won't affect the image in commons, or the description page there in any way. If you want to delete the actual image from commons, you'd need to log in to commons and be an admin there. Sometimes the description pages that are on wikipedia for commons images aren't useless, such as translations for longer pieces of text in the image description, but in these cases they were empty, and as such added nothing to the descriptions themselves. That's why the template says "or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image". - Bobet 05:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying your reply on my talk page because it imparts useful info that your AN/I reply doesn't have, and I'm replying on AN/I so that a few more people might see it, even though it is Grand Central Station. Gotyear 09:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, don't worry about it, I'll probably fix (ie. delete) them eventually. And there's really no fault in what you did, you just happened to get unlucky by having people who weren't familiar with the subject answering at WP:ANI. As an example, I deleted the image page I linked above. As you can see, it's still a bluelink, but if you click on it, you'll see that it doesn't exist on wikipedia anymore (the "image" tab at the upper left corner is red). This is how it should be for the commons images. - Bobet 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not a big issue and that you understand. I see the image is still there and that the Image tab is red, and "empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image" makes sense now.

See, I thought that "empty image description page" means that there'd be no image to view, just a description, especially given the other two: a missing or corrupt image. I wasn't sure if deleting the file "here" would delete it from commons or not, but I thought there'd be many missing images on the pages in "File links". Yes, some of the images had no WP pages linking to them, but in my mind there was a chance they'd be deleted from commons as well.

The other possibility was exactly what you just explained to me, that deleting these pages are fine. (How'd they come to exist on WP, since none of them had English translation descriptions?)

The wording is unclear since we all believed the incorrect option or were at least very unsure, and this is the second such incident. I suggest adding IMPORTANT: This will NOT delete the image from Commons, and if you see the image fine above, you will STILL BE ABLE TO SEE this image on any page it's linked to, at this exact address and with this description. In other words, Don't Panic!

I'm serious. It should be crystal clear that a good faith user seeing this 1. Shouldn't panic and 2. Why s/he shouldn't panic. I'd be bold, but Template talk:Db-noimage says Be timid. Or to be precise, "Please read Template talk:Db-reason before editing." That link gives me no help to understanding what I might screw up if I edit this template. Gotyear 09:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Harassment on my User Page

Some months ago, I was forced to ban someone from the portion of the message board website, , that I moderate for violating that site's rules governing civil behavior. This person responded by going on what another moderator described today as "a rampage", making countless off-topic posts on other boards to attack me or otherwise complain about his ban, and eventually attack the other visitors to the site as well, even after he was repeatedly informed that that site's owner had reviewed the issue and upheld his partial ban, and that he was to cease making off-topic posts to reignite that issue. His repeated refusal to do so, and insistence that he was a victim fighting for justice incurred the ire of just about every other moderator and visitor to the site in the process. He even attempted to get our server/host to shut down the site, and even followed me here to Misplaced Pages, where he created a single-use identity, Rwetruck, for the sole purpose of participating in an AfD to get an article deleted simply because I had created it, and lash out at nitcentral. Just today, another moderator banned Rwetruck from the site's "Kitchen Sink" (the area where visitors can discuss administrative issues pertaining to the site), for repeatedly ignoring his past warnings to cease this behavior, and informed me via email that Rwetruck flooded his email to excoriate me.

Now, Rwetruck is harassing me on my User Page, having made three posts just today, asking me to contact him, and demanding an "apology", and is even addressing me using my real first and last name, despite the fact that he knows I do not use my real name on this site. I would appreciate suggestions. Thanks. Nightscream 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits deleted, editor warned, hopefully dealt with. —Cryptic 03:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This guy is back

This guy was suspended for vandalism - and he's back at it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Rudolf_Steiner&diff=83333574&oldid=83331644

User:Shotwell abusing Misplaced Pages procedures

Shotwell has accused several editors of all being sockpuppets in retaliation for a question being raised about his relationship with another editor, both of whom are involved in various disputes on the following articles: Advocates for Children in Therapy, Candace Newmaker, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, and Bowlby (User:Sarner was blocked for a brief period of time for similiar conduct on the Bowlby article). In addition, Shotwell has been engaged in a series of edit wars and revert wars and other uncivil actions that are not consistent with building consensus or reducing disputes. There is a mediator involved, but the mediator is new and seems over his head; he's not taken any action or made any recommendations and the issue is beyond the one page he "signed on" for. DPeterson 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Asad Aleem at it again?

• A few months back, Asadaleem12@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a heckuva lot of hoax articles, as well as vandalizing established articles with fallacious information about his imaginary fame. Since then he has quieted down a bit, but recently, he has edited his user page and the user page of suspected sockpuppet Bret John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to appear like legitimate Misplaced Pages articles. Another user that claims relation, Calvin John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared, claiming to be "Bret"'s father. He also claims to be dead, which would make it difficult to edit Misplaced Pages. While all this stuff is confined to the userspace (and hence not really disrupting Misplaced Pages), it makes me a bit nervous. Danny Lilithborne 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

SPUI

It seems SPUI has been trolling with the edit summaries of SQUIDWARD! for the past few days now. Any comments on how to deal with this? semper fi — Moe 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked for this disruption before following a report on an arbitration report page. He is obviously ignoring that, he needs another block.--Konst.able 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You what? For inappropriate edit summaries to six edits in the last ten or so days? Erm... Thanks/wangi 05:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone asked SPUI nicely to not do that? It's not like he's really disrupting anything, just being mildly silly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes he has been asked not to do it a week ago by Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), he has ignored this. He is also on ArbCom parole for disruption on Highway-related article.s--Konst.able 05:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would give him a more mild block next time he does it then. Obviously 15 minute blocks don't cut it and, when warned, he ignores it, so maybe a 24 hour block he continues? semper fi — Moe 05:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I just had a 24 hour block on him shortly after reading this, but I've shorterned it to 8 hours. I don't think this will affect him too much, he doesn't seem to edit too frequently, but could work as another warning.--Konst.able 05:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Most certianly agree with the short block. Since he's not frequently editing at this point, there stands a reason to give this block for this blatent disruption.. OK.. maybe his edits weren't all that too bad, but edit summaries copying a well known vandal isn't exactly what I would call helping. semper fi — Moe 05:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hes SPUI. Hes a little silly, but really, hes a freakin genius. --CableModem 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He obviously does not care. Any thoughts?--Konst.able 06:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, he has 110 entries in his block log. Short blocks are perhaps business as usual. I don't know.... is it worth trying to force someone to not use silly edit summaries for otherwise semi-productive edits? --Interiot 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that, whatever positive edits SPUI is contributing, it's more than offset by his unacceptable behavior and he should be blocked indefinitely. Unfortunately, others don't agree and will simply unblock him no matter how unacceptable the behavior is, and he will resort to sockpuppetry (with impunity) if blocked, anyway. --Nlu (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Or, hell, maybe we ALL should start taking breaks to vandalize and disrupt every so often, if it's going to start becoming an acceptable practice. --InShaneee 13:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalize? As I understand it the complaint here is solely about edit summaries? How is that vandalism? If he used no edit summaries AT ALL would we be blocking for that? It isn't the preference, but hasn't normally been a blockable offense. Is "SQUIDWARD" so much worse than nothing that we must warn and then block for it? What exactly is it harming other than his own credibility? To me this seems like looking for excuses to inflate a trivial issue into an actual problem. Leave it alone unless he does something which would actually require a block to prevent damage to the encyclopedia... not because he is using silly edit summaries while improving the encyclopedia. --CBD 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sillyness is harmless fun. As soon as someone starts debating whether or not it's harmless fun, it's not sillyness, it's disruptive. Stop it or be blocked. That's how I feel. --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you CBD. But, look at this diff This is hardly what I think of when I think 'harmless' or 'silly'. To me, removing cleanup tags, blanking an article and adding the edit summary SQUIDWARD are not the kinds of things I expect out of an editor to behave. I wouldn't mind one or two of those silly edit summaries if he actually had a point to add the summary, but copying the vandal's edit summaries repeatedly after an extended period of time and after two blocks, whats there left to assume good faith with? semper fi — Moe 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

With this many blocks he should be thankful that the ArbCom put him on probation and did not ban him for a couple of months. Instead he continues to make intentionally disruptive edits. If you look carefully, he was not just removing the tag once earlier, he was revert warring over it with that edit summary! (See , , ) This is almost vandalism. I see no reason to let him get away with it, especially while on probation.--Konst.able 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But the stuff being removed is a bunch of unsourced original research... Disrupting attempts to re-add drivel of this sort seems morally ambiguous perhaps, but not disruptive to Misplaced Pages itself. The edits you cite are improving the article, in spite of the trolling done with the edit summary. Mike Dillon 00:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries are meant to explain your edit to help others understand. Edits removing large ammounts of content (wether it belongs or not) with the edit summary "SQUIDWARD!!" will be seen as trolling. When he begins edit warring, not explaining his edit at all, it is disruptive. An indef sounds perfectly logical to me.--KojiDude 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, Mike. The article is unsourced nonsense and perhaps JesseW summed it up best . This was discussed at length in #wikipedia IRC. I looked at the article and suggested it should be either deleted or the scarce useful content merged to Turnpike. At worst, SPUI is guilty of proving a WP:POINT, that some people will look for any excuse to block him. — CharlotteWebb 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the specific situation in the diffs above I agree (with Moe) that this is more than just a useless edit summary... those were extensive changes which could lead to confusion as to whether they were valid or not. The usual situation then is to communicate about the reasoning... I checked Talk:Shunpiking, User talk:SPUI, and the edit summaries in the history of that page, but it doesn't look like anyone even asked SPUI for an explanation. Others have since provided seemingly valid reasons for SPUI's changes here. Yes, meaningful edit summaries might have explained the changes up front and thus avoided the need for additional communication... which is why we strongly suggest that people use them. However, again... we have not to date blocked people for failing to provide that 'up front' explanation so long as they do explain when asked directly. SPUI seems to be 'acting out' in a less than helpful way... presumably because of the browbeating with which the road poll was pushed through (which, it should be noted, I supported, though reluctantly, given the wider disruption resulting from not settling on some standard). However, jumping to block isn't going to make that better. If he does something which seems strange without explaining it we should be able to muster the civility to at least ask WHY and only block if he doesn't explain it. Basically, the situation here is that we'd rather block than expend the effort to ask for an explanation. If SPUI were an actual 'vandal' who was unlikely to have a valid reason I could see that, but given that everyone (I think) agrees that SPUI is trying to improve the encyclopedia (as he sees it) why make a small problem into a bigger one? We should block people when we find we have to, not when we think we can. If SPUI wouldn't provide explanations for disputed edits then we'd have to block him... but if we don't even ask for explanations it doesn't seem like we're even trying to resolve things - just going straight to blocks whenever we think there is some reason that we can. --CBD 12:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Calton harrasing me and unnecesary tags on Alex Machacek

A User:Calton has been unnecessarily harrasing me by posting person attacks on my talk page and tagging the article I created. I created the article Alex Machacek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), then out of nowhere came User:Calton and tagged the article as advert here. He mentioned in the summary the word - "Jawdropping". I removed the word and removed the tag. Then I informed him about me removing the tag. He retorted with this on my talk page - Personal Attack 1. He said "Repack that attitude, son, it's not going to get you far." He mentioned two more specific POVs, one which I promptly changed and the other wasn't a POV, for which I included a citation. I again told him that I'd removed the tags and rectified the matter. Again he comes and put the tags - this time he puts NPOV tag. He posts on my talk page another personal attck. He says "It's said often to me, kiddo, by trolls, the dishonest, the incompetent, and the fanatical." I add more references and remove the tags. He again comes and tags the article here. He then attacks me again - Third personal attack. He writes "What IS your major malfunction?". I ask him twice, to mention the specific instances of POV, so I can remove/rectify them, but he doesn't reply.

These seem to be done in a totally bad faith. The User:Calton is not interested in removing POV or doing any good. It seems he wants to put the tags just for the sake of putting 'em and harrassing others.

--NRS | /_M\ 05:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article read neutral to me, so I've removed the NPOV tag. I've left the cleanup tag, and, while it may be a little superfluous, it's not harming the article, and may attract more attention to improve it. Hopefully this resolves things, and I'd encourage discussion on Talk:Alex Machacek on further ways to improve the article -- Samir धर्म 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks like a perfectly good musician article to me, I don't see what the big deal is. Grandmasterka 05:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, so bald -- and unsourced -- statements of "jawdropping" debuts and "extraordinary chops" in the first graf is standard for musician articles. Fanboys, take note. Meanwhile, I need to go make a few changes of my own in a few articles.

• Then I informed him... "Informed"? I quote from the message: "...Don't sabotage other's hard work. By the way, Alex Machacek is a leading fusion guitarist and he is in no way related to me. Where does the idea of advert comes in ? I am removing the tag. If you have any issues, please tell me first. Don't tag articles just like that."

Between the bad-faith attitude, his own initial personal attacks, complete misunderstanding about the purpose of tags, his peculiar projection regarding motivation (it never occurred to me that he was related UNTIL NOW), and ownership issues, he's got nothing to complain about. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Before saying things like these and attacking other users as fanboys etc., the user must first take a look at my contribs. I am registered since last year. This is nothing but undue harrasment of other users. By the way, the idea of relation came after you tagged the article as advert. An advertisement would be done only by those people who are related to the subject or the subject themselves. And that's why I said that. I reiterate again, rectify your attitude, instead of treating everyone as trolls, wannabes, etc. (in your own words). --NRS | /_M\ 07:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of harassment have no place here, either, so don't even ask him to "rectify attitude" when clearly you're also being uncivil. – Chacor 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have any problem. I won't contribute the article from now on if that's what you people want. Thanks. --NRS | /_M\ 07:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Don't sabotage other's hard work" isn't a personal attack. It's reactionary, but that isn't the same thing. Also, NRS, there's no reason to stop contributing. No one asked you to; the first response to your report was positive, then you got a negative response from the person the report was about (which is normal), and then a statement was made about the nature of the discussion. There's a dispute here, but you're not in trouble. Just ride it out. --Masamage 07:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I am sorry to have said that. Misplaced Pages is very close to me now. I will certainly contribute. I know these things happen. Thanks, everyone. --NRS | /_M\ 09:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Don't sabotage other's hard work" isn't a personal attack. It's reactionary, but that isn't the same thing. Utter crap. Tell me, did you pick up your nuclear-powered hair-splitter at Home Depot or WalMart? --Calton | Talk 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Irony abounds. --Masamage 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User Page Harrassment, Uncivil Behaviour, Excessive Reverting and More

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

I've never seen anything like this, or at least been harrassed on here like this. The user above (and other IPs all beginning with 63.17) has posted psuedo vandalism-warnings on my talk page, reverted legitimate edits from other contributors on the Designer Whey Protein article in an edit war with myself and two other users (most notably David D.). This user was improperly using tags on the Biological Value article, which is fine, however he reverted attempts at fixing these sections using proper templates and the posted "vandalism" and "admin" notices on my talk page after reverting perfectly legitimate edits back after I'd fixed them. Finally this user is attempting to draw admin Glen S into this by claiming that Glen knows about him, and by referencing/baiting him in his edit summaries. Then the user left the following edit on another editors talk page regarding this issue - suggesting that I may be sockpuppeteering the entire thing. . The last instance of the users beligerant behaviour here on my talk page and in edit summaries here: where he's trolling.

Sorry this is such an unusual request. I'm attempting to keep a cool head, however my patience is limited. I've asked the user to stop, however providing boiler plate warnign is useless because of the mulitple IP addresses that are being used. And as you can see, from the last edit to my talk page, this user is not interested in doing anything other than what they want. Thanks in advance for any help. Yankees76 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Update - the baiting continues today - from yet a third IP, though it's clearly the same user. See edit summary . Yankees76 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:WickedHorse

This new user seems to be "wiki stalking" me. Their first edit to the Volkstaat article (16:06, 15 October 2006, ) was merely to move a section I worked on to the bottom of the article and this directly following a difference of opinion (diff: ) the preceding days on Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup#Readiness for the tournament section. I tried to discuss it, but the user now also edited another unrelated article (Valkiri) – that I created – diff . Deon Steyn 06:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

DaffyDuck619

DaffyDuck619 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been an issue for a few months now. He has generally been edit warring at Films considered the greatest ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and John Cena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the latter of which he has a Mediation case involvement. Here are just a few examples from the last few hours at John Cena about how these things generally occur:

1. 02:04, October 24, 2006
2. 02:17, October 24, 2006
3. 02:23, October 24, 2006 "See talk page"
4. 02:26, October 24, 2006 "Revered edits back, see talk page"
5. 02:30, October 24, 2006 "Somebody must be a sockpuppet of lil crazy thing"

While this was up at AIV, Yamaguchi stated:

Endorse block of the person above, perhaps a community ban is in order, but that should be discussed somewhere else. Yamaguchi先生 07:26, 24 October 2006

Certainly, something must be done about this editor. Golbez had indefblocked him, pending that he come back and discuss things on his user talk (which he has), but he has just begun to repeat the same edits, the same disruption, and other such nonsense. Right now, he is sitting out a 48h 3RR block. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:1QUIner

Can someone please investigate 1QUIner (talk · contribs), he's making some strange edits to talk pages. --SimonTheFox 11:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just reverted all those. But the history of his userpage is fascinating. In his very first edit he suspects himself of being a Sock of JzG. He later changes the name of who he is supposed to be a sock of. Definetly a vandal only account. Agathoclea 11:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And already blocked. Agathoclea 11:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with copyvio policy dispute

I have been engaged in a lengthy correspondence with User:PM Poon. The history is as follows:

• User posts three copyvio articles.
• I mark them as copyvios.
• They write back, unhappy about this. I explain why I did this, and explain why it is sometimes difficult to AGF in the case of multiple copyings, and express my relief that they are a good-faith editor.
• User apologises, rewrites two of them, I rewrite the other.
• I write back to them, thanking them for their good edits, and all is right with the world.
• Some time later, the user returns to my talk page, arguing the toss about whether their edits were a copyvio in the first place, and demanding that I show them how their text resembles the original text
• I show them, in a long and careful (and partially computer-aided) analysis of their text. (Summary: over 90% is either literally copied, with slight puntcuation changes, or lightly paraphrased from the original source)
• They take this as a personal affront, and advance a number of impassioned arguments about why they are right and I am wrong, wrong, wrong. (The correspondence is no longer of my talk page, but can be found here: )
• When asked for a second opinion, I invited them to take up my deletion of their content on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, but they have not done so.
• They complain about the "ABUSE OF ADMIN POWER". They complain about my "HALF-BAKED IDEAS ABOUT WHAT COPYRIGHT IS ALL ABOUT". They invite me to "Ask God whether you have indeed been honest to yourself, and had weighed the evidence fairly and squarely?" They claim to have "consulted my ex-company's lawyer" who has apparently told them that they are in the right.
• So far, so normal.

However, they are now advancing a new and potentially dangerous argument, in which they justify their literal copying under the principle that, since they are only copying a small part of the original work (for example, "only" a few paragraphs from a longer work), and are not doing it for profit, this qualifies as fair use. They are clearly convinced that they are in the right, and seem intent on continuing with their behavior.

At this point, I feel that rational argument has failed. They clearly feel that they are now legally entitled to copy as much stuff as they like into Misplaced Pages, regardless of what anyone else says, and consider my attempts to stop them from doing this as persecution. They feel that they have the law, their friend the lawyer, God, right and truth on their side. And they won't be told otherwise.

At this point, I seriously considered just blocking them as a serial copyvio artiste, and being done with it. However, that edit was carried out before our lengthy discussion, and the user has not made any further copyvios since the discussion started. Indeed, they haven't done anything else other than carry on this lengthy discussion, in spite of my repeated attempts to bring it to a close.

However, if they are allowed to carry on with this, WP:COPYRIGHT enforcement will become impossible, since they no longer regard the copying of whole sentences, or even paragraphs, from elsewhere as being evidence of potential copyright problems. Short of blocking, the only course of action I can see would be watch their every edit like a hawk from now on, and to clean up after them, forever. I don't have the time to do this, and nor, I believe, does anyone else.

At this point, I feel that their announcement of their intention to start ignoring the copyright policy has become, in effect, an announcement of an intention to disrupt Misplaced Pages. However, I am reluctant to simply LART-and-go, since I don't want them to have any justification for them regarding this as a personal campaign against them on my part.

I feel that I have exhausted every possible avenue with this user, short of blocking them. I'd like to believe that I've done so whilst remaining civil, and assuming good faith as far as possible. I would appreciate it if other people (preferably several other people) could take a look at this, just to be sure that this matter has been properly dealt with. -- The Anome 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If he makes one more post which implies that he will continue violating copyright, whether on talk or posting copyvio, then he should be indef blocked, immediately, and told that until he promises to respect copyright policy he will not be unblocked. I'll do it myself if I happen to be around when that happens. We don't play games when it comes to copyright. --Sam Blanning 12:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Aaargh. After taking a second look, the fourth and last copyvio previously mentioned above, in Internews Pakistan, wasn't theirs: it was introduced in an earlier edit. I've removed that from the comments above: the remaining three are still valid, as admitted by the user in their earlier comments. I'm also going to remove my text concerning it from their talk page, since they do not appear to have read it yet, and the last thing I want to do is to mistakenly accuse them of anything extra that they didn't actually do. However, the rest of my comments stand. -- The Anome 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm myself not quite sure about this aspect of copyright law - does it make sense to distinguish between "copyright violation" (a legal concept) and "plagiarism" (a concept of academic ethics)? In the case above, it seems quite clear that, even if the guy should be right and it's not the one, it's the other. Does plagiarism automatically fall under copyright terms according to US law? And if not, should Misplaced Pages add to its policies that plagiarism is just as unacceptable even if it should escape the legal definitions of "copyright"? Just a thought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Travb

This user has previously conspired against me off wiki by attempting to get in touch with users I have had disputes with . They are currently editing under two names Travb and RWV. They have begun an edit war on the article Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and so far have not stated why they are reverting. They originally said to see talk page, however they cited a straw poll as reason why a section without sources should be kept. As I pointed out to them and want to make clear here, the sections have sources stating they happened, however they do not have sources stating accusations of terrorism carried uot by the US, per the article title. It was decided long ago that section would have to meet this criteria, containing sources that actually allege terrorism, however Travb has initiated an edit war without providing these sources. I making this note here because I want it on record that I attempted to discuss on the talk page with him, and he has instead reverted without even adding the sources, or continuing the talk page discussion of it needing sources that accuse the US of terrorism. --NuclearZer0 12:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The user has now attempted to intimidate me instead of discussing by mentioning my previous arbcom ruling, which User:Thatcher131 previously warned him of doing, stating Arbcom rulings are not act as scarlet letters. --NuclearZer0 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This user has a long history of using Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard against other users, this is the third time he has reported me here on this same article, it would save a lot of people's time if he simply read the above:

This is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. If you came here to complain about the actions of a user or administrator, or if your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.

Now that he has brought his complaints to the attention of ANI, I feel I must respond.

It appears like Nuclear/Zer0 is violating Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults, which if this edit war continues, I will have to report him to the arbitrators.

There was a strawpoll which was mediated by a third party, User talk:Wikizach in which the consensus, decided by the mediator was to keep, these sections Nuclear/Zer0 is now deleting.

I am editing different articles under the name RWV and Travb, which is permitted under Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry, I made no secret about this change either, and was very open about the change (unlike this user). I started editing under a different account for several reasons, but one of the reasons was because of Nuclear/Zer0 harrasment, including deleting my newly created articles, which User:Sean Black called "trolling". Travb (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask, Zer0faults, although it is clear that there is no question of you trying to hide the fact, why do you use the "User:NuclearUmpf" sockpuppet? Its a little confusing. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My attempts to hide it by linking my other profile in my name or by linking it on my userpage for NuclearUmpf? Or by it being included in my arbcom decision? Please stop your wikidrama. --NuclearZer0 15:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I specifically noted you weren't trying to hide it, yet it is still confusing that you, Zer0faults, use a sockpupped called NuclearUmpf. I was politely asking why? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Its noted above in my initial complaint, Travb attempting to ally people I disagree with via off wiki means, its been discussed already with an admin, and he has been warned about it. Please read the my first paragraph again if you do not understand. --NuclearZer0 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. I again ask an admin to look into the situation with Travb please. --NuclearZer0 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a valid question. --InShaneee 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

, that covers the issue. Or you could ask Thatcher131. Again I ask for an admins intervention in this user threatening me with arbcom etc. --NuclearZer0 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Zerofaults adopted a new name to get a new start, offering on his talk page to tell admins privately his new user name. When he was called on it by Travb, and informed of his error by one of the arbitrators, he changed his sig and has been open about it since. That aspect of the case is a closed book in my opinion. Regarding his current allegations, I have previously said that arbitration provides remedies for disruptive behavior but is not a scarlet letter. The arbitration enforcement page specifically warns users against baiting editors who are under arbitration restriction. (For precedent see one of the Deathrocker cases, where Deathrocker was blocked for edit warring but so was the user who was baiting him.) Unfortunately I am at work and can not analyze the specifics right now. If any other admin can examine the facts (is NuclearUmpf editing disruptively and is he being baited) a third party review would be appreciated. I will return to this probably after work. Thatcher131 16:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazingly, while I went and had what passes for a life around here for a few hours, the problem took care of itself, largely through the actions of a third editor who provided sources for a disputed section. Amazing how things work out when you follow policies. Thatcher131 03:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about importance

An article Indian rock cut architecture, having inline citations from five different sources on the web, has been tagged unimportant for the following reason:

This looks like original research based on web-only sources. Aren't there any books or academic journals on the subject? If not, how is this important? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a valid reason for tagging an article as unimportant? Mattisse(talk) 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this shows signs of actions specifically directed at one user. User:Ekajati and User:Hanuman Das seem to be following User:Mattisse around, tagging articles User:Mattisse has worked on, reverting tags which M has added, and generally trying to stir up problems (see User talk:Aguerriero). This is linked to past tagging by M on articles HD worked on and lots of sockpuppet acusations. It seems to me they are on the wrong side WP:POINT and WP:AGF. --Salix alba (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got that backwards. It has been Mattisse stalking first Rosencomet, then 999, then Hanuman Das and to some extent myself. She used sockpuppets to stalk Rosencomet and 999, and is probably using Timmy12 now to continue to stalk Rosencomet. How long will the admins let this continue? I've put many of the involved article on my watchlist so can see the patterns. Have you looked? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a past event which has been resolved with administrator intervention. We are now talking about current events such as , , removing/moving citation tags on various blues artist. Basically anything Matisse edits seems to have Ekajati quickly doing a dimetrically opposite edit. Comparing contributions for Mattise and Ekajati show remarkable similarity. --Salix alba (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it is over. Check out these edits by Timmy12:

• edit comment - starts calling removing tags "vandalism" at the same time Mattisse does
• ditto
• adds a "personal file" of an incident involving Mattisse but not Timmy12
• titles notes section "Reference notes" just as Mattisse has been doing on multiple articles she has created.

Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:BubbaJubba

Would appreciate someone else looking at BubbaJubba (talk · contribs). Appears to be leaving, and feels like s/he has been the victim of trolling, which is hardly the case IMO. Left a kind of nasty message on my talk page, etc. Not sure if deserving a block due to general incivility. I'm tired and cranky right now, so a 3rd opinion would be helpful. thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Constitution

Can we please get a temporary user-protect on Constitution ?? Thanks for taking a look. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Serial vandal blocked for one month - no page protection warranted. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I left a similar message at intervention and another admin protected. By the way, the attack was coordinated by 3 or 4 IP's, did you get them all? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesús Gabaldón shenanigans

Ever since I nominated his autiobiographical article for deletion, a certain jazz/rock bass player from Spain has been giving me endless grief. Using a variety of anonymous IP's, Jesús has blanked my hilarious user page and my stimulating talk page 10-15 times each. Check out the edit histories --many of these IP's have already been blocked. Most recently, he signed up for an account, which plays on my own user name. After he resurrected the Jesús Gabaldón page in a foriegn langauge, I correctly tagged it for speedy deletion. In retalliation, he tagged my User Page for speedy deletion.

I admire his relentlessness, but his behavior is becoming exhausting. I don't want to ask an admin for broad protection of my user page and talk page, because I want any anon user to feel free to add his 2 cents about my edits. But is there a way to ban him alone from editing my talk pages--maybe a IP range block or something.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted it again. Someone want to block the IP till he cools down? Whispering 21:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing

There is some bad behavior summarized at this AfD that I would like someone to investigate. Rather than defending his behavior, Leinad-Z is accusing all the newer users there of being sock puppets, and I want my name cleared by somebody who is randomly appointed. --DixiePixie 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the user DixiePixie is talking about. I agree that the incident must be investigated. There are at least 3 apparent sockpuppets in that discussion, way too many for it being ignored. DixiePixie, who wrote the message above, is one of them. I have already tried to contact an administrator on the matter, but no response until now. Please help. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Leinad-Z has not limited his accusations to users participating in that discussion. He had also failed to notify the new users of his accusations. I just found out today. One of the new users left Misplaced Pages out of disgust early in the discussion. --DixiePixie 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting or removing tags without fixing problem

User:Ekajati, along with her cohorts, has repeatedly reverted or removed tags placed on articles without addressing the underlying problem between yesterday and today. I have warned her (and her cohorts) politely, as recommended above, not to do so.

• On Bessie Smith she has done so 5 times between yesterday and today.
• On Muddy Waters she had done so 3 times, User:Hanuman Das 1 time, User:Anger22 1 time.
• On Willie Dixon she has done so 3 times, User:Hanuman Das 1 time, User:Anger22 1 time.
• On Charlie Patton she has done so 3 times, User:Hanuman Das 1 time, User:Anger22 1 time.

In placing these tags, I am going by a long standing discussion with User:TomTheHand.Please see recently (yesterday) on my talk page and User:Ekajati was involved. : and

This administrator :has been very clear and consistent over time.

I was told above that if this persisted, it constituted vandalism. I would like to report it has such. Mattisse(talk) 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My dear Mattisse. You are simply misinformed. I've removed an inappropriate tag "unsourced", from articles that listed their sources. That tag is inappropriate in that case. I've moved the appropriate tag, not removed it. Please don't mischaracterize what has occurred. What is happening is that you are tagging in an intentionally annoying and serial manner in violation of WP:POINT. You have annoyed several editors in doing so. They don't agree with you. You refuse to really discuss it with anyone, despite there requests for you to do so, but simply revert to "your way" right or wrong, without discussion. Then you try to tar others with your own brush. Why not do something more constructive? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that although Mattisse is acting with best intentions, this has been a problem in the past and a number of her sockpuppets (see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Mattisse) have been indef blocked for mass tagging of articles. There have been two sockpuppet checks conducted ( and ) that resulted in blocks, and a third that didn't . I'm not rationalizing any behavior on the part of User:Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati (especially removing valid tags), but perhaps it sheds some light on why other editors are wary of Mattisse's tagging activities.

Additionally, I would not group User:Anger22 in with the others. His involvement with Mattisse is similar to mine - we first noticed her when she began tagging a number of articles we have on our watchlists as part of various projects. Her replies to questions of her motivation/strategy for tagging have mostly amounted to "The rules say I can!" despite other editors making the point that it can be disruptive. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check the edit histories of each article to see what happened. Again I ask you to check

and

Also, please check comments under Question about importance above which relate directly to this issue:

Thank you! Mattisse(talk) 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not normally raise it on this page, but tagging along with the discussion, I have found myself in conflict with the same user over a blues page. John Lee Hooker has a reference, to a book. After some other edits, and some edit warring over the addition of an "unsourced" tag, Matisse has added a swathe of "citation needed" tags, with the commment "added citation needed tags - please do not remove without addressing problem as doing so is considervanalizm as Ekajati, Notinasnaid & Anger22 have done previously". I would remove them, because there is a reference and no indication that the reference does NOT apply, and no previous history before today (on this article) of inline citations. However, I don't want to do what would be considered vandalism. I would welcome guidance, in passing, from people already involved with or looking over this dispute (I realise content disputes per se don't belong here)." Notinasnaid 18:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check the edit histories of each article to see what happened. Again I ask you to check

and

Also, please check comments under Question about importance above which relate directly to this issue:

Thank you! Mattisse(talk) 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I put User:Anger22 in the same category because of that user's involvement with my name over time. :e.g. and because Anger22 makes assumptons about my behavior that are unjustified without evidence:

Furthermore, User_talk:Aguerriero is hardly unbiased. First, where is the evidence that I answered in the manner he characterized above? I have not had contact with any of these people for months, if ever. I don't believe I ever had a conversation with User:Aguerriero until yesterday. His talk pages contain conversations about his personal life to Anger22, so he is not neutral. Secondly, the following took place recently on his talk page:

So he is part of the "group". Mattisse(talk) 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, please consider the pattern of harrassment on User:Ekajati's part. The user was instrumental in disrupting my life with this incident:

and the user and his group have continued this pattern for months. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I have done nothing wrong since my original mistake. Please allow me to function on Misplaced Pages without constant harassment. Thank you. Mattisse(talk) 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize for repetitious postings but editing conflicts confused me. Please overlook them. Thank you. Mattisse(talk) 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Citation Needed" in John Lee Hooker

About the many "citation needed" tags on this article, rather than fighting over where they're really needed or not, the best thing seems to be to actually provide the requested citations. It's not that hard, most of them seem to be on actual fact issues that should be possible to look up and cite. Here, let me do one, just to show you how easy it is. Note, though, that all that I know about The Blues is that they come after The Greens and before The Indigos. :-)

1. Requested citation: "Hooker recorded over 100 albums and lived the last years of his life in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he licensed a nightclub to use the name Boom Boom Room, after one of his hits."
2. Google for: "John Lee Hooker" "Boom Boom Room"
3. Get: lots of results that I don't know from Adam, but the first one is a link to the BBR page itself, and on the second page of results is an excerpt from a For Dummies book. That's a published book from a very well known series, a pretty good reliable source.
4. And what do you know - reading the reference the sentence in our article is wrong. He didn't license a nightclub to use the name, he founded the nightclub!
5. Rewritten sentence: "Hooker recorded over 100 albums. He lived the last years of his life in the San Francisco Bay Area, where, in 1997, he opened a nightclub called "John Lee Hooker's Boom Boom Room", after one of his hits."
6. Ref: ^"Discovering the Blues of John Lee Hooker" Adapted from: Blues For Dummies, by Lonnie Brooks, Cub Koda, Wayne Baker Brooks, Dan Aykroyd, ISBN 0-7645-5080-2, August 1998
7. External link: The Boom Boom Room San Francisco nightclub founded by Hooker

I'll go add that to the article. Not so hard - 7 steps, a few minutes each at most. And the article is clearly much improved, useful link, additional reference, correction of minor inaccuracy. It's not as if by adding the tags Matisse is deleting stuff, he's just questioning facts that really should be possible to verify. John Lee Hooker is a well documented person, so it should be possible to do the same for most of the other requested citations without making a fight out of it. AnonEMouse 19:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks, there seems to be a continuing misunderstanding about what citations are. Read WP:CITE for complete information, but in summary, when claims are made it's necessary to cite the claim's source at the sentence in which the claim is made. I believe part of the misunderstanding stems from the fact that WP:CITE says that an article can use any citation method. However, a list of references is not a citation method. They are half of a citation method, but the other half is the notes within the text stating which source claims were taken from.

As an example, the citation tag on John Lee Hooker placed here was necessary and appropriate. Removal of the tag by Anger22, Ekajati, and Notinasnaid was wrong and shows a misunderstanding of WP:CITE. On the other hand, Sir Isaac Lime and AnonEMouse added citations for various claims, which was helpful. Mattisse added specific "citation needed" tags to particular claims that were especially in need of citation.

Mattisse has never tried to force citations for every sentence in an article. Rather, tags are placed on articles that have absolutely no citations. Often, a contributor will add some citations, and Mattisse will add a few specific "citation needed" tags to claims that are felt to be especially in need of citation. This is the way things should work, and if we can just get rid of this "freakout phase" of the cycle everything will be great.

I'll summarize. Articles need citations. References are not citations. Do not remove tags requesting citations without adding citations. TomTheHand 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE is a guideline, not policy, and there is apparent consensus on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics that is inappropriate on (some of) those articles. This may not be applicable to the specific problem here, but WP:CITE is disputed in some contexts. I'm afraid TomTheHand is bordering on WP:NPA, as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 18:38, October 24, 2006.

WP:CITE is a guideline to teach people ways they can cite sources. However, citing sources is mandated by WP:V. I've looked at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Citation guidelines proposal, and it says this about not using inline citations:

There are a few cases when it is not necessary or helpful to provide in-line citations. Most commonly this is for short, technical articles which can be written using only two or three sources: a primary source and a review article or textbook. In this case, a short "References" section at the end of the article suffices. An example of this sort of article is scalar-vector-tensor decomposition.

That is not relevant in this case, and in other cases it encourages the inline citation of sources. The biographical articles in question here need to cite sources. TomTheHand 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because Ekajati is almost certainly wrong doesn't mean that the complaintant and TomTheHand are correct (or WP:CIVIL). But I don't know much about this sort of article. I have enough trouble dealing with situations in which the source material is in Japanese, and we pretty much have to trust the editor's translation..... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks, there seems to be a continuing misunderstanding about what citations are. — Yes, but it is not the one put forward. A citation is the raw information necessary to uniquely identify and to locate a source. For (say) a book it is (at minimum) the author, publisher, title, and date of the book. The links between the citations and specific content are matters of style. But they are links from the content to the citations. They are not the citations themselves. An article without such links is not lacking citations. The citations identifying the sources are there. It is simply that the article isn't spoon-feeding to the reader the exact source to consult for any specific part of the article. (Adding such links from sections, or even paragraphs, to the relevant citations in general improves an article.)

Misplaced Pages:Citing sources is a style guideline, discussing (in addition to the Misplaced Pages house style of citations themselves) the Misplaced Pages house style for such links, which encompasses <ref>, Harvard referencing, and others.

The policy is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which merely requires that sources be cited, somehow. The (minimum) author+publisher+title+date information for (say) a book source, enabling readers to locate the book, must be present, in some fashion. The exact cross-linking of content and citations is a matter of style, some differences of opinion, and (anyway) what the cross-connections are in each specific case. Uncle G 10:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to insert a comment. I haven't read most of this conversation, so apologies if I'm abusing a deceased horse, but re: "About the many "citation needed" tags on this article, rather than fighting over where they're really needed or not, the best thing seems to be to actually provide the requested citations."

That's true. There may be legitimate concerns about the factualness of the article, and providing sources (inline or not) improves the quality of any article. However, I'd like to note that it's possible for an editor to be unkind strewing many tags all at once. The length of the tag, though relatively small, is still obtrusive, especially in great quantity. Partially, it's supposed to be obtrusive, to encourage editors to get off their backsides and source this one particular fact or sentence.

Instead of adding such a tag en masse though, a good faith editor should either add an Template:unreferenced at the top of the article/section (which may not encourage editors enough to source particular facts) or add a few s and at least make an effort to find some of the facts him/herself.

Nothing except derogatory material about a living person needs to be sourced immediately. It can be done over time. So don't do the easy, unsightly, unkind thing and strew the tag. Instead, add 3 or 4. If you want to source some yourself, do it. It shows you're willing to make the same effort you're asking of others. It's not necessary, but I argue that adding 3 tags and checking back in a week is far preferable to adding dozens and making it virtually unreadable.

Also, I'd like to prpose making it smaller. Some people said (question mark) wouldn't be easily readable on all fonts, but something smaller and still differentiable from already sourced tags such as .

If there's a better place to discuss these aspects, let me know. Gotyear 12:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Propose indefinate block of User:TV Newser, and a look into his buddy User:Ponch's Disco

This has been going on and on. Newser was blocked on the 21st for repeated harassment of Tecmobowl, and continued it when he got off. He has therefore been blocked again. I'm getting sick of reading this. TV Newser is repeatedly adding sock puppet tags to Tecmobowl's userpage, and accusing him of being a vandal/sock without evidence and despite warning. His response to the latest block was far from dignified. While everything Tecmobowl has done hasn't necessarily been to code either, that still doesn't seem like a reasonable excuse for this.

As for Poncho's Disco, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The American Card Catalog, as well as Poncho's contribs. The user seems to be cooperating with TV Newser in this; Newser showed up in the AFD some 14 minutes after it started, and as his first contribution after the block. I'm guessing they know one another outside of the wiki.

I know there are discussions on this already. There is even a mediation (which only Tecmobowl has shown any interest in participating in). I don't think the hoopla is necessary; we should just block the troll and be done with it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on both measures. --InShaneee 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Khoikhoi 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Three's the magic number, I've blocked TV Newser indefinitely. I'm not sure about Ponch's Disco. Clearly some highly problematic behaviour, but I'm not sure whether he merits an indefinite block either on account of being a sockpuppet or being completely intolerable. I'd be interested to see how he reacts to Newser's block. --Sam Blanning 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the indefinite block. The block I originally instated was supposed to give Newser time to reflect, not time to plan more mischief. His last edits indicate he has no interest in building an encyclopedia. I am not certain about Ponch, though it does seem suspicious. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

TV Newser has needed an indef block for a long time, really. He's been little but trouble since I came across him, which was within a few hours of his account creation. There is, and I say this only tentatively, a possibility that in fact he is a sock himself of a well-establisher socket, since he share linguistic traits with a particularly unpleasant user who I blocked long ago. Add to this the fact that his 'recommendations' on who I should block tend usually to be the reverse of what I actually decide to do and well....I may have allowed us to be...you know whatted. I've had my eye on Ponch's Disco for some time, and if he puts the outside edge of a toenail wrong, he'll be gone for good. -Splash - tk 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. I'm glad we came to a solid agreement here; it's been long enough. I'll also keep an eye on Poncho, just in case. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Or I won't. He's been indef'd as well. Can't say I disagree too much; the creation and subsequent AfD'ing of self-created articles (the American Card whatsit one) actually fits the "MO" of the very vandal that TV Newser was accusing Tecmobowl of being. Odd, that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gardez Bien and Washington, D.C. related articles

Gardez Bien (talk · contribs) has been waging a one-man POV edit war on Washington, D.C., Maryland, Montgomery County, Maryland, and Prince George's County, Maryland, insisting on placing in the introductory paragraphs of all of these articles that the state of Maryland donated the land that is now D.C. A discussion on Talk:Washington, D.C. has shown a consensus against including this information in the introduction as opposed to purely the history section, based on the current relevance of that information. Gardez Bien has nevertheless continued to unilaterally edit war, and accused those who disagree with him of being POV Virginia and Southern boosters on that talk page, as well as in edit summaries. Edits such as this and this show how absurd and non-constructive his position is, as he is insisting on defining the Maryland topics by the connection to D.C. Someone with no prior involvement with these topics needs warn him against disruption and POV trolling, watch him for 3RR violations, and block accordingly. Postdlf 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He's at it again., Postdlf 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User unwilling to accept messages or discuss on user talk page

Mikkalai (talk · contribs) apparently refuses to accept messages or discuss issues on his talk page. Here's a revert of a recent message I left , with no followup on my talk page or the article (which might be acceptabel if he just wanted to keep is talk page clean). To me, this level of non-responsiveness is uncivil. I recall a discussion about this practice a few months ago, but don't recall the consensus. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User adding content to XennoBB talk page

Lately, XennoBB talk page has been "cluttered" with link spam by User:Draky, bad comments regarding some GPL violations which never occured (we're in process of identifying the user and pursuing legal charges against him), and the only "sources" he quoted are a forum he uses currently (no problem in adding content there) and a blog. Surely, this is not the case where I can add something on my blog then quoting it on WikiPedia for example, right? The comments must come from a legitimate and verifiable source, right? Well, this is not the case with our vandal. If the Misplaced Pages admins' idea of democracy is that everybody can add whatever content they wish to a software talk page(a free GPL redistributed software, which doesn't get any money from it) well, I'd say it's a serious problem. Hopefully the messages can be removed. Thank you. - Osgiliath 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the user has done nothing outright 'wrong' and is certainly not a vandal, although his comments may certainly be incorrect. However, there are far better ways to deal with incorrect comments than suggesting they are "full of ####" and removing the comments you don't agree with. Leave the comments there and try to start talking things out in a civilized manner. Additionally, legal threats against wikipedia users such as the one you made above are absolutely not allowed, and if you make any more you will be blocked from editing. --InShaneee 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okey so If I understand correctly, I can add ANY unverified content to any wikipedia talk page and the owner/editor of that page must prove that my statement is wrong? Good thing to know ... And my legal threat was not concerning wikipedia since it's not regarding this comment, it's because the user tried to hack our website on numerous occasions. And it wasn't even a legal threat, but heh, who am I to decide ... -Osgiliath 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody bothered to reply to my last statement, I consider it correct. I think that's a violation of the "somebody being innocent until proved otherwise" principle; I wonder if such content was added to an administrator talk page or a page monitored by him, any measures would have been taken against the editor. I bet there would be, but clearly, trashing the name of a legitimate GPL software does not qualify for the same measures. It's a pretty sick sight to watch ... Don't bother telling me I violated the WP:CIV rules or such, any administrator who read my first complaint clearly violated the WP:NPA and WP:AGF rules, which you so dearly "enforce". I kindly ask such a "neutral" administrator to block/remove my account because do not want my name associated anymore with Misplaced Pages and its unjust decisions. - a disgusted ex-user -Osgiliath 04:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. As I'm involved, I'm telling some words. 1st, excuse my english, I'm French not English... (Osgiliath told me he didn't understand me so I'm excusing myself again). 2nd : I recognize that I was too rude and that I didn't respect exactly the "civility rule" of WP so I apologize for this point. The rest of the discussion is on the talk page of the article XennoBB where I was saying something that is sourced with blog and forum assertions (like source code comparison) so it might continue on the XennoBB talk page ! I do not wish to attack personnaly Osgiliath, I'm just telling that is "program" is not OK. So... thanks for reading me. and I apologize again for breaking the "civility rule". Draky 09:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz

User:Kilo-Lima blocked User:Kilz's IP address for 48 hours due to it being "used to avoid 3RR detection". I have two problems with this block, which I've brought up on the talk page but since the user appears to be offline I'll mention it here too. Firstly, Kilz made one non-logged in edit (to Swiftfox) and acknowledged responsibility for it 6 minutes later, without any prompting that I can see, so it hardly counts as attempting to avoid 3RR detection, or even using a sockpuppet. Secondly, it was that user's first edit to that page for more than 24 hours, so I cannot see how 3RR comes into it at all. If there's something I'm missing here I'd be glad to hear of it, but otherwise I cannot understand the reasoning behind this block. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Another IP puppet of User:Zarbon

Zarbon (talk · contribs) was blocked for 2 months for 3RR. Only a few hours after his block, he used an IP adress to continue his POV pushing, and that adress was also blocked for 2 months. Now he has another IP; 149.68.168.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If you look at the page histories of Dodoria, Zarbon, and Kiwi (Dragon Ball), you'll see other socks (ex: Recoome (talk · contribs)) that he's using. This kind of behavior has been going on for months. I think an indef would be suitable here.--KojiDude 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He's also using Recoome and 149.68.168.159 to avoid the block. Nemu 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to take it to CheckUser. --InShaneee 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you block the current IPs while the chekuser is being done/filled out? I'm trying to have a decent meal here but I have to revert all his edits.--KojiDude 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverse dictionary attack?

Between 19:56 and 20:13 Misplaced Pages time, 169.204.238.174 (talk · contribs) requested that my password be reset over 150 times, at times around once every two seconds. I'm concerned that perhaps the new password is not generated randomly enough (and so collisions could be found with a bot), or maybe there is a plan to mailbomb people using this facility. Either way I thought that this should be brought to your attention. Dave 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mass e-mails happen all the time, and we already know about them :) You don't get a new password everytime you get one of those e-mails. You have to autoconfirm this by clicking on this link in the e-mail, then it becomes your password. If you never confirm these e-mails and you delete them, you never change your password. semper fi — Moe 23:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The emails I receive are like this:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 169.204.238.174) requested that we send you a new Misplaced Pages login password for en.wikipedia.org.

The password for user "Dave" is now "********". You should log in and change your password now.

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

Dave 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I got 200 of those in one minute once :\ I think you'll find in those e-mails a thing that says to confirm this 'click here' kind of message, right? Well, as long as you donn't click it, and do as the e-mail says ("you may ignore this message and continue using your old password"), you should be fine. semper fi — Moe 00:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, I was wondering if someone has found a loophole such that they can make a reasonable guess what the password will be changed to. Not being familiar with the mediawiki software, there may be some kind of attack possible. I can't think of any other reason to do it, except as a bizarre attempt at mailbombing. Dave 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it has been previously established that one request overwrites the previous one so no matter what at any one time you only have two usable passwords. – Chacor 15:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs): knowingly filing a false 3RR/sock puppet report

This reports Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) as knowingly filing a false 3RR/sock puppet report re the Republic page (and what was verging on a 3R war), based on what he has made to appear as such (in a Checkuser report), but which is refuted by viewing that page's history. Therein, all will note that I failed to realize that I had signed out, subsequently resigned in, and made a new edit with a notice to that effect. He had to know and indeed knew all this, and chose to file a false report.

further, this user is falsely accusing abusive language by leaving out the words surrounding the alleged abuse, i.e., context. none of this is 'abusive' anyway. this user is also relentlessly badgering and otherwise harrassing me, which can be noted on the Republic talk page. i'm requesting a block of this guy, until he can be made to act like a civilized individual. Stevewk 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, the RFCU seems to have been unneeded as you claimed that edit, but there does appear to be a 3RR violation there on your part. The same changes are made 4 times. What is the falsity in that claim? Georgewilliamherbert 00:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I found it. The first listed should properly be:

Stevewk edits a version by Francis

The first edit listed by Francis is:

00:26, 23 October 2006 (as Stevewk)

is really:

your non-edit of ArmadilloFromHell's revert

Which was...

a vandalism fix revert

Ok. Got it. The first and last edits Stevewk actually made in the four sequence are greater than 24 hrs apart. The cited "first revert" skips several intervening posts which place the actual time outside 24 hrs, and the first edit in the sequence (first listed above) isn't a revert.

I don't know if Francis' selection of the skip-several-edits first comparison was on purpose or accidental, but the 4RR claim is bogus.

Georgewilliamherbert 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:The Ministry of Truth

Ok, I was just looking through recent changes and saw this user. I went to his contributions and found that every edit is to his userspace and his userboxes, even some of which I find offensive or not in good taste. I find it strange that this user's first and only edits this far are userbox creation and too his userspace. Does anyone else think this is very suspicious? semper fi — Moe 23:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock of a userbox fan created to store userboxes probably, only thing they could really be violating is WP:POINT, other wise unless they edit else where you can't really do anything.--Andeh 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to wait and see if, as a new user, he did anything productive, but it does appear that he is not actually new. —Centrx→talk • 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

He is doing all his edits at User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes. On that page, he says This is a userpage directory of "beliefs" userboxes. It is intended to track migrations to and help archive and organize userboxes in userspace. The corresponding directory, Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Beliefs was deleted.

I don't see any violation here (perhaps it's subtle?); he's clearly only playing around in his own space. He could be preparing for something, I suppose; my sense is that wikipedia administrators don't often do preemptive strikes. John Broughton | Talk 15:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Rexisfed & Wicky woo

Can someone monitor Rexisfed (talk · contribs) for me? Ever since the article Wicky woo was put up for deletion earlier today, he has continuously removed the AFD tag, replacing it with angry messages. I have already warned him up to {{drmafd4}}, but I will be signing off soon, so I probably won't be around to watch his next action. Scobell302 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll do the best I can to moniter it. :) semper fi — Moe 00:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

After I proposed his article for deletion, he vandalized my userpage, and then did it again with Rymysterio3 (talk · contribs) --Sbluen 03:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cmr924 (talk · contribs) and 24.7.214.28 (talk · contribs)

Cmr924 (talk · contribs) and 24.7.214.28 (talk · contribs) these two or same users are on my talk page "demanding" I explain why they can't remove cited criticism. Cmr924 (talk · contribs) removed warnings on his page. They appear to be the same users it you look at my talk. An adminstrator should step in and deal with his issues as he doesn't want to listen to me. Arbusto 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo has not helped at all. I want to know why the last edit I made, as user Cmr924, is in violation of vandalism. I clearly had good intentions. As the article stands, it is very biased. It is very one-sided, and reflects negatively. This is not something Misplaced Pages is about at all. White washing? So, trying to fix its inherent bias is now white washing? It would be white washing if it was a BALANCED entry. Also, I simply did not login, although I thought I had. This is why my IP Address showed up first.

Arbustoo also claimed I was a bunch of different users. I invite you to investigate that, as I only have one username and that is Cmr924.

Dralwik (talk · contribs)

Dralwik (talk · contribs) is going through wikipedia and changing ] to ] or ]. Chicago, Illinois is a functioning redirect and does not improperly reflect the city. The user has been told twice to stop changing, but continues. Think someone could make a swing by the user's talk page and add an admin voice to stop with the pointless changes.;) --Bobblehead 02:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? He's not doing any harm. If you have an editorial dispute, discuss it with him. Administrators aren't content police. --Slowking Man 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a content issue though. The issue is the server cost of making these changes. The cost in server load of making the changes is thousands of times more than the cost of letting them stay and just letting the redirect work like it should. Changing functioning redirects is completely unnecessary and wasteful. — Scm83x 07:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, right. Of course. Where did the developers provide those figures? Or did you do profiling? Morwen - Talk 10:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I haven't researched where that information comes from, but it has been stated like Scm83x says on WP:R#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken for a long while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Still, I'm not aware there's an actual server performance problem being caused by all these people making minor unnecessary style edits : this page seems mainly there to explain that if you are doing it because you think it helps server performance, you are wrong, not to tell people not to do it for aesthetic reasons. Morwen - Talk 11:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can think of no logical situation where the right side of a piped link would be longer than the left one. However, changing ] to ], ] would be quite logical, as it gives the reader the benefit of an extra link, with no sacrifice on the wiki-text end. Generally speaking, don't ever pipe a link just for the hell of it. If you think a redirect should be bypassed, rephrase the sentence to accomodate an unpiped direct link. If that can't be done, you might be better off canceling the edit. —freak(talk) 11:37, Oct. 25, 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats from user:Diane S

Diane S (talk · contribs), in real life a moderator of the forums at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, wrote to an administrator:

• Yankee Gal, you are being reported for the locking of an article that contains links to libelous websites, you have locked the article after including former edits of atheists/ propagandists, and liberal/atheists linking and editing this article. We will proceed with legal recourses, no not a threat, a factDiane S 02:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a clear legal threat. I posted this note to her talk page:

• You may be aware of WP:NLT. In any case, it'd be best if you do not engage in further edits to Misplaced Pages until your legal recourses have been completed. I'm sure you understand that it would not be appropriate to be participating in this project while you are involved in legal action against it and its members. -Will Beback 02:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this merit a block? -Will Beback 02:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I'll take care of it. --Yamla 02:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Legal threats screw everything up, and should be treated fairly strongly. The user is also an SPA, repeatedly trying to push her own obvious bias on only a couple of articles. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, good call on your part. Snoutwood (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please everyone keep an eye on related topics (e.g. Matt Slick) and sock/meat puppets, several of which are still active on both articles as whitewashers/criticism-removers. Antandrus (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this your card? No? How about this one? Still not right? Then maybe this one is!—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to ask about this one, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And it looks like Matt Slick's article may also need protection soon if "they" persist. Antandrus (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And now another. I'm catching just a whiff of checkuser upwind. Antandrus (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I have been drawn into a sockpuppet, etc. mess I want no part of surrounding User:Timmy12. Said user, who has an apparent history of tagging articles for various reasons with little or no reason, and has aggravated various people with said actions while refusing to read anything associated with the article in terms of references, rather simply posting annoying tags, etc. The article in question is Joseph Byrd, which Timmy12 has repeatedly tagged despite the fact the article has numerous inline citations and references listed at the bottom of the article from a variety of sources. After disputing Timmy12's tagging, they have labelled me as part of some cabal of people they've had an ongoing set of issues with I have nothing to do with. Timmy12 has now crossed any sense of good faith by reverting a significant number of inline citations I made to the page earlier today, just to attempt address an issue they raised I felt never existed in the first place, merely to repost their own citation tag that was inappropriate to begin with. I and others, from reviewing the history of Timmy12, have repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate with this person, who may or may not be a sockpuppet. The last revert by Timmy12 can be seen as nothing but vandalism, and this person should be suspended from continuing this kind of behavior. I read commentaries on cites, etc. from a link Timmy12 left on my talk page, but they don't follow what they insisted I read. Any and all assistance/advice you can provide would be helpful, this kind of behavior is absurd. I'd add, in this particular case, the material on the page has been verified not only via the numerous sources cited, but by Joseph Byrd himself, who has commented directly to me and others on the material provided, is a person I have known for some years and have published material about. I should also add I write for a major newspaper group and am a professional writer and researcher by trade. Thank you. Tvccs 04:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Block of NBGPWS

I have blocked NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a month due to ongoing issues about civility as posted at the personal attack noticeboard and based on the fact that NBGPWS had already been blocked 6 times by 6 different admins in the last two months. NBGPWS was offered to be unblocked to post an Rfc or go and file a case with arbcom and declined. He is now posting links to what he claims is misuse of WP:BLP by a third party for their political gain and I am requesting a neutral admin look at the following link and see if there is any merit to his claims. Thanks.--MONGO 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the link; general comment on the block--support as he has been doing a lot of trolling recently. Not sure about the duration as it seems a big escalation from a week, but I trust your judgement. Thatcher131 11:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the article he is upset about, the content he wanted left in may not technically be a violation of BLP since the persons aren't named, but it is definitely un-encyclopedic axe-grinding, and its removal certainly doesn't justify acting out rather than following the normal dispute resolution processes for article content. Thatcher131 12:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional harrassment by this user

• Vandalism:
  • user just keeps adding it. And to others pages , that is two times to the same page, and in the same exact section, notice the semi threat attached. They then started using it for edit summaries when adressing me as a means of intimidation. , there own user history also reflects this
• Insults and labeling:
  • deletionists" / "deletionist hit squad" -
  • Wiki Stalinists" -
• Inappropriate comments:
  • "WHAT???? If you think THAT'S an attack, You need more (or less) Byron!"

    Byron reffering to The Byron Technique, "a sexual technique in which two male homosexual partners are involved"

--NuclearZer0 10:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Request roll-back anon's multiple spamming

Hi, could an Admin consider doing your "roll-back" option on User:203.45.150.147's dumping of external links into multiple pages for a single website's articles on acupuncture please (counts as WP:SPAM). Thanks David Ruben 07:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --physicq (c) 07:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LOL I started at the top and Physicq210 started at the bottom of the contributions list and we met in the middle. Done. Grandmasterka 07:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought the time spent writing a paragraph of text (and waiting for somebody to read it) would be much greater than making 15 reverts. — CharlotteWebb 07:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No big deal, is it? --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of us have slow dial up connection, so yes 15 reverts does take time, and any way I did not think there was any race to perform the reverts (also I did rather need to leave to get to work). So yes, if a nice Admin such as Physicq210 (thank you) can do this with a single click, so much the easier is the overall effort on the wikipedia editorialship. If at any point I gain Admin or rollback privelages, then even easier too :-) David Ruben 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Enormous sockpuppet army wiped out

After seeing some vandalism tonight, I ran a checkuser on an account and discovered an *enormous* sockpuppet army massing. Come to find out it happened to be the range used by Blu Aardvark (72.160.0.0/16). I blocked over 100 of the easily recognizable ones (see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark - almost everyone one of them was one I blocked tonight). I blocked that range for 6 months - anon editing and account registration, but not regular users.

Here's another 45 or so accounts that may or may not be Blu's. I suspect the vast majority are, but didn't block them for fear of hitting a bystander:

• Alightdirigible (talk · contribs)
• AnneFeastClark (talk · contribs)
• Anydoc (talk · contribs)
• Athalia (talk · contribs)
• Bear712 (talk · contribs)
• Big bob 07 (talk · contribs)
• Bobobo760 (talk · contribs)
• Boogielove (talk · contribs)
• Boundaryman (talk · contribs)
• Burnt Siena (talk · contribs) - confirmed Blu sock. Raul654 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Candymanl4b (talk · contribs)
• Charlesdayhoff (talk · contribs)
• Cmuniga (talk · contribs)
• DRc (talk · contribs)
• DavidBrowne (talk · contribs)
• Daydreamerz43 (talk · contribs)
• Dragonfly85 (talk · contribs)
• Dt61 (talk · contribs)
• Eileenmclain (talk · contribs)
• Fenryr (talk · contribs)
• Goozie212 (talk · contribs)
• Grimsby85 (talk · contribs)
• Hankpac (talk · contribs)
• Hnolde (talk · contribs)
• Ice Lollies (talk · contribs)
• Iwrite1969 (talk · contribs)
• KTBranson (talk · contribs)
• KaloniceStarfire (talk · contribs)
• Kodes (talk · contribs)
• Ldonegan (talk · contribs)
• Lonca38 (talk · contribs)
• MAB88 (talk · contribs)
• Mark N Ruggles Sr. (talk · contribs)
• Maryjuneb (talk · contribs)
• Mkolerich (talk · contribs)
• Patricke44 (talk · contribs)
• Phil 737 (talk · contribs)
• Ratpack1964 (talk · contribs)
• Rdc1103 (talk · contribs)
• Rerelovesbacon (talk · contribs)
• Ronin-man (talk · contribs)
• Sinnocent1 (talk · contribs)
• Sugarbear61 (talk · contribs)
• Teh nab (talk · contribs)
• Tim card (talk · contribs)
• Tony 747 (talk · contribs)

I would appreciate someone keeping an eye on them. Raul654 09:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Modified list to display talk/contribs encase any get any messages.--Andeh 09:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Dt61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Currently unblocked vandals from above list.--Andeh 09:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, tagging them and making sure they were all blocked sure was fun - took myself, Raul and aksi forever to do it! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just reran through the list and I found a few more probables Raul654 10:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Kararowe (talk · contribs)
• Zak2023 (talk · contribs)
• Bevsmith (talk · contribs)
• Bob` (talk · contribs)
• Cfranklu (talk · contribs)
• Anydoc (talk · contribs)
• Mkolerich (talk · contribs)
• Spinnertabi (talk · contribs)

You should probably post the diffs of this conversation to Blu's arbitration cases. Thatcher131 11:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio on Gymkata - does anything need to be done?

I just blanked the plot synopsis of this movie because it is identical to its IMDb entry. Does anything else need to happen? Anchoress 11:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You could leave a note for the person who added the copyvio material, or go through his contribs to see if s/he's done it in other articles. (Sometimes people go through and add IMDB stuff to a whole batch of movie articles at once.) In this case, though, he hasn't contributed since August, so I wouldn't bother with the note. And I looked at his other contribs, and they look okay. :-) FreplySpang 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, cool. I was wondering if it is supposed to be purged from the history? Anchoress 13:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We do that if the copyright holder asks us to, but not by default, in cases like this. If the entire article was copyvio, we'd delete the whole thing. FreplySpang 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack Cox - Daniel Brandt's plagiarism data

Jack Cox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been contributing to Misplaced Pages since February 2005 and has some ten thousand edits under his belt.

Daniel Brandt's recent plagiarism report uncovered that Jack had added text without attribution from the Utah History Encyclopedia, which is not a public domain resource, to the article on Utah governor Henry H. Blood. Following Brandt's lead I've found that Jack Cox also plagiarized from the same source in writing articles on Charles R. Mabey, John Christopher Cutler, Heber Manning Wells, William Spry, Herbert B. Maw, George Dewey Clyde, Calvin L. Rampton and Scott M. Matheson - all of them Utah governors. In each case I've deleted the articles and restored pre-Jack versions where there were any.

I have checked a few of Jack's other contributions and found one more plagiarism incident, Charlie Wyse, which was not from the same source. Obviously I have made nothing like a comprehensive check of Jack's thousands of edits, most of which don't have an edit summary. It his highly likely that multiple copyright violations inserted by him are still out there.

Looking at Jack's talk page I notice that OrphanBot doesn't like him and the feeling is mutual I get the feeling that this contributor habitually doesn't exercise enough caution in handling copyrighted material. Please take whatever action you feel is appropriate. We would of course be fully justified in banning him but if someone could engage him productively, get him to clean up his act and help in identifying old boo-boos that could be even more valuable.

I'd also like to encourage more admins to get involved with the project on identifying serial plagiarists at User:W.marsh/list. We've already found multiple longstanding copyright violations starting with the data from Brandt and looking at other contributions by the same editors. Haukur 12:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• RJNeb2 (talk · contribs) seems to be a serial offender, too. We do need more admins on this... it seems some of these people have been quietly plagiarizing for months and even years. --W.marsh 15:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalking, vandalism, possible sockpuppetry evasion of block by Timmy12

Timmy12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be stalking Rosencomet and vandalising Rosencomet's additions of citations by removing the citations. In the past, Mattisse also stalked and tagged articles by Rosencomet. There is reason to believe that Timmy12 is a sock of Mattisse currently being used to evade a block for 3RR. -999 (Talk) 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm Rosencomet, and yes, it seems that Timmy12 is actively stalking me, following behind me and eliminating the citations I post on articles I have either created or contributed to. He characterizes them as commercial, although I have asked respected Misplaced Pages editors who have been here much longer than I if I am doing anything wrong, and they say I am not, and have in fact reversed his efforts several times. Evidentally, I am not the only person having problems with this individual.

The most recent examples have been elimination of citations for speakers and presenters appearing at an important event, one that constitutes a credit for them, that is three years old. The web page referred to advertises no new event nor any product, although one could visit the rest of the website from there if one was interested, but the purpose of the citation was to support the fact of the participation in the event, not to promote anything. In fact, they were mostly reactions to others (if they were others) claiming that I must provide citations when I state such facts in an article.

Except for the declaration that he has "taken down a commercial link", he has given no justification for his actions nor attempted to contact me or my talk page, yet the moment I reverse his actions he repeats them. I see that he has done similar vandalism to others, yet I find little or no contributions by him among the articles of Misplaced Pages. I'm relatively new at this, yet I've created and/or contributed to about 100 articles, revisiting most of them often with additional data. I've encountered several very helpful folks in this microcosm, and have been pleased to see stubs grow and expand into useful and informational articles. People like Timmy12, it seems to me, ruin it for the rest. I'm not sure what I should do at this point. Please advise.Rosencomet 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a need for a CheckUser on User:Timmy12 and User:Mattisse. The previous sockpuppet enquiry Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd), which was negative but inconclusive. Some users still beleive these to be sockpuppets, and are spreading the acusation around, which is not condusive to a plesent community. There is a chance that they are actually socks, in which case Mattise is looking a a ban. --Salix alba (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

1. William Neikirk, Andrew Zajac, Mark Silva (2006-09-29). "Tribunal bill OKd by Senate". Chicago Tribute. Retrieved 2006-09-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. "Senate Passes Broad New Detainee Rules". New York Times. 2006-09-28. Retrieved 2006-09-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. Anne Plummer Flaherty (2006-09-28). "Senate OKs detainee interrogation bill". Associated Press. Retrieved 2006-09-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards