Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:56, 20 May 2005

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Chronic reversion of Static Shock et al.

User:Bishonen asked me to bring this here from WP:VIP.

I've been struggling with a user who chronically reverts others' work on Static Shock (history) and several other (mostly related) pages he has an interest in, to his versions. Although I'm fairly certain of his identity (see User talk:Mare-Silverus), lately he's been editing anonymously and every session comes from a different IP, most recently 84.65.70.122 (talk · contribs) and 84.64.55.238 (talk · contribs). Some way of preventing these wholesale reverts would be very helpful. (And if there's a dispute-resolution process for dealing with non-communicative users, I'd love to try it. {sigh}) Tverbeek 18:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Update: 81.77.106.201 (talk · contribs) Tverbeek 13:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

moved from WP:AN

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, who I understand to be a valued member of the community who has contributed much to Misplaced Pages, and who is also an administrator, appears to have embarked on a deletion rampage. He is trying to erase all trace of himself from Misplaced Pages, presumably as a prelude to faking his own death and adopting a new identity. I believe he is within his rights to delete his own user page (although this is highly confusing for everyone else, and it would be better if he just replaced it with a note to say he'd left), but he has also deleted his talk page (repeatedly), instead of just archiving it to preserve discussions. However, it goes well beyond that. He appears to be deleting any talk page he has commented on where he feels he can get away with it, including talk pages of anonymous users where he has left messages either welcoming them or warning them for vandalism, and (it appears) a few talk pages where others have commented, thus performing wholesale deletions of their comments and his own. The erstwhile vandal-hunter, it appears, has turned vandal himself. There have been instances of him deleting his comments from talk pages so as to render subsequent comments without context, such as this, where the user who has written "another welcome" is made to appear stupid, as theirs is now the first welcome on the page. Worst of all, he is removing content he has contributed from the article space. Little Belt Bridge used to have a picture towards the bottom of the page, but now there's just a missing image message, because of Ævar's deletion of Image:The_Little_Belt_Bridge_(1935)_(Scaffold_-_02).jpeg. The same goes for Image:XChat.png on X-Chat These image deletions are particularly egregious, because unlike page deletions they can't be restored. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ævar is a developer, in which case if he wanted to remove his name from Misplaced Pages surely he would be able to reassign all his edits to a pseudonymous account. To delete what he thinks he can get away with here and there seems pointless, as his name will still be in countless places on talk pages and in article histories. I could go on, but I'd recommend looking at Special:Contributions/Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and the deletion logs for the full story. I trust that all his unauthorized deletions will be restored somehow, and perhaps, this user will need to lose his sysop status to stop him from going round deleting them again. His image deletions can presumably be restored from Misplaced Pages mirrors. Thanks for taking the time to read my complaint. - Moshe (217.44.22.199), a long-time reader and observer of Misplaced Pages, 14:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed this looks strange. See his recent deletions, and, as Moshe pointed out, his contribs. I don't have time to investigate further, but so far I don't like at all what I see (someone unilaterally removing all images he published (under the GFDL) on wikipedia). Can someone else take a close look? Lupo 14:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I re-uploaded the Little Belt Bridge picture from an old dump I have. I can restore old pictures but nothing recent. Rhobite 16:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

He deleted a whole bunch of images - any chance you (or anyone else who has a dump) could restore more of them? Noel (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I feel comfortable restoring images which were never used as content. Technically they're GFDL but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until someone gets to the bottom of this. Are there other images which were used in articles? I'm going to re-upload the Xchat one, and I think I found one other image which was removed from an article. Rhobite 19:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

could a developer speed-de-admin him, please? this would qualify as rogue admin behaviour, even if restricted to his own uploads, such is the GFDL. dab (ᛏ) 16:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

He's temporarily desysopped until WTF is going on is known. silsor 16:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what's up, but note that while Avar is active in MediaWiki software development he doesn't have an account on the servers and could not "reassign all his edits to a pseudonymous account" or whathaveyou. --Brion 17:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This is really bizarre. I was thinking for a moment that possibly someone guessed the password, and was vandalizing, but looking at the deletion list that seems unlikely. Looks like AEvar's decided he's upset at Misplaced Pages and wants to remove traces of his association - we've certainly seen other people do that before. Noel (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, any work that a user (legally) contributes to Misplaced Pages is once and forever licensed under the GFDL; removing it is now no longer legally possible to force through. You can't rescind the GFDL.

James F. (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In case this happens again, is there any way to have a time delay on the deletion of images, so that whilst they are instantly hidden from normal users an admin can restore them for (say) 24 hours afterwards, after which they are automatically actually deleted? Proteus (Talk) 19:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, make deleting images wholly wiki-like (in as much as deleting anything is wiki-like) and keeping hold of them indefinitely, excepting purging...

James F. (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

From User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, it appears that Ævar deleted the images because he wasn't satisfied with the quality. Should have gone through IFD first of course. IMO many of the images are sufficient for Misplaced Pages's purposes, and should not be deleted. I undeleted these images: Image:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (Scaffold - 02).jpeg, Image:Xchat.png, Image:TCA Himalayan cat - front.jpeg, Image:TCA Himalayan cat - side.jpeg, Image:Solar Eclipse in Iceland - Staring at the sun.jpeg, Image:Pier.jpeg, Image:Lillebælt in the Twilight - Denmark - 03.jpeg, Image:Lillebælt - Denmark.jpeg, and Image:Church in Kolding - Denmark.jpeg. Please let me know if any other images were used in articles. Ævar, feel free to list them on IFD. Rhobite 20:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleting unused images you uploaded yourself is fine, but the images which were used in articles should have gone through ifd. And I don't understand why he deleted Image:Solar Eclipse in Iceland - Staring at the sun.jpeg or Image:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (Scaffold - 02).jpeg, both of which are very nice images. Thue | talk 20:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In light of the many other deletions, including of his comments and of various user pages, including his own, his claim that he deleted these images because they were "low quality" seems dubious. Jayjg 22:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether anyone else has mentioned this, but it may be possible to recover some of the lost images from Google cache or mirrors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I just reuploaded about half of the images he deleted, but not some of the more recent ones. Rhobite apparently has access to backups of some more recently uploaded images, though, judging by some of the ones they restored. If they could get the ones I missed, that would be great. ✏ OvenFresh² 23:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade

I've just left a message on his Talk page after a complaint from User:FeloniousMonk. My guess is that it will do no good; could someone with influence with him advise him to behave more sensibly? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

He immediately deleted my message of course, and left me this , so my appeal to others becomes more urgent. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate not being harassed by popularity contest winning nube admins who have no knowledge of policy, nor shame for their violations of it. It what way does any of this foolishness qualify as an "incident"? Sam Spade 23:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Since the template was removed, i will continue to advise a review of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader by those who are ignorant of it. Sam Spade 23:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade, if you had won the ArbCom election you would have won a "popularity contest". So I don't see how Misplaced Pages elections being popularity contests is relevant. In addition, I don't recognize the term "nube". Perhaps you meant "newbie"? Since you registered as a member of Inquiry, I encourage you to not use such brash generalizations like describing Mel Etitis as someone "who has no knowledge of policy, nor shame for their violations of it." In fact, I would expect any member of Inquiry to behave responsibly and calmly without describing these situations as "foolishness", even if that description may be accurate. Moreover, you should cite sources to aid your defense as Inquiry researchers must do for Misplaced Pages articles. Adraeus 01:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: I'm no longer associated with Sam Spade's "Inquiry" thing. The real Inquiry project is being re-established offsite. Adraeus 14:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It's an incident not just because you've once again violated WP:Civility by publicly calling me a bastard (and El C as well), but because you've deleted every warning to desist without acknowlegement or any indication that you do not intend to carry on: and you've gone on to insult an admin as a "popularity contest winning nube admin." I hope your pizzas are not as tepid and bland as the insults you deliver. FeloniousMonk 23:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I (very briefly) was engaging in a collegial polemic on FM's talk page, I certainly insulted no one, nor was any offence directed against Ungtss — s/he certainly did not give an indication of being offended. In fact, as per represnenting his/her worldview, I actually found Ungtss' responses to have been quite eloquent (that I disagree with them strongly, is besides the point). Significantly, it is rather easy to observe that at no point was User:Sam Spade involved in this pronouncedly calm discussion. El_C 23:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

User:The truth about hephaestos

I've permablocked this account for obvious reasons, but I figure I should note that it alleges that Hephaestos and Mike Garcia are the same user. Since Mike uses AOL there's no real way to track that, but it might be worth seeing if The truth about hephaestos is a sock of someone too. Or not. Whatev. Snowspinner 05:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess I once again have to complain and get abused for it. But I don't see how this is valid. A) The user had made a few good edits to articles. B) We don't know if the user was telling the truth or being a troll. C) Even if the user was a troll, there's no policy allowing an admin to block that user outright. The only thing I can think is that maybe it qualifies as a personal attack. But it's an allegation; if it's true, it couldn't be a personal attack, I wouldn't think. Everyking 05:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree. This user didn't do anything wrong, really (aside from the unconventional choice of username). I'm also not convinced that his allegations truly qualify as a personal attack; and even if they are, there are still no grounds to unilaterally block this account indefinitely. Please correct me if I am mistaken. – ClockworkSoul 05:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If he continues to harass other users, however, he may earn that block. – ClockworkSoul 05:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The only surprise is that he wasn't blocked before this. Allowing someone to choose a name that is a deliberate harassment of another user is hardly the way to build a hospitable editing environment. If he wants to contribute, the next name he chooses won't be inflammatory. - Nunh-huh 05:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here. Check if the user is willing to change his username before blocking is the best way to nurture a productive WP environment. Mgm| 08:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely the user name shouldn't be exist. But the user didn't appear particularly combative to me and would in all likelihood have changed his user name on request (or simply left). If the user did not take advantage of a generous window of opportunity to change the name and continued to edit under it, then I could perhaps see a block as being reasonable. Everyking 08:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I notice several warnings against vandalism on User_talk:The_truth_about_hephaestos. Seems to me a block was in order. Radiant_* 10:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

He only vandalized one "article" (actually it was a redirect), and that was his very first edit (to be fair, he may not have understood the distinction between the redirect he was vandalizing and userspace). After that he made two article contributions which look constructive, and the rest of his edits are just talk page/user page stuff. Everyking 10:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well despite the action I (eventually) took wrt to the imposter & also, as here, 1-edit vandal, EricI234 (who to my knowledge has not retunred; though that was impersonation, not criticism of a user within a username name), I do think that, generally, these users are more trouble than they're worth. How far should we play psychologists (in a social experiment?) ? I wager that, on average, cost/benefit-wise, etc., such practices deter from rather than contribute to the encyclopedia. And, really, is it asking so much for editors who are straightforward; editors who, if they have grievences, can express them directly, without these games. As a matter of policy, it needs to be strongly discouraged. And it isn't draconian. If this (or other such) user(s) wish to be unblocked, with the promise of editing under a new, legitimate username, there are easy enough options —the mailing list is that-a-way— and s/he would almost certainly be granted this with very little effort on his/her part. Let them take the first step though. El_C 10:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. Abusive usernames, particularly those targeting another user, should be blocked indefinitely per username policy. Leave a note on the talk page to email you about it so you can unblock the IP when they've picked a better name. This procedure works fine and gets their attention quickly - David Gerard 14:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Further on this point: it should be blindingly obvious that if it isn't Michael, it's someone trying to stir trouble between Michael and Hephaestos. Either way, it's an entirely unsuitable username for any use whatsoever. I've dropped a line to User:Danny pointing out it's (good case) someone trying to make trouble, or (bad case) it's Michael having a bad day - David Gerard 14:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My best guess would be the former (the "good" case). When he was harassing people, Michael's approach was fairly crude, and this is a more sophisticated if transparent attempt at generating FUD. --Michael Snow 22:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You people are kidding, right? This person comes in making personal attacks on another User and he hasn't done anything wrong? He's trying to claim that a User in good standing, Hephaestos, is not only Mike Garcia, but the vandal Bird? And you're trying to claim this is a good User? The name alone is bannable. RickK 16:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Rick and David on this one, and I'm somewhat puzzled that there's even a debate over this (not that I'm against debate, mind you). Anyone who begins their Misplaced Pages career with personal attacks–personal attacks which demonstrate a decent familiarity with Misplaced Pages's internal politics–should be blocked. No need to edit under such a name. Mackensen (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, we can't play social-worker with people who start their WP existence in this disruptive way. It's a recepy for (I would'nt say disaster, but) abuse and tying up resources unproducitvely. They have grievences, let them be straight-forward about them. End of story. El_C 01:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

From the Login page: "Avoid choosing a username that is the name of a celebrity, or a political, military, or religious figure or event or known Misplaced Pages user." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I spoke to Danny (who is mentoring Mike) on IRC about this; he agrees it's not Mike, but a particularly odious troll trying to make trouble - David Gerard 13:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Powertranz: possible vandal and sockpuppet

I've had my patience tested and surpassed by Powertranz over the last couple of weeks over changes to "Developed country". We've been revert warring over the latter's claim that the whole of the European Union's member states should be considered "developed countries". I object to those claims, with evidence from the United Nations, the World Bank, the OECD, the CIA World Factbook and the IMF, that show that while many of the 25 member states of the EU are developed, some are not. I have tried to establish a dialog with Powertranz, leaving messages on his talk page and on the article's talk page, but have never received a response, only more reverts and even deletion of my messages . I would like to note that Powertranz's contributions to Misplaced Pages from his very first edit have consisted almost entirely in reversions to the aforementioned article. He has also called me a "retard" , a "moron" and a "jackass" . I ask for the administrators' help in this case. I believe I'm on the right side here and have no wish to prolong this silent revert war any longer. Thank you. —Cantus…☎ 06:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Attack accounts (or more Amerinese/DINGBAT socks?)

ZscoutGAYboy (talk · contribs) was created presumably as a sort of attack against User:Zscout370. --MarkSweep 06:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Mybooboo (talk · contribs) appears to be directed against User:Mababa. See the history of First Taiwan Strait Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --MarkSweep 06:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Blocked both as impersonation/attack accounts. There was also User:ZSCOUT370 who was blocked as an impersonation. Checked and both of these are the same person - David Gerard 13:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

While we're at it: CarneDeJintao (talk · contribs) is new here and jumped right into several controversial topics. --MarkSweep 07:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This is the same person as the above. (No positive match with Amerinese or anyone at CUNY, by the way.) Other accounts include Mabooboo and CommunismSUCKS. Have blocked the lot, with a note to email me - David Gerard 13:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

How about FreedomFighter228 (talk · contribs)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiang (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Did it post anything but troll support and personal attacks?! Blocked as personal attack account - David Gerard 15:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"Supervandal" 207.141.19.46

207.141.19.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a very problematic case; he makes dozens of edits per day, usually minor edits to year articles (18xx, 19xx, etc), adding birth and death dates of famous personalities. He also messes with categories, and refuses to use edit summaries. There have been numerous attemps to contact him, but he hasn't yet responded. User:Pavel Vozenilek put his IP on WP:ViP, labelling him a "Supervandal". I didn't really know how to deal with this; on one hand he seems to do his edits in good faith, on the other his edit pattern is rather disruptive. So I've blocked him for 12 hours in hope of getting his attention, and I've put this message on his talk page:

Hello, this to inform you that you have been blocked for 12 hours. It saddens me to be forced to take such a drastic measure to get your attention; most of your numerous contributions to Misplaced Pages are undoubtedly great, but this is a collaborative project. We have to cope with a lot of vandalism, and people have to look through hundreds of edits every day to check them for vandalism. It would be very helpful if you could start cooperating with other users: I suggest you register an account, and start using edit summaries to clarify the object of each of your edits, as well as reply to users who use your talk page. If you use an automated script ("bot") to make some of your edits, please make this clear on your talk page or via edit summaries. Note that I will unblock you as soon as you demonstrate you have read this and are ready to respond to our concerns. You may also contact any other administrator. Cheers. Phils 08:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to give other administrators a heads-up, because I'm rather new and I don't feel 100% right about this block either; the user really hasn't done much wrong, but it's obvious he can't keep editing in this fashion either. Feel free to unblock him/correct anything I've done wrong. Phils 09:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I must be missing something. You mean to say he adds information that is knowingly false (or has such a disastrously high error rate that he's a problem) and won't stop? Because if the information is correct I don't understand what the complaint against him is. But if he's adding false information, either knowingly or with an error rate that can't be properly attributed to good faith, that's definitely grounds for blocking and/or for reverting all his edits unconditionally until he starts talking. Everyking 09:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If all else fails and some of his edits are good, some are bad, revert it all until he starts talking. Its pretty drastic, but it's called long term damage control. :) 158.36.174.52 09:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

And that was me. Somebody stole my cookie :/ Inter\ 10:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I randomly checked several of this IP's edits, and all of them seem good. Can someone point out which are erroneous, vandalism, or otherwise bad? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP; I just went through about 100 of his edits and I can't find the "supervandalism" referred to on WP:ViP. I feel so ashamed; that will teach me to blindly believe what I see on ViP. Sorry for disrupting and wasting your time. Phils 15:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

How can it wrong, did the nominator mistype the IP# or something? *continues assuming WP:FAITH* Master Thief Garrett 15:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I think because the IP is making a large number of sweeping, unsummarized edits that sometimes involve small deletions (e.g. ). At first glance this would seem to be vandalism, but removing superfluous text and links does make sense, to me. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Phils, no need to apologize. Even with this data in hand, your message was not unreasonable. Misplaced Pages:Edit summary says:

Always fill the summary field.

(emphasis in the original), which this person isn't doing. They are also making mistakes with duplicate categories, etc. All of this, together with complete unwillingness to communicate (which is really crucial) is not "business as usual". Noel (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

User:KaintheScion and User:ElKabong

As seen here; Both users are currently permablocked.

This appears not to be a good-faith blocking either; the so-called "evidence" of sockpuppetry is weak. A quick check of Sock Puppet reveals the following:

However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Misplaced Pages.

Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Misplaced Pages for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion.

The Admins in question ignored this, and are making ludicrous claims of sockpuppetry to use as a basis for permanently blocking two entirely different accounts, in flagrant violation of Misplaced Pages policy on blocking users to gain an advantage in content disputes regarding the George W Bush page and possibly other pages that the users were involved in defending from POV-pushers.

Good-faith emails to the Admins have gone unheeded; the goal of the Admins is apparently not to find the truth, but rather establish a flimsy precept for permablocking at least one account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.176 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The evidence of sockpuppetry is about as clear as evidence gets: their IP addresses match, and one signed comments with the other's name. I believe David Gerard offered to unblock whichever of the two is the primary account; rather than spout this ineffectual bluster that everyone can see right through, why not take him up on the offer? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible for there to be matching IP addresses, and David Gerard re-edited his own bullshit in that regard twice. There is no sockpuppetry going on, just Admins abusing their power in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.176 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Even if the IP addresses don't match, how do you explain one signing comments with the other's name? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The above comes after ElKabong admitted in email that 129.7.35.176 was his IP. I unblocked ElKabong; then he wrote as KaintheScion wanting that account unblocked. I sent a copy of the evidence busting them. So the above would then be ElKabong claiming that KaintheScion is not a sock. Uh huh. - David Gerard 15:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no sockpuppets. I only have one account. As of 8 AM this morning, I was still seeing a message saying that I was blocked.

Mirv, I was making a good-faith edit and made a mis-click trying to hit the "watch this page" box. Is that a crime?

David Gerard, if you're still blocking KaintheScion, then you're still a lying sack of crap and a vandal-protector. ElKabong

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards