Misplaced Pages

Could someone please take care of this? I will leave the house in a couple of days anyways, so the problem should not persist. De mortuis... 02:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it quite annoying that instead of reacting even new ridiculous accusations turn up in this userbox and sockpuppetry paranoia: De mortuis... 15:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

God, I hate it when people misrepresent what I say. Look at the next edit to that UT page, made ten minutes later: —BorgHunter (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you make these ridiculous accusations at all? And why does no one address ROGNNTUDJUU!'s complaint? Quite successful mud throwing. De mortuis... 15:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I started this topic, you should unblock him. What do you wait? --StabiloBoss 15:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I trust David Gerard's judgement more than yours, frankly. I hate to put in so incivilly. ROG^50moreletters was being disruptive and De mortuis' explanations for their accidental checkuser positive are pretty hollow. Syrthiss 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

False Accusations

• 67.71.84.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 67.70.149.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have tagged my userpage with the suspected sockpuppet template. Both of these users have about 5 edits and have accused me of being a sockpuppet of User:Theonlyedge despite the fact that since February, we've only edited one common page (check contribs). I suspect that the above Anon users are sockpuppets of Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was recently blocked for running a sockfarm. Is there a proper way to go about taking down the tag and proving I'm not a puppet? pm_shef 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally those sock tags have to be backed up by some sort of evidence. You can request a checkuser on yourself, I suppose, at WP:RCU if you like. · Katefan0/poll 19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted both their edits to yours and Theonlyedge's page, and am about to warn them that it is best not to accuse someone of sockpuppetry without documentation (and even then I'd feel better if it was primarily done by an admin). --Syrthiss 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

69.156.150.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now doing exactly the same thing. user:pm shef and user:Theonlyedge's user pages are both now semi-protected so they're hitting the user talk pages instead. The contribs do not suggest any relationship between the two users. Thryduulf 00:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note that these IP addresses are in the same range of Bell Canada numbers previously used by suspected socks of Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs) and/or VaughanWatch (talk · contribs). Thatcher131 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a large WP:RFCU request pending on all these users/ips and more - Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser#64.231.242.202 (talk • contribs) and 69.156.148.61 (talk • contribs) Thryduulf 09:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Pm_shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. After Alan Shefman's son User:Pm_shef writes that he will abstain from editing articles related to Vaughan politics, and confirmed that abstention at 05:55, 11 April 2006 here, "Theonlyedge" goes after Pm_shef's longtime Vaughan target (who he nominated for the AfD a month prior) a few hours later, at 22:02, 11 April 2006 here. Coincidence?

2. The name of Pm_shef's father's company is simply The Edge. It is involved in anti-racism, which we know Pm_shef/ Corey Shefman has been involved in too, both personally and through his edits. The Edge sounds a lot like The Only Edge... a coincidence? See main link to his father's bread-and-butter for 25 years:

3. Roughly 50% of all Theonlyedge's edits are also articles that Pm_shef has edited. Compare Pm_shef's contributions to Theonlyedge's contributions.

4. Both accounts in question were created within 5 weeks of one another; Pm_shef on Oct 31 2005, TheOnlyEdge on Dec 11 2005.

5. 4 hours after Pm_shef nominates this article for deletion (which he ultimately lost), Theonlyedege comes around and does NOT vote Keep or Delete but rather, after two consecutive Keep votes, adds a comment that the article should be shortened to 2 or 3 paragraghs. This was Shef's way of cutting his losses. See original AfD Keep debate: ].

6. Both users are from Thornhill, as they have both have edited the article on Thornhill and are obsessed with their politicians.

7. Both are obsessed with adding positive POV edits to their favorites Susan Kadis (as well as Michael Di Biase) and negative edits/blanking to their political competitor Mario Racco and political opponents Anthony Reale, Tina Molinari and Josh Cooper.

8. Why did Pm_shef / Theonlyedge create this article on a previous opponent? So that he can control it. He can keep it down to 2 or 3 sentences and maintain control over content.

9. Pm_shef added the deletion notice of this article to Misplaced Pages:Canadian wikipedians' notice board at 22:04, exactly 2 minutes after his sockpuppet created this nomination at 22:02. See edit history Coincidence?

I hope this is enough evidence, but if you want more, I can find more. Leotardo 04:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page problem

Following an unexpectedly angry reaction to a comment on an AfD vote, I placed a comment on User:JJay's talk page, seeking to understand his motivation. Both during and after a largely fruitless discussion, JJay has made a number of unexplained changes to my words: , , . I then chose to remove my content from his talk page , not wanting to be misrepresented, regardless of severity. JJay reverted without explanation . I then posted a request that he remove my words himself, or restore them to their original form , which JJay has also reverted . JJay has a history of heated exchanges with other editors, and I see little other recourse than to ask for admin intervention. Should this be an inappropriate request for WP:AN/I, please notify me so I can post to the correct page. Thanks. Tijuana Brass 03:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I made no material changes to this user's comments except to remove a misleading string of text while leaving the underlying Wp:AGF link the user had hidden . Besides that, I changed the heading to the section- which is my right- and changed the link to the AFD page. I have very good reasons for doing this, because any message on my user page brings certain editors rushing to the AfD in question to vote against whatever stance I have taken. I reiterate that no significant changes were made to the comments. Nevertheless, there is a very clear warning notice on the user page that explains that messages can and will be edited for content. Besides all that, I have made no personal attacks against this editor and fail to see why he has addressed himself to this forum or on what basis he can make a broad statement regarding my history of exchanges with other editors, particularly since our exchange was never particularly heated. -- JJay 04:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes included nonsensically changing the section header "Personal attacks" to "pet rocks" do you have an explanation for that? At best it seems to be not taking the matter seriously and being a dick JoshuaZ 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment. I have explained why I change headings on the page. In this case, this user was not posting on the page to accuse me of making a personal attack. He was there ostensibly to find out why I was annoyed by his crack that I operate from "hardcore POV". In a series of posts, he then went on to talk about my "odd reactions", that "conflict with others is a recurring thing" for me, that I'm "looking at things the wrong way", take editing at Misplaced Pages "so personally", have a "history of heated exchanges" etc. In one of his messages, he writes "If there's good reason shown to keep the article, I'm willing to change my vote". Then when I provide some links showing that my AfD comment was not based on "hardcore POV", he responds with "You're missing the point. I didn't bring this up on your talk page to debate the merits of the Jackson article". I came to realize that his point was to lecture and provide advice, neither of which I asked for. His point was certainly not to apologize for accusing me of "hardcore POV". I came to feel very much like a pet rock, being told to sit, stay and roll-over. And since there is no reason that I have to repeatedly respond to this type of lecturing on my user page under an arbitary section header chosen by another user, I changed the heading to one I felt was more fitting to the general tenor of the conversation. Of course, as you have helpfully pointed out, I have a long history of being a dick, probably as a result of all those heated exchanges, and that is not likely to change anytime soon. -- JJay 01:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he's wiki-stalking me as well. I'll leave all other judgments as to WP:V WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and related issues (for both him and myself) to third parties. Tijuana Brass 04:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking??? That's a fairly serious accusation for which I hope you have some proof. You should realize that this is a public forum. Like for most editors, it is on my watchlist. Naturally, I'm going to respond when comments are left here that concern me. That is most decidely not stalking. I also frankly don't understand why you are citing WP:V. -- JJay 04:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(changed WP:V to WP:CIVIL, typo) Tijuana Brass 04:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking??? That's a fairly serious accusation for which I hope you have some proof. You mean like claiming, "any message on my user page brings certain editors rushing to the AfD in question to vote against whatever stance I have taken," which you did -- oh look -- two postings above it? Boy, that's a fairly serious accusation for which I hope you have some proof. --Calton | Talk 06:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

JJay's statement above isn't an accusation of anybody in particular. And there's proof like this on his talk page (not exactly the same, I realize, but it seems related). In any case, Tijuana Brass doesn't seem to have much of a case here from what I've seen. The only questionable edit linked here is which does actually change the meaning of a sentence that didn't sound particularly offensive originally, but the meaning change was almost certainly unintentional considering the context it's in and his explanation of the change here. As for the revertions he made later, I don't see anything wrong with those either, it's his talk page and he wasn't removing warnings from it. Maybe he hasn't always acted as friendly as possible but I don't see any clear violations here, not even of WP:CIVIL. –Tifego _{07:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

JJay's statement above isn't an accusation of anybody in particular. It's an accusation of stalking by individuals whom he coyly refuses to name -- so it's still an accusation of stalking, period/full stop. All in peculiar defense of making a misleading word change in someone else's words; again, period/full stop. Not a violation of civility, just of intellectual honesty and of consistency. --Calton | Talk 11:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Carlton, let's not cloud the issue. I have never stalked this user. In fact, the only interaction I have ever had with TijuanaBrass was one AfD nom, my responses to his comments on my talk page, and this forum. That is not stalking by any stretch of the imagination. It is also undeniably a different beast entirely from the stalking I have experienced, which has involved editor(s) repeatedly editing the same pages I am editing, shadowing my AfD participation, and otherwise taking actions that are designed to harrass. With much of this action using the talk page as the jumping off point. However, I have never accused TijuanaBrass of this, so it is not exactly pertinent to this discussion. It is also not an example of intellectual dishonesty. As to the small change made to one of TijuanaBrass's comments, it was excessively minor and not in any way misleading, nor was it intended to mislead. I tend to find long embedded links under unrelated phrases not particularly civil. If he wanted to, he could have changed that minor removal back. Instead he removed all of his comments and the section header and made an uncivil edit summary. Since unlike most editors, I have never removed any comments from the talk page, including attacks, complaints or messsages from vandals, I would rather his comments remain, particularly since I took the time to respond. After considering this overnight, and in the interest of putting this to bed, I have returned the five words that were removed- i.e. "perhaps you're looking at things the wrong way". We may all be looking at things in the wrong way, but whatever the case, I am obviously more than happy to let this user express himself in his own words. -- JJay 12:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Carlton, let's not cloud the issue.' Hey, let's not. You could start, by not making up things; you know, not defending yourslf against things no one said you did. Read what I wrote again, and do it slowly: what I was pointing out was your double standard in being insulted and demanding proof of an accusation you had not the slightest compunction in saying to others. And underneath all your convoluted justifications lies a simple truth: you changed someone else's words to change, however subtle, their actual message. Your I am obviously more than happy to let this user express himself in his own words is untrue on multiple levels -- starting with "obviously" -- and I stand by my reference to "intellectual dishonesty". No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it'll never be Miss America. --Calton | Talk 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't read slow enough to make sense out of your comment. Other than that, I stand by everything I've said or done, including the reasons for placing the notice on my user page, which this user chose to ignore. And no, I had no intention of changing this user's "actual message". What I actually did was waste a lot of time responding to it, as I am still doing. -- JJay 21:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

JJay, editing anybody else's comments is inappropriate, and I suggest you either leave them as they were, or delete them from your Talk page. User:Zoe| 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

JJay's talk page is more or less at its original form, so we should be done here. Thanks for those who've commented. This baby's ready to be archived. Tijuana Brass 18:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess I spoke too soon. Tijuana Brass 07:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

More

User:JJay changes the title of talk subject and then here I fixed an error in my writing to which JJay reverted my own edit back to the error. Meanwhile causally correcting his own mistakes. User:JJay also breaks WP:CIVIL several times. For example, "calling a troll a troll is not a personal attack," "your intelligence is absent tonight," "your list of dirty tricks," and "win the troll of the year award" among others. Arbusto 02:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Bravo. Your initial question and non-reason for posting to the user page broke WP:CIV and WP:AGF. I am impressed, though, that you haven't yet accused me of being a sock puppet here. I guess you save that for my user page. -- JJay 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is well established that User:Jason Gastrich has recruited wikipedia members and used sock puppets to push his agenda and . This evidence of meat pupperty is also on a AfD you voted agreeing with Gastrich (who made the page during his year long ban.) You have never reverted any white washing (example of white washing) despite posting on the talk and agreeing with some of his wishes. Meanwhile you have still refused to answer if you have been in contact with him or an intermediary.

Instead of answering the question you violated WP:CIVIL, reverted my edits, and changed the talk section, which implies that I wrote it as a "Gastrich attack." Arbusto 03:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I never reverted your edits, although given the number of posts and the time I took to respond there may have been a conflict. Other than that, your continued attempts to slime me through some perceived association with a banned user, first on my user page and now here, are laughable. -- JJay 03:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Two minutes after this user posted "I never reverted your edits" he reverted and again to alter the section title. Also please explain why you reverted my typo corrections twice. Arbusto 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because as I wrote that you reverted the page removing a title that had been there for two hours and I reverted your reversion. However, please explain why you trolled my user page with a bizarre question implying that I'm a sock puppet . As I indicated there, if you have proof then spell it out now in the proper forum. Otherwise, this looks like a blatant attempt to create conflict in order to latch on to the earlier thread.-- JJay 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Now would be a great time for both of you to drop this. You will never see eye to eye because of your fundamentally differing belief systems, and it's pointless to even try. What you should do is look at each other's contributions, weigh them against policy, and point out in a civil manner when there are things wrong. Just because someone disagrees fundamentally with your religion does not mean they are necessarily wrong in everything they say about it; and just because someone has deeply-held beliefs does not mean they can't write factually about the subjects of those beliefs without violating WP:NPOV. You both have a history of good contributions, and there are plenty of avenues for resolution of disputes. Just cool it, please, and engage on issues not personalities. Just zis Guy you know? 09:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr Les Sachs (Suspected) at Patricia Cornwell

85.144.140.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Suspected to be Dr Les Sachs) continues to add defamatory style information related to Patricia Cornwell across article and user space. Is also making attacks against DreamGuy. FloNight 08:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. I'd like to block for longer, but I believe that address is from an ISP's pool, can anyone confirm? Just zis Guy you know? 09:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This case was originally filed as an arbitration application by Demiurge (talk · contribs). The recommendation of the two arbitrators who have commented, James F., ➥the Epopt, is that there is nothing to arbitrate and that Rms125a@hotmail.com should be banned by acclamation.

There follows excerpted information from Demiurge's application:

Rms125a@hotmail.com, and his various sockpuppets and anonymous IP addresses, has persistently and blatantly breached several Misplaced Pages policies, including WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:SOCK.

User conduct RfC at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com. Was certified by 6 other users and my summary was endorsed by 5 other outside users.

Problematic behaviour includes inserting virulent anti-Irish/anti-Catholic/anti-Croatian POV into articles, vitriolic personal abuse, revert wars and a wide array of sockpuppets. A user conduct RfC was filed, but the user flatly denied all wrongdoing and the sockpuppetry and aggressive POV editing continued. Examples of each category of disputed behaviour (much more evidence and examples provided in the RfC):

• WP:NPA: "You are an Irish Catholic fifth columnist parasite who has no business being anywhere in the UK. Stay in the country to which you owe your loyalty, and tell Camillus the same thing." "Too fucking bad, IGNORAMUS. DROP DEAD, DAGO -- GO BACK TO ITALY AN DSEE IF YOU CAN KEEP THE LANGUAGE ALIVE, OR BETTER YET LEARN ALBANIAN"
• WP:NPOV: "'Scot' is applied equally to all inhabitants regardless of their ancestral ethnicity, ... unlike the racist Hibernians who do not accept anyone who arrived with or after the Normans to be truly Irish."
• WP:SOCK: A large number of usernames and anonymous IP addresses which all share the same POV, same editing quirks, and the same turns of phrase. See Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Rms125a@hotmail.com. Just one example: "he carries censorship in his very DNA, and it is always his first instinct" by Brandubh Blathmac vs. "It is Demiurge who is the censor; it is his DNA and his every instinct" by Rms125a@hotmail.com. More evidence of sockpuppetry can be found on the RfC talk page.
• WP:3RR: "Demiurge--stay out of it--I'm just going to come back during or after the block and rv everything"
• WP:BLOCK: sockpuppet account "Mick Derrig" used to evade block

The user has not responded to the application for arbitration. I am notifying both him and Demiurge of this procedure. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

His response the RfC seems to be one of those classic examples of where an RfC response just shows that everything in the complaint is valid. I don't understand why this guy hasn't gotten indef blocked a while ago. JoshuaZ 14:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked at least three times for violating 3RR, once by myself. That's all I know of this case, but if the Arbitration Committee feels confident that the user needs to be banned, then I will support that decision. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and indefinitely blocked him. If ArbCom won't bother with the guy, we shouldn't waste our time on him either. --Cyde Weys 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• User has returned as 67.101.79.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as shown by this edit and this personal attack. Demiurge 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User247 (talk · contribs)

User:User247, who is also editing from an anonymous IP address User:24.7.141.159, is making multiple personal attacks, especially against User:Timothy Usher and myself and routinely accuses us of attacking him. In addition, User247 uses his userpage to describe comments made on his talk page as "attacks non-Muslim editors are willing to resort to in the hopes of censoring any constructive discussion of Islam." Examples of personal attacks, uncivil remarks, and miscellaneous accusations:

• "You got owned."
• "...this proves how paranoid you two idiots are."
• "The two of you have spent far too much time trying to tear me down."
• "I understand from all your postings attacking me that you are threatened by my presence and knowledge."
• "Are you hitting on me again?"
• "You consider it lying because you can't accept the fact you could never do it."
• "I'm bothered by the presence of a concerted war against Muslim editors on Misplaced Pages..."
• "I'd like to add a few more users who showed up recently into the same boat as MOU for being unproductive non-sense creators."

Pecher 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User247 also creates section headings on his talk page to attack other users:

• "User:Timothy_Usher attacks again"
• "User:Timothy_Usher attacks me again"

Pecher 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's my talk page and you two need to stop your attacks. Thanks for trying. 24.7.141.159 03:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems both out of context and less pressing. I think that both you and Timothy Usher should take your accusations against the user as a sock/meat puppet to more suitable (and coherent) channels. A well-organized, contextual user conduct RfC would be the first step. El_C 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You may also opt for WP:RFCU. Please give the interaction with the user him/herself involving these accusations a rest, though. El_C 21:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I shall.

It now appears this user has decided to take it outside wikipedia, attacking wikipedia generally and singling me out by name, with a helpful link to my user talk page .

For what it's worth, the "censorship" to which he refers was an attempted removal of personal attacks as per WP:RPA (since then I've come to understand that WP:RPA is not generally supported or advised), whereupon this user solicited Katefan0 to protect the page..Timothy Usher 22:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't post on Slashdot and never have. Please stop the false accusations. 24.7.141.159 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

While he claimed on my talk page that the Slashdot post had been “forwarded to ”, there can be no doubt that this user posted it himself, as established by (for starters) the following points of theme and style:

• “critical of his position”

Slashdot poster: “A look at the talk page shows a particular editor by the name of Timothy Usher has censored comments on the talk page critical of his position.”

Hrana98: “It's disappointing to see that you haven't stopped attack people critical of your position.” ]

User247:“...User:Timothy_Usher has been attacking any editor critical of his position...”, “...if any editor contributes a comment critical of his position...”

24.7.141.159: “User:Timothy Usher has been editing comments critical of his position...”

“User: Timothy Usher is deleting comments critical of his position...”

• “feels right”

Slashdot poster: “These articles cannot be considered reliable sources of information and an open-letter is set to be released criticizing Misplaced Pages's policies of letting editors with negative agendas litter articles on Islam with what "feels right" instead of the facts.”

24.7.141.159: “Unfortunately, in Misplaced Pages we go with facts, not just what feels right.”

“...not because it was factually wrong but because it didn't "feel right" to other editors.”

“...instead adopting whatever FEELS right to you” Timothy Usher 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't post on Slashdot. If someone has decided to do this then maybe you should take it up with them. 24.7.141.159 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty trollish to me, and he responded to an NPA warning with threats to 'file complaints'. --InShaneee 23:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

True. The backstory is described pretty well on Slashdot.org posting. Although I should mention that both Timothy Usher and Pecher have been lobbing attacks at editors who were critical of what they believe. It actually qualifies as bullying and borderline psychological terrorism. As editors we either agree with those two or we suffer the consequences. I'd like to remind you that these two fired the first shots on my user page and I'm disappointed with the Admins responses to this harassment so far. 24.7.141.159 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake for not signing with my user name. I also want to note this attack on me is in retribution to this posting. . User timothy usher and pecher have been tag teaming anyone and everyone they don't like. The similarities in their behavior makes it seem like Timothy Usher and Pecher are sockpuppets in violation of WP:SOCK User247 03:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To further support my claims. User:Timothy_Usher labeled me a murderer when I refused to agree with his position This was in response to him falsely labeling me an Islamist on those talk pages. Other users have been very critical of this user as well. . I find it amazing that they always work hand-in-hand. Again, this is in retribution to my earlier posting and reporting of User:Timothy_Usher. User247 03:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, the Talk:Islamism page was protected because User:Timothy_Usher was removing people's comments. The Administrators agreed this was non-sense. I certainly hope we come together as a community to rid our community of any editors that follow the lead of these two. Not acting upon this will set the wrong example and severely compromise the legitimacy of Misplaced Pages. Let me know what I can do to help take action against these two. User247 03:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

I was alerted to this incident on my talk page and wanted to submit a letter I had been preparing detailing the actions of these two users. I only ask for your consideration.

My overall impression of both "Timothy Usher" and "Pecher" is one of growing annoyance at their heavy handed tactics against anyone who questions their established paradigms against Islam. Recently, Timothy Usher has taken part of multiple campaigns against any user he deems fit to attack. It started above when he lobbed insults and accusations at "Deuterium" . Anyone that made the error of contributing an opinion was labeled a sock puppet of Deuterium and sucked into this war. I completely understand why so many editors have avoided commenting on this troubled username, but by ignoring the problem things have gotten worse.

At one point in this protracted battle, "Timothy Usher" had falsely claimed I was 4 different users. His only evidence was English phrases he deemed to be similar. Colloquial English has a very limited set of common phrases people tend to use over and over in casual speech and discussion. This evidence alone cannot be a grounds for a substantive accusation any more than hearsay can be admitted into a court room. Had the users in question been using esoteric terminology it would have strengthen the case but even then examination of IP addresses was a better solution. Although the IP address clearly showed, after I geo-located them, that it was next to impossible for me to be 400 and 1800 miles away from my university. This absolved me of any claims that I had been any of these users and he quickly dropped this line of attack on the notice board. He didn't respond to my sincere desire to understand why he felt it necessary to involve me in his attacks. This, however, wasn’t the end of this user’s attacks or his desire to recruit others to carry out his agenda.

After viewing a private web forum discussion talking about Misplaced Pages editors leading wars against other users, it came to my attention that editor comments were being censored on a Misplaced Pages talk page. Although I was hesitant at first to be bothered to participate, I pulled out my old username that I hadn’t used in months in an attempt to correct this serious offense. I began by asking Timothy Usher to stop this violation of our community policies. Only after he kept violating these basic rules that I asked Administrators to protect the Islamism talk page. Timothy Usher at the time had created an anonymous sock puppet from IP address 67.188.110.197 that he used to make is sound like he had a lot of support on his side. He knowingly changed his grammatical style to hide this fact and carried on reverting articles and lobbing criticism. This can easily be seen by examining that IP's contributions coming about right when the Islamism debate heated up.

Timothy Usher and Pecher’s violations are too numerous to list but there are quite a few notable events. Timothy Usher has compared other editors to murderers and has grossly violated WP:NPA on the Islamism talk page multiple times. A glance over at User_talk:User247 and my own talk page shows "Timothy Usher" starting his accusations against both of us to somehow be sock puppets of each other . I decided to largely ignore him while User247 decided to defend himself. Further examination of User247's talk page shows "Pecher" coming to the aid of "Timothy Usher" with his own accusations of User247 being yet another editor named "MuslimsofUmreka." This accusation was quickly countered by "Timothy Usher" and both of them agreed to concentrate their attacks on both myself and User247.

I am now seeing a Slashdot comment discussing a long history of this epic battle. Where this came from is beyond my knowledge but I would not put it beyond Timothy Usher and Pecher to write such a diatribe to further their ends. Quite honestly, this entire incident is growing to be an embarrassment for the community. I, too, am finding these attacks are unwarranted and becoming tiresome. I don’t try to focus on Misplaced Pages too much because my studies keep me very busy. However, I can attest to the fact that all the regular editors over at the Islamism article have left due to the events that have taken place since Timothy Usher arrived. Regardless of my personal opinions on the article, we cannot afford to drive out content creators and editors because of the actions of users such as Timothy Usher and Pecher.

"Timothy Usher" and his friend "Pecher" (anyone else think they are the same person?), have a fair bit of trouble getting along with people. I also firmly agree with the sentiment that this complaint is in retribution for the Administrator Notice against User "Timothy Usher" not too far above. Maybe its time we, as a community, ask Timothy Usher and Pecher to start abiding by our rules of conduct. If they cannot follow these rules, then they should have the option of not contributing any longer. We cannot make exceptions for any editor who wastes limited Wiki resources of prosecuting an agenda war because the casualties are editors who have made this place as great as it is. I appreciate your time and consideration on this matter. I look forward to proper measures being taken so this never happens again from these two user accounts.

Although I know that my comment will open me up to an assault of name calling, false accusations, and belligerent commentary in gross violation of WP:Civility and WP:NPA from both of these users and those who support them, this is the right thing to do. Hrana98 04:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty much like an open letter promised on Slashdot. Pecher 08:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:hrana98 was right about being accused wrongly. From Slashdot: ...Misplaced Pages's articles on Islam are tainted with negative propoganda... an open-letter is set to be released criticizing Misplaced Pages's policies of letting editors with negative agendas litter articles on Islam with what "feels right" instead of the facts. The letter above details both of your positions and does not mention the validity of Islam articles. Why are you twisting his words? User247 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So it does.

• ”...in the hope of having banned.”

Slashdot poster: “...in the hopes of having the account banned.”

Hrana98: “...in hope of having me banned.”Timothy Usher 08:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

At least the Administrators can see that hrana98's letter is fact. From above: "Timothy Usher" had falsely claimed I was 4 different users. His only evidence was English phrases he deemed to be similar. ... This evidence alone cannot be a grounds for a substantive accusation any more than hearsay can be admitted into a court room. Why do you persist on your little Crusade? User247 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Some comments this 24.7.141.159/128.97.247.141 had made on Talk:Islamism before I’d ever seen his user name(s):

Re Vector4F:

• “A reading of this talk page clearly shows that Vector4F has an axe to grind against proponents of Islam.”

To Graft:

• “Ignoring this fact shows that you have never bothered picking up a translation for the Qur'an and are just ignorantly spewing non-sense on these pages.”

• “Graft, knowledge is an amazing thing and it would be in your best interest to go learn something before preaching ignorance here.”

• “I hate to burst your bubble but...”, “I find your desire to differentiate Hasan al-Banna from Mrs. Bhutto to also be ignorant.”, “Have a good day.”

To ObsidianOrder:

• “Umm, I don't mean to be disrespectful but you are completely clueless with this statement”, “Unfortunately, your comment is rather ignorant and uninformed. I'm not going to sit here and try to educate you on where you are wrong because Google has ample amounts of information.”, “Again ignorance.”, “Please, life the blinders off your eyes.”, “It seems like you have a knowledge gap that needs to close before we can have a productive conversation.”, “Have a good day.”
• “Furthermore, judging by your previous contributions to Misplaced Pages, it is no surprise that you have an agenda to paint Islamic political ideologies in a negative light.”
• “It seems like s/he has a knowledge gap and an unwillingness to read the previous discussion on point s/he is bringing up.”

All the preceding having nothing to do with me, much less Pecher, except to the degree that I'd felt offended at the tenor of discussion on the talk page, and the way in which this user was attempting to intimidate and dominate others through a relentlessly personalized dialogue predicated on the nefarious motives and/or abject ignorance of his fellow editors.Timothy Usher 13:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In his latest edit of Talk:Islamism, User:User247 has taken another editor’s comments (so they surely were) and interpolated his own to alter the intended meaning of the passage Timothy Usher 00:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this to El_C on my talk page and I'm putting it here for record... Was that a comment or was it an introduction? I assumed it was an introduction to the talk page because it was not signed and was residing above everything but just below the notices. If it was a comment then by all means revert it or I can revert it myself. I had no ill intentions whatsoever. I suppose I became confused due to the location and lack of signature. You are welcome to check my other contributions because I never edit/censor people's comments. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

To Timothy_Usher... please assume "good faith" as per Misplaced Pages policies. As you already know, I never revert or censor people's comments like you have repeatedly done in the past. I'm sure you can remember when the Islamism talk page was locked because of your censorship. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you are just hunting for anything to accuse me with.

Also for records sake this is what I am hoping to achieve (as posted on hrana98's talk page)... I think I am more than willing to overlook Timothy Ushers accusations of calling me an Islamist, a murderer and his constant harassment without any conditions if El_C continues doing the great job he/she is. Everyone has been asking you to abide by the rules, stop the revert wars, stop the harassment and name calling, stop using multiple sockpuppets, stop pushing your negative agenda against Islam, stop the meaningless argument, stop censoring people's comments, stop banning users who don't agree with you, stop asking for Administrators to ban anyone you happen to not like, stop labeling me a sockpuppet of another user without proof, changing your negative attitude, etc. I'm asking the same. User247 06:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• “I'm going to go out on a limb and say...”

User247: “I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you are just hunting for anything to accuse me with.”

Hrana98: “I'm going to go out on a limb and say both of you are the same person.” Timothy Usher 07:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me redirect you to the above comment I posted (please check the time stamp): At least the Administrators can see that hrana98's letter is fact. From above: "Timothy Usher" had falsely claimed I was 4 different users. His only evidence was English phrases he deemed to be similar. ... This evidence alone cannot be a grounds for a substantive accusation any more than hearsay can be admitted into a court room. Why do you persist on your little Crusade? User247 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC) You prove my point again. User247 21:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

GNAA AfDs

Seriously, this is getting out of hand. I've created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (16th nomination), Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (16th nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America 16, Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America 16 as redirects and protected all of them so that it doesn't happen again for a short while. This is only temporary. Any objections?. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll just end up with "GNAA 17", or "GNAA 16.1", or, my preferred WP:BEANS entry, "GNAA sixteen". (And people will think you're just trying to influence the pool, if and when it starts up.) JDoorjam Talk 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, on the other hand, whose to say the nominations aren't or won't be coming from GNAA members? "Bad faith" nominations being closed as speedy keep, the article becoming "untouchable" in terms of deletions, they've got themselves a permanent place in Misplaced Pages haven't they? I'd suggest a 6 month break with a guaranteed relisting on 17th October 2006. Protect it until then and speedy close all nominations in the meantime. --kingboyk 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that, as soon as it's off parole, it will immediately be AfD'd (by a GNAA member if no one else). What I propose is that we adopt the following two rules:

1. The next AfD must be Gay Nigger Association of America 16.
2. All other nominations will not be considered; in fact, they will be speedy deleted as trolling/vandalism.
3. GNAA 16 will only be unlocked after gaining consensus on the GNAA talk page that a new, never-before-considered argument as to why the GNAA is non-notable is possibly persuasive (e.g., User:Linuxbeak realizes and convinces us all that the GNAA is, in fact, merely a Mefloquine-induced nightmare).

Or, boiled down to its core, Deletion of the GNAA must be discussed on the talk page, and a consensus must be built there that its deletion in AfD 16 is plausible given new arguments demonstrating its non-notability.

In this manner, we're not preventing AfD, or treating the symptoms (frivolous AfDs) without addressing the problem (the act of frivolously nominating it for deletion); we're merely raising the bar to its use. JDoorjam Talk 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as all the recent noms have come from people who are either making their first edits, or nearly their first... it's almost certain they're sockpuppets or have been told what to do (all the noms also have similar tones, to me at least). So I thought it was a given that these noms are by people who claim to be GNAA or support GNAA or whatever. --W.marsh 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop screwing around. Speedy keep any afds just like you would if someone afded George W. Bush. Don't ever list it on afd again. The page existing does nothing to the site, attempting to delete it hurts the site. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 14:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Create a few plausible next nomination pages, and speedy delete any nominations for the next six months. Thereafter, the behaviour will revert to normal. Werdna648/_C\ 02:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. --Ryan Delaney 17:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The best solution (found The Hard Way by trial and error) is to redirect all such nominations to the same page, the 15th is as good as any I guess. Kim Bruning 17:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess who

SPUI is firing up the move wars again, which would seem to require that he be immediately blocked in compliance with Zscout370's injunction from March 24, although given the history of this fracas my words may well fall on deaf ears. In any event, if SPUI isn't blocked for this I'll assume that means I can move the pages back without being blocked myself... thanks for your time, have a nice day. phh 00:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would block him, but as I am an active participant in the battle, it would be against WP:BLOCK. Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, sysops did not arbitrarily create new policy on AN/I, there is no "Zscout370 'injunction'". —Locke Cole • t • c 13:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't count unless Curps blocks SPUI for pagemoves :-P Cyde Weys 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That ain't happening - I'm doing maybe one or two per day. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Deaf ears indeed! Okay, well, I guess I'll go move the pages back, then. I can't help but think that there must have been a better way to resolve this. But whatever. --phh 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there consensus to move them back? There may not have been consensus to move to begin with, but warring over this is not productive. Presumably SPUI had a reason for the move; has this reason been discussed? KillerChihuahua 13:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Many, many attempts have been made to discuss these matters with SPUI. He has repeatedly made clear his intent to ignore any conventions or decisions that he does not personally agree with, and has disrupted literally hundreds of pages toward that end. To answer your question directly: His reasons have indeed been discussed, he has repeatedly failed to obtain consensus for the moves, and he doesn't care.

I agree that move warring is not productive. As I said before, I can't help but think that there must have been a better way to resolve this. --phh 20:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it actually warring if no consensus is reachable? JohnnyBGood t c 21:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:MONGO block of User:Striver

Administrator MONGO (talk · contribs) has had a long running conflict with (and clearly often legitimate issues regarding) Striver (talk · contribs) (Striver RFC against JerseyDevil (talk · contribs), numerous Articles for Deletion, etc). Yesterday, Striver launched a moderate personal attack on MONGO which MONGO responded to by blocking Striver for 24 hrs User talk:Striver#Blocked for 24 hours. I believe this block was in violation of the WP Administrator code of conduct regarding not blocking editors you're in a personal dispute with Misplaced Pages:Administrator Code of Conduct#Blocking " An admin should not block a user if they are not neutral with respect to that user, or have a conflict of interest. ". MONGO is not responding well to my having pointed it out (see User talk:MONGO#Latest Striver block) and told me to RFC him. As there's a user block involved I think I need to ANI it.

I have two requests for one or more neutral uninvolved admins to review:

One, is MONGO's 24 hour block of Striver an appropriate sanction given the nature of  ? Striver's comment was clearly an inappropriate personal attack; my question is whether it rose to the level of requiring, justifying, or mandating a block in response, or not.

Two, is it appropriate for MONGO to continue using administrative blocks against Striver given the long history of content and other disputes (which I believe are clearly non-neutral relations between them), or should he have asked for a neutral administrator?

Georgewilliamherbert 05:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Georgewilliamherbert has a long standing tradition of protecting Striver, even when all others feel that Striver is violating numerous policies. I cannot ceased to be amazed why some folks defend those whose primary contributions violate WP:POINT, WP:FORK, WP:NPA and a slew of other areas. It should also be noted by the numerous others that have contacted Striver on his talk page, that I am most certainly not alone in my disputes with Striver. admonished for nominating other articles after one of his got deleted, soliciting Afd votes from those that favor his POV, told to stop vandalizing articles, using his talk page as a message board to misrepresent others, asked to not spam for votes, asked to not overemphasize trivialities, asked to not violate POINT, questioned about Forking articles to fit his POV, cautioned about violation POINT, again, discussion about spamming for Afd votes, another editor asks him to not spam him about Afd's, asked to not use false edit summaries, and of course...this is just the very tip of the iceberg.--MONGO 07:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also admonished him several times when I saw him clearly do something wrong, in my opinion, including over this incident (see User talk:Striver#Blocked for 24 hours), and I'm not questioning that he does a lot of stuff which is at least mildly disruptive or abusive. The question is, do you, MONGO, still have a sufficiently neutral opinion and position to be able to fairly and non-abusively judge whether administrative blocks are appropriate for specific grey-area / relatively minor abuses, or not? I don't think you do. I don't think I'm completely unbiased here, either, which is why I'm ANI asking for neutral administrator review. If you want to RFC or file for Arbitration on Striver, feel free... that's not an abuse of administrator power, anyone could do it, and lord knows enough people are frustrated with him. But using the administrator block powers against administrator policy (or, at least borderline) may not be an appropriate response by you against his abuses. This would have been avoided if you'd pointed out his personal attack and asked a neutral admin to respond, as policy says you should. Which is what we're doing now.

If you think that you can do no wrong in combating Striver's abuses... then you do have a problem with abusing administrator powers. Striver has to type a lot to annoy or abuse people. You have a convenient button at a level he can't get at. Two wrongs don't make a right. Georgewilliamherbert 08:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There comes a point that some editors do indeed exhaust the communities patience. Your opinion is noted.--MONGO 08:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If he's really exhausted the communities patience, and not just yours, why not file Req for Arbitration and moot this question of whether you are neutral or not by getting an Arbcom ruling? Or a RfC? Georgewilliamherbert 17:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Striver means well, and has made positive contributions, but it's clear to me that he now does more harm than good. He has a long history of personnal attacks, POV pushing, vote solicitation, content forking, and generating lame 'articles' to make a point. Is MONGO's 24 hour block warranted? Sure; If I hadn't been on a Wikibreak I would have seen the attack and blocked him myself. Tom Harrison 14:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If it makes anyone feel better I will go and re-block him myself. Striver is nothing but a constant irritant these days. Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to act as a second admin opinion in future situations where MONGO is considering using admin in regards to Striver if MONGO asks me to, but think MONGO is responsible, from what I've seen, in his adminship, and I don't think that this block was particularly inappropriate. If Striver insists on continuing to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies on an admin and that admin blocks him, that's simply an unwise course of action by Striver, IMO. JDoorjam Talk 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that admins should avoid conflicts of interest (real or imagined) whenever possible. However, I too see nothing wrong with the block in this case. This particular personal attack was mild, but it's hardly an isolated incident. I also note that MONGO left a note on the talk page explaining the reasons for the block (including the ongoing pattern of disruption), as any good admin should. Saying that it's automatically wrong for the recipient of a personal attack to block is not something I can condone. As long as our admins are reasonably responsible, there's no need to tie their hands quite that much. I see nothing in MONGO's actions here that looks inappropriate to me. Friday (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The last thing I wish is an appearance of unilateralism in my actions. While I do not believe that I acted wrongly, I'll work hard to ensure others don't feel that I violate any policies.--MONGO 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am getting pretty tired of this defence of Striver no matter what wikipedia policies he violates. If it were any other user he'd be banned long ago but he plays the victim and in response to this a select group of other users viciously attack anyone who takes the liberty of cleaning up his harmful contributions. Mongo should have told another admin about the situation, but the personal attack was still not warranted and the user did deserve his ban.--Jersey Devil 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Person claiming to have done illegal activity

I am somewhat concerned about User:C0ldpr0xy. His user page claims that he has done illegal activity and I think that this might cause problems for him and possibly for Misplaced Pages, even if it was a joke. I posted a message on his talk page but he didn't respond and he posted an article about someone named Jeton Ramadani, who also apparently did illegal hacking activities, which I deleted because it seemed to be a hoax. Does anything need to be done about this? Academic Challenger 07:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that unless he is completely irrational he is just posting stuff that isn't true for inexplicable reasons.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or another, let's not let this escalate into something stupid. Ignore it, move on. — Apr. 17, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Given that there is no "US National Bank" we can conclude that its not a real concern. Whether the user is bothing to contribute to Wikipedai is a different matter, and we should presumably keep an eye on him. JoshuaZ 12:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there WAS a "United States National Bank", but that was in 1885... so I don't think it's in any danger. :) Never Cry Wolf 12:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How ignorant for you to say that Wolf! Have you not heard of a little invention called oh what was it?... OH YEAH, THE TIME MACHINE!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this is obviously fake: if he'd really stolen $500 (accurate to six significant figures, apparently) from the United States National Bank, using his computer and a time machine, he would have referred to himself as a hax0r, not a hacker. Further, there is no mention that he is an "3117 71m3 7r@ve113r". He also would have referred to his activities as "rox0r", and the bank's security as "teh sux0r". Without these tell-tale signs, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that this is a false claim. JDoorjam Talk 14:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious from the above evidence that this young man must be in possesion of a time machine. The prudent course of action is to not needlessly offend him or he could go back in time and kill us as infants.

Yes I did think it was somwhat odd when my parents disappeared in a puff of smoke this morning- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam, much as I respect you, I must humbly disagree. If he were that good, wouldn't he refer to himself as "3|33+ +1|\/|3 +|2@\/3113|2"? KillerChihuahua 13:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

im in ur past, killing ur p4rentz. -- 9rm_wn0r 16:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Canderous Ordo

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of about a hundred long term abuse vandals.; but it appears that he, himself, has added them. It was then removed; but his edits closely resemble that of the Communist Vandal: and . I have blocked him for 48 hours for such vandalism. So is he, as he says he is, a long term abuse vandal? Thanks, Kilo-Lima| 14:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's a troll at best. He's done nothing productive in his short time here: I'd support an indefinite block. JDoorjam Talk 14:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

He's a Johnny the Vandal sock. I thought I got him the last time through (his obsession with Mike Garcia is a JTV trademark, and JtV has been impersonating Communism recently). Block him and salt the earth. Syrthiss 14:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

He's impersonating the communist vandal? How can you tell its JtV? Or mayhaps they are the same? The Minister of War 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, maybe its the other way around. Ordo is listed on WP:JtV from back in march. Doesn't matter which is impersonating which, though. Both are suffering under an indef block deathmark. Syrthiss 14:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, since we've established that he is a sockpuppet, I have blocked him indef. Thanks for your help, Kilo-Lima| 14:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Range block imposed on 128.239.0.0/16

Due to an organized program of vandalism across multiple Wikimedia projects, 128.239.0.0/16 (assigned to William and Mary College) has been indefinitely blocked, per order of Danny under WP:OFFICE. This block will be removed when the situation has been resolved. Please do not unblock this range without consulting either myself or Danny. You may refer questions to myself or to Danny. We apologize for the (significant) collateral damage. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So WP:OFFICE can block for vandalism now? Nothing on Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse So I assume whatever it is hasn't hit en.wikpedia yet of if it has it doesn't register above backgroud. Blocking for vandalism makes no sense withing the preview of WP:OFFICE since it is something any admin can do. I any case it would be nice if danny listed this at WP:OFFICE. We had enough missunderstandings lately without adding to them.Geni 18:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is extensive vandalism on enwiki from this group as well; it's just been better controlled. The project-wide block is as much to get the attention of administrators at M&W as it is to halt the vandalism. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, AOL next! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I oppose big blocks like this, but folks need to go over to cat:csd and start cleaning out the Augean stables. Those turkeys managed to leave a lot of poop, and if that many CSD's got tagged, you can imagine how many got deleted by admins watching recent changes and new pages. We are really getting a deluge just now, so everyone grab some hip waders and get in there. Geogre 01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (And I've smothered about 40 of them today so far.)

Dont say the words "Augean stables" and "smothered" in the same breath! of course then I just went and said them... --Syrthiss 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If more folks don't get in there at the CSD backlog, I shall mix more metaphors until they do! :-) Geogre 10:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked the range by the direct request of Danny. Certain events today have led to the identies of the vandals, and apparently they have appoligzed to Danny via email. --lightdarkness 03:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This "WP:OFFICE" thing is getting out of hand. This is a community project. Problems need to be aired -- not dealt with in secret. --FOo 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't really a "WP:OFFICE" sort of thing, all the information was discussed on IRC since it was easier to pass along the information. --lightdarkness 07:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but posting to AN/I hardly sounds like handling it in secret. A reason was given, mass vandalism across multiple projects, it is clear that action is being taken to resolve the situation, Kelly has apologised for the temporary inconvenience. What are we supposed to do, let them continue to run riot? Just zis Guy you know? 10:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The original reason wasn't credible. The fact is no mention of this group appeared in any of the places serious vandalism is recorded.Geni 12:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Geni, would you care to admit that things go on that you, personally, are not necessarily informed about? The bulk of the vandalism took place on minor wikis such as Choctaw and Hawaiian; some of these projects were completely vandalized (every or nearly every page touched). I'm sorry if you think that we have to talk to you before we can take reasonable action to protect the project, but that's not the way it works. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't create strawmen.Geni 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, I thought that here was one of the places that serious vandalism is discussed and dealt with...? Kelly reported that the block was placed because of an 'organized program of vandalism across multiple Wikimedia projects', and provided instructions for admins with questions ('You may refer questions to myself or to Danny'). I don't see anything on Kelly's talk page; if you were concerned about the reason for the block, did you try asking her or Danny why they felt such action was necessary? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that WP:OFFICE actions were open to questioning. Or more correctly that there was any expectation that such questions can be answered. WP:OFFICE does not in any case cover blocks. Further more the general understanding is that office actions will be carried out for legal reasons. With mentions of office but no mentions of legal threats and the vandlaism on en haveing not significantly registered above background you can see why the intial explanation has credibity issues. The get the attention of administrators at M&W explantion makes more sense.Geni 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny has the authority to act on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, who, as you may have forgotten, OWNS the computers that Misplaced Pages runs on. His instructions are to be respected. If you are not interested in doing that, resign your adminship. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please can you stop presenting strawmen. In any case I'd argue it is enough that his actions be tollerated.Geni 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to remain an admin on Misplaced Pages, you will not contravene Danny's express instructions. I think that's clear enough for you not to smell strawmen. If you have questions about something Danny's done or that someone else has done at his direction, I suggest that you raise those concerns privately. WP:OFFICE actions frequently involve sensitive matters which should not be aired publicly. It would be best if all admins would do their best not to interfere with the Foundation's management of such issues. Finally, WP:OFFICE covers whatever Danny needs it to cover: protection, deletion, blocks, desysopings, whatever. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"WP:OFFICE is an official policy promulgated by Jimbo Wales which allows Danny Wool (longtime Wikipedian, en-Misplaced Pages admin, steward, Foundation employee) to temporarily protect or modify an article." .Geni 17:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that Danny has the authority to do what needs to be done to protect the Foundation, and thereby protect Misplaced Pages. If you don't like that, you are free to find another hobby. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No we've been through that argument. Nothing on Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse. Therefor they were not much of a threat to en.wikipedia thus if they were pure vandalism (if not then we run into issue that if you are going to lie to protect wikipedia then your lies should at least be credible) there was no need to block on en to "protect the Foundation". Of course I can think of quote a few situations where blocking to protect the foundation would apply however most of them are covered by our other policies. Incerdentaly I can't recall where Danny was authorised to anything other than protection and deleteion (and even then Jimbo hasd indicated that protection should not last more than a week) in the name of the foundation.Geni 18:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On a completely different note, this sort of thing certainly calls into question whether Wikia has a viable business model (formerly Wikicities; it received angel funding according to a recent Signpost). A Wikia wiki is not all that different from a less-spoken-language Misplaced Pages wiki. I guess the hope is that wikis might be the next big thing à la blogging, but wikis turn out to be very labor-intensive. Without a worldwide "cast of thousands" watching for vandalism 24/7, the Willys of the world will have their way with Wikia wikis. I imagine it may even be a problem for large Misplaced Pages wikis whose language is spoken mostly in one time zone (eg, German, Japanese, and most others). The English-language Misplaced Pages is a bit of an exceptional case.

On a less unrelated note, I've put a range block on Loyola College in Maryland (144.126.0.0/16) with a request for their network administrators to contact Misplaced Pages. While I'm certainly no Danny or WP:OFFICE person, this tactic certainly seems to have worked wonders for William and Mary, so it seemed worth a try in dealing with the self-proclaimed "Loyola College vandal". I hope we will hear from them soon. -- Curps 04:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

4.226.111.130 removing "prod" tags from many articles

User talk:4.226.111.130 is removing "prod" tags from many articles without doing anything else to the article. This does not appear to be vandalism, but simply an honest opinion that the article is worth keeping. The user is doing other, good, cleanup work. But the user doesn't replace the tag with "cleanup" or improve the article in any way; he just removes "prod" tags. If this were a logged-in user, a message on the talk page would reach him, and I've done that for his current IP address. But it's hard to communicate with an anon. I think this user could be a good contributor, but needs guidance. Suggestions? --John Nagle 19:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What the IP is doing is fine. A coherent edit summary is about all that etiquette requires for removing PROD tags; the anon is not only doing that, but in many cases adding stub tags and such. The burden is not supposed to be on the de-prodder beyond that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement from the accused party -- I am a somewhat regular Misplaced Pages contributor (300 edits last Saturday alone), mostly copyedit/grammar/typo fixes, but I'm on dialup and my IP changes several times per day. Today I decided to investigate the list of prod'd articles to evaluate how the feature was being used, worrying that it might not be getting sufficient oversight. I started with the oldest prodded articles and worked backwards through the list until I had looked at all ~500 prodded articles. Out of the ~500 articles I checked, I saw ~30 (I didn't count) that I thought at least deserved a discussion/vote before being deleted. That leaves about ~470 articles, ~94% of them, that I looked at but didn't de-prod.

On the ones I unprodded, I did add stub tags where I saw untagged stubs, and I did add cleanup tags where I saw badly-written text, but most of the ones I de-prodded already had cleanup/NPOV tags or were prodded for notability and not for quality. Since my goal was to review all ~500 prod'd articles in a few hours, I didn't have time to do much rewriting of the articles I unprodded. However, I need to point out that prod tags are proposals for deletion, not proposals for improvement. I left improvement tags alone or added them, except in a few cases where I could make some fast changes to fix the problems. I've bookmarked the contribs page for this IP (as I've done for other IPs I've made many changes under) so that I can revisit the articles in the future.

On the whole, after reviewing the entire list of prodded articles, I'm content that the feature isn't being abused by rampant deletionists like I feared; even though I thought I was a firm inclusionist, I could only bring myself to de-prod about ~30 out of ~500 (~6%), so I guess the system is working well. Still, I think there is a moral responsibility to check over the list, since it's not an "uncontested deletion" if nobody but the nominator ever sees it.

4.226.111.130 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like good work to me, 4.226. The Prod system relies on editors double-checking each other. -GTBacchus 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A perfect example why anons should take extra care to not be confused with vandals. It's alarming when an anon goes on a "rampage", and very difficult to judge intentions. Why not get an account anyway? :) Stevage 09:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of user Cemcem

User:Cemcem was blocked with an expiry time of indefinite. I am not convinced this was the right decision (don't bite the newbie; assume good faith). Lambiam 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Duncharris says it's a sockpuppet. I'd like to hear who it's supposedly a sockpuppet of before we unblock. --Cyde Weys 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If not a sockpuppet, Cemcem is at least a meatpuppet of another user who has posted on that AfD - his first five edits were to that page, and at the time of his block he had no edits to article space. The sock (if that's what it is) does appear to have been created with the intent of disrupting the deletion discussion. (ESkog) 11:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

ComplianceBridge

There is some advertising going on around here. Earlier tonight, an article was created about the ComplianceBridge Corporation. I put an {{advertisement}} tag on it, and left a note on the creator's talk page asking them politely to please read the section about advertising on Misplaced Pages - specifically the section regarding advertising disguised as valid articles. I cannot find that article anymore, so I think it must have been deleted. But on my watchlist, I saw that the creator, User:Compliancebridge had thrown something on their talk page, and lo and behold, their user page is now an advertisement. I really don't think that this is a user wishing to contribute to the project at all - I think it's just a marketing guy who is looking to take advantage of us for a bit of free advertising. I would suggest an indefinite block of the account, while expressing hopes that the person himself will come back and help with the project. It's up to you - I'm not an admin yet, but I just wanted to let you know about it. Later, zappa.jake (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally, I'm pretty strongly against this type of thing...but here, there's not even an external link. So as long as he's not using this as his primary website (and, looking at it, god help him if he is), I don't think it's that big a deal (so long as things stay that way). --InShaneee 03:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blanked the advertisement userpage and left an explanatory note. The use of Misplaced Pages for advertisement is completely unacceptable. --FOo 05:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, (bitterly) it can't be completely unacceptable, since it's not a speedy criterion. But I won't think about that, it just makes me cry. WHY isn't advertising a speedy criterion? Bishonen | talk 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC).

Harassment by User:Leotardo

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

User Leotardo has been using an anonymous user's totally spurious accusation of sockpuppetry between User:pm_shef and User:Theonlyedge to harass pm_shef and Theonlyedge. I'm starting to not feel very neutral here, so I would like an uninvolved admin to take a look at his actions. Check out Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (second nomination) for a list of extremely suspicious "evidence" Leotardo has against pm_shef and Theonlyedge, which I thoroughly rebuffed, but Leotardo apparently doesn't care. He has added this same evidence in three other places: twice at WP:RFCU, and he has created Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Pm shef, in order to add Theonlyedge there. In the meantime, his only other edits have been blanking his talk page and removing sockpuppet warning notices from User:Poche1, User:Skycloud, and User:BabaHfa, which are suspected sockpuppets of Leotardo, see Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Leotardo for the evidence of this. An RFCU based on those allegations was never performed, though it was requested, but the evidence remains very strong nonetheless. Mangojuice 03:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the harrasser Mangojuice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . I added 9 pieces of evidences that would lead a person to believe the Theonlyedge is a sockpuppet of Pm_shef. You "thoroughly rebuffed" my charges by saying they couldn't be the same person, because they were editing at the same time, and one username was so proficient in adding AfDs and the other was very slow, so they can't be the same person. This was your only "evidence". And I added a sockpuppet tag to Theonlyedge, which you removed.... and now you are reporting me here. And I am the one harrasing here? No it's you. Leotardo 11:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And how many of these complaints are you going to put up on AN/I before you stop? I count three on this page alone. Leotardo 11:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a request up on RFCU, why keep pressing the issue? It will either be confirmed, disproved, or rejected. You know that pm_shef and theonlyedge have seen the template. Personally, I think both sides here should try to minimize their direct contact with each other (this goes for Mangojuice as well). If you have suspicions, bring them to an administrator and ask *them* to try and handle the problem. --Syrthiss 13:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll back off. Mangojuice 14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User Edits

• 67.70.149.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is most likely Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been blocked for running a sockfarm, making unsubstantiated attacks and accusations against a whole slew of editors (mostly me) etc etc. The anonIP's only edit is the exact same thing Eyeonvaughan has been pushing for weeks, including his spurt of socks following his initial blocking. pm_shef 04:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification The checkuser for Eyeonvaughan and VaughanWatch revealed that VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had used over thirty sockpuppets. Eyeonvaughan was not mentioned, and a request for clarification has not yet been answered. The 67.* range is in Bell Canada and may very well be either VaughanWatch or Eyeonvaughan, however I wanted to clarify the situation that Eyeonvaughan is not yet confirmed as a sock puppet or puppet master. Of course, RfCU is only a means of confirming that which is shown by behavior, so a block of 67* above may very well be in order anyway. Thatcher131 00:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jiang

Jiang was reverting his user page and talk page to a state that, in my opinion, called disruption of Misplaced Pages. (See .) Note the caption: Taiwan=shame. I am tempted to revert it, but I might very likely be block by either Jiang or Nlu. However, I would like opinions on this. Should his preferred version be allowed to stand? Is it a personal attack/racism (albeit against a group (specifically an ethic group, not an individual), deserving consequences? Am I wrong about this?--Freestyle.king 04:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What do the two photos on his userpage and on his talk page actually say? Translations please. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 04:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, some of the words are in English. It seems like some sort of propaganda by the communist government in China to justify its claim over Taiwan. Some of the accusations include "Dalai Lama owns slave." "Taiwan=shame" It is basically two photos that provoke racial hatred between Taiwanese and Chinese, which is already a delicate topic on wikipedia. The photo also accused Taiwanese President Chen Shui-Bian of faking the 3-19 shooting incident, which is possible, but has yet been proved correct. All in all, I believe the two photos has no place on wikipedia and is highly disruptive.--Freestyle.king 04:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. There is a difference between finding the happy happy guy amusing and provoking racial hatred. Freestyle king would do better to put his own house in order. Henry 10:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Henry find the "Taiwan=shame" photos amusing. Nevertheless the captions depicted on the photos are forms of racism/personal attack against a group and disruptive to the wikipedia community, since Taiwan-China relation is already a delicate topic on wiki. (see translation/examples listed above) However, I still like more neutral opinions on this before taking any other actions. To add to that, I consider the following phrase "Freestyle king would do better to put his own house in order." highly offensive. I hope no one is being personal.--Freestyle.king 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Block needed for Vigilant (talk · contribs · logs) for perpetual 3RR and Disruption

User is most probably Sean Crandall of Megapath.net See WP:RCU. I discussed the situation with Wikimedia yesterday and they relayed they would remove any inappropriate postings made by these users. Wikimedia asked me to translate the English Misplaced Pages into the Cherokee Language and I am working with Wales staff and our folks to provide Misplaced Pages with translation tools and a cash infusion to support Misplaced Pages Cherokee Language Projects. This user is a stalker patrolling merely to harrass me on this site and revert edits. I want him blocked for his harassing behavior. If my account is blocked again, it will in all likelyhood be unblocked. All legal issues with Wikimedia have been resolved and settled and there are no longer any pending issues regarding contributing. I want this user blocked and restrained. His harassment is inappropriate. See WP:RCU. If this account is blocked again, I will contact Wikimedia in the morning and we will cease our work on the Cherokee Language wikipedia if we feel our efforts with the Misplaced Pages community are a waste of our time and will be constantly subjected to this type of harassment. Wikimedia communicated they WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE OF THIS CONDUCT FROM THESE USERS who are stalking. Sint Holo 05:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add Jerryg (talk · contribs · logs) to the block list as well. He is also participating with the other user to harrass and disrupt editing. Sint Holo 05:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sint Holo continues to remove links to archived talk page discussions. I'm not sure what he wants to hide, but it doesn't help other users in following ongoing discussions. --Jerry (Talk) 06:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I archived my talk page after it was filled with message board dialouge by these users -- all of it harassing and vicious. I never solicited any of their commentary or had even edited from this account. They "stalk" the Cherokee article for purposes of harassment, 3RR, and disruption waitg for me to edit or contribute. Their purpose is to harrass me and drive me from the site. Wikimedia said THEY WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS CONDUCT ANY LONGER. Block this user. Please. Sint Holo 06:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No-one is fooled, Jeff. You have been banned indefinately from Misplaced Pages as Gadugi, Waya sahoni and others. So, it seems, you have already been driven from this site due to your repeatedly unacceptable behaviour. Why do you keep returning? Your new sockpuppets include Sint Holo and Tempus Fugit --Vryl 06:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Add Vryl (talk · contribs). This individual contacted the Cherokee Nation and harassed Dr. Delso until he told him to buzz off and verified I was working on Cherokee Articles and Culture for the CN Cultural Department on this site. See Talk:Cherokee. His conduct is more sinister. Add him to the block list as well. Please. Sint Holo 06:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Liar, liar, pants are on fire! I have sent exactly one email to Mr Delso, and received exactly one reply. You will note that after this, I confirmed to people about Jeff's ethnicity, when it was in dispute on the Cherokee page. You can see the very polite reply I received from Mr Delso now on my talk page, where he thanks me for the email. Some harrassment. Pls note that Mr Delso did not tell me to "buzz off". Feel free to email him to confirm this.

My "Sinister" apology to Jeff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gadugi&diff=prev&oldid=23635141

My polite email from Mr Delso: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Vryl#Email_from_Dusty_Delso_to_me.21

Update: Actually, I must have sent 2 emails to Mr Delso, because I apologised to him for the first one. The point is the same, I wasn't harrassing him, and he responded respectfully. --Vryl 14:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Cherokee doesn't say anything about Sint Holo, but it does show a response from Dr. Delso regarding Jeff Merkey. Are you now admitting that you are Jeff Merkey, who has been indefinitely blocked from Misplaced Pages? OneNamelessCat 06:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia can resind anything done by an admin on this site. I have been invited back to work on Cherokee by WIKIMEDIA. So much for the indef block banter. Find another hobby (like Houston Texas and the company you work for there). Sint Holo 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You will, of course, give us the name of the admin who invited you back. --Jerry (Talk) 06:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true, but even if it were, you have yet to show something statiing this from a verifiable authority. Until then, you're just a net.kook with a broken wiki fork and a penchant for losing at the legal game. Vigilant 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sean, I don't think megapath will appreciate their network being used by an employee for Denial of Service Attacks and hacking of Misplaced Pages or it's interwiki sites. Go work on your email clustering software and do something useful. You are better than this. Sint Holo 06:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you threatening me Jeff? Are you making threats against me pointed at my employer in such a way as to prevent my free exercise of expression here at wikipedia? Are you? Naw, I'm not Sean, but I bet you were sweating AGAIN, weren't you? I have worked on WolfPack Clustering from MS though. It was a dog. Vigilant 07:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I almost forgot, you are going to provide the name of the admin or authority that asked you to 'come back' and you are going to provide some cites for my identity and you are going to provide some cites for hacking allegations and DoS allegations, right? Cue cricket_chirp.wav Vigilant 07:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

By this diff it can be seen that this post was first made by User:71.199.40.199, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=71.199.40.199 and then quickly edited to read as though it was written by User:Sint Holo.

The following portion of an email header which I received on April 8, 2006, clearly shows that this IP address is being used by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, AKA banned User:Gadugi / User:Waya_sahoni / User:PeyoteMan / User:Asgaya_Gigagei / etc etc etc...

Received: from  (c-71-199-40-199.hsd1.co.comcast.net )
        by ns1.utah-nac.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDDC798A38
        for <____@____.com>; Sat,  8 Apr 2006 18:24:35 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <443858CB.3040907@wolfmountaingroup.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:43:55 -0600
From: "Jeffrey V. Merkey" <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com>

Once again, multiply-blocked user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is back and is up to his old tricks: evading previous blocks, forgetting to log on before he makes edits, making false and unsubstantiated charges, and making unsubstantiated claims of association with top-level individuals at Wikimedia -- which is a bit ironic, given that Merkey is still attempting to pull Wikimedia into Merkey's failed lawsuit, Merkey v Perents et al -- (2005-10-21 #31 NOTICE "PLAINTIFF JEFFREY VERNON MERKEY'S NOTICE OF COURT ORDER TO JIMMY WALES AND WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND WIKIPEDIA" ). -- talks_to_birds 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Merkey,
Thank you for your kind words. I have forwarded them to the Board of Wikimedia. Over the course of the day, I will 
provide you with the information you request. I firmly believe that a resource like wikipedia in Cherokee can be of 
enormous benefit to the Cherokee nation as an academic resource for students in their own language. Here is the site
 of the Cherokee-language Misplaced Pages for your perusal: http://chr.wikipedia.org/%E1%8E%A4%E1%8E%B5%E1%8E%AE%E1%8E%B5%E1%8F%8D%E1%8F%97. While it is still small, I am 
convinced it has enormous potential.
Danny Wool
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I apologize for my earlier conduct and public statements and ask Mr. Wales and Wikimedia to accept my apologies.
> I discussed your suggestion about the Cherokee Language Misplaced Pages with Dr. Dusty Deslo, Director of the Cherokee 
Nation Cultural and Language program.  I am writing a lexicon converter that will convert the entire English 
Misplaced Pages to the Cherokee Language for the Cherokee Nation.  Dr. Delso at present has me assigned to translate 
several hundred childrens books into Cherokee for our language immersion program for the Cherokee Youth (Tom Sawyer,
 Huck Finn, etc.)  I have been working on these translations and we are switching to the laguage conversion tools 
after I complete them.  I am working with our linguistics experts and the United States BIA on these projects for 
Dr. Delso and our people at present with a complete translation suite of tools for our language.  I have analyzed 
Misplaced Pages's XML dumps and have setup www.wikigadugi.org for our people and the Native Community and feel confident I
 can modify these tools to translate XML dumps from your site for the Cherokee Misplaced Pages in both syllabary and 
phonetic formats. 

Now please block all of these stalkers who are on this site for harrassment and disruption. Now. Thanks. Sint Holo 15:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny seems to have sent you a nice motherhood style of statement. Notice his use of the word "perusal", in relation to the Cherokee Wiki. Are you taking this to be an invitation to edit the english Misplaced Pages, a wiki that you have been banned many times from for disruption? Is Danny aware of your multiple bans? I assume that he should be informed of this. Or probably will be soon, if he hasn't already. --Vryl 16:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked two of the participants in the above ridiculous brawl, User:Sint Holo and User:Vigilant, for twenty-four hours, subject to review by other administrators. I shall block others who continue to abuse Misplaced Pages to pursue personal vendettas. This is not Usenet and your efforts to turn it into a perpetual flame war forum are not appreciated. --Tony Sidaway 18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

On reviewing the contributions and userpage of User:Vryl, I have blocked him indefinitely, subject to review by other administrators. He declares that his purpose in using Misplaced Pages is to "clean up the mess left behind by Jeff Vernon Merkey", and indeed nearly all of his edits for months now have been attacks on various socks of Merkey. Merkey may pose a problem for Misplaced Pages, but that problem cannot be resolved by blatantly ignoring Misplaced Pages's basic policies and using Misplaced Pages as a forum to attack other editors. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've examined the edits of , particularly this one. Another person here solely to pursue a vendetta against Merkey. I've blocked this editor indefinitely, subject to review by other administrators. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify Mr. Merkey's status. Is he or is he not banned from Misplaced Pages, as Misplaced Pages:List_of_banned_users#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey states he is? Has he been granted some exemption from WP:SOCK allowing him to edit as Sint Holo and TempusFugit despite having been permanently blocked from editing under at least 10 previous accounts? — MediaMangler 19:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that Sint Holo/Merkey/whatever has a legitimate complaint about stalkers, and it's equally obvious that--whatever his previous history--he's made an effort to resolve his differences with Wikimedia and he's making an honest effort to improve Misplaced Pages. I'm prepared to assume good faith on this subject. He should not be considered permanently banned at this time. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I know this thread has gone on too long already, but please help me understand how WP:BAN would allow good faith when the user has admitted being a banned user? This is a serious question. I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages and wikipedia policy is sometimes a convuluted as legal documents. --Jerry (Talk) 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good faith should never be enterely ruled out. As you can see above, Danny and Jeff have been able to interact with one another in good faith, and Jeff has offered help with the Cherokee Misplaced Pages. As long as this goes on, having some chaps pestering him and engaging in behavior that would disgrace a moderated forum, quite against all Misplaced Pages policy, is a big headache for Misplaced Pages. That some of them openly admit that this is your sole purpose for editing Misplaced Pages is very worrying indeed. This isn't a battleground, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of WP:BAN, and we only have Jeff's word that the above exchange actually took place, but you've made the decision. I've got more locomotive articles to work on, so I'm through with this thread. --Jerry (Talk) 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User Sint Holo has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales as a sockpuppet of the banned user Gadugi. I hope this closes this matter and allows us to move on. Friendly Neighbour 06:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On reviewing the edits of Vigilant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it seems that I could not find any which were not focused on banned user Jeff Merkey. It seems that his sole reason for existence on Misplaced Pages was to import external wars to Misplaced Pages. I have therefore blocked this user indefinitely, subject to review by other administrators. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can refer this block to Nicholas Turnbull for review like you did the last two. Oh, I guess not. Surely you remember that Merkey's orders to you were to block my account next. Yes, yes, I know I've done edits against other vandals besides Merkey, but I fail to see why fighting against multiple vandals is somehow of more worth than being focused on protecting Misplaced Pages from a single threat. At no point have you claimed that any of the three accounts you blocked were in violation of any policy. I would've posted this comment to your talk page, but you seem to have the uncivil habit of removing talk page comments. (And of blocking those whose comments you don't like.) — MediaMangler 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Uncivil removal of talk page discussion 2

This is a continuation of an issue that I mentioned above, but the administrator involved seems to have dropped out of discussion.

My recent discussion on (a) verifiability of NPOV policy (b) paraphrasing of NPOV policy, do not appear to have been discussed before. But FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unilaterally removed my discussion comments from the Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view page, twice now

While I can appreciate an editor not wanting to engage in discussion, I consider the removal of discussions to be at least uncivil, as it removes verification of discourse, and prevents other editors from engaging in discussion.

FeloniousMonk has claimed that "dozens of Misplaced Pages's most credible editors have asked for this discussion to be either dropped or taken to user talk space over the last four months". As far as I can tell, my points have not been discussed before (FeloniousMonk should be able to show otherwise). And how do I spot a "credible editor"... do they have the power to delete contributions without discussion with the other editor?

I would like (A) my discussion restored (B) FeloniousMonk banned from editing the policy page on the grounds of heavy-handed uncivility --Iantresman 10:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is highly unlikely. FM userfied your very large, somewhat out-of-topic, and tenditious tendentious (not to say tedious) posts to the policy talk page. Your points have indeed been discussed, ad nauseum, as you would know had you read the archives. So far as I can see, your complaint is that your wordy and unsupported attempts to change a key policy have been userfied. Case closed. KillerChihuahua 14:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you find the discussions tedious (I can't find the word tenditious in my dictionary), but I asked other editors for claification on policy. I've looked through the archives (as I explained to the previous administrator); can you show me where I have received any clarification, or how I am supposed to? Policy suggests that I discuss it.

Nor can I find anywhere that FeloniousMonk has suggested that I take my discussion elsewhere. Nor can I find where there are policies or guidelines that explain the circumstances when it is OK to "userfy" a discussion? --Iantresman 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

tendentious (tenˈden sh əs) adjective expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, esp. a controversial one : a tendentious reading of history. (dont mind me, just trying to be helpful) Syrthiss 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

New template

{{ Template:SharedIPPublic }} has been created by me to identify public terminal IP addresses. Hope this helps! --Sunfazer 11:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon tagging people with {{sockpuppet}}

172.208.173.58 (talk · contribs) is tagging legitimate editors with {{sockpuppet}}. He is probably the same editor as some other anon trolls/vandals, 172.178.190.244 (talk · contribs), 172.183.73.212 (talk · contribs), 172.178.132.39 (talk · contribs), 172.178.31.243 (talk · contribs), 172.174.77.138 (talk · contribs). I may haave missed one or two, but these seem to be the main perps.

As this might be a dynamic IP, I think a short block might be in order. Perhaps a longer one as well, but I'll leave to that whomever feels like picking this one up.

Cheers, The Minister of War 11:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are AOL IPs; given the dynamic nature, anything more than a 15 minute block will be more headache than help. Essjay 12:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Headaches aplenty already! Thanks, The Minister of War 12:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is: how to solve this holy edit war in the long run? 'Cause we can't endlessly revert and block every AOL IP number. Perhaps this could even be reported to the ISP? Comments left on talk pages such as this (which I have taken the liberty to remove) are not helpful to the Project. Misza13 12:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Stay away from Kosovo or I call NATO to kill your parents"? Is something wrong with me if I find this amusing? De mortuis... 13:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Not at all, I left him on my talk page just for laughs. But then again, for all we know Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is the one trolling... The Minister of War 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• ya people do know that the 172.x.x.x range is only semi-portable, so usually they don't support more than one person at a time, unlike the 64.x.x.x, 152.x.x.x, and 205.x.x.x ranges, a block on a 172.x.x.x range isn't likely to cause any problems, so you could probably get away with a 24 hour block if you really had to, and unlike the 64,152,205's, the 172s don't rotate unless you sign off, or otherwise disconnect your modem--152.163.100.65 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• only issue I can think of, is the ease in which AOL users can switch between the 172 ranges, and the shared ranges, does seem to make blocking them virtually impossible, especially since AOL can assign several different ip groups to the same computer, at the same time, hence my little quick change from 152.163.100.65 to 172.151.240.130, and back again --172.151.240.130 20:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• so, um, yep, virtually impossible to block--152.163.100.65 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:StrangerInParadise

I reduced Alkivar (t · c · b · p · d · m · r)'s civility indef. block of StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to one week to be consistent with the RfAr. NoSeptember 13:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You do realize SIP is just a sockpuppet of another well-established user, right? The tradeoff is either that the sock gets blocked indefinitely or the same sanction must be applied to the main account as to the sock account. Since the main account is actually being useful and the sock is just being used for trolling, I would highly recommend that we keep the sock indefinitely blocked. --Cyde Weys 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jewboy101

Blocked this indefinitely based on user name and vandalism only account. Contributions are adding pictures they uploaded to school sites, which included what appeared to be copyright pornography. All pictures also deleted. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Samuel Blanning

The page Clive Bull is presently debating the introduction of a new version by Minglex. Some users believe that the article does not flow well: siting Minglex’s choice of subcategories, overall flow of the article (categories are stand alone and not linked well) and grammatical errors.

Blanning believes that the new version is better but instead of debating the issue has stifled debate through un-civil behaviour.

1. From what I can tell some of the opponents work in the same organisation (Same IP) and some others are students from the same university (hence same IP) . Blanning has labelled them all sock puppets and refuses to debate their views of the article. He is also actively trying to ban them. These users have not vandalised any article yet he labels their justified objection to the new version as vandalism. 2. As the new article’s formatting and sub-categories are in contention by 10+ users it would be wiki procedure to keep the old version as by looking at the discussion page 10against to 3for is not a consensus. The 10+ users requested page protection for the old version. Against the wishes of the discussion and the majority of users he sneakily changed to the new version before protecting the page.

This is uncivil behaviour and an abuse of his privileges. Clivefan 14:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A case of m:The Wrong Version, it seems. Samuel Blanning did not protect the page. Thus, no harm nor foul. Work out your differences on the talk page. —BorgHunter (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

He changed it just as it was about to be protected. Sthriss also likes the new version and I suspect colusion. Clivefan 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is highly amusing given that Clivefan was the one who requested protection. --Sam Blanning 15:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I asked for protection of the old version from Sam Blanning and Syriss see complaint below. They coloded to put in place the new version and protect it. That is uncivil. Clivefan 15:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

TINC. --Sam Blanning 15:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Clive, Protection occurs to prevent edit warring or vandalism. , not to protect from editors who disagree with you. JoshuaZ 15:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see my conflict of interest here. I have never edited Clive Bull except for vandalism removal and a slight grammar fix. It is true that I stated I preferred Minglex' version on the talk page, but I've been largely trying to stay out of it because I don't have any interest in Clive Bull...I'm not British... etc. IPs and users from one side of the conflict have been trying for at least a week to have it protected, so when I saw that Sam (a party on the other side of the discussion) agreed it needed to be protected I decided to agree and protect it. Now that it is protected, Sam will not be able to edit it either for fear of censure because of unfair use of admin powers. JoshuaZ and BorgHunter are correct: we don't lock pages to help either side get ahead in a conflict, and anytime you request a page be protected you run the risk that it will be protected in the "wrong version". All that being said, if another admin feels that I may have been biased they are welcome to remove the protection. Syrthiss 15:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The request for protection clearly asked for the original version to be protected. You were biased. 147.114.226.172 16:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith please. From the header of Requests for page protection:

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Misplaced Pages:List of protected pages with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.

Syrthiss 16:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Sythriss

The page Clive Bull is presently debating the introduction of a new version by Minglex. Some users believe that the article does not flow well: siting Minglex’s choice of subcategories, overall flow of the article (categories are stand alone and not linked well) and grammatical errors.

Sythriss along with Blanning (above) believes that the new version is better but instead of debating the issue has stifled debate through un-civil behaviour.

Sythriss used his administrator rights to protect a version of the Clive Bull page that is disputed. As he had contributed to the Clive bull discussion he knew which version I requested for protect.

User:Mrnitpicker

A registered but unknown user with no User Page continues, despite warnings and with no response from him, to make inappropriate, evidently self-aggradizing changes on the St. John Publications page. Details below.

I have left comments on that article's talk page, and I also created the page User talk:Mrnitpicker in order to post comments/warnings directly to him before coming here.

I believe his edits to be inappropriate and contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, and I document below that they are inaccurate. He does not respond, and simply to continues to repost, and I believe this behavior, coupled with the facts below, may make blocking him the only resort.

I am reposting here verbatim what I posted on the St. John page, followed by my posting to the Mrnitpicker page;

St. John Publications talk page

Deleted inappropriate self-aggrandisement

An unregistered person added, to the head of the article, "Most of the information contained in this article was taken directly from Ken Quattro's extensive and far more detailed article, Archer St. John and the Little Company That Could ."

First, that source was duly and properly credited under References right from the very beginning. Second, having created this page and going to great lengths to find other, confirming sources — as well as independently and solely creating a bibliography from scratch using often-contradictory sources — that statement is not only self-aggrandizing, it is inaccurate. -- Tenebrae 21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding inappropriate comments

It Rhymes with Lust is not copyrighted by Ken Quattro. Its image is not exclusive to him, and if you want to get technical, what right did he have to put it on a commercial website himself?

If this behavior, which is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, continues, I'm going to report you to the Admin and have you blocked. -- Tenebrae 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Mrnitpicker

All information on Misplaced Pages comes from other sources; that makes the St. John Pubs. article no different from any other, and all the sources, not just yours, were linked-to in the References section from the start.

• Every word in this entry is my original writing; you imply plagiarism by putting your notice at the head of the article, yet the article contains no phrases from any other work.
• It distills a long and highly detailed history of the company into a few concise paragraphs of original writing.
• It draws from a variety of listed sources, plus separately footnoted and linked-within-article sources, as well as other Misplaced Pages articles (such as Matt Baker) to, in the intro, encapsulate the company's firsts in a way the comicvilleart pieces does not, and, in the history, adds many details the comicartville piece does not.
• And finally, it includes a bibliograpy constructed from various contradictory sources, a bibliography constructed with my own sweat and hours — all of this, working anonymously, done not for credit or self-aggrandizement, but as an unnamed volunteer to help write an enyclopedia. If you'd wanted to write a St. John article from scratch as I did, nothing was stopping you.

I will now explain all this to an Admin for appropriate action. -- Tenebrae 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU for any any help. As you'll see from my User Page and Talk Page, I've been a hard-working Wikiepdia editor for close to a year, and from other editors' comments, I believe my work has been respected. Thank you again -- Tenebrae 15:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Kehrli

User:Kehrli has carried on a campaign of advocacy starting at an article titled m/z misconception, that is now deleted and then at mass-to-charge ratio. Mediation has failed. Currently the article only has factual inaccuracies, misleading information and disproportionate representation but that is after an extended period of being corrected by myself and other users, incl. moderators about advocacy. He has learned that to push his POV he must appear legit. Also not his user page which is a diatribe against m/z.

--Nick Y. 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

fixed a confusing typo Ashibaka tock 00:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) blocks Karmafist (talk · contribs)

While browsing through old ArbCom cases, I suddenly stubled on an edit made in the old RFAR over Karmafist. It seemed that Karmafist had been blocked for one year UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), for making disruptive edits.

To save us all some time, this short discussion on User:UninvitedCompany's talk page ensued. Any and all comments are greatly appreciated. The Minister of War 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your block of Karmafist

Hey there,

I noticed your block of Karmafist . However, you may have been mislead by his provocative edit summaries, but it is not the case that "substantially all" of his edits have been disruptive. If you check their content, you will find most are normal edits (admittedly with the customary level of sarcasm here and there).

I certainly feel a block is warranted by his last "f*ck it" edit summary, and a few others in a lesser degree, but a year is much too heavy for this.

Please review the edits under question so that you can see for yourself the were not disruptive, but rather that only his edit summaries were uncivil. I'd appreciate it if you would adjust the block time accordingly.

Greets, The Minister of War 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right insofar as some of the diffs themselves show relatively normal editing with curious edit summaries. The way I see it, though, he isn't contributing anything of value at this point, but is instead doing three things: (a) updating his user page and pages related to it, (b) making various edits motivated by wikipolitics, and (c) baiting other people by deliberately ignoring the AC remedies. I took the bait -- knowingly -- because the AC remedies were crafted based in giving lots of second chances to an established contributor. But he's not contributing -- he's made a decision to leave and is trying to leave as much damage as possible in his wake. He knows exactly what he's doing and is flouting the community on purpose. While I appreciate your concern and look forward to further discussion, and am willing to remove the block if it's clear there's a good deal of reasoned opposition to it, I'm going to leave it in place for now.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree he's not very contructive lately. And no doubt his edit summaries are only to be regarded as purposely inflammatory. Thats why I formulated so carefully - in no way to I condone this behaviour. But to my mind, your points (a) and (b) are no reason for blocking at all. Point (c) certainly is, but for one year? While I often disagree with Karmafist, he has seen good times as well and I think this counts for something. He's not a troll or a vandal, he's a contributor gone awry. And I think "there is still good in him" ;-).

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, but as soon as I have the opportunity I will post something on WP:AN/I. I'll inform you once I do. I'm glad with your open and honest reaction.

Cheers, The Minister of War 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion at User_talk:UninvitedCompany#Re:_Your_Edit_On_My_Birthday may be relevant to this discussion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this was the second time Karmafist was blocked for violating the arbcom ruling. As a process fanatic, I would think that we'd rather wait till the fifth (sixth) violation to have him blocked for a year, as the ruling says. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(from IRC) I do sort of feel sorry for Karmafist because I did used to respect him, but at the same time, he's been nothing but disruptive for awhile now, and I cannot in good faith reduce that one year block. --Cyde Weys 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reduced the block to one week, pending me being able to discuss this with him. The one year block was WRONG and out of place. Please follow the ArbCom ruling, UIC. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:25 UTC (2006-04-19)

I have to agree with Oleg Alexandrov here. Karmafist is flouting the Arb Com ruling with his edit summaries, which he has been warned about again and again and again... and the spirit of UIC's block is right, but we should probably follow the letter of the law here and stick to the five-strikes-and-you're-out-for-a-year remedy of the Arb Com ruling.--Alhutch 01:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had all day to think about this, and I have to disagree with the year-long-block now (and thus agree with NSLE's shortening of it). My reasoning is this: Karmafist is continuing with precisely the same violations that the ArbCom ruled on, thus, the letter of the ArbCom ruling should be respected. If he were doing something else, or taking it to a new destructive level, a lengthy block now might be appropriate, but as it stands, there's simply no reason to ignore the ArbCom's time and effort and short-circuit their decision. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

well said, i agree.--Alhutch 02:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me

keeps blocking AOL ranges, even specific AOL ip addresses with no history of vandalism, all attempts to contact this user have been treated as vandalism, and all ranges used to do so, have been blocked, Can't sleep, clown will eat me has now protected his own talk page to keep anyone from reporting collateral from AOL IP blocks--152.163.100.65 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In the event you are not trolling and are a legitimate editor, I do apologise, but someone on your and other AOL IP ranges is in fact carrying out massive vandalism, and has been blocked before by other administrators in the past hour. Again, I apologise for the inconvenience. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

and you respond to this comment by leveling another 99 minute block, presumably to keep me from responding? or not--152.163.100.65 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

CSCWEM, can you please respond to these concerns with maybe some diff links of the vandalism in progress? I looked at your user talk page and I didn't see any evidence of being harrassed by anon IPs recently. --Cyde Weys 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

152.163.100.65, if you are having a problem editing, please read Misplaced Pages:Advice to AOL users. CSCWEM, although under WP:AOL you may block AOL proxies to combat heavy vandalism, longer blocks of 99 minutes are generally pointless because of the collateral damage and the fact that the vandal automatically switches IPs frequently. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What solution is there when someone is IP hopping on AOL ranges and has already been blocked for 15 minutes, any? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection, really. And letters from the WMF to AOL asking them to change to a different system. · Katefan0/poll 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I really think that range blocks of AOL should not be imposed without discussion. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that AOL (and Netscape ISP, which is owned by AOL and which I use) reallocates its IP's about every :15. Therefore, blocking the IP vandal pretty much never hits the vandal. It will, however, hit some other schmo using their servers (like me, for example). If you know that it's an AOL IP, don't block for more than :15. If it's a name account that happens to be an AOL IP that the autoblocker catches, there isn't a lot you can do to avoid the collateral damage. This remains one of the Great Unsolved Problems. Short of actually requiring edits from named accounts only and disabling the autoblocker, I can't think of a solution. Geogre 00:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from Misplaced Pages:Advice to AOL users#How_to_bypass_the_AOL_proxies?)

There are also plans to modify the MediaWiki software so that edits from AOL users would automatically be made to bypass the proxy system by using the HTTPS protocol. This feature is currently still at an early stage, but it may be enabled some time in the future.

This looks like a workable solution to me. Does anyone know when this might be implemented? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It actually is enabled in Wiktionary already. I'm not sure about it scaling, but it is enabled. Titoxd 06:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a thread about it at Wiktionary:wiktionary:Beer_Parlour#AOL Notice at the top of Wiktionary where Tawker gives a pretty good explanation about it. The Beer Parlour is our equivalent of the Town Pump. Tawker says the reason why Misplaced Pages hasn't adopted the system is because it would take too many servers.--Primetime 06:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR block evasion at Ahmed Osman

There appears to be a sock/meat puppet (User:CriticAtLarge) evading the current block on User:Gamahucheur at Ahmed Osman. Is there an administrator who can help by enforcing the block? -- cmh 22:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Nlu

Are we allow to delete comments from other users on our talk page to cover up criticism from other users? User: Nlu recently deleted Rhtcmu's comments on his talk page, which questions Nlu's integrity. Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Nlu&diff=48523697&oldid=48498685--Freestyle.king 01:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is, officially, nothing wrong with doing so. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:25 UTC (2006-04-19)

User Zora User: Zora

User Zora recently reverted my contribution in the Rajput article without any satisfactory explanation. Here is what she did

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rajput&diff=48963191&oldid=48961689

In effect this is what she achieved

(1) Introduced a spelling error in the word "Coterminous".

(2) Introduced inaccuracy and confusion in a statement pertaining to the process of Sanskritization.

(3) Deleted the names of two famous Rajput personalities from the list of Rajput heroes, who will be considered heroes by any standard you choose.

If this is not vandalism, what is? Can something be done to keep her away from the development of this article, as she is nothing but a disruptive factor in this process.

Maan Kanwar 01:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, this is not vandalism. This is. This too. Tijuana Brass 01:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I just now saw Maan Kanwar's notice at Talk:Rajput and his accusation here. I made a mistake. I posted this on Talk:Rajput --

Dear Maan, I agree, I made a mistake. The edits that you made don't seem particularily pernicious. I glanced hastily at the diff, checked your contribs, found that you are a brand-new account, and figured you were just one more of the sockpuppets that a banned user is creating at a great rate. I reverted to the last version by an editor that I recognized as NOT being a sock. I'm sorry I didn't see your notice here; I've been very busy. I apologize.

Is that all that is necessary, or am I going to be punished for making a mistake? Zora 02:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just an honest mistake; easy to make when a sock may be suspected. Tijuana Brass 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Pinot noir (talk · contribs). "New" user seems unusually concerned about control card reverts. Edits to Talk:Freedom of movement, etc. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Second edit of "new user" concerns subject of sockpuppets??? Ha ha, yeah, right. Shenme 03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See also Coving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -Will Beback 04:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please ban this guy? --JW1805 (Talk) 04:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

gods this is boring. Done. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Frakking sockpuppets. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This user bears a closer look by those who know Zephram better. Vista Delay (talk · contribs) -Will Beback 23:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

They're all obviously Zephram, as CheckUser confirms. Jayjg 04:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone

I've noticed that just after a one month ban from Elvis Presley and Memphis Mafia articles for violating his probation, Onefortyone has gone staight back to tendentiously adding the same poorly-referenced claims that got him banned before: , --Count Chocula 02:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not violating my probation. As everybody can see, my contributions are well sourced, as I have cited many independent sources in the text. To my mind, user Count Chocula simply endeavors to suppress information he doesn't like. Significantly, this is the same strategy multi-hardbanned user Ted Wilkes had used in the past to denigrate my contributions. But this it not the way it works here. Onefortyone 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Onefortyone has just reintroduced precisely the same sleaze that's discussed in Talk:Elvis Presley#Continued deliberate distortions by User on probation, Onefortyone, naming as its source a dodgy article in that renowned scholarly journal (not!) Playboy. The dodginess is discussed in the Talk page. Quote from the RfAr: Onefortyone is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. This "information" (to describe it charitably) is poorly sourced. -- Hoary 09:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:71.212.16.228

Just won't stop vandalizing Olympia, Washington. Been reverted 8 times by 4 editors plus one bot. Warned thrice up to test4. Needs a block. Shenme 03:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Better off to add it on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead of here. Thanks Jaranda 03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:65.13.184.164

I'd like someone to review User talk:65.13.184.164 and see if his comments about me are in line with policy. I don't want to say anything more about it -- because I'm too upset at this point. I'm pretty sure that it's User:Jason Gortician trying to evade a block. Again, though, I'm too upset to say anything more about this. --Elkman - 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the sockpuppet matter but the comments on the talk page look like a minor violation of WP:CIVIL but nothing that extreme. JoshuaZ 04:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This edit would probably qualify as a PA, though, wouldn't it? Check the edit summary. -Colin Kimbrell 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Pro-Lick sockpuppet trouble

Over at Abortion, we're dealing with a bunch of crap from sockpuppets. We're pretty sure it's User:Pro-Lick, formerly User:Halliburton Shill. The accounts in question are:

• BrushLimpcow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ingralamb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NColemam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• O.P.Nuhss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• M.E.Rhekt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Donpediac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DPG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NColemam is blocked for 3RR, and O.P.Nuhss and M.E.Rehkt are indef blocked as sockpuppets. Perhaps a checkuser is in order? Perhaps semiprotection? At any rate, more eyes on the situation are always appreciated. -GTBacchus 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and semi-protected, and i'd second the checkuser . . . --Heah? 04:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Heah. I've never done a check user request, but this seems like a good time to find out how it works. -GTBacchus 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Essjay 05:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Essjay, that was very helpful. All socks, plus half a score more. It's always a shame to see an editor go out like that. -GTBacchus 15:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering how much of a nuisance this editor was to start with (he made a page outside Misplaced Pages calling for POV pushing and vandalizing) it really isn't much of a shame. JoshuaZ 21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure... I guess I meant, of all the different ways an editor can go out, it's a shame when they turn into a sock-farmer. I don't know how to prevent it; maybe some people are just determined to be pains in the neck, no matter what you do. I've been reading MeatballWiki a bit lately, and thinking about how people come and go in a wiki. -GTBacchus 22:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the first time he's done this to that article. See the archive of completed RFCU requests involving Pro-Lick/Shill. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 22:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a running report at User:Essjay/Checkuser/Cases/Halliburton Shill to keep track of the socks & IPs that have been blocked. Essjay 09:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

List of shock sites

Regular edits

• List of shock sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of shock sites/Uncited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Admin powers

• List of shock sites/Temp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/HAI2U (edit | ] | history | links | watch | logs)

I've stomped around a bit here, and reverted threee times on List of shock sites. Agressive, unfriendly, ZOMG abuse of admin powers, etc. Still think I'm right, certianly could have been more gentle, opening myself up for trout-slapping as appropiate.
brenneman 06:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The trouble never ends with that article does it? wasn't it just deleted, undeleted, and edit warred over? I think we'd be better off if just for 5 minutes people stopped edit warring over the list of shock sites article. Pegasus1138 ---- 06:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And I think that we'd be better of if people who want to insert material like "Once again it has been scientifically proven that this is infact fecal matter traveling from the woman's anal region" would review our policies on verification. We don't compromise on things like citation of sources. - brenneman 06:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I consider this defamatory as I inserted no such thing. I reverted your blanking of the page and nothing more. If you find that this statement is not verifiable, you are more than welcome to remove it. I never wrote it and I never put it in the article. - Abscissa 07:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

When you replace material in an article after its validity has been explicitly challenged, it seems obvious to me that you are taking responsibility for it. The fact that you refuse to take responsibility for the edit suggests that you should not have reverted in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not when the material has not, as you state, been "explicitly challenged." That argument is fallacious and invalid. These edits were hard to differentiate from vanadlism. If someone blanks the entire Hitler article and I revert it, do I suddenly take responsibility for everything written about Hitler? I certainly hope not, otherwise Misplaced Pages would be a compendium of blank pages. -Abscissa 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Aaron's edit summary read "removed clean up tag, added a few categories, removed material without citations showing they are shock sites." I'm not sure how this could possibly be more explicit, perhaps next time he should use allcaps. Anyway, you should not have replaced the material without providing the requested citations. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see here. I do not think your sarcasam is warranted or appropriate and I do not appriciate it. There are many articles such as this one which have zero sources. This does not give anyone the excuse to blank them. Furthermore, again, your fallacious argument rests upon the assumption that shock sites can be sourced: just what source, exactly, would you feel is appropriate? #1 Any reasonable person would find these sites shocking, and #2 these sites exist for the purpose of shocking. There are many, many Slashdot posts used in internet trolling trying to redirect users to these sites; that is why they are there. See Slashdot trolling. -Abscissa 19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If these sites actually cannot be sourced, then WP:V explicitly states that the information cannot be included in the article. It is pretty clear: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." You can easily resolve the issue by providing reliable and reputable sources for the facts you want to include. As far as disruption, it's been made clear, particularly at the earlier AFDs, that this article needs sources. Removal of unsourced information is long overdue, and hardly disruptive. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You fail to make a proper argument and continue to Beg the question. I consider contributing further to this particular thread unconstructive because you have, serveral times, failed to demonstrate that which you have assumed in your argument. I am not going to respond further here. - Abscissa 19:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Specifically implies" sounds like an oxymoron, Mr. Parham may wish to rephrase it. — Apr. 20, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• I've protected the page because of the ongoing edit war. Unfortunately that required me to look at it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, your out of process deletionism has become tiresome. Thinking you are right is not enough to defy community consensus. Silensor 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. There was no consensus to delete "HAI2U" or to blank "List of shock sites". That article is actually going through an AFD right now. Yesterday, he tried to delete entries on "List of sexual slurs" that "only have one source". In other words, I cited many of the entries using published dictionaries (e.g., the Oxford English Dictionary, Cassell Dictionary of Slang) and he tried to delete them anyway.

  When he blanked the "List of shock sites" article, he said it was because the list was unsourced. I found that confusing as the fact that they're shock sites and that they exist can be verified by simply visiting them.--Primetime 06:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Aaron Brenneman has claimed "I'm not put off by a bird standing on some's penis" on his talk page implying that a site is therefore not shocking. I am responding here since he asked to move the discussion here. -- The fact that it is offputting to some and not offputting to Aaron is not really relevant as the site was created as a shock site and is part of internet trolling. - Abscissa 07:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discusssion looks like a real reason to delete all such garbage from wikipedia. Gah! --Doc 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Doc is right (as usual). What part of Misplaced Pages is not a collection of external links are people having trouble understanding? Burn the lot, have one encyclopaedic article on shock site and have it without links because as soon as you allow one the rest will be piling in and we'll be back to the spam event horizon. Just zis Guy you know? 09:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not what this discussion is about. The AFD underway is about that and it is certain that, for a fifth time, the article will be kept. The thing I find disturbing is using WP:V as an excuse to game the system and blank most of the article without debate by Mr. Brenneman. I also find disturbing the deletion of "HAI2U" even after debate ended without consensus and finally his attempt to blank most of "List of sexual slurs" even though almost all the entries had respectable sources.--Primetime 09:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: WP:V is policy, Misplaced Pages:Consensus is only a guideline. Therefore, WP:V is more important, and it's not "gaming the system" to say so. On the other hand, there's a big difference between saying something is unverifiable (in which case it should be deleted) and unverified (in which case, sources should be found and included). I nominated HAI2U for deletion, and I had concerns that it was unverifiable. However, those concerns were apparently shared by nobody except Aaron Brenneman, since no one else said anything. A similar controversial AfD closure was done for The Game (game), but in that case, there was a lot of discussion about verifiability, and a very thorough bit of research had been done to back up that the article was unverifiable. No such thing was done here. I'm going to start a section on WP:DRV about this; I think this was done out of process. Mangojuice 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the verifiability policy to justify deleting this article seems to be either system-gaming (I don't like this article, so I will find a rule that it might break) or process fetishism (I'll literally interpret the rules as generalities in every case). I don't see a compelling argument that the existence of this article is damaging to the encyclopedia. --Ryan Delaney 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Also, please note that Aaron Breneman also (1) deleted Dominionist political parties even though there was 10 votes to keep and 5 to delete. (See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dominionist political parties.) He also (2) deleted List of themed timelines yesterday even though there were three keep versus three delete votes. (See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of themed timelines.) He could have done much more, but I stopped reviewing the log there.

  Also, WP:V is a policy, but whether it is being interpreted correctly here is very uncertain. Editors should follow consensus when the application of a rule is uncertain. In any case, do we really want to have to keep reviewing and discussing Mr. Brenneman's controversial actions? Should someone who completely ignores consensus and is increadibly disruptive have the power to delete articles?--Primetime 19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you think not, bring it to WP:RFC/USER. It's not going to be settled here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to waive the "two-person" and "attempt-to-resolve" thresholds on any request for comment opened, and have started threads at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Dominionist_political_parties_Afd and Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#List_of_themed_timelines_AfD. - brenneman 23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Will people please get over this 'you deletionist' nonsense? Hasn't the stylus worn out on that record yet? The article should never have existed. It should never have survived VfD, and if our users didn't skew to an under-20 demographic it probably wouldn't have. The reasons are clearly demonstrated above: it is an inherently POV list. I.e. whether something belongs on it or not is 100% someone's personal point of view. In such a case, even a citation is some one person's point of view, and, since books and magazines are fairly unlikely to waste ink on a list of shock sites, it's fairly unlikely that citations will be to anything more substantial than webpages and blogs and other oracles of crankery. There is no include/exclude to the list except some sniggering kid's "Dude, this is so dissssssgusting!" That's not what encyclopedias do, either electronic or print or written on the waters. If the people editing it can't even make an effort to ensure that everything in it is cited, then they're admitting that the article fails the deletion policy, that it is (and they think should be) inherently POV. That they'd be upset is no reason to bring the matter to AN/I. Geogre 00:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the fact that these sites are a significant part of the history of internet trolling? Nobody has yet responded to this point yet. Furthermore, the list is not inherently POV as there are only a few sites which #1 any reasonable person would find flagrantly offensive, and #2 exist for the sole purpose of offending. For example, look at the Miller test or for an application of Canadian law, Little Sisters. These are not "POV" tests. Again, the difference between a shock site, and say a gay porn site is that the gay porn site exists for the purpose of doing business on the internet. So even if someone finds its content offensive and obscene, it is not hard to differentiate from any shock site. I am also an old user on Slashdot and fermilliar with goatse trolls; your argument and implication that a bunch of under-20 year olds made the article and are trying to save it is wrong. Look at the reasons given by people who voted to keep it: One administrator wrote "Unfortunately, this stuff is notable", and another person wrote "The phenomenon of shock sites / picture collections has been around even before the internet. It is too important not to be listed here." - Abscissa 01:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• these sites are a significant part of the history of internet trolling -- Prove it. WP:V. WP:CITE. And WP:NOR. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Notable?" So? That's not the point. If that were the point of anyone arguing against the article, then that person was totally misguided. Are there trolls? Yes. Do they giggle at their scribbles? Yes. Can Misplaced Pages have an article on shock sites? Yes. Can it have a list of them? No, because a list would require proof that each site on it is, in fact, a site that exists only to shock and that it does, in fact, shock, and that it has been used to shock, and that the shock has been successful. So, when you can document all the trolling that referred to each site and document that each site shocked someone, then you can include it on the list and be verifiable. Otherwise, discuss the phenomenon in a discursive article. No one, that I know of, is arguing that the phenomenon doesn't exist or shouldn't be discussed, and confusing this handy-dandy link farm with an article is the only thing I have yet found shocking about the discussion. Geogre 02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Document all the trolling that refers to each site? This is either a joke or totally preposterous. Document that each site shocked someone? They all shocked me at some point, so what sort of documentation do we need?

    Also, I'd like to point out that asking for proof that the shock sites in question "exist only to shock" is a lot like asking for "proof" that vandalism is vandalism. To this effect, see what Meta-Wiki ] has to say. We don't need an all-encompassing a priori definition of a shock site to say that something is a shock site. Avertist 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Document that each site shocked someone? They all shocked me at some point, so what sort of documentation do we need? I think you need to familiarize yourself with WP:NOR. It's real critical that you understand that your reaction to something is totally irrelevant, as are the reactions of your friends and everyone you know. Misplaced Pages isn't about recording our opinions, our observations, our reactions, our syntheses. (Also, for what it's worth, that you are shocked is your POV.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of this, and it's all the more reason that Geogre's criteria to make the article legitimate are absurd. Avertist 11:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Jeez, is it really so hard to understand? Act out of process if you are certain that the process would have the same outcome, not if you think you know better than everyone else what the end result should be."

Good advice for anybody, I think. — Apr. 20, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

User:EKN

This user seems to be a blatant/vandal troll with various nazi themed edits. They have got by so far by instantly removing a large number of warnings from their page , , , and attempting to build friendly relations with admins even asking when they get adminship . dubious edits: , , , . , . , , , . , message from another user indicating they are both banned users (previously discussed here User_talk:SlimVirgin#User:EKN. Arniep 17:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in touch with EKN about this, and he or she is very much on their last warning. SlimVirgin 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• • And I promised not to troll anymore. EKN 02:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

You seem to be suggesting that this user get a new user name (User_talk:EKN#Your_edits). Why is this a good idea when this user is an obvious troll who has posted disgusting anti semitic jokes on two articles, stated Seig Heil on the Hitler page and changed the Polish user template to a Nazi youth template? Arniep 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't suggested s/he get a new name. S/he asked me how to, and I explained how. As I told you yesterday, I'm keeping an eye on this. SlimVirgin 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tag continues to be removed, need block for disruption.

Users CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mangojuice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Deckiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jaranda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Syrthiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keep on removing the sockpuppet tag from their ally Pm_shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppet, Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is a CheckUser investigation taking place, as well as allegations of sockpuppetry to be found here. A sockpuppet notice on Theonlyedge's userpage continues to be removed by these people. Please block them for disruption. Leotardo 21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You realise that you're violating WP:CIV, yes? NSLE _(T+C) at 01:11 UTC (2006-04-20)

The category has been speedy deleted. You have no evidence of sockpuppetry and the so-called category was nothing more than a diatribe. User:Zoe| 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What it was was evidence of sockpuppetry. Those allegations have been re-posted in that category. There is a checkuser request here, which I'm sure will find that Theonlyedge is the sockpuppet of Pm_shef. But since it appears as if you're not familiar with the evidence, it is posted again at the bottom of this message.

The other vandals were listed in good faith and with all due civility, because each of them removed the sockpuppet tag from Theonlyedge's userpage.

Here is the evidence of vandalism and sockpuppet tag removal:

CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here and here and here and here.

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

Jaranda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here and here

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

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

Not the mention Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)here and here and here.

Evidence that Theonlyedge is a sockpuppet of Pm_shef:

1. After Alan Shefman's son User:Pm_shef writes that he will abstain from editing articles related to Vaughan politics, and confirmed that abstention at 05:55, 11 April 2006 here, "Theonlyedge" goes after Pm_shef's longtime Vaughan target (who he nominated for the AfD a month prior) a few hours later, at 22:02, 11 April 2006 here. Coincidence?

2. The name of Pm_shef's father's company is simply The Edge. It is involved in anti-racism, which we know Pm_shef/ Corey Shefman has been involved in too, both personally and through his edits. The Edge sounds a lot like The Only Edge... a coincidence? See main link to his father's bread-and-butter for 25 years:

3. Roughly 50% of all Theonlyedge's edits are also articles that Pm_shef has edited. Compare Pm_shef's contributions to Theonlyedge's contributions.

4. Both accounts in question were created within 5 weeks of one another; Pm_shef on Oct 31 2005, TheOnlyEdge on Dec 11 2005.

5. 4 hours after Pm_shef nominates this article for deletion (which he ultimately lost), Theonlyedege comes around and does NOT vote Keep or Delete but rather, after two consecutive Keep votes, adds a comment that the article should be shortened to 2 or 3 paragraghs. This was Shef's way of cutting his losses. See original AfD Keep debate: ].

6. Both users are from Thornhill, as they have both have edited the article on Thornhill and are obsessed with their politicians.

7. Both are obsessed with adding positive POV edits to their favorites Susan Kadis (as well as Michael Di Biase) and negative edits/blanking to their political competitor Mario Racco and political opponents Anthony Reale, Tina Molinari and Josh Cooper.

8. Why did Pm_shef / Theonlyedge create this article on a previous opponent? So that he can control it. He can keep it down to 2 or 3 sentences and maintain control over content.

9. Pm_shef added the deletion notice of this article to Misplaced Pages:Canadian wikipedians' notice board at 22:04, exactly 2 minutes after his sockpuppet created this nomination at 22:02. See edit history Coincidence?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leotardo (talk • contribs)

That appears to be rather damning evidence. I've never seen any two verifiably unique users have that much in common. — Apr. 20, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I completely agree. So what do we do? I suggest an indef-block for Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a week for Pm_shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Leotardo is part of a group of users, along with VaughanWatch and Eyeonvaughan, who are bitterly opposed to the current political situation in Vaughan, Ontario, and that pm_shef, who acknowledges being the son of a local politcal figure, has been attacked by them for the past couple of months. Vaughanwatch was recently found to have used over 30 sockpuppets. While Vaughanwatch and Eyeonvaughan were banned for personal attacks and sockpuppet abuse, a slew of attacks started coming in from AnonIP accounts belonging to Bell Canada. Checkuser requests are pending on Eyeonvaughan, Leotardo and the other pm_shef attackers. I think that all confirmed socks should be banned but any blocks against the primary accounts should be suspended until the situation gets sorted out and we know exactly who is attacking whom here. I don't think any of these editors should be editing articles on Vaughan politics, obviously they are all too closely tied to the situation and unable to put aside their passions.Thatcher131 12:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup. My view is that we should delete the lot and come back when the fuss is over. This is an encyclopaedia, our policies are based on externally reported sources which require the perspective of time. Wars like this just prove beyond doubt that the encyclopaedia format is poorly adapted to covering current events. What we need is a sister project to cover current events. We could call it something snappy like "wikinews". Last time I looked inside this can of worms is centred about a bunch of poeple who fail WP:BIO because they have yet to be elected to any office at all. But that could be my faulty memory. The bad taste left in the mouth by VaughanWatch and Eyeonvaughan is not a faulty memory, though. Just zis Guy you know? 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I only removed the sock tag because it was an anon posting it. Any anon edit to a user's page that I notice usually gets removed as vandalism and the anon warned with a {test}. All that being said, I warned Leotardo to leave the situation alone above here and suggested to both sides that they back away from the situation until the checkusers were refused or completed...but here he is pushing his evidence again (and has replaced the sockpuppet tags on theonlyedge's page since my warning). If the blocks mentioned above go through on theonlyedge and pm_shef (who I agree from the evidence could either be socks or meat, whatever the IRL relation between the accounts), I propose a week long ban on Leotardo as well for harassing another user. Syrthiss 13:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

-Look I haven't done any harassment, other than add a sockpuppet tag to a user that for a long time only appeared to me as a sockpuppet. But I guess when you're on the wrong side of the fence, on the wrong side of the issue, you get blamed even when exposing the truth. It's really silly, actually.

In any event, I am now entrusting Misplaced Pages admins to add the Sockpuppet tag to user:Theonlyedge and connect it to the allegations of sockpuppetry page here. Everytime I put it back, somebody on their side takes it off again.

I also request that the evident harassment and elaborate use of admin time on AN/I and Checkuser stop finally against me and other users. They will not stop until all of your minutes are taken, and until we're not able to edit anymore. I count 7 different complaints on AN/I, 6 different complaints on Checkuser, an elaborate RfC and 3RR reports. They are not fair to us, as evidenced with Syrthiss above statement, don't want to co-operate, and rather than defusing situations, it just makes things worse.

To the suggested Theonlyedge and Pm_shef blocks: don't let Syrthiss and Thatcher131 dissuade you. It's a sockpuppet, plain and simple, so punish it. And withdraw his second AfD nomination for an article that his login Pm_shef failed to win on the first try. This should send out a message to everyone about the kind of behaviour expected around here. Leotardo 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Pm Shef's defence

• As you'll have noticed, I have tried my best to not get involved with this whole nonsense, but now that people are proposing week long bans for me, and indefinite bans for a completely innocent user who i have never met before in my life, I felt the need. A couple things need clearing up here.

1. When I started on Misplaced Pages, I was heavily involved in editing articles related to Vaughan, Ontario, that soon landed me in hot water for conflicts of interest, as I acknowledged that I am the son of a local politician (which led to this attack group digging up all kinds of innappropriate information about me).
2. A month or two ago, Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began making PoV edits and accusing me of PoV pushing and bias, despite the fact that he, and later VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were never able to substantiate their claims.

   Never? You can't mean now. Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

3. After Eyeonvaughan and Vaughanwatch began to get blocks for personal attacks, including one involving Defamation that has yet to be resolved, Leotardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Poche1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Skycloud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) popped up, literally out of nowhere, and dove right in to the whole Vaughan conflict. Here, you'll notice that Skycloud and Poche1 have only ever edited Vaughan articles and that the vast majority of Letoardo's edits are Vaughan-related, with none of his other edits being substantive.

   Your first 25 edits were all Vaughan-related (see here), as were Theonlyedge here. Nice try though. Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

4. In terms of Theonlyedge, the simple fact is, I do not know this person. Please, check our contribution histories, before the last two weeks when this whole conflict broke out, we had only edited 5 or 6 pages in common.

   You mean the Vaughan pages? Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Bearcat and I have edited far more of the same pages than that, does that make us sockpuppets of each other too? No. It means that we have similar interests, since when was that against wiki rules?

1. There's a difference between sharing interests and sharing IP addresses.

   And Bearcat isn't named for your father's company. Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Since then, I have endured relentless personal attacks, numerous instances of defamation and slander and still stayed involved with Misplaced Pages. For what? Now to be blocked because of the suspicions of someone who has been tagged as a puppetmaster since literally the day he registered his account?

   Such absurdities. YOU are the person that tagged me as a puppetmaster the day I registered my account. And if you are blocked it's because of the evidence of sockpuppetry, not favoritism. Leotardo

3. Finally, it is probably prudent to note that for the past two weeks or so (maybe a bit longer, im not sure), you'll see that I have not edited anything related to Vaughan. After working it out with User:VaughanWatch we decided that it would be best for the Wiki community if both of us stayed away from Vaughan articles, and focussed our efforts elsewhere on Wiki.

   Not true. You made this edit here yesterday. Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I belive that this last point especially, but really all of the above, demonstrates extreme Good Faith on my part, and an extreme lack of it from Leotardo. Not one of Leotardo's so called "proofs" that Theonlyedge is my sockpuppet holds water. With even the most basic of inspections and knowledge of the Vaughan-conflict, you'll see that the "evidence" is nothing more than more thinly veiled personal attacks with no actual proof beyond "some of their edits are similar" Not to mention that theonlyedge created the article that I led a veritable crusade to delete in its first nomination. Regardless, the fact that this sham of a complaint is even getting this amount of attention is frankly insulting to the hard work I've put in to editing articles on Misplaced Pages, from Canadian University related topics to Debate topics and so on.
  

Good faith? Are you kidding me? You labelled me a puppetmaster on the first day based on no proof, which STILL hasn't shown up. The 9 pieces of evidence holds up. I just hope that the Checkuser investigation is thorough and checks every IP that both of you have ever tried to use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leotardo (talk • contribs) .

If you have any questions, please feel free to leave me a message.
pm_shef 15:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Leave me a message too if you'd like. Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying not to get involved anymore, but I just can't ignore the way Leotardo keeps screaming that there's no proof of his sockpuppetry. I don't know if this is true or not, but anyone interested in that evidence can have a look here. It was not confirmed by RFCU despite a request. Mangojuice 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So they reverted my edits, big deal. You removed the sockpuppet tag from Theonlyedge like maybe 6 other users, that doesn't make you a sock-puppet. Leotardo 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

-There is no better time for more evidence of sockpuppetry than now.

Let's look at another coincidence. The following AfDs were added seconds before his sockpuppet added a second AfD to a Vaughan article that he failed to delete the first time.

22:04, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Canadian wikipedians' notice board (→Candidates for deletion - added a bunch of failed election candidates)

22:03, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Colin Atkins)

22:02, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Colin Atkins (d)

22:01, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Colin Atkins (afd)

22:00, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Michael Baldasaro)

22:00, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Baldasaro (d)

21:59, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Michael Baldasaro (afd)

21:58, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Anthony Barendregt)

21:58, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anthony Barendregt (d)

21:57, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Anthony Barendregt (afd)

21:56, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Rick Barsky)

21:55, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rick Barsky (d)

21:54, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Rick Barsky (afd)

21:54, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Rebecca Blaikie)

21:53, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Blaikie (second nomination) (d)

21:51, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Rebecca Blaikie (fixed afd) (top)

21:50, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Rebecca Blaikie (afd)

21:48, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Jeff Sloychuk (politician))

21:47, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeff Sloychuk (politician) (d)

21:45, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Jeff Sloychuk (politician) (afd)

21:43, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Niki Ashton (second nomination) (unsigned)

Leotardo 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Again if somebody can add this "allegations of sockpuppetry" tag to user:Theonlyedge that would be great, since these guys keep on removing it. Leotardo 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how posting pm_shef's contribution table is supposed to convince us of anything related to Theonlyedge. Thatcher131 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's supposed to show that he was creating AfDs for "failed election candidates" for 20 minutes, until last but not least, he went after his very first AfD nomination, using a sockpuppet to do his dirty work. Leotardo 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that Leotardo decided to stick his sarcastic comments inbetween mine, thus disjointing my arguments, rather than putting them all afterwards as most respectful users do, is simply a further example of him not assuming good faith. As well, the above list of my contributions proves nothing other than the fact that I was honouring my word to User:VaughanWatch that I would no longer get involved with Vaughan related issues. I'm sorry if I happen to be interested in Canadian politics. - pm_shef 20:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• GOTCHA. So you used a sockpuppet to get around your agreement to stay out of Vaughan politics. Yeah you were "honouring" your word alright... Leotardo 22:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Boy, if you only spent a fraction of the energy you're spending on denigrating and attacking pm_shef on, instead, lecturing proven sockpuppteers, like, say VaughanWatch, someone who -- quite a coincidence, eh? -- seems to have exactly the same interests as yourself. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Leotardo, what on earth are you talking about? Got me? All what I've said above proves is that you have consistently violated, and continue to violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF. - pm_shef 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The so-called category has been deleted and protected. Categories are not to be used for diatribes. Re-create it or anything else similar, and you'll get blocked for a couple of days. User:Zoe| 01:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Note from Deckiller

The other day, I added pm_shef and theonlyedge to the chckuser (along with some of the dozens of two-edit users claiming these two to be the same) per e-mail request from shef. No response yet. I also unblocked one of the many "new users" who were accusing them of sockpuppetry and put them on checkuser to be fair. If any of my other actions need to be clarified, please contact me on my talkpage. And Leotardo, I believe you were also added to checkuser to keep this issue balanced. — Deckiller 02:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser confirmed Leotardo a Sock

It is probably relevant to this discussion that Checkuser has just confirmed that Leotardo, the main proponent of this theory that Theonlyedge is my Sockpuppet was in fact a Sockpuppet of VaughanWatch. - pm_shef 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good; this matter is close to being (if not already) settled. Has it been confirmed that you and theonlyedge are different users? — Deckiller 02:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware, the checkuser that was requested hasn't been done yet. - pm_shef 05:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Two issues from the Vaughan mess haven't specifically been addressed: has Eyeonvaughan been using anon IPs to avoid his civility block, and pm_shef/Theonlyedge. Neither Kelly or Mackensen mentioned them when they revealed and blocked VaughanWatch's sock farm (about 45 socks now I think). (I assume that Eyeonvaughan is not an obvious sock of Vaughanwatch, or else that would have shown up.) After all their hard work I'm not about to bug Kelly or Mackensen for clarification. Maybe the accusation was blow over now that the principle source is out of business. Thatcher131 06:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Checkuser on Theonlyedge and pm_shef was inconclusive per Mackensen. Develop some different interests, guys. Thatcher131 12:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:JzG

This admin JzG is consistently abusing his priviliges by claiming to be applying policies that he has not actually read. His most serious offence was to list 37 signals for deletion, even though its homepage has a link to independent press articles which clearly demonstrate compliance with WP:CORP. In addition he has deleted a whole load of useful links from an article on real time collaborative editors without any warning. He claimed that WP:NOT says only internal links are allowed, but I can find nothing in WP:NOT to give preference to internal links over external ones. Is there any procedure to have admin privilidges revoked? I have tried discussing the issue with him but he says because he is an administrator he must know best. From his homepage it is clear he is (Personal attack removed), is it really sensible to let him sabotage wikipedia on a whim? Davebrooky 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

First step to getting admin privileges revoked - don't level gross insults at their fellow admins. Second step: get your facts right. Nominating articles for deletion has nothing to do with admin privileges, and anyone may do it without fear of having their intelligence questioned by the people behind the article. Whether the article is deleted or not is out of Guy's hands, and in the hands of the wider community. Do not make further personal attacks on editors. --Sam Blanning 22:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The actual page up for deletion is 37signals. It would help if you would give us specific diffs that point to his alleged bad behviour. It is not our job to make your case for you. You need to provide concrete evidence of exactly what he said or did that you think violates a policy. Johntex\ 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Collaborative real-time editor which predates this. Davebrooky is on a crusade to include links to software still in alpha, and seems to think that wikilawyering is a great way to achieve that. It is, however, profoundly disheartening to learn that nominating a company of seven employees for deletion is my most serious offence. My reputation as a rouge admin is in tatters - I must go and do some out-of-prcess deletions. Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bonus points for irony: arguing the toss about WP:NOT in defence of linkspam while adding blatantly self-referential text to two separate articles. Way to go, Dave. Just zis Guy you know? 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is clear to me that Davebrooky needs a time-out. Therefore, I have blocked him for 3 hours due to his personal attack on JzG, which Samuel_Blanning removed from the post here at ANI. Johntex\ 22:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Whether anxiety depression well-controlled by dosulepin counts as "mentally ill" is debatable, but thank you Sam and Johntex for dealing with this. What I find a bit troubling is this level of aggression and disputatiousness in an editor with only a couple of days of history. I find myself wondering whether this is genuinely a new user. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

People might get the picture that wikilawyering is merely a boring pastime where people point out details concerning notability and argue their well-thought-out solutions to other editors' concerns. Our friend Davebrooky here has shown us all the true meaning of wikilawyering, where the drama continually... uh... oozes from... uh... where the heck drama generally oozes from in the TV courtroom dramas. (I don't know, it just oozes!) I hereby appoint Davebrooky as the Evil Twin of WikiMatlock. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Dbiv

User:Dbiv removed a legitimate Speedy deletion notice: . The article has already been deleted twice: if User:Dbiv objects he should take it to Speedy deletions and request that a new AFD discussion take place, not unilaterally remove the db notice. --Mais oui! 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he can remove the speedy tag and send it to AfD, or just remove the tag and wait for you to send it to AFD, as it is not a speedy. It's not a re-delete speedy, as the content is not identical (the new article is much more detailed), and it isn't a non-notable speedy, as the page makes an assertion of notability. Whether the article would survive AfD again or not is a different thing, as is using rollback to remove the tag, but AfD is where this should go. Titoxd 23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Speedy deletion in this situation is only for substantially identical articles; this one is about five times longer than the previously deleted version, and is heavily referenced. If you want to delete it, it will need to go to AfD. --bainer (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Per Thebainer. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Postponed Longhorn (talk · contribs). Continuing the work of recently banned sockpuppet Vista Delay (talk · contribs). Please ban this one too. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. SlimVirgin 03:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambition is (was) back

If anyone who has been around for a while remembers User:Mike Church, I just deleted Ambition (game) as re-created deleted content; it had reappeared about a day ago. Heads up, it has a way of coming back now and again. And ooh, check this out: it's alive on the French wiki! Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

...where it's up for deletion -GTBacchus 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User:64.40.53.196

After two strong warnings, has continued to vandalize, now directed at anyone giving the warnings. Only four edits, all bad, but that seems more due to slow typing. Wants to be blocked ... Shenme 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have given him a test4. If he continues, you should report this at WP:AIV which is the location for standard vandalism reports. JoshuaZ 05:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Noted, I must have ANI and AIV reversed then. Shenme 05:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

GNAA

Okay, i'm not sure what to do about this constant trolling, so i'm taking it here. it doesn't need an rfc because it is blatantly obvious and needs no commenting, the accounts used are (almost) all throwaways so i don't want to go through checkuser, and perhaps it should go to arbcom, but that might be unnecessary. It doesn't need an investigation, i need advice on what the heck we do about this. I've only been an admin for a couple weeks.

The gist of it is a concerted attack on the page Gay Nigger Association of America. They are an internet trolling organization or some such nonsense, and i've come to the conclusion that it isn't simple irony at play here.

I came across it following up on a 3RR report on User:The Psycho, who is now indefinitely blocked for evading a block with socks. During his blocks the vandalism continued with throwaway accounts; GNAA was protected for a week, trolling resumed instantly afterwards, and is now again semi-protected by me.

socks involved:

• The_Psycho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SlashDot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a denial of service attack on Slashdot.com is one of GNAA's claims to fame)
• KingOfDAARt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheNegro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• YanMill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.108.201.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (suspected)
• 142.150.204.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (suspected)
• Sn0rlax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not a throwaway, more like a sleeper)
• AncorZonr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• boatfarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WarMach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jobbersy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and almost certainly others

pages affected include:

• Gay Nigger Association of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Digg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lolicon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Coppertone girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hentai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pedophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jewsdidwtc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now a protected deleted page, deleted edits for admins)

among others. GNAA has been nominated for deletion 15 times by trolls.

So like i've said, this appears to be a concerted trolling effort with no signs of lightening up, at least on GNAA. so what do we do about this, how do we stop it from happening? People are ready to give up, and the RC patrollers are sick of it . . .

--Heah? 06:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it sprotected for now, and block on sight for new socks I guess. I suspect they will lose interest when it becomes more ocmplex and time-consuming than three clicks. Just zis Guy you know? 09:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with JzG. Things seem to have calmed down after sprotection, I'd say leave it that way until you think things have blown over somewhat. If it starts up again, you can always sprotect again. Blackcap (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well that's one way to win an edit war. — Apr. 20, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• I endorse unceremonious blocking of anyone indulging in this GNAA nonsense; this has cost everybody far to much time in the past. dab (ᛏ) 10:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Since I have blocked a couple of these socks as well and was asked to post my thoughts, I would like to say this sprotect should calm things down. I blocked a couple of socks for 24 hours, not really understanding the magnitude of the problem. These socks should be be blocked indef. Really, there isn't a cure-all solution, let's just plug on...--Adam 11:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed kungfuadam, but it was fun while it lasted ;) ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 14:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• A note that these users have been suspected of being the same person as the long-blocked Child p0rnographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't know what the solution is except to have a bunch of admins have this on their watchlist and will very quickly block indef vandals and sprotect the page before it gets out of hand again. FWIW, having been in the internet community moderation field for a good many years now, I strongly doubt this problem is going to go away. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course this is a terrible waste of time. But as long as there are trolls and bores (i.e. for ever) and as long as WP allows anyone to edit (again for ever, it seems), trolls and bores will eagerly screw up WP. Since "GNAA" is merely a group of trolls and bores, on balance it seems a good thing to me that trolls and bores apply their piddling intellects to screwing up the article about it: they'd otherwise have more effort left over for screwing up articles about matters of some significance. So let them continue. Of course, it mustn't appear that "GNAA" is a mere sandbox: the vanity of the trolls must be assuaged by the regular rigmarole of page protections, stern warnings, edit blocks, etc etc. -- Hoary 11:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I've gone ahead and blocked the older socks and will continue to do so as necessary. I've also put clear warnings on the talk and in the article that trolling will result in an immediate block. Hopefully this will calm down a bit . . . --Heah? 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Clivefan indefinitely blocked for legal threats

I have indefinitely blocked Clivefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for threatening to file a police complaint against another user, in relation to a supposed "physical threat" which was clearly facetious, had already been removed by another user, and for which the 'threatener' had apologised. I have made clear that all he has to do is withdraw his threat or conclude his case and he'll be unblocked. He's been up and down Talk:Clive_Bull and WP:RPP banging on about this supposed threat for days now trying to use the 'threat' to bully admins into reverting edits made to the fully-protected Clive Bull article over the past few months. --Sam Blanning 12:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Administrator function

I legitimately removed a picture from Grendon because it doesn't illustrate the subject of the article, its a picture of somewhere else with some people sat on a signpost, User:Brookie rolled this back, no explanation why, no attempt to counter my reasoning. Am I missing something, or is this bad behaviour? 86.129.220.187 15:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It was probably an honest mistake; he thought it simple vandalism. Have you tried asking him about it at his talk page? —BorgHunter (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuse? Popycock! No he didn't talk to me about his concerns - and if you use rollback if fills the narrative box for you; I have posted him a note about why I want the picture to remain. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 15:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have mistaken Misplaced Pages for a photo album: does an article about a village of 477 need 16 pictures? Including one, listed under "Pictures of the village", which is of a village in France? --Calton | Talk 00:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Remaining sockpuppets of banned Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

User Sint Holo has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales himself as a sockpuppet of the banned user Gadugi (who by his own admision is Jeff Merkey himself). However, he still has a known sockpuppet and a known IP address he recently used. They are 71.199.40.199 (talk · contribs) the IP number Sint Holo used when not logged and TempusFugit (talk · contribs) created to stalk the people who remember his previous sockpuppets' antics with (oh, irony!) sockpuppet accusations. TempusFugit did ot hide he's Merkey: he used log files from wikigadugi.org - a server operated and owned by Jeff Merkey as the "proof" of his sockpuppet accusations. Blocking the accounts should be done quickly as Merkey usually gets a meltdown (personal attack & legal threats) after losing an account. He's already hinted some action against User:Jerryg on his Talk page. In fact, the meltdown has already started. Luckily not on Misplaced Pages but on Jeff Merkey's personal page . The material posted there seems to ask for a libel suit from Misplaced Pages or Jimbo Wales. Thanks in advance for blocking the sockpuppets. Friendly Neighbour 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a strange article. A lot of it does not seem encyclopedic to me and I can understand why the person described is not happy with it. De mortuis... 16:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a month and the sock indefinately. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Great thanks! Friendly Neighbour 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer's blanking of his talk page

I've left several warnings on User:Irgendwer's talk page for violating the 3RR at Libertarianism and for making personal attacks against me and generally needing a WP:CIVIL lesson. He has responded to these warnings by repeatedly blanking his talk page over 3 of my reverts and Wr warnings. --rehpotsirhc 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to actually talk to him on his talk page rather than simply slapping a template on it? Your own actions come across a little agressive to me (at first glance, but i may have not seen everything). Just let the matter drop. if he breaks the 3RR he can be blocked since he has been warned and has clearly seen the warning. As for personal attacks, I hate that template with a vengence. Can we not kill it? Seems to me that if someone needs a lesson in civility, the best way to deal with it is by setting a good example ourselves. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I put a template on his page without any further comment because we were already engaged in a discussion on Talk:Libertarianism. I mentioned that making personal attacks is unacceptable and advised him against it . His response was the second personal attack. IMO, nothing needed saying at that point that the template didn't cover. Re your comments about the template, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. In fact, Irgendwer's incivility and attacks on Talk:Libertarianism is a perfect example of how incivil behavior breaks down rational discussion and turn the editing process from a collaborative excercise into a conflict. --rehpotsirhc 16:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you about warning for personal attacks. Personal attacks are a bad thing and certainly make for a non collaborative atmosphere. I am merely saying that warning via a template is also a bad thing. It also leads to a bad atmosphere. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning templates exist for a reason. If they don't have the support of the community, they should be TfD'd. Johntex\ 05:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My question "can we not kill it" was asked so that i can see if the template has the support of the community or not! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the template has community support, we stray from the task at hand. What is to be done about the aforementioned user? Isopropyl 05:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing at the moment. If' he breaks the 3RR then block, he has been warned after all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's ok to blank your talk page. Some people delete messages as soon as they've read them, so as not to get lost. In any case, anytime someone removes a message from their talk page , you can be sure they've certainly seen it ;-) . Kim Bruning 07:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

User:Durin has left a message on my talk saying that placing a fair use image on my userpage is "vandalism". He has been removing the image from my userbox and originally did it without asking me or informing me and now I'm accused of vandalizing my own userpage? ManWithNoName 17:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is against United States copyright law. Please stop. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's a violation of our Fair use policy only, although the reason for this is that the majority of such uses really do violate American law. ManWithNoName, did you even read this page Durin linked to in his first edit? It explains why we need to do this. Of course other articles use the image. That doesn't mean you're allowed to use it in your userpage. Johnleemk | Talk 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• The first time I removed the image, I left an extensive edit summary which linked to the policy being used as the rationale for the image removal. That edit summary also contains a link to a file which has extensive explanations of why this is being done along with why there is no direct notification to a person's talk page. In the vast, vast majority of cases that I have done this (more than 400 now) this has been virtually a non-issue. Over the last week, I talked with two different members of ArbCom, and both agreed that if a person should revert my changes that remove fair use images, that I should revert them and place a message on their talk page indicating to them that continued re-insertion of the images onto their userpage when the user was aware of the policy proscribing such use would constitute vandalism since such behavior is willfully defying Misplaced Pages policy on the issue. Understand; your userpage is not strictly yours. See Misplaced Pages:Userpage. It is in fact part of the overall project. You can cause harm to the project via your userpage. Simply because it is your userpage does not prohibit Misplaced Pages from defending itself against copyright/policy violations of its users. All the best, --Durin 18:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Mr. Random

This newbie objects to the British spelling of Haemophilia, which it was created under. He appears to have moved the page, cut-and-pasted the contents, and to now be spawning sockpuppets to vote in the move discussion at Talk:Haemophilia. Could someone not involved in the move discussion go and help explain to him that this is not how WP operates? (And he boasts of using a proxy server on his user page.) Septentrionalis 17:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Article content aside, I support the suggestion on the above talk page of blocking all the apparent socks used in the straw poll there. --InShaneee 20:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked all the socks identified from the talk page indefinitely, and Mr. Random (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for disruption. Tom Harrison 21:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Community_Portal

Seems to be suffering an edit war, leading to HereToHelp being reported for 3RR. So I've blocked HtH. See Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal if you're interested. William M. Connolley 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan Politics, boiled down to the simplest summary I could make

Since the situation has changed some since the initial flurry of charges and counter charges, (and with Leotardo's renewed call for pm_shef's head), I decided to create a fresh summing-up of the situation. If someone thinks it would be appropriate to cross-post this to RfCU to aid the admins there, I would have no problem with that.

• Pm_shef (talk · contribs) and VaughanWatch (talk · contribs) have agreed on a truce whereby neither will edit Vaughan-related articles. This appears to be holding, at least for the primary account.

• While Pm_Shef and VaughanWatch seem to have reached an understanding, Eyeonvaughan continues to be a problem. He has not even responded to the RFC filed against him. Analyzing all the anonymous IP accounts in the 64.* and 69.* range (Bell Canada) is probably overkill, but three in particular seem to be specifically used by Eyeonvaughan to evade his blocks.

64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Posted support to Eyeonvaughan and attacks on pm_shef on April 10 while Eyeonvaughan was blocked for personal attacks. This personal attack from April 6 by Eyeonvaughan was reposted by the IP on April 10. It is likely Eyeonvaughan was using this IP (and possibly others ) to avoid his blocks.

67.70.148.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Also on April 10, reverted attack posts that 64.231.242.202 made and deleted comments on Eyeonvaughan's talk page that had been restored by Sam Blanning. Suspected sock of Eyeonvaughan.

Westernriddell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admits to knowing Eyeonvaughan and jumped in after a 5 month hiatus to add sockpuppet tags to pm_shef and Theonlyedge while Eyeonvaughan was blocked.

• Leotardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not edited an article since March 28. His entire wikipedia activity since then has been to post sockpuppet allegations against pm_shef and Theonlyedge at ANI, RfCU, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (second nomination) and their talk pages. The locus of dispute seems to be that Theonlyedge nominated Simon Strelchik (an article he created ) for deletion the second time, when pm_shef had nominated it once before. Also note Leotardo trying to stir up trouble by complaining to VaughanWatch that pm_shef violated their treaty by "editing Vaughan-related articles" when all pm_shef did was defend himself from Leotardo's attack.

67.71.84.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), another Bell Canada, only edits have been to label pm_shef and Theonlyedge as sockpuppets. Since this is more Leotardo's cause celeb, suspect sockpuppets of Leotardo.

67.70.149.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ditto

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

• Notwithstanding Leotardo's evidence, pm_shef (talk · contribs) and Theonlyedge (talk · contribs) do not appear to be collaborating, and Theonlyedge has not taken over editing articles that pm_shef has agreed not to edit, except for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (second nomination).

It seems to me that these, stated briefly, are the core questions.

1. Are pm_shef and Theonlyedge sockpuppets of one another?

• Pm_shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2. Has Eyeonvaughan used sockpuppets to avoid a civility block?

• Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 67.70.148.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Westernriddell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

3. Has Leotardo used sockpuppets to edit Vaughan-related articles and IP accounts to attack pm_shef and Theonlyedge?

• Leotardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Poche1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note that Poche (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock of VaughanWatch)
• Skycloud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.71.84.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 67.70.149.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 67.70.151.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Regardless of the outcome of the various checkuser requests, I feel very strongly that Leotardo needs a civility block for persistent attacks and baiting of pm_shef and Theonlyedge. There's a process to follow and spamming your allegations all over wikipedia isn't part of it. Thatcher131 18:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, I believe you are just angry that some neutral admins have looked at the information and found there cause to believe that Theonlyedge is a sockpuppet of Pm_shef. Despite your organized description above, I don't believe it is fair or objective. Here are some more objective opinions below. I invite you to have good faith in this process. Leotardo 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to evidence that Pm_shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet, found here: (From AN/I) That appears to be rather damning evidence. I've never seen any two verifiably unique users have that much in common. — Apr. 20, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I completely agree. So what do we do? I suggest an indef-block for Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a week for Pm_shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(from Checkuser)

Leotardo's comments are endorsed by a couple of admins at WP:AN/I - we don't recall seeing such suspiciously similar behaviour by two verifiably different users before. If confirmed Pm-shef is in deep trouble. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Leotardo 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't normally gloat, but.... Thatcher131 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What a bloody mess. Keeping me up late and all. Anyway, I strongly suggest throwing out Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (second nomination)–there was obviously massive sockpuppeting going on. If there is a re-vote (and it really is a good idea), someone drop me a line and I'll keep an eye on it. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree (with it being a mess and with renominating Strelchik). Just zis Guy you know? 09:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has been "speedy kept to Nlu" by Munckin (talk · contribs), who also seems to be using a misconfigured proxy server (note the backslashes in ) -- grm_wnr Esc 10:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiple times. I am in discussion now. See below, his config screwed some pages rather badly (including today's AfD log). I fixed. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and vandalism prevented holding an AfD (third nomination). The AfD notice was constantly removed from the article and the AfD page itself was constantly vandalized. As a result, I was bold and took the step of deleting the article; it can and perhaps should be nominated for deletion review, as a roundabout way of doing the AfD. -- Curps 11:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) and William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs)

Putting up for review a block I just made.

These two users have been waging a fairly heated war across the WP:CFD pages for a couple of weeks now. I came into the middle of this trying to sort through a particular set of CFD nominations in which both had commented extensively. There's a lot more heated discussion between them, but the part that caught my eye was that Conradi regularly creates diminuative names for those he deals with. For some, this may not be a big deal. For Simpson, it is a very big deal. Conradi calls Simpson "Willy". Simpson has expressed that he finds this extreamly offensive. and show spots where Simpson has protested the name.

I gave Conradi a warning on his talk page not to refer to Simpson like this any more, given how offensive Simpson was finding it. Conradi and I went back and forth a bit about WP:CIVIL, and Conradi's use of diminuatives. In the process he came up with a diminuative for me as well (Texy) ^_^;; Finally, within the last hour, Conradi posted a lengthy commentary on his user page about me and Simpson. In it he repeatedly used the "Willy" name for Simpson. Viewing this as flagrantly violating WP:CIVIL despite being warned against exactly this type of action, I have given Conradi a 24 hour block for the continuing WP:CIVIL violations.

And none of this includes the fact that Conradi repeatedly calls Simpson a "liar" in almost any way he can without ever actually using the word "liar".

Anyway, Despite the fact that I am fairly well targetted in Conradi's user page commentary, I still consider myself an uninvolved admin, given that my only involvement has been totally on the technical side of the CFDs these two have been warring over. I really do not care about the outcome of any of their CFDs. I'm involved to the extent of warning Conradi, and following through on the warning when it was all but ignored. Yeah, Conradi skewered me pretty well in his commentary on hir user page, but if criticising an admin for giving out warnings was all it took to get the admin considered "involved", then the edit warriors would quickly rule the project.

I welcome review of my actions here, given that this is my first forray into this type of block. - TexasAndroid 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking for incivility in the hopes the two will calm down and see the error of there ways? Sounds pretty clean, cut, and perfectly justified to me. --InShaneee 20:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Luka Jačov

User:Luka Jačov has been soliciting votes on IRC for two weeks now. Today, he's trying to solicit votes on Misplaced Pages:Deletion Review#Dis-Connection over an AfD he lost. --VKokielov 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy

Please keep an eye on this article. We've received complaints via OTRS regarding the article's POV stance. Any help in creating a balanced article is also appreciated. ℬastique▼♥♑ 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OTRS? Is that "Open-source Ticket Request System"? -Will Beback 22:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about writing - but I'll keep a watch out for any unreferenced criticism. --Doc 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Given their political stance, undeserved praise should be watched out for as well, if not more so. ←Humus sapiens 23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Kinda strange because this article is only like a week old.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's where most of the emailed complaints go. Shimgray | talk | 23:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Heaven's Stairway

Article and talk page have been under attack since February 8 by various users under different accounts. Current attack consists of disruptive behavior by Simonapro (talk · contribs) removing unsigned signatures from talk page and reverting any and all changes made to the main article page (Somewhere around 10 reverts in 24 hrs so far), including the repeated addition of unreliable content (see WP:RFC/SOC) and the removal of all dispute/maintenance/citation tags. User has been informed of Misplaced Pages policies on talk page but simply blanks his talk page. Mediation cabal case opened: 2006-04-20 Heaven's Stairway. —Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

'Jonathan'

Yesterday NSLE blocked Jonathan 666 (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (known sock/meatpuppet). This user, who has used numerous 'Jonathan' accounts, keeps being blocked as a sock. He claims he is being blocked as a sock of Daniel Brandt - and that he is innocent . Mackensen has now confirmed by checkuser that he isn't Brandt. I previously promised him that if he stuck to the '666' account, I would have any block reviewed. So I am asking for any views or further information.

It may well be that this user is disruptive (see ). But he does not appear to be a banned user, and continualy blocking him is only encouraging him to create new accounts. I'm inclined to unblock this account - instruct him to use only one account - and put him on an informal probation. I'll do that (or someone else should) only if there is consensus here - or no serious objections.--Doc 22:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair - sockpuppet allegations are not to be used lightly. If he really is disruptive, let's block him for that, not on an unproven allegation. I'm not unblocking though, waiting for more comments. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unblock him. --Tony Sidaway 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with all the above. Friday (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, now unblocked - but suggest others keep watch. --Doc 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

666 didn't trigger an improper username ban? I won't go rouge and block him, but that seems inappropriate. JDoorjam Talk 04:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider that username blockworthy at all. Juvenile maybe, but that's no reason to block. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fake Votes on Afd

An IP, User talk:68.48.32.65, had added fake votes in this afd Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Analysis of stream of consciousness. I think a block is in order here. --Jersey Devil 23:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now the IP has created a bunch of sockpuppets to vote keep. The vandalism is ongoing right now, please block the user ASAP. Thank you.

• User:Juliena
• User:Chocho12
• User:Qwerty for life!!!
• User:C.E.1959
• User:What is life
• User:Misplaced Pages lover ^o^

.--Jersey Devil 23:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How ... weird. Socks adding votes after the AFD has closed and article has been deleted. Anyway, I semiprotected the vote page, not that it matters terribly since the article's already poof'ed. · Katefan0/poll 23:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have taken care of it, and closed the AFD (with the proper consensus). All these users are blocked indefintely and the IP address for 48 hours. Happy editing!--Adam 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Ekmai

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Wik. He repeated an edit to Encyclopedia Americana by User:Eikma who was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Wik on 17 April. Honbicot 00:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Digiterata

I realize suspected sockpuppets are normally reported on the checkuser page, but this User:Digiterata is quite obviously a sockpuppet of User:Normal nick, as evidenced by his editing behavior on the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page. I'm inclined to go ahead and block him, but I've been one of the editors involved in dispute with Normal nick. Please advise. Or, if another admin wants to step in and deal with this, would be appreciated. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Long term disruptive user, current excessive unpleasantness

and a few other excursions from the WP envelope. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&curid=3793659&diff=49372139&oldid=49314319 is a good entry point. Midgley 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this is really the right place to bring this, up, but...

Wow. I'm surprised that anon hasn't been indefinitely blocked for his history of disruptive trolling, harassment, bullying, and almost total lack of any useful contributions. Looking through his very first edits (ignoring 81.111.172.198 for now), I see him delete one of your talk comments, then accuse you of both vandalism and bias, then repeatedly accuse the next editor who comes along (who happens to be an admin) of personally attacking him, while insulting you some more at the same time, etc. He's become somewhat less obvious (and more devious) since then but it's clear that he either really loves argumentative disruption or is literally unable to stop doing it.

As for his comment in the link you provided, it is written so immaculately and in such detail that I find it hard to believe he could possibly be so ignorant of exactly the right Misplaced Pages policies and procedures to have presented such incredibly misleading "evidence" of his points. In any case, while he is clearly very clever and does have a few vehement supporters somehow, he is also clearly picking the wrong fights (with at least 4 admins, even going so far as to accuse 3 of them of gross misconduct in the same post). If that isn't blatant trolling, obviously I don't know what is.

–Tifego _{06:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)}

I've seen a chap who writes like him - and is noted on the Whale.to site for his opposition to MMR . An NTL homeworld page combines some of this. The BMJ editor was moved to remark in general terms on it. Am I paranoid or is this someone who "joined" WP in order to attack me, rather than to write an encyclopaedia? Midgley 08:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Continues to attack me at Ardenn 01:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack; WCityMike was reverting an improper speedy deletion tag. WCityMike left civil notes on Ardenn's talk page. Ardenn then vandalized WCityMike's user page. ~MDD4696 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Filed concurrently with a 3RR complaint. Seems to be based on the words "bad faith" in my edit description. If admins wish to address this further, I am at their service. Making more detailed responses at the 3RR location. — WCityMike 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He violated WP:NPA by not assuming good faith. Ardenn 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, complainant has used profanity in 3RR feed linked to above. And I believe evidence displayed obvious bad faith. — WCityMike 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also note 'good faith' page linked to is denoted as guideline, not policy. — WCityMike 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• This report is unfounded -- it is Ardenn who is the problem. I don't have time to report it now but will in a few hours in no one else has. -- Gnetwerker 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please refer to WP:AN3#User:WCityMike for any furthur information on this incident. I am currently handling it there. Ardenn has been blocked for 1 hour, but I will block again (for a longer period of time) if the problems continue after it expires. ~MDD4696 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Cognition violating Larouche 1 and Larouche 2

The Arb Com has clarified that user pages are included in Larouche 1 and Larouche 2's bans on Larouche pushing Pursuant to those rulings, Slimvirgin and I trimmed Cognition's user page. Cognition has repeatedly reverted his user page. Since I am not an admin, I thought it made more sense to bring this here and let admins enforce the relevant rulings. JoshuaZ 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua. I've protected. SlimVirgin 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never before seen an editor who felt it necessary to post a {POV} tag on an old issue of Misplaced Pages:Signpost, in this case to contest the assertion that a user's edits are positive.. -Will Beback 07:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre behaviour. Just zis Guy you know? 09:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

E-mail spam

Roblefko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having been dissuaded by means of blocking from spamming his external website here, has now taken to doing it through Misplaced Pages e-mail. Is there anyway to prevent this? I've threatened to block him, and informed him how very pissed off I am at him, but I'm aware and he no doubt is too that blocking him won't actually prevent him from sending the e-mails. Thoughts? Chick Bowen 03:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasjust coming to write the same. Here is what Ten of All Trades said to me earlier on my talk page

Unfortunately, I don't have time to deal with Roblefko (talk · contribs) right now. You might drop a note on WP:AN/I asking someone else to look into it. I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days, and I can't keep on top of the situation. Unfortunately, I don't think that blocking disables the user email feature—and anon IPs can email anyway. If he won't quit, someone might have to contact his ISP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an issue for the media foundation to me as it could be a way for rogue users to spam other users, SqueakBox 03:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

His ISP is AOL--do they have a spamming policy? It's a disturbing thought (and no doubt we'll be accused of telling people not to stuff beans etc. etc. for having this conversation) but if this were to become a trend it does seem like the foundation would have to look into it. Do we, in fact, have a policy about what is and is not appropriate use of the Misplaced Pages e-mail function? Chick Bowen 03:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If we dont we should as junk email is not nice or useful. He is using an AOL email address, it is just Robfleko@ so obviously set up specifically to spam, SqueakBox 04:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually checked out the link and was delighted to see that the wiki had already attracted Willy on Wheels, who had been moving a couple dozen pages. Kusma (討論) 04:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree that there should be a way to block a user's email function if it is abused for spam. Kusma (討論) 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Should there be some policy at Misplaced Pages:Emailing users instead of just how-to? There would presumably need to be some way to enforce any policy that was agreed upon. Chick Bowen 04:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Entirely annoying, I know. However, I'm not sure that this rises to an actionable item. If an anon or blocked user can't generate a mailing list or harvest mailto:'s, then I don't think that the "e-mail the user" feature is really something that's going to lead to spamming. It is annoying, and it's bad, and it's something we should address, but it's not quite on the same level as having one's actual e-mail address harvested by the C1Alis advertisers. Geogre 15:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Block of Terryeo

I've blocked Terryeo (talk • contribs) for 24 hours disruptive editing at Dianetics. I know these things can be controversial so I invite review of this situation. Terryeo disagrees with the block and says he was upholding the WP:RS guideline. See User_talk:Terryeo#Blocked, Talk:Dianetics#Xenu.net_references, and User_talk:Terryeo#Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources.23Personal_websites_as_primary_sources for the rather unfortunately long details. Friday (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Terryeo has an ongoing RfAr. This might be relevant to that so I hope this latest incident makes it onto the RfAr somehow. --Cyde Weys 04:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Block My Address

Please block this (my) IP address from editing, permanently, to stop vandalism. This is a shared static IP address for a school. - From "The Only Person from this IP who cares about WikiPedia" ...posted at 05:07, 21 April 2006 by 203.87.12.34 (contributions)

If you care about Misplaced Pages then please don't troll us. Cheers! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How is this trolling? A look at today's contributions shows that most are to the sandbox and that others are entirely stupid additions to the article on a Swedish politician. This may not be grounds for a ban, and it may be inappropriate for a user of this IP number to ask for one. But if I were in the same position as this person claims to be, I might well ask for the same thing. Yes it's odd that somebody who either doesn't have or doesn't bother to use a username would know how to make this request here, but "assume good faith" or anyway let's start by being polite. -- Hoary 08:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it trolling. On the other hand, its being a shared school IP is precisely why it should not be banned. The collateral damage is simply too high. This user may feel they're the only one who cares about Misplaced Pages, but unless we trace this IP back to the prestigious Troll Academy or the Vandal Vocational School, I think we have to take our policy of assuming good faith to mean that we don't want to ban the good editors along with the bad here. JDoorjam Talk 15:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:VaughanWatch

Apparently VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked. Since there is nothing in the block log for that account, it sounds like a sock was blocked and that has locked his IP address. My heart bleeds. Just zis Guy you know? 08:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Curps blocked this sock a few minutes ago.--Adam 11:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

user:Munckin

I blocked for 15 minutes. Munckin (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was trying to "speedy keep" an AfD by blanking it, remving the tags from the article and deleting from the AfD log, but due to a proxy config issue (or maybe a browser JS plugin) his edits resulted in single quotes being escaped, which as you can imagine did nothing to enhance the pages concerned. I have left a note on his Talk page explaining this and fixed today's AfD log, if somoene would like to check Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 21 and make sure I didn't miss any I'd appreciate it. Thanks Just zis Guy you know? 10:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the accounts Mackensen blocked through his log, you will see that VaughanWatch's socks tend to have 50-100 edits (mostly minor copyedits) all on the same day, then they go dormant until they start posting on Simon Strelchik AfDs or other Vaughan issues. Munchkin looks very much the same. Thatcher131 11:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also blocked by Curps indef...--Adam 11:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I have been largely a spectator in the Vaughan Wars to date - I can see why Mackensen is on a mission here. Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as you're collecting sockpuppets, toss Breadsbread (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) into the stack -- in addition to taking up where Munckin left off , also tried to report JzG for "3RR violations", , munging up the page in the process. --Calton | Talk 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked by Curps. Has anyone got the IP address to block the open proxy? Just zis Guy you know? 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user evading block

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely for personal attacks by recommendation of the ArbCom but has since returned to his old habits at Ustaše as 216.194.2.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (identifying factors: personal attacks, anti-Croatian POV, unnecessarily reversing date formats, adding Category:Roman Catholics, attempting to whitewash the Bleiburg massacre , putting "see ]" around external links). Any administrators care to enforce this block? Demiurge 12:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I put an indef block on this ip, since its only contributions were from today and were only in the Rms125a-style of edits. Syrthiss 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As it's a raw IP block, I suggest that you replace it by a one month block, which should reduce the problem without potentially locking out a legitimate editor who may inherit that IP in future. --Tony Sidaway 15:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for second opinion at Kazaa Lite

Several IPs, probably related to www.kltforums.com, continue to reinsert a link to to the external links section of Kazaa Lite. I would appreciate a second opinion from another admin on the actions of myself and these users. Aecis 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO your actions were correct. I've sprotected the page for now. Repeated attempts to insert spam without using the talk page eventually rise to being disruption on the part of this user. JDoorjam Talk 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Rapid block needed

Permabanned user:Bonaparte registered as User:Deutsche and resumed trolling and stalking myself. Please check User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry and block his latest sock as speedily as possible. He causes a lot of disruption and blanks the pages I work upon as "copyvios".--Ghirla 13:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hrs by Sjakkalle. Syrthiss 13:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin has deleted RfA votes, calling the voters “Zephram's straw-man sock puppets.” She is often wrong in her accusations of sock-puppetry. In my case, she is derogating the name of a respected Washington D.C. lawyer. Her accusations are absurd. Will someone please unblock me? –SR Bryant 15:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

American Saga checkuser

American Saga has been accused of being a sockpuppet based on editing patterns. I believe this accusation is unfounded, but I would like to be sure. I am requesting that a Checkuser be performed on American Saga, comparing him to Zephram Stark and JW1805. This will help replace accusations with facts. –SR Bryant 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)