Misplaced Pages

(sigh) I am not involved in the AfD, despite accusations to the contrary. A quick search for my name and look through edit histories will confirm that. I've just been monitoring it to try and keep a lid on the incivil conduct there; VP's page is one of several which I visited asking editors to cool off. In other words, I was the uninvolved admin which people have been clamoring for - it's just that when some saw the decision turn in a way they didn't like, they began looking for hidden reasons. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I have been checking the contribs and counts, etc. and withdraw the incorrect suggestion that you have a previous history with the AfD or the subject - I have thus struck through those comments. :::I still don't understand the removal of VigilancePrime's reason for vote change, since WP:Point (the only reason I can see) was not cited and there was supporting diffs for his contention. Paedophile related AfD's (or anything else regarding the subject) are never going to be civil affairs, and it is my experience that some of those who believe they are acting on the side of the angels certainly do not conduct themselves as if they are of that company. Removing VigilancePrime's comments, and subsequently blocking for re-instating them, while not addressing the incivility of those opposing VP's (original) vote and... er... standing on the matter seems a little unevenhanded. VP should not, of course, react as he has - but I can see where the frustration comes from.

Of course, I acknowledge the sensitivity that surrounds this subject - and have a history for blathering my liberal viewpoint as regards it - so I suggest that this response is simply considered as being a different take on the same matter, and allow some other uninvolved sysops take a considered view of the block and preceding events. Cheers LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I have addressed other editors engaged in aggressive behavior - it's just that this particular one continued in his actions whereas the others toned it down. Regarding the removal of content, if you'll look over it (along with my accompanying explanation at his talk page), you'll notice that very little has to do with the actual AfD; it's mostly attacks upon other users. Of course, it's unreasonable to expect one admin to remove all of the nasty remarks from this AfD (even if it was appropriate to go on that kind of anti-incivility campaign, which it's not), but that one crossed the line. AfDs are not the place for taking shots at other editors or requesting de-adminships.

I agree wholeheartedly about what you've said concerning the emotions circling the AfD, which is exactly why I've spent time lately monitoring it to try and keep it cool. Thanks for taking some time to look over this. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have been watching the VP drama unfold, and frankly I am growing weary of it. Does VP have some valid complaints about the behavior of others? Quite possibly yes. Does it excuse his bad behavior? Not at all. I have reviewed his earlier blocks, and have denied them in the past; they have seemed justified given his behavior. If others are being disruptive, their behavior should be dealt with as well; however VPs cries of unfairness are a red herring. He has deserved his blocks, and just because others may deserve them as well (and I only say that as a hypothetical; not as a fact), does not give him the right to act like a jerk. As I told him at an earlier unblock request. Behavior can trump rightness; if you want people to see your side and listen to you, it needs to be presented in a civil manner. Being disruptive will cause others to ignore you, and if he doesn't want that, he should act more civilly.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

She called edits 'canvassing' which those allegedly canvassed disagreed were such, both myself and User:Rray appreciated being alerted to an MfD of an article of User:VigilancePrime's which Tijuana herself nominated. Obviously whether the block is appropriate is a different matter but I think she shouldn't have done it herself as she's so involved in the issuues, if necessary (with which some people disagree) another, less involved admin should have done it. Merkinsmum 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avruch (talk • contribs)

Despite Tijuana's comments above, he (sorry I got your gender wrong before, T) said on VigilenceP's talkpage that the block was for canvassing on the MfD Tijuana started, not anything to do with the other issues.Merkinsmum 02:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries about the gender. Concerning the block, it was for canvassing as a part of continued disruptive behavior. Read it for yourself. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin, regardless, I'd like to express my concern that the block of VigilancePrime may have been a tad oversized for the size of the problem. The purported canvassing messages appeared to have been neutrally done, and I'm not sure whether the block was entirely warranted as a strictly preventative measure. That's my concern, which I'd like addressed. However, I'll leave this to y'all to sort out. But, Tijuana Brass, didn't you disband a long time ago? Sorry, I couldn't resist making a Herb Alpert reference --SSBohio 03:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; just from looking over his talk page, it seems that any admin who posts on his page is automatically a member of The Cabal. Which, of course, does not exist. Everyone knows there is no cabal. HalfShadow (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm all about HA references, baby. ...anyway, I hardly think language like "The MfD is believed to be a veiled personal attack" is neutral (). Note that WP:CANVAS requires "notices" to be limited, neutral, nonpartisan, and open to be considered acceptable. He failed three of these and continued to canvass after a warning, which is problematic even if you don't consider the other issues of disruption. Oh, and HalfShadow, the first rule of the cabal is that you don't talk about the cabal. Loose lips sink ships. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a solid reason to me. In deference to VP, however, I have to admit that he says things I only wish I could say. Sometimes it's hard to see the non-existence of the cabal from this close to the ground.  :-) As to the HA reference, when I saw your name, I swear I could hear that horn section playing. Thanks for being responsive to me. I've been fobbed off by others and this is much better. --SSBohio 04:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice T. strangely doesn't mention his 'canvassing' reason at first while asking for a review of this block.

I imagine VP is a bit vociferous though, but on the deletion debate I was involved in about Adult-child sex, he didn't stand out as particularly vociferous, maybe that's not saying much on that AfD though lol. Merkinsmum 13:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's right there in the block log. Please make sure you actually review the situation before making accusations; you've already been mistaken twice. In any case, if you think the block was solely due to canvassing, you're missing the bigger picture - which is why this review was a request for the input of experienced admins who've dealt with problems like these before. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am away from home, sorry to join back in late. Some others may consider this resolved but to me it's partly not, due to the Tijuana rather than the Vigilance Prime issues (for my differing views on VP's canvassing anyone can message me direct, suffice it to say I disagree, but don't want to make my post even more looong lol) I know he is unblocked now but what I'm saying is in future, if you are involved partially in what you are blocking someone for (I know you weren't for the AfD of Adult-child sex)- but for instance you nominated an MfD and then blocked the person who wrote the article, partly over his conduct surrounding the MfD- could you please contact another admin to consider doing such a block or write on ANI asking for intervention about it? You see it would slightly remove the possibility (because we all have biases in life, some of them subconscious) or the possible appearance of an unfair block. I am writing this here on ANI rather than directly to you because I want other admins to be aware of editor's concerns, (but thought it would be unnecessary to start a separate thread, though I put one here in the first place) and to be aware that this suggestion has already been made to you, should such a situation arise again, that you block someone with whom you are currently engaged in an argument, whether over the same subject or not. As even over a different subject, (and no matter how evil other editor's comments) if you have another currently active dispute, to the editor concerned it could easily appear vindictive (even if that's not true.) Merkinsmum 13:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read Merkinsmum's statement above, I'm annulling my previous acceptance of this block. I now see where LessHeard vanU was concerned about the propriety of Tijuana Brass making the block, then withdrew the concern because TB wasn't involved in the AfD. However, Tijuana Brass also brought a page created by VigilancePrime up to MfD, and while that was pending, blocked VigilancePrime for "canvassing" with regard to that MfD. To me, there is an appearance of impropriety in the block, which, in light of all the facts, seems more punitive than preventative. I'm also concerned that the full circumstances surrounding this block hadn't been laid out here by the blocking admin. Again, it gives the appearence of impropriety. --SSBohio 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Points well made. The violations still merited a block, but I can see why others could interpret a potential conflict of interest due to my initiating the MfD (although, given that an XfD runs for five days, a 24 hour block will not affect the outcome). I'll be more aware of this in the future. Thanks to those who commented on this, I appreciate your input and advice. Tijuana Brass (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rlevse making veiled threats about me to other users

Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a blocking admin against me in the past and has just posted a very cryptic comment on his user page about me. I asked him if this was a threat here. I don't like the implication that the wheels of justice are turning behind closed doors, and I especially am offended that this comment was made to a particularly problematic editor who has a history of POV-pushing and promoting fringe theories. This feels to me like an abuse of power. What do others think? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse and I were talking in IRC about the complaints and counter-complaints at WP:AE, and I asked an arbitrator for an opinion on a possible remedy. This should not be blown out of proportion. The fact that he previously blocked you for edit warring is not an issue; blocking once does not disqualify an admin from taking future action, if appropriate. Thatcher 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just scared, that's all. Rlevse scares me. He's quite authoritarian and rarely as engaging as other clerks I've known in the past. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to clear up one possible misunderstanding: The Arbitration clerks have no special role in Arbitration enforcement. It is perhaps natural that admins with an interest in Arbitration gravitate to both areas, but enforcement is open to all uninvolved admins. More help at WP:AE is always appreciated. Thatcher 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry SA, I quit wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 03:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Random POOF! I... don't get it. 03:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaaaaaat? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, you/this thread really pissed him off and he left. Keilana| 03:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope that doesn't win me a whole new batch of enemies. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 Wizardman 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the above. I think wikipedia's getting to me today. I should probably log off :) Wizardman 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist take a chill pill. If I would get upset each time an admin swang their authority stick I would be in a hospital talking to a shrink! Igor Berger (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I'm not doing that right now? ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to press the panic button, but User:Rlevse actually went & quit. Two in one day. Sigh. --SSBohio 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The strange thing is, I'm pretty sure Rlevse was Rudget's admin coach. How strange.   jj137 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And neither particularly justified. Let's hope both cool off and come back. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a shame. Nothing about Rlevse's statement was remotely a threat. Given the number of arbcom requests in this topic area recently, I should hope arbcom is looking at it and Rlevse's statement was simply a statement of fact. --B (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe for a minute that Rlevse's statement was a threat. On the other hand, anyone who's been following this little drama is aware that Rlevse has no love for SA (to put it as tactfully as I can). Thus it wasn't unreasonable for SA to perceive the remark as a threat. Not having the wisdom of Solomon, I can't think of anything more imaginative than simply to recommend that the two of them stay away from each other. Perhaps someone more articulate and diplomatic than me can suggest something better. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

i thinkt aht rvelse's decision to leave was a smart one. ITS clear that theset wo users have so much hostility and hatred for each otehr that they cannot coexist on the same website at the same time. one of them had to leave and it was honorable for User:Relevse to volunter to sacrifice his adminship as well as this work here on wikiepdia to preserve the peace. Its' always a good idea to try to mediate these disputes befrore they get out of hadn but since these two users loathed each toehr so deeply that they could not kep from arguing Rlevse's departure is probalby for the best. the only thing that i can recomend is to block rvelse's account so that he or she wont be tempted to come abck later on and end up resuming the current conflict. Smith Jones (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right? --B (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of my past experiences with this user, I must sadly report that I don't think he's joking. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Raymond, Smith Jones does tend to take extreme positions, usually with poorly-written justifications. Corvus cornix_talk 06:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I might be assuming bad faith, but your comment carries the insinuation that SA is selfish. And no, we will not block his account just to keep him away from here so "he or she wont be tempted to come abck later on and end up resuming the current conflict." That is just absurd. —Kurykh 06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And what may I say are the Mediators,arbitrators and check-users doing about this issue?..2 in 1 day is a laugh and both being admin, just shows how wikipedia is not moving forward. As mentioned before Misplaced Pages's democracy is no longer working..someone should do something about this 2 issues, no matter how minor it seems cause its these minor issues which can bring wikipedia to its knees...--Cometstyles 10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved Party Comment

Losing a good editor is always a bad thing for Misplaced Pages, and one who takes on the onerous task of clerking ArbComs especially so. I sincerely hope that Rlevse, after some consideration, decides to return to the encyclopedia - and even takes up again the role of clerk. Sometimes, often even, an authoritarian approach is required to cut through the various passions and off topic rhetoric that can occur at ArbCom - although my own experience was that Rlevse was not oppressive.

I also have some sympathy with ScienceApologist, whose unerring campaign to keep science related subjects clear from non-scientific sentiment and improper application of NPOV is both admirable and likely extremely frustrating. As said somewhere else (I paraphrase), "What other point of view other than a scientific one should be used in a science related article?"

It is unfortunate that two good, and committed in their own ways, contributors to Misplaced Pages are unable to co-operate with each other. However, there is no reason why they should not be able to co-exist - Misplaced Pages is very, very, very big (that's a scientific term, folks!) and there should be enough room for the both of them. Obviously it would be up to both parties to limit the areas where they may conflict, given the area of expertise of one editor and the interests of the other, and to avoid direct interaction in those spaces. In that way the encyclopedia is served by having both individuals involved, and disruption reduced.

I hope the matter can be, if not resolved, brought to as reasonable a conclusion as is possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughly concur. The loss of either of these two editors would be a serious blow to all of Misplaced Pages's efforts. Both are skilled and extremely knowledgeable contributors. SA's Herculean efforts to maintain Scientific pages which don't cater to the tinfoil hat brigade are as valued here as RLevse's clearking and constant efforts throughout the project. That they need WP:DR or just a gentleman's agreement ot keep a distance is clear, but neither should go. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Return

He has returned, if you didn't know already. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Y'all get your fingers off the panic button :) You know that *none of us can ever quit*. Once you're hooked, that's it. Misplaced Pages needs a warning label. Userbox it.Wjhonson (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I must disagree. I've seen too many valuable contributors decide this is a waste of time due to (eh, pick a reason, we've seen them all) & bail. Burnout catches up with some people & they say good-bye. (I guess some people don't have a life -- which must be why I'm still here.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone is breaking rules here

User ColdFusion650 and I have gotten into a bit of an edit war and after I asked him to take this to his talk page, he started posting out conversation on the articles' talk page and posting what I already posted on his talk page.

Also, he's using his PPOV to revert what he feels is not relevant. I would like the assistance of an admin in order to settle this.

Duhman0009 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A little bit more could help. Rgoodermote  22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I read the discussion, cold did not break any of the "Guidelines" he suggested that you talk on the article talk page and was very civil in explaining everything. By the way edit wars only take place when editing the article and they involve multiple reverts (3 reverts max) of the article the breach is called a 3RR breach. Neither of you breached 3RR when editing the article. Rgoodermote  22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not for him to move my sayings to another page. If he would have asked, I would have done so myself, but he has NO right to do this himself. Also, as for the topic itself, I never said anything about the 3 revert rules. Duhman0009 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No 3RR breaches are needed for it to be an edit war. An edit war is any back-and-forth editing/reverting in the context of a dispute that reaches a level of disruption. They can be quite "slow", actually. - Revolving Bugbear 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that can be different for everyone, the edits did not seem disruptive and Cold seemed very civil and as seen here requesting the user talk it out on the article talk page. Rgoodermote  23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you an admin? Duhman0009 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mate the user has every right to move your comments to a different page. It helps other users understand a situation. Because the conversation spilled to the talk page of the article the comments left on your and his talk page should be included at the talk page of the article. By the way no but I am an experienced user. I do know that it was taken from an edit summery but the talk page was the best I could think of. Rgoodermote  23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm going to wait for an admin's opinion on the matter. Duhman0009 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

None taken, but I need you to know that the admin are just experienced users who are given mops. Rgoodermote  00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya, but if they give me the wrong info, at lease I can just say "Well, an admin told me it was OK". Duhman0009 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't have super powers of authority, we're just like you and every other user except with a few extra buttons. Or we're supposed to be. Yeah, moving the comments was probably ok, although I would have left the originals (copied, rather than moved). It's no big deal. Neıl ☎ 01:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So I can quote you on that if I ever decide to do something similar in the future? Now for the topic itself, keep your eye open on that one, if my experience thought me anything, might get ugly. Duhman0009 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... moving a discussion from one's own user talk page to a more appropriate venue, such as the talk page of the relevant article, is perfectly acceptable under our talk page guidelines, provided that no misrepresentation occurs. The only fault I can find in this case is that ColdFusion650 should perhaps have made it even clearer that he, not you, was the one who copied the comment to the article talk page. Since that fact has already become clear from your subsequent comments in the discussion (which you could've made just as well without accusations of malice), I see no further need to do anything about it except to advise you to calm down and, in the future, make more effort to assume good faith. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, a link the the rule itself, this will come in handy. As for "Good Faith" comment, remember, that works both ways, I could easily say that you have no good faith by saying that I have no good faith. But then, you could say that I don't have good faith by accusing you of not having good faith. It's a matter of opinion which I would suggest not getting into since it's also a vicious circle. Duhman0009 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If continuity is not broken, moving the discussion is just as harmless as linking to it - it's all public. the_undertow 01:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked all the diffs to see if anyone's broken 3RR, but ColdFusion650 does seem to be getting pretty aggressive on the Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles article. Looking through some past edits, he seems to be cutting down the sourcing and length of critical reviews. I'd like more eyes on this. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't want to say anything, but since someone brought it up, I do feel like ColdFusion650 thinks that this page belongs to him. Duhman0009 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added some sourced content to the article he didn't like and ColdFusion is attempting to revert-war with me. Very WP:OWNy. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I also was deeply unimpressed by the behaviour of ColdFusion650 who is trigger happy with the delete button. No request for citation or rephrase was made. My contribution was knee-jerk deleted. This kind of unhelpful behaviour turns people off from contributing. -- Horkana (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoserjoe

Calling a female editor 'hormonally deranged' is a blockable offense in my opinion. I've given him a warning and won't block because I've dealt with the guy so it's a COI. I would also appreciate a look into him admitting he has two accounts, both used for editing the same Elvis talk page. Unless users know that, his discussions are meatpuppeteering. Thanks. the_undertow 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Block on next offense. —Kurykh 23:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lara❤Love 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I still would like clarification on why the user contributes to the same discussions using two different accounts. Is this an acceptable use of a sock? the_undertow 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the other account name? Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Very rude! Second account is User:BomberJoe.I agree with Kurykh and will assist. That said an apology should be offered by User:Hoserjoe.--VS 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Detailed history from LaraLove

This is not the first instance from this user. Here's a full history:

• August 17, he added the Christian singles to {{Elvis Presley}}. It was a poor addition not only in that it was unnecessary and overly long, but the links were duplicated in instances, and many did not lead to the song they were meant to.
• August 19, User:Rikstar brings the change to the attention of those working on the Elvis article with a talk page thread that ran until archived in late October.
• November 3, User:Crazysuit posted this discussion on the talk page suggesting "to separate the list of Christion songs into a separate article," expanding with a rationale.
• November 11, User:DePiep replied to the talk page message agreeing with Crazysuit, who then removed the then cleaned up addition per the talk page discussion.
• November 18, Hoserjoe responded here and then re-added the section.
• November 19, DePiep reverted the re-addition. This is also the day Hoserjoe initiated a discussion on Talk:Elvis about the content of the article, as seen in full here, running until November 24. He used his other account, BomberJoe, in this conversation as well, as seen here. User:Rodhullandemu called him out here. User:Jeffpw agreed here. Onefortyone also agreed here. Hoserjoe admitted it here then clarified. I then tagged both accounts.
• December 25, Hoserjoe re-added the section once again. He also removed an entire section and a sourced sentence from the article despite the ongoing conversation on the talk page. And also questioned that he's actually referred to as "The King of Rock'n'roll" and "The King". I reverted and posted to his talk page.
• December 26, I reverted his addition to the template, and he responds to my talk page message from the day before on my talk page, to which I reply.
• January 16, Hoserjoe posts to Talk:Elvis (in the middle of someone else's comment) stating that "Most of the article is simply an exercise in editorial vanity by a few (one in particular) self-centred and obsessive editors. ..." I'm not clear if he is referring to me or User:Onefortyone. Then he posts to my talk page asking "Is there some reason why you deleted the entire Elvis discography template?". Considering I'd not deleted it, only reverted his additions, I reply with this, pointing out that this has already been discussed.
• January 17, he replies with "Thanks for your reply, Lara. The answer to your question is that Elvis was primarily a Christian/Gospel/church singer. He wasn't a "Blues" singer for the simple reason that he disliked the blues, but he'd do it if he had to. Those of us old enough to have attended his concerts know this. You, being a young girl, do not know this. It's the ignorance of youth. Not necessarily a bad thing unless it's accompanied by a closed mind. And it's most unpleasant when ignorant youth try to make a new "truth" out of cobbled-up fiction. The entire Elvis article has become a nightmare of fiction, but you're doing an excellent job of defending it. Soon you all will have remade Elvis into a repressed, gay, punk blues, atheistic, draft-dodging, womanizing biker. Well done!". This is where he has confused me with Onefortyone, as I've not written any of the Elvis article, I only formatted the 237 references and footnotes, created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Elvis Presley and have been attempting, on the talk page, to reach a consensus for trimming some of the info out of this article. It's currently halted for Arbitration. But that's an aside. I reverted the message. the_undertow saw this message and dropped a line on Hoserjoe's talk page. He apparently didn't get it.
• January 20, he posts this mess on my talk page. the_undertow reverts and warns.

Hoserjoe's accusations of my contributions to the article are unfounded. He ignores consensus and causes disruption. I request uninvolved parties review this history, please. Regards, Lara❤Love 08:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A user RFC would be appropriate here (as a precursor to arbcom or a community imposed ban, if he doesn't improve). MER-C 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tedickey persistently removing links to 'Cloverfield'

Hi,

User:Tedickey is persistently removing links to Cloverfield from numerous Misplaced Pages articles such as Brooklyn Bridge, Star Trek (film), Empire State Building, and Statue of Liberty. User:Scjessey and myself wrote comments on User talk:Tedickey asking for an explanation, and I added a vandalism tag. Our comments and the tag were quickly deleted with no explanation other than them being 'trash'. I'm not sure what to do about this, hence the message here, as this seems to be quite unusual behaviour. Tedickey has embarked on an inexplicable crusade to remove links to Cloverfield from Misplaced Pages. Could an administrator please advise or intervene? Thanks. Mikesc86 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest a link to a movie in the "see also" section of the Statue of Liberty's article isn't really appropiate. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While that may be true, surely it would have been more appropriate to move it to a more relevant section of the article, rather than deleting it altogether? Other edits by this user are not so easy to dismiss: the first screenings of the trailer for the upcoming Star Trek movie preceded Cloverfield. The user removed this fact from the article. Mikesc86 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not really up to Tedickey to determine better placement of a single link, it's really up to the people that feel the link should be included. In the general scheme of things, Cloverfield is not that important to many of the articles it has been added to. Many of these links amount to little more than "And Cloverfield had this too" (Monster, Alternative reality game), relying upon unsourced speculation to get it included (Shub-Niggurath), or "Cloverfield filmed a scene here" (Coney Island). Granted, the layout of some articles seems to invite spamming (Brooklyn Bridge has a whole section that is just a link of movies, television shows, and other media the bridge has appeared in).--Bobblehead 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The tie-in to Star Trek is unsourced, and unnecessary. The change which Mikesc86 reverted introduced a garbled content to the article. Rather than discuss this in a calm manner (as did two other editors), Mikesc86 is repeating his accusations of vandalism. (I repaired the Brooklyn article, by the way). Tedickey (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I did try and discuss the matter as did another editor, as you pointed out. However, instead of engaging in the discussion, you deleted and ignored our comments. I found it strange how you specifically targeted articles linking to Cloverfield as if you held some sort of personal grudge, and stranger how you deleted comments when confronted about this.

Again, rather than deleting content that lacks citations, it would have been better to mark it with an appropriate tag than remove it altogether. A quick search on Google would have confirmed the claim.

Further, the content was not 'garbled' into the article: it existed neatly in the 'Marketing' section. Mikesc86 (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You reverted it, I read the comments, and there was nothing to respond to. You don't have any new information to convey, but have time to spend repeating your remarks. Tedickey (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. I was not trying to convey any new information, I was simply replacing the information you deleted. Mikesc86 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

good (that's something that you should source in on the topic) Tedickey (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not the person who put it there in the first place! Mikesc86 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just reviewed the edit for the Star Trek (film) article and it turns out that it was actually a sourced claim, which means its removal was completely unnecessary. Mikesc86 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see (just curious - are you part of the viral marketing strategy for the movie?) Tedickey (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Please read a user's edit history before making such claims. Or alleging them. Corvus cornix_talk 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As User:Corvus cornix points out, if you checked my edit history you would quickly figure out that the answer to your question is a definite 'no'. You do not seem to understand that linking to a Misplaced Pages article about the film is entirely different to spamvertising links to the film's official website. The links you removed from Misplaced Pages were entirely relevant: the Star Trek trailer was shown before Cloverfield, The Statue of Liberty was seen in Cloverfield's trailer, etc. Mikesc86 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No - for example the addition to Shub-Niggurath was completely original research, and the other editor was quite right to remove it, yet you reverted him with an edit summary of "rv vandalism". Linking articles together on flimsy pretexts is generally frowned upon. BLACKKITE 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I made no additions to Shub-Niggurath. If you take a look at the previous edits you will find that it was already there and User:Tedickey deleted it - I merely restored it. If original research was the problem then the section of the article in question should have been appropriately tagged, or Tedickey should have stated this as the reason for removal in his edit summary. "rm spam" is hardly descriptive. To me, it just seemed like yet another one of his deletions of links to Cloverfield. You have to ask why, of all the films ever released, he has deliberately singled out this one. Mikesc86 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Only if one also questions why there is such determination to include mention of the movie in a wide range of articles that are only incidental to the movie itself. We don't list every movie set in Tokyo or San Francisco or Lisbon in those articles and Cloverfield shouldn't be treated any differently just because it opened recently. Undue weight and all that. Pairadox (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) You are probably right in that Tedickey's edit summary could have been a little more descriptive, but it was clear that that particular addition to the article was spectacularly OR - you would have done better to have inspected his edits rather than blindly reverting them all. He was right on most of the ones I can see. BLACKKITE 00:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He was certainly wrong on the Star Trek wrong and he was certainly wrong to delete the comments made by myself and the other editor rather than reply to us. Had he replied, then I would have never had the need to bring the situation to this noticeboard. Mikesc86 (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Or you could just think about why he's removing it. He did the right thing. Misplaced Pages isn't about maximized cross-linking of our articles, but about carefully thought out and reasonable cross-links. Perhaps you could have brought up the inclusion of the link on the relevant talk pages, where a number of editors would've explained to you why the article in question doesn't need the link, agreeing it does belong, thus forming consensus. If he's removing it from numerous pages, even those you didn't add it to, perhaps you should have looked at the bigger picture. ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Current WP:TRIVIA policy discourages "In popular culture" sections, so removal is appropriate. And, regardless of editor intent, inserting all those links during the initial release of a movie is effectively advertising. There are already about 50 links to the movie's entry. Most of them should be removed. --John Nagle (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my thoughts to this discussion, as I was the one who originally posted on the user's talk page about the problem (although the user subsequently removed my comment). I don't have an issue with the removal of the Cloverfield links (although I thought the one in the Star Trek (film) article was appropriate, so I restored it). The problem I had was that he was removing the links with the simple edit summary of "rv spam", which I felt to be inappropriate and inaccurate. I'm not entirely convinced it was such a big deal that it needed to be discussed here, either. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference removal

I am having an issue with another user, who keeps removing reference sections that I add to articles. The user claims that the references are “un-encyclopedic”, claiming that they do not belong on Misplaced Pages. The references are in fact a script to a video game, which is solely being used to verify information. In-line citations would accomplish the same thing, but also take up too much space and what not. Furthermore, the user is failing to even read the content, as it also contained other types of third-party references.

Articles where I have encountered these problems include: Chris Redfield, Billy Coen, Jill Valentine, and Rebecca Chambers. Here is an example of typical exchange of edits, I’d like to add that I have tried to made sure that these references comply with WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:Verify, and clearly pointed this out on the user's talk page. The user has politely responded, but only backed up their argument on the grounds that they feel the content does not belong. What is the best solution to this problem? --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement: I have removed the sections that as I have clearly stated (User talk:ShadowJester07#Your_edits_to_Resident_Evil_character_articles), contain links that do not verify any information within the articles, besides to show several games story/scrips that (in several cases, indirectly if at all) feature the character of the articles.  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I fail to see how the ReHorror reference fails to verfiy information, when it contains an official in-game transcript that summarizes all the Resident Evil video games. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to discuss this, one on one! But as I state, the reference is for all Resident Evil games, and doesn't aid the singular character articles!  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ShadowJester07

Is there ayway to stop this user blindly reverting edits, they are not only re-adding the removed links, but are also removing formatting, and spelling corrections made to the articles (See history of Jill Valentine for details)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  03:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be both past WP:3RR, but the edit war is almost 10 hours stale on that article so I'm not going to do any blocks. —Random832 13:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of passing the WP:3RR rules (though if I did, it was unintentional, and I am thankful for your mercy), I think we both may have gotten upto three but not beyond! If he again reverts the articles to include his content, what should the correct course of action/complaint be? I do not believe that I am doing anything wrong by removing it, but it is not my intention to be involved in a edit war! And it is not my intention to have fellow wikipedian blocked from editing, just because of a few good faith edits that are in error!  Doktor  Wilhelm  13:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to leave the articles alone for a while and take it to a talk page. Edit summaries are a poor substitute for actual discussion. As a sidenote, how is it that you think character articles don't need to be sourced? —Random832 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed, on our personal talk pages (User_talk:ShadowJester07#Your_edits_to_Resident_Evil_character_articles & User_talk:Doktor_Wilhelm#Resident_Evil_articles), but they wouldn't listen and just treatened me with being blocked if I did not allow them to keep the information within the articles, with out any attempt to use it to reference the actual content. the links that User:ShadowJester07 added were not sources of information to the article its self or references to the content of the articles, it was more as: "here's the whole plot to all the Resident Evil games, this chracter was in one of them" and it was the exact same links in each article. I kept adding reference/citation tags for the articles in question (though they keep being removed when User:ShadowJester07 blindly reverts the edits). I wouldn't argue if they were worked into the article (with any breach of copywrite sorted out), but I don't see how they can be?  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

References are not required to be inline/footnotes to be used, and the content of the game is a very valid reference to use for making claims about a character. However, the copyright issue should be looked at. Do these sites claim to have permission to post the scripts? —Random832 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they (the websites) don't have any permission (and several state not to use their content on other websites), also they arn't being used for making claims about a character, instead they are just a list of links, the user (ShadowJester07) will not settle for the links to be includded as external links, and instead wants them listed as "General references", I guess that this is more about formatting of the article, but ShadowJester07 keeps refering to them as References, when they arn't being used as such, and the articles really need to have real world references and citation, which is being made harder to secure by all this (I could be tracking some down, but instead I'm having to wait)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what a general reference is, it's a reference that is used as a general source for various facts in the article rather than being attached to a specific claim with a <ref> tag. And, while real world context is necessary to justify having an _article_ about a character, in-universe references are certainly permitted to cite in-universe information about the character (e.g. what year they're supposed to have been born). —Random832 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that with "and several state not to use their content on other websites" you are misunderstanding my question on whether the sites have permission - i'm not asking if the sites are GIVING permission to use the information on wikipedia (irrelevant since copyright doesn't exist for ideas and facts, only for the words etc used to express them, and wikipedia isn't posting copies of the scripts), i'm asking if they have permission FROM the company that makes resident evil, to post the scripts on their website - is this what you meant by no they don't have permission? —Random832 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-operation and communication on Misplaced Pages

Posting down here in the hope that someone will notice it. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Update, and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Communication breakdown?. I've made one final effort to get in touch with Maxim. See here. The work I've been doing this weekend and this evening can be seen at User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries and my image namespace contributions. From the 2400 images left in that category at the beginning of Sunday (there were originally 11,000 when the category was populated), I scanned through them visually (where possible during the ongoing deletions - at one stage the script-assisted backlog clearers overtook me in the middle of a category) and I came up with that list of about 257 images. Some of those are clearcut cases for fixing (some are even public domain pictures that had been wrongly labelled), though some are only used in articles that should probably go to WP:AfD. Maxim has been churning through the category clearing the backlog (which is a valuable role, and while watching all this, I've noticed lots of helpful improvements he and others have made to the process), and I'm happy now to work on those images for the next few days (undeleting where necessary), but I'm still unhappy with how things developed here. My questions are:

• (1) What is the right thing to do when you are having difficulty communicating with someone who is editing but not responding to talk page messages? Is it possible that he can't see talk page messages while the script is running?
• (2) What can people at ANI do about it? Is there anywhere to go to address this sort of behaviour? I'd much prefer it if Maxim joined the discussion, and something got sorted out, but failing that, what can I do?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest these users stop deleting images at ridiculously high speeds, and do something more productive. There'll always be something to delete, and I'm concerned at the obsession with the delete delete delete attitude. Something I read once: those who can, write. Those who can't, delete. Majorly (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think it fair to characterize those handling this backlog as not writing. _{(1 == 2)} 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Maxim does a lot of excellent work, both in writing and admin work. He says he checks the images before setting the script running, and I believe him. It is his lack of response that concerns me here, plus the still unexplained early start on image deletion backlog clearing after an agreed upon time and date. I will be the first to admit that there are (and will be, over the next few months) very large image deletion backlogs to clear. All I'm asking for is that those doing the clearing communicate a bit more (well, a lot more, really). User:East718 (who also does this type of backlog clearing) found the time to communicate in the earlier threads. This is in stark contrast to Maxim's absence except for a brief edit to the category instructions. I'm still hoping that Maxim will be able to explain his lack of response, but each time he fails to respond, my hopes dwindle. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A basic requirement of any editor, especially an admin, is the ability to communicate effectively. If this is not done, all sort of problems occur, as we see here. Majorly (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In his defense he has not edited sense this thread was started, give him some time to respond. Tiptoety 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor any of the other threads Carcharoth started? Majorly (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Point well made. Tiptoety 03:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And another point is that the timing of the contributions log don't tell the full story. You need to look at the timing of his logs as well (in this case the deletion log). Those logs show activity even when his contributions log stops. I'm hoping that he isn't running unsupervised scripts. It is important that editors and admins can see and respond to talk page messages even while they are running scripts. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh.....dear........yea.......someone might want to send him an email. Tiptoety 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaw, I hate to see this in a productive editor whom I respect, but the circumstances don't look great. I hope he answers some queries soon... - Philippe | Talk 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note - Email sent, lets hope we hear a response. Tiptoety 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to put in my two cents. First off i agree with marjorly in the fact that as a administrator it is very important to maintain strong communication with all editors on the project, vandals or not especially if they are at a conflict with another user standing in good faith. I also think it is overall frowned upon to say you are going to do one thing, and do the other, such as stating that you will allow a user to scan through image deletion candidates and not delete them, and turn around and delete them. But I know that Maxim is meaning to do no harm, and i think we should all assume good faith and allow him adequate time to form a rebuttle for his questionable actions, we all make mistakes and must be held accountable for them, but we must also treat them as a learning experience and move on. If Maxim continues to not respond, then we have a much larger problem. Tiptoety 04:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I don't mind waiting. I'll carry on fixing images in the meantime. Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An update. A complaint landed on Maxim's talk page. I think I've dealt with it. It happened to be about one of the images I had on my cleanup list, so I undeleted. The unfortunate thing is that the image had already been fixed, but it seems that Maxim's script failed to detect this (the image rationale was added after the script started running at 00:20, and before the script finished at 02:24). But luckily no harm done in this case. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If deletions resume and there's still no attention paid to talk page messages or email asking the deleter to throttle it down or stop, a judiciously short block (say, 10 minutes) may be necessary - this doesnt just apply to this case, but in general. Presuming the user isn't using an unauthorised deletion bot, that would make them stop and take notice, at least. This assumes admins cannot delete content whilst blocked - or can they? Neıl ☎ 14:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

They can't. One would hope that if a deletion bot were being used, it would grind to a halt if blocked, rather than picking up again with no further human intervention after the block expires. —Random832 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be what Maxim calls a "very high-speed script". See here. To reiterate myself, I have no problem with that per se, as long as Maxim can respond while it is running. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is unlikely deletions will resume until the 15 January backlog needs clearing. It is possible people will try and clear (ie. delete) that backlog on the day they think they can (which is 7 days later - after 22 January - ie. 23:59 tomorrow), but hopefully people will notice the big notice placed on the page asking people to hold off until 3rd February. The periodic upsurge in backlogs due to Betacommandbot tagging can be seen at this tracker. The backlog for 15 January has changed from 1838 when it was initially populated, and is now at 1561. It is unclear whether the decrease is due to image deletions or image fixings (ie. adding and fixing of rationales) - probably the latter. The next big backlog after that is the 21 January category, which currently stands at 4109 images, though judging by the current activity at Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot, that figure will be larger by the end of the day. Note that I'm not worried about the mass tagging - that was expected and has been planned for some time. It is the sporadic communication, or lack of communication, between those doing the tagging, those doing the fixing and those doing the clearing of the image deletion backlogs. This needs to be addressed now, before the next deadline rolls around. I've unilaterally put a 3rd February deadline on the 15 January backlog of 1561 pictures. I think that is a reasonable extension of the normal 7-day deadline, and I would hope anyone objecting to that would actually come here and discuss that. I was considering putting a similar notice on the 21 January backlog, but don't want to do that until some of the people that take on the task of clearing those backlogs show up here. The trouble is that if you talk with one, sometimes another editor starts clearing the backlog, or even (as yesterday) an IP tries to disrupt things. I think a reasonable date for clearing a particular backlog is seven days after the next batch of Betacommandbot tagging. Betacommand seems to be (so far) doing runs about a week apart, of a few thousand. This should work out OK, as long as those clearing and fixing the backlogs agree to well-advertised extended deadlines and stick to them, with the proviso that undeletion of individual images after deletion is always possible if requested. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention. I don't think any blocks will be needed. Just more communication. Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - the short block should only be considered if there was no response whatsoever and deletions weren't stopping. Neıl ☎ 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, TWINKLE now has a "delete pages found in this category" function so he may be clicking that and walking away. That would be fast but not a deletion bot. I left another message on his Talk page for whatever it's worth. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Does TWINKLE grab a list and then start deleting, or does it run in real-time? One of the cases here involved a page being removed from the category during the run, but still being deleted. Which is not surprising when the run takes just over two hours. Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question, don't know the answer. I am afraid of that button. But from what you've said, I'm betting the script parses the list of images and then starts deleting them at a controlled rate. So if you removed the image from the category while it was running, it would still delete the image. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI Maxim has not replied to my email. Tiptoety 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently he can't view wikipedia or edit when running the script.--Phoenix-wiki 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, then he needs to not be running the script. I think a block sounds like a good idea. Tiptoety 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I brought this issue up, and I don't think a block is needed (prevention, remember, and nothing to prevent here). Maxim has finished using the script for the deletions relating to the last backlog. He doesn't appear to be running any script or editing at the moment, so no action is needed at the moment. I'm not sure where Phoenix-wiki's information is coming from - what is needed is a response from Maxim. If it is true that he can't view Misplaced Pages or edit while running the script, then he needs to find a way to get around that before he runs the script again. He could set up an alternate account to run the script under. Since the script requires admin tools (deletion) that could be tricky. Alternatively, he could put a notice on his user page telling people to leave messages on another account, or to e-mail him. Ultimately, though, if he can't get round this, then he would need to stop, which I don't actually want to see happen - I want to work with Maxim, East718, Betacommand and all the rest to help clear the backlog and save some images where possible. A wider question though is whether this inability to view or edit Misplaced Pages while running scripts (if such an inability exists) is widespread, and if so, whether it is a problem with the computer set-up or the script or something else (I think some other admins use deletion scripts - such as Misza13 and east718). I will ask at the Village Pump (technical section) and at TWINKLE and BAG. Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Script-blindness", as you call it, doesn't happen to me. However, Maxim's expressed to me before that he uses a very old computer so it's always a possibility that TW might eat up all of its resources, especially if he has the "orphan instances" option enabled. Misza13 shouldn't really be included here as all he uses is a deletion bot that runs every six hours. east.718 at 22:42, January 21, 2008

Well, Maxim has returned my email. Because it is private i will not disclose the contents of of it, but he is aware of this thread, which means he is able to view wikipedia. It just looks like he is un-willing to discuss this issue. If Carcharoth would like the email i am willing to send it to him. Tiptoety 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

After further conversation i do not see a need for a block. Tiptoety 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be happier if Maxim did say something here, however brief, but if he doesn't want to that is his choice. He is welcome to e-mail me as well, if there is a need to clear the air, so to speak. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, east718. If Maxim can confirm that this is why he didn't see (or missed) my messages, then we may be done here as far as I'm concerned. I know a combination of a slowly-running computer, difficult connections (I was having problems connecting to Misplaced Pages at some points in that day) and several messages after mine (haven't looked and can't be bothered now) can all make it easy to miss messages, though I did leave several that day and others have since. Maxim did seem to be aware of the category changes that took place at some point that day (he edited the category page), but that may be unrelated. I'll try and remember to use e-mail next time (I've never used IRC - though I suppose I could ask someone else to go on IRC if Maxim uses that). I'll leave it up to others to sort out how to address these concerns for next time Maxim uses the script. The wider communication issues should still be addressed as well, and I'd really appreciate it if Maxim could drop me a note on his talk page or mine, as I'd like to move on from this as much as he probably does. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, next time try email, as it worked this time around. Maxim has stated that he is leaving you an email, and will be leaving a explanation here shortly. Tiptoety 22:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with Maxim below) Well, I just checked my e-mail, and there is something there from 22:29 that is unsigned and is from the generic wiki(AT)wikimedia.org e-mail address (is that normal?), and seems to be referring to this thread. What should I do with that? Maxim has e-mailed me in the past, so I'll wait to hear from him. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Users wished for me to post here, I might as well do so. I had thought the fact that I respected consensus on this matter would be sufficiently shown through my actions, obviously it hasn't. Unlike some users who edit from anywhere, including work, I don't, and I have other business to attend to during the day. So I return home, and I see this nice lynching party gathered. So, here's the explanation you've been looking for.

Me and Carcharoth had apparently made an agreement on the issue of deleting images. We misunderstood the time, and I deleted about 1,000 images too early. I consider this a very unfortunate incident. I had considered that my actions would have spoken from themselves, so I didn't comment at this forum.

Last night comes along, and I was ready to delete per the new agreement. I cleared up the images that should have been kept, and I started my script. This script limits heavily my browser's ability to connect to Misplaced Pages, yet other crappy browsers still work, yet crash constantly. Since I can't do anything basically, which includes viewing my talkpage, I go do something else. That's why I didn't get the messages. And when I saw them, it was much too late to respond to them, and even if I had attempted, I did not feel I could respond to this well.

Since I do something other than this site, I first logged in and I see this nice party. Users making absolutely ridiculous remarks; it should be noted I actually write quite a bit of content, which balances in with my deletions. Also, what good will blocking me do, 9 hours after my script's stopped. In fact, I was sleeping at that time, and there would be no purpose to that block expect to cause more of that reviled drama. Also, about the fixed image... Twinkle read the category, then started to delete everything that was at that moment in the category. So it has no way of telling whether a concern has been fixed. This is the first time something like this happened, and it's quite unfortunate.

I feel that this is a big fuss over a little miscommunication. If users wish to ask me other questions, requests clarfication, etc., I'm quite open to that; above are simply my initial replies and thoughts on this matter.

Maxim_(talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maxim, I'm happy to move on from this, but I'd like to point out that I have actually supported your work and defended you in these threads (including pointing out your writing contributions - as anyone can see from your user page, and immediately opposing Tiptoety's mention of a block). I've also answered some queries people had left at your talk page. I don't appreciate comparisons to a lynching party. If you could make clear that some of your comments above are directed at other people, and not me, that would be appreciated. And please, since communication has been a big issue here, don't send me e-mails from "wiki(AT)wikimedia.org" and (the first one) with no signature. I have no way of knowing who has sent those e-mails. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not directly accusing you of this, I feel that some other user's behaviour here has been less than appropriate in relation to such a simple matter of miscommunication. Maxim_(talk) 23:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, actually. I was a bit surprised when some people seemed to misunderstand what I was saying (I thought I had explained things clearly). I tried to correct some of the misunderstandings (eg. the focus on speed of deletions), but I will try and think twice before going to ANI over something like this. Hopefully when the next backlog deadline comes round, we can all communicate a bit better. As I've said on my talk page, I'm happy to help you clear out the last few remnants of that category if you like. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not referring to me, and if you are that was not my intention and i apologize. Tiptoety 23:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The first respondant, actually, who almost turned this into a rant about deletionists, but let's not get into that here. Striking out the e-mail bits above, as that was an (embarassing) misundertanding on my part, which Tiptoety has kindly explained to me. Will close the me-Maxim bits of this thread, now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Partly resolved (do we have a template for this?) - the issues between me and Maxim are sorted now (and I'd like to apologise to him for what must have been an unpleasant surprise when he saw this thread). I'm asking for this to be left open for now, though, as I directed some questions this way, and there are wider issues that may need discussing. Please don't discuss here though, unless it is directly relevant to ANI, and keep things general - no need to discuss specific editors any more. I'll try and link out to and start those general discussions elsewhere, but for now the village pump (technical) and BAG and TWINKLE are best. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - see links at top for the general discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison Wheeler

Alison Wheeler, who to my understanding is (or was) on the Wikimedia chair, threatened to delete sixty five of my then-seventy subpages for no reason except for "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a personal site". To a point, I believe this is true. However, my user page was made entirely of template transclusions (which her decision forced me to not do). As you can imagine, many users that transclude templates on their pages must have many subpages. I discussed with her the possibility of only coercing me to delete half of the subpages, which I believe is more reasonable. She was coercing me into deleting important subpages and was being hostile, to be frank, although she denies this claim. Personally, I don't agree with having administrators to coerce users to delete their own subpages, as I feel that is a misuse of their power. She put my "various" pages on Miscellany for Deletion, and the community consensus was to keep them. I know that you guys probably can't do anything about Alison's behavior, but I just feel that she should be less coercive and more compromising. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of the MfD discussion was "Keep". (see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/user:Cuyler91093/various) — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page and the MfD I don't see any evidence at all that Alison was hostile or that she "coerced" you. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they're hostile or acting in bad faith. (Some of the others who commented on the MfD are another story.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just sorta felt stressed because she was speaking as if I only had a few days before she'd delete it. It's like she was saying "Delete 90% of your pages in two days or else an admin will delete them for you." It doesn't feel good. Maybe she wasn't hostile, but it felt a little disrespectful. Perhaps I'm only overreacting. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 07:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a frequent participant at MfD and I, too, found the tone of this nomination rather coercive and failing to assume good faith. I received this response, but it was semi-cryptic. I read her responses to inquires to contain some animosity rather than assistance. I do not know if this had some relation to the recent RfA, but to an outside user, it was rather unbecoming to see an established user treated this way by a WP "suit".--12 Noon  19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc

Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently unblocked after being indefinitely blocked, apparently for a combination of edit warring, incivility and harassment. In responding to an 3RR report today, I found that he has been edit warring again: , , , . This is contrary to the terms of his unblock: . I don't know this situation well enough to be sure if it's time to reinstate the former block, so for the time being, I've blocked for two weeks. Inviting comments from those who are a bit more aware of this situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he is trying to get the IP user in question to come to the talk page to discuss further. While possibly a 3RR violation, I am willing to extend good faith here, as he is atleast TRYING to do it the right way. Maybe reverting while making the requests isn't quite right. If the problem extended more to just this one incident, I would think he was violating his block parole, however, this seems like a small problem right now. Perhaps you could remind him that even reverting BAD, but not vandalous, edits is still 3RR, and that he should try other means of getting the user to the talk page, but this seems like a small issue right now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you simply don't go wholesale reverting and then hypocritically say in the edit summary to use the talk page. That's the opposite of what's supposed to happen. I agree with Heimstern Läufer's block, and would propose blocking him indefinitely again. Given the beyond numerous warnings and blocks, this seems appropriate. Unblocking his original indefinite block was indeed most generous of Haemo, but to then ignore that generosity, the forewarnings, and even his own promises is simply outrageous. There's no reason to tolerate his behavior any longer. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Uber's on the right track, but Let's let the block stand until Haemo is both notified and actually responds here. CMB's his responsibility, since he unblocked, let him find out what was going on. Until then, CallMeBC can cool his jets and relax. ThuranX (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've informed Haemo about this thread. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the block, but for the love of all things holy, can we quit with "fortnight" in block logs? Nobody knows what that means and it just confuses users about how long they have been blocked. --B (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the block, and I concur with B's anti-fortnight initiative also. I know that a fortnight is two weeks, but I came across either a block or a page protection a few days ago (I can't remember which, but I think it was a page) that was something like 8.3482 fortnights. Who has the time to figure _that_ out? I wish I could remember where it was and who did it. I don't know whether to worship them for their massive brain power or slap them with a fish. KrakatoaKatie 08:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Four months. Easy enough to guess--it's the standard block length closest to (8 * 14) == 112 days. It *is* a bit ridiculous, though; what's next, measuring speed in furlongs per fortnight? Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Let's not start saying that unblocking admins are responsible for the conduct of the editors they unblock. The unblocked editors are the ones responsible for their own conduct (and CallMeBC made a statement to that effect). The unblocking admin is only (partly) responsible if they have agreed to mentor the editor being unblocked, and I see no sign Haemo agreed to that. In the absence of any mentorship (and even in that case) an unblocked editor is free to be blocked by any admin if there are grounds to do so and the editor has been warned, and it is then that admin who now has the responsibility for the block. No passing the buck around please. Take previous blocks and unblocks into account, but don't block and then ask the previous blocking or unblocking admins to deal with it. Take responsibility for your own blocks. PS. The block looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I promised to "keep an eye out" but I thought I made it very clear that I'm not going to put myself in an authority position over Callmebc on this issue. In any case, it sounds like he, while upset about the length, understands the problem and the block, and was acting entirely with good intentions in mind. --Haemo (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he understands what he did wrong, and is contrite, should we not unblock him? Continued blocking seems punitive at this point. If this does not yet merit an indefinite block, then what is the point of leaving it up for two weeks, unless to say "you've been naughty and are being punished". The block was there to stop the problem behavior. The person in question has admitted fault and has stopped. If we believe he will not continue the behavior, then we should perhaps lift the block. If we believe he will continue to be disruptive, why lift it in two weeks? Personally, I think it looks like we got his attention, and he understands what he did is wrong. If he does it again, an indefinate block may be in order. But now, why keep the block in place??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, actually he's saying he doesn't understand the block. Read his talk page. He's arguing that he's done absolutely nothing wrong! The matter of fact is that he repeatedly been tendentious and disruptive since he has joined Misplaced Pages. Somehow, people ignore this and keep giving him more chances. I understand it's rather easy for people with no involvement with his abuse to say it's all A-OK. To people actually involved, we're all quite tired of him. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. He's showing no sign at all of understanding why he's been blocked, or knowing how to move on and do better. I don't think lifting the block would be wise. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough... But what then is the point of a two week block? Will he magically change in two weeks? The length of time seems arbritrary... If we don't believe he will ever change, why not an indefinite block? Not necessarily argueing for that, but trying to understand the justification behind the length... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Escalation from previous blocks for edit warring, and gives the user some time to rethink the situation. Also, the reason I brought this here was to see if it was possible we should move toward restoring the indefblock. Of course the length of time is arbitrary; it always is. It's just based on the admin's judgment. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah... thanks for explaining... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson

I disgrace what claim by Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs) that some sections in 2006 Asian Games is not notable. See the differences: and . He claim that the section with dead link is not notable. According to WP:NOTE #General notability guideline, a fact must include with reliable sources, so i don't know what he claim about dis-notability in an article. Also, according to WP:REF, a dead link should be fix rather than remove. His claim is way out of line, because as i refer to most Olympic page, the similar section existing without any problem. So, what all in this?

I have state for various time in article talk page, but he didn't take care of this and claim he is right in all of this, so i need the help to solve this matter. Thank you. --Aleenf1 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have left an idea on the article's talk page which might provide a solution. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 07:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems he didn't care at all, and just keep reverting, anyway can solve this problem? --Aleenf1 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Advice re third opinion & preserving the status quo left on user's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect No consensus closure of an Afd

Admin User:Jerry has incorrectly closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff‎ as no consensus where in actual fact only one user User:Welshleprechaun, the article creator, was opposed to deletion/renaming against 3 other users, myself included. The article was only created by Welshleprechaun with the aim of supporting the addition of Cardiff to List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom in his relentless pushing of all things Cardiff on WP. As a result of this incorrect closure of this Afd Welshleprechaun has indeed now added it to the list and made a number of other related edits, making the list article contradict itself. Discussion has been ongoing regarding the actual content, before and during the Afd, on Talk:List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom, with no consensus (in fact no interest from anyone else at all), so I have no reason to believe Jerry's suggestion that Afd is not the place to settle content disputes as being revelant in this case, as merely surviving Afd achieves WL's aim. MickMacNee (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be best to contact the closing admin first and hear the response. In any case, you can always file a report at WP:DRV. - PeaceNT (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The closing admin is correct in that AfD is not the place to settle content disputes. However, he was probably not familiar with the relentless lame "Cardiff v Swansea" edit war that this article appears to be part of. If you believe the AfD result was wrong, try WP:DRV, or simply be bold - if this article has incorrect content, explain on the talk page that you are considering redirecting the article to a suitable target (Cardiff Bus or Transport in Cardiff) and merging the useful information there - and explain why. Then discuss it to achieve some sort of consensus. Edit warring is always A Bad Thing, even if you are sure you are in the right. BLACKKITE 13:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally placed a request for explanantion on his talk page, questioning his comment about no valid arguments were made on either side, but when I realised it has been called no consensus when the result is 3-1 I felt it was an ANI matter. Being bold won't work because Welshleprechaun will simply revert using this Afd result as justification for his POV, as he has already done in subsequent edits. Discussion of content has been unproductive so far. MickMacNee (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think allowing the closing admin more than 11 minutes to respond to your query would have been more courteous than to rush this problem to AN/I. As per the other two editors here, I suggest you take this to WP:DRV. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to comment is irrelevant in my opinion as I don't think he is going to change his mind on the basis of asking him to on his talk page is he? MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not really the point is it? It would have been courteous to have waited for a response, there's no rush on this is there? He may be prepared to expand on his closing comments at the AFD. I'd take this to DRV. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a time factor when you see that Welshleprechaun is using this result as the basis for further edits. I'm listing it on DRV anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing done here that can't be undone... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not in my experience sadly. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen plenty. This is definitely not the place though. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd just point out that User:Welshleprechaun should not be using the result of that AfD for anything at all, as all the closing admin said was "this isn't the place for this discussion". It certainly wasn't closed as "Keep". BLACKKITE 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please page-move Autosodomy practise to just plain old Autosodomy for us

For some reason I wasn't able to do this myself .. something about undoing a WP:SALT. Someone with the right tools can do so. It's evident and uncontroversial. Thanking you in advance, SelfAloneRequired (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted since it is a recreation of a deleted article (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Autosodomy). The article as created also lacked proper sources. Best, Gwernol 13:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be related to the long standing DavidYork71 case - he created the article shortly before he was initially banned. The username above would undoubtedly be one of his 100+ sockpuppets. Orderinchaos 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd venture so. Among his other recent sockies on the very same IP are:

1. ExposingTheGayAgenda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
2. FagTaggr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
3. Nexttimepraymore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4. MoveonNgiveitup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
5. Highborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
6. BcozIownU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
7. Suchastar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
8. ExcellingWithEase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
9. JustMasterful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Not all of these are blocked; some are sleepers. --jpgordon 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ZThen... shouldn't they be be blocked now? ThuranX (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Aomen

Hi, I have recently come to realise that the user Aomen has been tagging everything furiously with WPCHINA. And I mean furiously. Like everything. Usually this is a good thing, as he seems to catergorize correctly. But at times he also does it to articles that are barely related to china like the invasion of Hong Kong. Then I looked at his contibutions. It's like....wow!! I dunno how he does it, but it's quite crazy.....he seems to tag articles in a matter of seconds, then move on. Is he a bot or something? I sorta told him to stop on his talk page....but looking at previous comments on it, he hasn't replied to any of them. So.....can someone check him up? Personally I had enough of reverting his edits ^^". Sorry if this post sounds weird, I'm newbie afterall. Dengero (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Aomen (talk · contribs) has never made any edits to Misplaced Pages articles - his only contributions have been the mass adding of {{WPMacau}} (first hundred edits) and {{WPCHINA}} (the subsequent 5500 edits, at very high rates - see or , for example). Only two edits that were not high speed category tagging - one move (), and one edit to put "Aomen" on User:Aomen. No response has ever been made to the numerous talk page messages complaining about his repeated mistagging of article talk pages or asking him to stop. Looks like an unauthorised bot to me. Neıl ☎ 14:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe...iunno, it could be one of those unresponsive editors who often edit China-Taiwan articles (but they're often anons.)...but the bot conclusion might be more plausible. nat.utoronto 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If he's not a bot, I really doubt his physical ability in tagging articles alphabetically in such a short amount of times. Heck, just going ctrl+c and ctrl+v at that rate will cause a cramp. If he's a bot, then I must admire the person who created him ^^ cause generally, he's quite correct in his tagging I must admit......Dengero (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. If a user is editing exactly like a bot, making thousands of identical high speed edits, then for all intents and purposes, it can be considered a bot. The response should be the same. If it continues to mistag (even at the 20% or so error rate the account seems to currently be running at), it will be blocked, and I will warn Aomen as such now (we shall assume good faith and treat the account like it's a real person, on the chance that it is. Further mistagging will result in blocking, as either it's a bot or it's a user refusing to communicate despite numerous entreaties to do so. Neıl ☎ 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So...how many more times do I need to revert his edits until it becomes a 20%+ mistag? I'm not going to do it intentionally of course, but I've been reverting quite a few tbh.....eg. One day, he tagged a heap of hk artists. The ones who sing, act, whatever. Took me like....ages to revert them all >.> Dengero (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If he/she/it makes one more bad edit, let us know here and we'll block the account. Waggers (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As a curiosity, "Aomen" is as far as I know the Chinese name for "Macau". Orderinchaos 18:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Scrabulous/User talk:59.93.240.43

Hi! This is a bit of a strange situation. On Scrabulous, that user had twice removed the mention of the Scrabble origins of the game which I undid. After the second time, and because I didn't want to get into an edit war, I posted a discussion on the Talk page and notified the IP that I'd done so to invite discussion. Now my comment to the talk page has been undone by another user and I'm totally confused at what's going on. I've been editing on Misplaced Pages for a bit but only recently have moved to issues beyond edit/creation. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• ETA: The reverter of the comment on the IP page now states he doesn't know what I'm talking about and that he's hunting vandalism, however in the mean time he's being warned right and left re: potential vandalism. I didn't think this was vandalism when I posted here at first, but now I'm not so sure. In the mean time, other changes being made to Scrabulous seem to be unrelated and clean changes. Thanks Travellingcari (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith and move on. He does seem to be new to monobook.js; I'd give him some leeway. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he posted an explanation, although it's not one I understand. I just wasn't sure how they ended up reverting a comment to an unrelated IP, if that makes sense. Travellingcari (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need for further active action at this time: letting this one slide, but keeping one eye on his contributions in the near future, would probably be most effective. He certainly appears to be apologetic for his disruption, it would appear, and so that should be enough to prevent further disruption. I've marked this as resolved; keep an eye out, though. Anthøny 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Signshare personal "battle list"

This section on User:Signshare's page does not look to be in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. Referring to these other editors using gratuitous epithets seems tasteless and in violation of WP:ATTACK. Thoughts on what should be done? (For one, removing the offending content, of course...) --Kinu /_c 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's my 2¢

1. We should ask him nicely to delete the WP:ATTACK violations

   If he doesn't comply

2. We MfD it
3. If he recreates or becomes distruptive → Block

   --nat.utoronto 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the offending material (I did so before seeing Nat's comments, but I still think that doing so was the right move). I'm about to leave a friendly notice on his talk page explaining my actions. Here's a link to my deletion: . Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he's been very disruptive in the past and has already been blocked (by you, actually), so I would suggest, if he is disruptive after the second block 9after it happens), an indef seems to me to be appropriate. I suspect possible sockpuppets in some of his "battled" people. Nousernamesleft 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He's re-inserted the material, which I've deleted again (although I certainly plan on remaining below WP:3RR on this. It appears that he was unaware of WP:USER, to which I've directed his attention, so hopefully that will convince him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have done the trick. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One would hope, but he still seems a little irritated about it, per this. "Bitter feud"... lol? --Kinu /_c 19:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor tends towards hyperbole as shown by this sentence on his user page, "I am sort of like LL Cool J, when you beef with me, I end you thats all there is to it." I've looked over his edits and they seem pretty decent but could use some more sourcing. --NeilN 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Should his "feuds"' targets be listed on Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets? Maybe I'm not WP:AGF, but it seems rather convenient to have so many conflicts in a rather short time, all of them, which he allegedly won. Nousernamesleft 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at them, but I strongly doubt sock-puppetry. They all look pretty legit - too much so to quit, really - and don't seem to have much in common with each other. At least one is an admin. And given this user's disposition and approach to conflict, I'd hardly characterize these battles as "coincidental". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for context, the way this editor was using "battle" looks like it was in the sense and style of the competitive verbal sparring of freestyle battle rap, rather than actual, hostile combat. Not that it excuses the personal attacks (we're editing here, not MC'ing), but it explains their extremely hyperbolic format and why the user feels he is being "misunderstood by many."

The user seems to go around the encyclopedia with a mighty big wikichip on his wikishoulder, and needs to stop dissing other editors and just cool it in general. Still, if you take out the personal attacks, a cursory look through his contribs shows him to be a decent editor with something to contribute to the project (though a cynic might compare that to Marion Barry's, "If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate."). Has anyone considered mentoring the user? --Dynaflow babble 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin category and User:Falcofire

The issue here is relatively trivial (and therefore hopefully easy to resolve), but I was not sure where else to bring it up. I happened by the user page of User:Falcofire recently and noticed that he had placed himself in the category "Misplaced Pages administrators." He'd dropped a note on my talk page months ago and I knew he was a relatively inexperienced user and was thus surprised he was an admin, which he was in fact not. I'm certainly not a dictator about user space, but I'm assuming we don't want editors to willfully misrepresent themselves as admins on their user pages in any fashion (even with the use of the admin category, which obviously contains inaccuracies). I dropped a friendly note on Falcofire's talk page about this which was removed without comment several days later. I tried again but this was likewise removed without explanation. Removing talk page comments on your own page is fine of course, but the lack of communication was troubling, and Falcofire then posted a note on his user page which reads "Now that I am fairly experienced in Misplaced Pages policy and such, I realize that this is a user page and therefore is not subject to authenticity as it is not a source of legitimate information. This is my space (not to be confused with my myspace) and therefore I will determine the look/feel of it and what is on it." The "Misplaced Pages administrator" category is still present on his user page.

I don't know why Falcofire wants to pretend that he is an admin (if that's what he's doing) but to my mind that's not really kosher. Aside from the fact that he is wrong to assert that user space is "my space" (it's still Misplaced Pages's space), I would think one of a few things we would not want editor's to do in their user space is claim admin status when they do not have it. I don't want to pester Falcofire about this anymore and certainly don't want any actions taken against him since I think this can probably be chalked up to misunderstanding. However since I was not getting through I was hoping an admin could drop him a note about this issue and/or remove the category from his user page--that is assuming that I'm correct and feigning adminship in user space is unacceptable. If that kind of misrepresentation is acceptable then obviously I'll drop the whole thing, but I guess that would surprise me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is inappropriate. - Revolving Bugbear 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the situation as such: Some users will consult Category:Administrators in times when they may need help and if he is not an Administrator it can annoy users. For this reason, I think that non-Administrators should not put themselves in this category. After all, the user space is not really "my home page and my home page only, emphasis my", it's a page "donated" by the Wikimedia Foundation so that users can give information about themselves in order to help collaboration, and misrepresentation does not help. At least how I see it. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed him from the category, also he had the admin icon at the topic right of his userpage. Tiptoety 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You removed a logo, I'd already deleted the cat :) I've put the logo back. BLACKKITE 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• (e/c) Removed the template, left a note. BLACKKITE 18:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe...your right, oops. Tiptoety 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of policy deletion of talk subpage

I hate to bring this up, because it's in a contentious area. A user subpage of mine was deleted by JzG (talk · contribs): 19:56, 16 January 2008 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Nagle/Jayjg disciplinary record (Per ArbCom rulings, laundry lists of grudges are not tolerated. RfC or STFU are the only options, I'm afraid.)". This was a list of links to ArbCom decisions involving a controversial editor, made for my own use during the most recent arbitration in that area. (There's no easy way to search ArbCom decisions by party.) The page wasn't linked from anywhere, not even my own talk page, so it wasn't particularly visible. No request was made on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion for this deletion, and I was not notified, so it was an out of policy deletion. I'd like it undeleted for a few days, so I can copy the information off line. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: According to the talk page of JzG (talk · contribs), that user has retired from Misplaced Pages due to a family illness. --John Nagle (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't retired; he's just busy in real life. As for the page, do you need the whole thing? I don't see any problem with the links to the arbcomm cases for accessibility purposes, but I tend to agree that their combination with the quote makes it look something like a grudge page (note that I haven't read the arbcomm rulings to which JzG refers). In any event, I'd be happy to e-mail you the full contents if you enable the e-mail option). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail is fine. I was just using that page as a scratch workspace; it was never intended to be seen by others. My account is already enabled for e-mail. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

199.212.26.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continues to vandalize Centennial College (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GreenJoe (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:AIV. Nakon 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator posting personal information on WP:RFARB

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At 12:13 UTC today, administrator User:JzG posted personal information (a real name) on WP:RFARB. This, in my opinion, is unacceptable behavior for an admin, and I was tempted to block. However, as JzG is having personal issues at the moment and is an admin in good standing, I have brought the issue here for consensus on action to take. I would support a "warning block", especially as a "normal" (non-admin) user who did such a thing would most likely be blocked. I will email oversight-L with the diff for oversighting, if the community feels it necessary. I feel that such divulging of personal information is unacceptable, and cannot be tolerated. Thank you. Keilana| 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he is referencing a guess rather than any actual knowledge although the distinction may not be relevant. What are the restrictions he is referring to? If he is correct that an editor would be affected by those restrictions then at least he would be justified in communicating his belief to ArbCom, albeit by e-mail. 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Divulging a name, even speculatively, is unacceptable. Dreadstar † 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This prior discussion is what Guy was certainly alluding to. I don't see how such an allusion would merit a block (I'm not an admin fwiw), though an inline link would have helped avoid bad appearances. Antelan 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for a block. This is not some confidential information dug out via massive amounts of sleuthing or non-standard channels like checkuser, but simply the reflection of an informed guess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)He says other people bleieve it to be the case, as a comparative to how much the editors' CoI may be obvious to editors who regularly edit the disputed pages. If those editors have already brought up their suspicions, and had them ignored, dismissed, or other conflicts relevant to the CoI, it may be relevant enough to necessitate posting. There might be better ways to deal with this stuff, but blatant POV pushing by interested parties ought to be quashed with an iron hand here. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Outing someone is not good, even if speculative. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree strongly with Rlevse. An "informed guess" about a user's identity (even if the user is disruptive, and I don't know the back story here) should never be acceptable. I believe posting what is supposedly a user's real name would generally result in a block for the user who did that, correct? At the very, very least JzG should be strongly warned but a block would seem reasonable to me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the user Guy is revealing information about. Guy did the same thing on the WP:AE on January 19th at 22.24 (UTC).This is not about POV pushing. It is about attempting to revealing personal information. Divulging personal information puts me and my family in jeopardy. You guys figure out what to do with Guy. The policy is A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to ... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). He is repeatedly harassing me with his attempts to reveal personal information. This user needs to blocked. Anthon01 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like it when personal information is divulged without a user's consent. It could put him and his family in danger, and that isn't right. I'm prepared to block for at least a couple of days, if the community thinks it just. That is my personal opinion on the subject. Keilana| 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that we block an editor who has made no indication that he is going to repost anything for something that happened almost 8 hours ago? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in 2 days he has done this. Anthon01 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Did he give any indication that he wouldn't do it again, with Anthon01 or anyone else for that matter? Are the edits going to be oversighted? I can't agree that posting anyone's personal identity without their permission is a good thing - under any circumstances. We have email. Dreadstar † 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I see this is Guy told an editor that he felt in real life, he was someone who had a serious COI with the article. It’s his opinion that this is the case. If someone who has an outside connection with the article, and it’s important that we get some context be revealing the persons name, I don’t see what’s wrong with it in the slighted. It’s not as if Guy found out through some secret searching and back channel communication – he’s based this off editing patterns. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Partially agree with Ryan, although it probably would have been preferable to email the arbitrators with this evidence. Addhoc (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be covered by Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information, and unless it's so plainly obvious or revealed by the person directly, generally shouldn't be done. But I can't see how a "warning block" (whatever that maybe) would help. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a superficially similar case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel in which a person who was meat-puppeting on behalf of Jonathan Sarfatti was associated with a private individual. I think this case is distinct.

JzG's speculation is related to suspected meatpuppetry on behalf of a user (Ilena Rosenthal) who is under arbitration committee-imposed restraint, but this time the person in question is a public individual. Zaffuto is a published author and the founder of the Humantics Foundation , whose current director is Ilena Rosenthal, so speculation that a person who edits the QuackWatch article in a manner similar to Rosenthal's might be Zaffuto is reasonable and germane. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea that someone who has a conflict of interest because of who they are in real life cannot be identified and named as such on Misplaced Pages, in an arbitration case, is stretching the privacy guidelines in the harrassment policy to the breaking point. If you are involving yourself in Arbitration cases, or issues which come to the attention of Arbcom, your identity and conflicts of interest are of interest to Arbcom and the community. The harrassment policy is not a shield you can slide under conveniently to escape notice or sanction of conflicts of interest or other policy violations. It is routine behavior for administrators to identify sockpuppets, longstanding banned users, and disruptive editors by name as required to describe prior behavior, often under other accounts, in policy and user behavior actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. This is no frivolous outing for harassment purposes- it's clearly relevant to the content dispute at hand. Friday (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the comments here I'd suggest that any action taken be run through/performed by ArbCom, as a group or individually. They are best positioned to determine the importance of JzG's post in the ArbCom proceedings. 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue was discussed on December 28th or thereabouts at WP:AN. It was resolved. At least I thought it was. Now Guy has started again posting the same message twice in the last 2 days. I am being badgered because I have been on the opposite side of debates with SA and others editors who generally support SA's POV. Anthon01 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many valid points have been made here. I agree that it is best to let bcats and arbcom handle this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconding that opinion. Durova 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thirding. This is more complex than an everyday case. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd. On the one hand, Anthon01 swears that he isn't the individual in question; on the other, Anthon01 swears that divulging this information has put him and his family in jeopardy. Am I the only one who experiences cognitive dissonance in attempting to reconcile these statements? Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your point? Anthon01 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My main point is that I'm confused about what's going on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reading through his comments here and at the prior thread I don't see that he denied being the person named by Guy at all. I am somewhat more concerned by the fact that there appeared to be checkuser information being bandied about in the previous AN thread - that is somewhat more likely to endanger him or his family. (Also, his views are published under his real name. So... something to consider when judging the danger factor). 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whose views? There should be a way to purge the checkuser info. Anthon01 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm... isn't this something that people have been banned for before? Isn't this sort of speculation on people's identities PRECISELY the reason Misplaced Pages Review is a "bad site"? —Random832 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, but there seems to be some difference of opinion on whether this is the same sort of thing (i.e. not an external site, in an ArbCom proceeding, real identity may be relevant for meatpuppetry assessment purposes etc.). Thats why I suggested any action be run through ArbCom. 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, isn't speculating on the real-life identity of editors the sort of thing that the so-called "attack sites" engage in which makes them so unspeakably evil in the eyes of people like JzG? Then there's an extreme double standard when he goes around doing it himself. (Oops, I see somebody else said basically the same thing right above.) *Dan T.* (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

JzG deleted an evidence page of mine and weeks later was found to have an evidence page of his own, motioned for deletion by an admin, it had been sitting there for over a year. JzG doesn't allow off-wiki attacks about himself and other users, meanwhile on his own personal website he had attacks against me and another user. The man is full of double-standards. He is also famous for breaking the civility rule - swearing, cussing, personal attacks. So don't be surprised when you learn that all users are equal on Misplaced Pages, but JzG is more equal than others. Rfwoolf (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• A small point regarding the argument that the information may be germane in the RfArb; email the information to the ArbCom, and don't post it in violation of WP:HARASS. The option is available, an experienced editor should be aware of this and an admin needs to know the application of this policy - or else they shouldn't have the mop. I have no idea why Guy thought he should be able to do this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• obviously you haven't been past his talk page recently otherwise you would know why he might not necessarily be showing his usual good judgement. I suggest that we call off the dogs and step back a bit. No-one seems to be discussing this directly with Guy and that's usually the first stage of DR rather then trying to lynch the poor fellow for a poorish call. Spartaz 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

THe first recent incident was on the 19th, two days before he posted his personal message. Anthon01 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's be aware that a user making edits on behalf of a banned user is subject to the same ban, so it was not an entirely meritless speculation. I suppose that if there is consensus that Anthon01 is editing in that manner then he can be banned; otherwise chuck it up to RFAR. Thatcher 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Venue. It was discussed and tabled before. Speculation with a potentially heavy price. Anthon01 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Once is an accident. Twice seems negligent. Almost willful. What's really going on? Bstone (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My earlier post

I call people's attention to an earlier ANI post which I had, and no one looked at it: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive356#User:198.99.32.5. Please handle this, as it appears to be an abusive sockpuppetry address, and it shouldn't take more than a few minutes. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For reference, 198.99.32.5 (talk · contribs). UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser shows nothing out of the ordinary from that IP. Sorry. Thatcher 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Popperian (talk · contribs)

Will some kind administrator either block this user for continued legal threats or give him what wants? Personally, I'm inclined to the former. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The solution proposed was to delete the pages and permanently blacklist our domain from all of Misplaced Pages. Despite the accusations of CoI and Spamming, we do neither. A blacklist + deletion of all the wiki-edictator trash pages would resolve this issue as far as we are concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Nakon 22:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some diffs of specific legal threats? I've looked through this user's contributions some, and while he seems to misunderstand what the spam page is for, I haven't found a specific legal threat yet (but I'll keep looking). Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Popperian/66.23.224.223's tenure here was tediuous and unpleasant both for Popperian/66.23.224.223 and our regular editors:

• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/66.23.224.223 (older version)
• User talk:Popperian (older version)
• User talk:66.23.224.223 (older version)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/AutoNOC (older version)
  • AfD was subsequently courtesy blanked
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#AutoNOC (older version)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#Should this edit be reversed?
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive108#User requests account deletion
• Bad faith nominations of competitors' articles (those with blue links were later nominated for deletion by me).
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ByteSphere
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cacti (software)
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Caligare
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Infosim
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Intellipool Network Monitor
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Netdisco
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Network Administration Visualized
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nortel Enterprise Switch Manager
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nortel Proactive Voice Quality Management
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/OutSystems IT Asset Manager
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paessler Router Traffic Grapher
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ProCurve Manager
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Siemens Integrated Network Management Services / System
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SysAid
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sysorb
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xratel
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zabbix
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zenoss
• Current deletion request:
  • Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/autonoc.com
• Other accounts:
  • Autonoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • 66.23.224.223 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

--A. B. 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm still not convinced that he was making legal threats from what I saw, but he was clearly continuing a pattern of disruption, which is ample reason for the block. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the block. Snowolf 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The legal threat is in this edit. BLACKKITE 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A block should be issued on the legal threat alone. Whats all the discussion for? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

<-- User was unblocked per an email request. They are planning on creating an RFARB and may not edit any other pages. Nakon 23:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The user sent me an email asking me to delete all pages and text that mention his company, since I deleted the original article. Obviously, I'm not going to do that, but I felt I should bring attention to this. --Coredesat 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page code glitches

Is anyone else having their sigs and other formatting not work on talk pages? I just tried posting on Talk:Starwood Festival, and it wouldn't parse my signature or indents at all. Seems to have happened to the previous poster, as well. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A nowiki tag wasn't closed. This would have been better at the Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Woody (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot edit?

This edit was supposed to have been made by a bot, but the bot seems to not have the proper permission since the edit is marked m and not b and the name does not end in bot. Maybe one of you should take a look, Brusegadi (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

admin needs to block the bot and point them to WP:BRFA as it is a pywikipedia interwiki bot. β 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The user in question is a valid bot on the "is" wikipedia (Icelandic???). The bot probably needs approval on "en" seperately. Does anyone know if this is so? If it is, we should leave a friendly reminder on their userpage to do so. For the record, beyond the fact that they are bot edits, I don't see a single problem with them. This is a fairly non-controversial interwikinator type of bot. But for official purposes, it should have a bot permission tag. It should be blocked for now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Im a member of the bot approval group and every bot on en.wiki needs approval regardless of their status on another wiki. β 00:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I already blocked it. You might want to make contact with the user on his talk page User talk:Jumbuck, or atleats watch it to see if he responds there during the block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's an erroneous assumption in the above. Bots do not have to have the MediaWiki 'bot right. Furthermore, blocking a 'bot that existed long before the "Bot Approvals Group" even existed, that has been doing uncontroversial interwiki linking work since 2004, whose user page directly points to a central user page that says "this is a robot", that has been on the list of known interwiki 'bots for over three years, and whose edits aren't even being criticized here, is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.

  I suggest that Betacommand2 and others remember that there have been people quietly doing the legwork of maintaining the encyclopaedia with 'bots for years before some of the "Bot Approvals Group" members even created their accounts.

  The person whose 'bot you've just blocked, without even reading the 'bot's central user page and seeing that it is clearly stated to be a 'bot, or even reading m:Interwiki bot/Operators where xe has been listed since 2004, is Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. You've just blocked a 'bot run by one of the people who helped to write MediaWiki, without even having an actual reason for doing so. I suggest that annoying the developer who gave us the <ref> mechanism, by requiring that xe jump through some silly bureaucratic hoops several years after the fact for no real reason, is not a particularly wise course of action. Uncle G (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry. I was not aware of these facts. The bot will be unblocked post-haste. As I said, I thought the bot was doing fine work, but Betacommand sounded like he knew what he was talking about. My bad. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Bot has been unblocked. I apologize profusely for overstepping my bounds as an admin. The above complaint, that this was an unauthorized bot, seemed valid upon my initial investigation, and the first responses I got seemed to support that. I was wrong and my actions were inexcusable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Somewhat related: while rare, some approved bots don't have a bot flag. I'm not really familiar with the current bot request system, but I remember in the past where it was possible to get approval without a flag, so it could be likely that there are still bots out there like that. Though, such bots would still likely have a link to getting approval on their userpage, IIRC. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • None of my 'bots have a flag. I've no need of it, and the people who might have need of it have never asked for it. It is clearly stated on my 'bots' user pages that they are intentionally as subject to the scrutiny of their edits by Recent Changes patrol as any other account. And that's the only thing that the MediaWiki 'bot right actually is: a way of hiding all of an account's edits from RC patrol. It isn't actually necessary that an account be flagged in order for it to be a 'bot. And if RC patrollers aren't worried about all of its edits being visible to them, no-one else need be.

          In many ways, it shouldn't even be the 'bot operators that should ask for a flag. It should be the RC patrollers. It should be up to them to say which accounts they're happy to not see, by default, the edits of. It is them that the flag benefits. We 'bot operators gain no benefit. Our 'bots work the same with or without a flag. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

          • • But all bots need some sort of approval don't they? The issue for me was not the use of the bold "b" flag on the edits, it was that there was a concern that the bot was an unapproved bot. That has been shown by the operator to be false; that is he verified his bot's approval for use on "en." Regardless of whether the flag exists or doesn't, isn't it generally considered bad form to perform fully automated edits by bot without prior aproval? Again, this whole issue was clearly a miscommunication, and this specific issue has been corrected (I lifted the block and the bot is happily interwikinating as we speak), but for my own future reference, what exactly IS the policy on bots, and when should an unauthorized bot be blocked? Uncle G? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion relevant to this issue at WP:BAG#RFC. —Random832 18:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Link spamming - broadwayworld.com

This user (and others) have been spamming wikipedia with broadwayworld links for months now, and doing nothing else. What can be done about this? There appears to be a campaign to get these links into wikipedia, with 242 here and another 83 here. Lobojo (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch/*.broadwayworld.com Ill feed this to the anti-spam people. β 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave them one more warning. If they put in one more spam link, I or someone else will block them again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I also rollbacked all of the spam links. Damn I love that rollback... If it happens again, we should block this IP on sight. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you? I think you missed a few.... hundred. LOL. How does it work? Lobojo (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can rollback from the page history and from the user contribs list, but only if its the last edit. Once its a buried edit, the links will have to be removed by hand. Urgh. This site needs to be blacklisted ASAP. Betacommand, you work with that process on Meta. Can you do that? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a few hours to get home, (Im at work) and Ill use a Pocket Nuke on the spammer and get them SBLed and removed. its nothing that cant wait a few hours. β 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good deal! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Are you saying no links to this site at all? Or just on articles where it was spammed onto? Cirt (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the way the spamlist works, once it is there it should not be linked to at all. It will be impossible to save any edit that contains that link. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That really sucks. It was a good verifiable source on a Featured Article I have worked really hard on. Can there please be an exception made? Cirt (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I would like an answer to that question too, because I added a broadway.com photo essay link to DruidSynge on August 20, 2006 not as spam but as a specific informative addition for DruidSynge in New York in 2006. The images are not free and could not be used in the article, so the link complements the article greatly—it was definitely not intended as a spam link. What's the opinion because this link was removed today and I object. It was not a general spam link to broadway.com and not added by the editor who recently added more such links. What solution do you have if the link is not acceptable 18 months after its inclusion? ww2censor (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah. In that case, I would counsel we need to move slower on this one. If its a valid reference, blacklisting it would be a BAD idea. Betacommand, please wait to blacklist it before we fully investigate. This could be a bit of a problem... Maybe the user needs to be blocked without blacklisting it... Hmmmm.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Can I please now add the valid citations back into the Featured Article (also was a WP:TFA article in this state), A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant ? Cirt (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can easily not include the http:// part which makes it a link. MER-C 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot is removing valid citations from that site. I just had to revert the removal of a citation from that site in the Jacob Young article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also the local whitelist for specific URL's for specific articles. User:Zscout370 05:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why it should not be blacklisted, as noted by Jayron32 (talk · contribs) that perhaps a block for whoever is spamming links after a warning would be a better idea. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it deals with multiple accounts and hard to control IP addresses. So a blacklist is the easiest thing to do. User:Zscout370 05:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not if it affects legitimate sourcing in multiple quality articles. Cirt (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely not if it affects legitimate sourcing. Broadwayworld.com is a valid source of information and should not be blacklisted. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Several users have come here and stated that Broadwayworld.com is a valid source, and should not be blacklisted. One Admin suggested blocking whoever the spammers are. Have we come to any sort of resolution on this? Cirt (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WHOA!! BroadwayWorld.com is an important, verifiable reference source for musical theatre articles. It is definitely not spam. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So is this site now blacklisted? Can we add back valid citations that have been removed? --BelovedFreak 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

BroadwayWorld.com is a legitimate source for many musical theatre and musical theatre related articles, and I honestly believe that it should not be blacklisted, as this would significantly lower the quality of several articles by removing legitimate citations (one article in particular that I've been working on is Hairspray (2007 film)). —Mears man (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe whoever was going to nominate it for the blacklist changed his mind. It has not been nominated here, nor is it at the moment in the Blacklist over here. Unless I misunderstand the process, which is possible -- can someone post an update? -- llywrch (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingston University BLP and IP conduct issues

At Kingston University which is recently off full protection, an IP is inserting disparaging comments into the article about a University Vice-Chancellor. This is in relation to unproven accusations of witness intimidation. I have removed these as I believe they fall under the WP:BLP criteria. I warned the IP that adding this in again would result in a block. I have not blocked due to a COI and would request an uninvolved admin take a look and make the appropriate actions. Thanks. Woody (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it looks like the issue is being hammered out on the talk page. The problematic edits have not been readded, nor does the IP seem to be disrupting further. Woody should keep us updated if things go down hill, but on reviewing this, it looks to be working itself out. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP is being very constructive and cooperative, but has requested some third party opinions. I would appreciate if someone could pop along. Thanks. Woody (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:3O and WP:RFC. As an admin, I try not to get involved in those ways, should my services be required for more drastic measures. 3O tends to repsond pretty quickly, in my experience... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, he was being cooperative. Now he has resorted to calling those that responded, employees of reputation management companies. He also claims to have his own personal checkuser tool. (The claims seem to be backed up, my ip address does start with 130.) Woody (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the diff 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • WHOA... WTF? He has a checkuser and isn't afraid to use it? How does he checkuser Misplaced Pages usernames??? How is that possible??? This is, erm, disturbing... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay calm :P 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Deep breaths... in... out... Better. Now, a) how is this technically possible b) does this represent a blockable sort of thing and c) seriously, what do we do about this? This needs wider attention from more experienced admins... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• One option: user has another account here under which he emails in relation to another matter. Woody replies, and if he has a static IP, which is not uncommon for a broadband account, the IP shows up in his email header. No checkuser. Just an idea. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have only ever replied to three emails on Misplaced Pages, two were highly respected Misplaced Pages admins/arbcom members, the third I would trust implicitly. That sortof negates that possibility. Woody (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe take it to technical VP for a possible technical explanation? As far as blocking, uh... I'd guess using invasive technological tricks to violate the privacy protections could be considered blockable. 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So done: WP:VPT#IP user claims checkuser ability: --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to use low-tech methods to find IP addresses. In Woody's case, not too difficult to find. But the IP address I came up with was over a year old and didn't start 130. Strange. Woody, if you want me to e-mail you about that, leave me a talk page message (I'm going to be away from the computer for a bit now). Carcharoth (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My low-tech method fell flat on its face. Wrong Woody. I'm now going to try and withdraw gracefully before I knock over any more china. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has nobody blocked this IP? Corvus cornix_talk 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuz we can't figure out what to block him for? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think threatening to violate other users' privacy would be a good reason. Corvus cornix_talk 03:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree... However, I am personally leary to do so myself. One bad block in a day is enough for me... see above. If someone else concurs, could another admin handle this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Blocked for edit warring. Nakon 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, user needs to be blocked until this situation is sorted out. Tiptoety 04:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

After discussion on Village Pump, the conclusion is that the IP seems to run the sirpeterscott website, which means he can log all ip addresses being referred to wikipedia. There is no media-wiki issue, just a user losing an argument, trying to fight his way out. Have marked as resolved. Woody (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Really egregious vandalism

I can't report this at ARV--there's no final warning--but seriously, are we going to let stuff like this go by without serious action? I mean, c'mon--that image was posted on a kids' show page, fer cryin' out loud. Misplaced Pages may not be censored, but...I mean, seriously. I'm pretty damn tolerant, myself, and even I was like "aw HELL no." It was uploaded to several other pages, too--This is Emily Yeung and Barney & Friends--and yeah, it was reverted, but still--can't we just DEAL with people who do stuff like this, instead of fooling around with graded warnings? Gladys J Cortez 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For shit like this, drop a uw-bv or uw-vand4im and if he edits again, immediately report to AIV. The only requirement is that he has been warned that his actions are blockable, not that you use every level of warning. Go straight to level 4, and if it doesn't stop him immediately, then go to AIV. I have so warned him. If he does it again, I will block him. I just deleted the pic as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like he has edited in a few hours, as I investigate closer. He has recieved a level 4 warning. If he vandalises again, immediately report to AIV, and note that he has been warned. It should result in a block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

More Arthur Ellis sockpuppets

I'm leaving this message in response to a post by User:Thatcher. At Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis, Thatcher has determined that Victoriagirl1 (talk · contribs), Victoriagirl2 (talk · contribs), Victoriagirl3 (talk · contribs), Sunray10 (talk · contribs), Sunray20 (talk · contribs), Sunray30 (talk · contribs), Homeboy99 (talk · contribs), Sockpuppet99 (talk · contribs), Backtalk (talk · contribs), Hotgirl99 (talk · contribs), Firebrand99 (talk · contribs), Climateguy (talk · contribs) and Overeditor (talk · contribs) are one and the same. As Overeditor, Sockpuppet99, Hotgirl99, Homeboy99 and Climateguy have blocked indefinitely as Arthur Ellis socks, I wonder whether it would it be possible to block the other accounts. I recognize that not all appear active at the moment, but note that the confusingly named Victoriagirl1 has made two postings since Thatcher presented the findings. Victoriagirl (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All blocked. Tagging in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to all administrators and the general community

Per this discussion previously, I've had one page of BJAODN restored, userfied, and protected to User:Nwwaew/BJAODN in order to work on citing it on a BJAODN archive offsite. Once I've finished citing this page, it will be deleted again. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing of note: Make sure that whoever completes the next switch-out moves the page that's in there now back where it was before deleting it and moving the next one into userspace. We're not trying to do a tremendous history merge here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Most likely, this page'll get deleted, and the next page up will be created and moved to User:Nwwaew/BJAODN2, or something like that. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, are people still spazzing about linking to such a site? There really isn't any practical reason why we shouldn't. I know the whole DENY thing was one of the reasons people didn't like BJAODN, but you have to admit that an offsite link takes a great deal of the bite out of the glory to vandals. An offsite link isn't nearly as fun for a vandal. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that we don't even know how much of a real concern it was when BJAODN was here in full force. Just something to think about. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The off-site BJAODN is linked to from Silly Things (the successor to BJAODN), and nobody's challenged the link addition. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have trouble finding diffs for some because the articles been deleted, I would be willing to help (obviously the diff links themselves won't be useful, but the timestamp/username would be what you need for GFDL purposes). This may be less useful until you start to get into stuff that was added after about 2005-2006, since the stuff you're working on now is not recoverable. —Random832 13:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Theground2

Could someone please check the contributions of this user, User:Theground2. They've added a number of images to various Playboy Playmate articles and after having glimpsed one of them, I'd rather not go through the process of checking the rest of them while here at work. The one I saw was a clear copyvio. Like I said, I'm at work, otherwise I'd tag the images myself. Thanks, Dismas| 04:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Images reverted from articles, and SchuminWeb marked the images for deletion. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, images to playmate articles? We.. might need to.. review.. this content.. for.. um... the... consensus?... erm... so.. ah... ... never mind... ;) -- Ned Scott 06:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heheh....wait what where we talking about here? oh...deleting them...cause of...i guess im too distracted :)Tiptoety 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Too distracted? May I suggest a cold shower? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

lol. Tiptoety 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Electra10

Legal threat by new user User:Electra10. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly a threat, and they probably are unaware of the rule. Rather than biting them, let's try a bit of education first. Jehochman 06:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this. I don't think I bit him, I didn't respond at all to his talk about courts of law, I reported it here. However, he used edit summaries, filled in info boxes and correctly formatted the article in one edit. Doesn't prove anything, but this also made me question what was going on. Thanks again. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this editor is making a point worth considering (Misplaced Pages:Don't overlook legal threats) even if poorly worded. -- lucasbfr 10:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another legal threat. The wording is careful but the meaning is clear. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ronnotel (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment there. I think the wording of the legal threat block message urgently needs to be more informative, I'll try to tweak it when I have the time. -- lucasbfr 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Electra10 (talk · contribs) had already been warned against making legal threats by both Gwen Gale and Jehochman . Not only did the editor ignore Jehochman's request to remove the threat, but Electra's next post was another legal threat. I do not believe that WP:DOLT is applicable to this case, as the article in question is not a WP:BLP (Ms. Bolam died in 1982) and the disputed facts in the article appear to be properly cited to such reliable, published sources as Time (magazine), The New York Times, and the National Geographic Society. However while WP:DOLT may not apply, WP:LEGAL does, as I do not know how comments such as "I'm sorry but I am willing to challenge anyone in a court of law on this matter" can be interpreted as anything but a legal threat. As such, I blocked the editor at 11:54 EST. Thank you Lucasbfr for clarifying the next step to this editor. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rikara

1st I would like to say if this is not the place to add users who need to be blocked please for give me and move it to the right place.

Rikara has broken a few rules like these.

Archives." And another said, "Unnecessary, especially since past discussions/edits make it clear that if we list some, people will try to list them all, and we need to keep clutter down."

WE have told this user so may times that its not needed and he keeps adding it please do something about this please and thank you.--DarkFierceDeityLink 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any rules being overtly broken here. WP:ANI should not be the first place one goes if a dispute occurs. Please try other dispute resolution options. In this case, Third Opinion or Request for Comment may be most approrpriate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockfarm From Hell

Could we get some help tagging some of the users in here, specifically the users in Group 2? There's enough accounts there to choke a pelican. -Jéské 07:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All confirmed accounts tagged, I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Someone please block this one: Gromph Baenre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. --Jack Merridew 08:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  Blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks; here's another needing his button pushed: Luckyevent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Jack Merridew 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• and: Robert James Ritchie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Jack Merridew 08:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  Both blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Another: Heaðolaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is tagged as sock/blocked but is not blocked. --Jack Merridew 08:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  Blocked by PeaceNT. Bencherlite 09:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• This assault is continuing right now with anons: Special:Contributions/89.186.90.242 (and a few others I don't have IPs for handy) --Jack Merridew 09:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  Special:Contributions/194.144.97.153, also on Ogre (Dungeons & Dragons) --Jack Merridew 09:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Freawaru (talk · contribs) tagged as sock/blocked, but not blocked. --Jack Merridew 09:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  User blocked. Bencherlite 09:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks; I'm going through the checkuser case and noting things here as I go. Such as:

• Ecgþeow (talk · contribs) also tagged as sock/blocked, but not blocked. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Eanmund (talk · contribs), too. --Jack Merridew 09:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Brondings (talk · contribs), Breca (talk · contribs)... and others I'm sure; I'm going to focus on reviewing edits, not blocks, as I can fix those. --Jack Merridew 10:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• These four now blocked. Bencherlite 10:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Ogre (Dungeons & Dragons) for a week, given that there were multiple IPs behaving in this way. Any admin is free to remove / extend this as they see fit. Should the checkuser case have the recent IPs added to it? Bencherlite 10:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've extended it to indef largely because the underlying problem is no so much the tags than who put them on; this is harassment of Gavin.collins (talk · contribs). -Jéské 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure if piling-on more IPs is helpful to the checkuser process. There are hundreds, most one-off usages. They may be the same user or they may be randoms showing up from an off site link. I've seen that a bunch of times (what I think is that). My contrib history will now contain many, many of the IPs with an undo edit summary (say the last two months!). Here's a regular expression to help search:

"Undid revision + by +\.+\.+\.+ \(talk\)" --Jack Merridew 12:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

New SPA - suspected Bonaparte sock

Hello, there is a new account Harghita J. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose only activity so far has been this edit and the recreation of the Székely language page that has been deleted multiple times. I warned him with {{uw-delete2}} but it was ignored. IIRC this kind of sneaky vandalism is usually done by the socks of the banned user Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); in any case, you can check this based on language this log and the deleted revisions of the same page. Please block. KissL 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Óðinn

Said user has been going through User:156.34.215.223's contributions and reverting valid fair-use logo removals. When I requested that the user stop (), he asked if I was an admin (). I AGF 'd the user's question and replied with: . He then replied with: "Request denied" () - this says to me: "I would only stop stalking the user if you were an admin." - Basically, I need some guidance on what to do with this situation. The user has clearly disregarded a polite request to stop and discuss the matter rather than blindly reverting. Any thoughts? Scarian 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly OK to use logos if a non-free use rationale has been provided. Óðinn is using User:Óðinn/Templates/Fair use logo (which should be in template namespace - or at least should be substituted - see also User:Óðinn/Templates), so removing the logos is being disruptive. There may be a case for excessive non-free use of images, but maybe not. It might also be debatable whether we need to include "logos" for music bands. As this could be a complex case, I suggest raising all these issues at the talk page for the non-free content policy. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Non-free content issues diverted over there. Remaining issues here are the admin comments and the incipient edit warring over the logos. I've notified the user. Carcharoth (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not personally bothered about the logo's, it's more the user's conduct which I found inappropriate. Scarian 12:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You started in straight away with accusations of "stalking", (from WP:STALK — Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles) it's understandable that he'd be a bit hostile. —Random832 13:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the claim that "Consensus does not need to be implemented into policy for it to count." is valid generally, but you can't just assert that there is a consensus to remove the logos without pointing to where this was supposedly discussed to arrive at that supposed consensus. —Random832 14:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos. Many of these so-called logos are just somebody's artwork from one album sleeve. All of them (well, very nearly all) are non-free. None of them (or almost none) are accompanied with references to show that they are encyclopedic. As the editor who originally uploaded at least two of these, I'd say that times have changes with regard to non-free content, and that the onus is on those wishing to retain such material to show a consensus to do so. This I certainly do not see. Nobody should revert war over this but I think removing a non-free image once from what is meant to be a text field in an infobox is perfectly justified. I've been doing a few myself on articles I edit and nobody has complained; I'll hold off if there is a live discussion here, but I generally support their removal. Our mission is to produce a 💕, and these images, in 99% of the cases, are highly unencyclopedic. The 1% of exceptions can use fair use and display the image in the article (I oppose creating a "logo" field in the infobox), if the image is verifiably well-known and has an appropriate rationale. There is no reason that every band article should have a logo, I would submit. --John (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) To be fair, the IP had pointed to Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos in previous edits, but that discussion doesn't look to be a settled consensus to me. I agree that it is debatable whether to use logos in band articles. Sometimes a band is recognised most easily by their logo, other times by a picture of the band. Identification is an important part of a good encyclopedia article. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That warning that should have been given to him, remember? Now would be a good time. He is revert-warring again, now as User: 156.34.142.110. User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry tried to undo his logo-removing crusade and was predictably reverted. Óðinn (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

History merge needed

I just saw that General Welfare Clause was moved by cut-and-paste to Taxing and Spending Clause some weeks ago, and moved back and forth the same way this morning.

It looks like the google hits and the first reference in the article suggest GWC is the far more common name, but the new editor who did the original copy-and-paste move is convinced otherwise.

The article was edited quite a bit after it was cut-paste-moved. Is a history merge possible? MilesAgain (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which version is correct though? Keilana| 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say but I am sure FooFighter would not agree. MilesAgain (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"General Welfare" is actual language from the clause, "Tax and spend" is a common pejorative term used by american conservatives. —Random832 16:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is now sitting at Taxing and Spending Clause, which is an inappropriate POV name. Corvus cornix_talk 19:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can an administrator will have move it back to GWC as it was before FooFighter made the cut-and-paste move which, at the time, was already controversial per the talk page? MilesAgain (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, bd2412 undid the cut-n-paste move, moved the content to the wrong location, & left a pretty stern warning on User talk:Foofighter20x for that user. Although the talk page for the GWC is still forgotten in this mess, I see no reason to be bold here & move the article back: IMHO, Foofighter has two strikes against him at this point, so I think we ought to give him enough rope one more chance to properly participate in the discussion before he is escorted out of Misplaced Pages for the indefinite future. -- llywrch (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, somebody? Please move this back to the proper name? Corvus cornix_talk 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry abusing helpme template

I'm sorry, I can't figure out how to fill out a proper sockpuppet report: the puppetmaster already has a confirmed sockpuppet category but I can't find the suspected sockpuppet page for this puppetmaster.

Sockpuppets are using the {{help}} template to try to attract attention and are admitting to being sockpuppets.

Puppetmaster: already blocked LaruaWA11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sockpuppets:

• Dendanovile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (*** needs to be blocked *** ) Done. Thanks, Mangojuice. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Ponterrifire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Nevanacrone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Arcbarrakrane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Casuticous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Demandamax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Robensturlobe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Vonsarkertraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)

I've nowikied the help templates and put suspected sockpuppet templates on the user talk pages. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like they have all been blocked for now. I am marking this as resolved. If more socks show up, notify us and we will get on blocking them as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hostile, uncivil user DarkFierceDeityLink

On the SuperSmash Brawl talk page , The user in question DArkLink has reverted my edits numerous times, 4 times to be exact. But that is not why I'm here. I'm trying to resolve this dispute on the talk page but when I added a GENERAL discussion for the unsourced material he removes it after his own comment, saying it is unnecessary despite the crux of the discussion being whether or not the article sources are credible. He has done this twice so far, even reverting an Administrator's message to both of us. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: DarkFierceDeityLink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the User:DarkFierceDeityLink has been warned previously about violating WP:CIVIL, per this warning from Zzyzx11.UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two sections of the talk page that discuss potential characters for this video game, including references to a leaked and subsequently removed video from Nintendo revealing previously unconfirmed characters. The edit war appears to be over which section to remove. I would submit that, as both sections deal with finding reliable sources (or the fact that none exist) for the inclusion of information in the article, that both sections should remain. I also note that several editors appear to be close to violating WP:3RR. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is already the subject of a thread about three blocks up. Please take this to dispute resolution ASAP. Ask for a third opinion or open a request for comment and seek to find an uninvolved party to solve the dispute. Everyone is getting testy on this issue, and there are likely to be 3RR blocks for both sides, and NO ONE, even us admins, wants that. I suggest that even if it means leaving the "wrong version" up, all reversions cease and dispute resolution is used to solve this problem. If the "wrong version" stays up for 2-3 days while consensus is being built and outside opinions are being gathered, there is no real harm. If people get blocked for 3RR and the article is protected, it is a MUCH worse solution. We don't want to have to go there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Luka Rocco Magnotta

This is getting a little crazy with all the obvious meatpuppetry. Of course, it's also possible that a bunch of people have come out of the woodwork to defend a little-known porn star, but... better to shoot this at home. JuJube (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Working on it. Nakon 16:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've refactored the page and have kept it semiprotected for now. Nakon 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please don't refactor AFD discussions by removing contributions simply because they are made by editors without accounts, as you just did. Editors without accounts are not prohibited from contributing to AFD discussions. You unjustly removed this rationale, arguing that the article was based upon numerous sources cited in the article, a valid argument with a basis in our policies and guidelines, solely because it was made by an editor without an account. That was wrong. AFD discussion contributions that make arguments based upon our policies and guidelines are welcome whether or not the editor has an account. Uncle G (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• It's not really all that bad. The editing history is fairly clean. Relax and simply and calmly tag the single-purpose accounts with the {{subst:spa}} template. That's all that you need do in this case. The closing administrator will be capable of figuring things out. Uncle G (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. A couple of users have started removing "Delete" votes, as per this. This is an unacceptable perversion of the process. Also, advice to closing admin has been deleted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

I was e-mailed by this user, due to him being indef blocked, and on reviewing the evidence - or complete and total lack thereof - unblocked him. The admin in question seems to have left wikipedia. The block log only read "Editor feels disruptive editing is blockworthy... I agree." - The contribs in the weeks before showed little to justify this, and the admin seems to have commented nowhere else but the block log on it.

As far as I know, I have no involvement with QuackGuru. Adam Cuerden 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

the user has a few 3RR blocks, but I don't see ANYTHING in the contribs history that warrents the indefinite block. I would say the unblock is a good move here. If the user does become a problem, we can always reblock, but I really have NO idea why this one was blocked. Have you tried to contact the blocking admin in any way, such as via email? Maybe they are privy to something we aren't... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone looking at QG's block log should note that it looks longer than it really is. There was a series of block/unblock/reblock/unblock actions creating multiple entries for one block. I don't know what on earth was going on there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This seems like an easy call to unblock at this point... I think Adam made a wise decision here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide the link to the block? Anthon01 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The archive of his user page from Sept. 2, is enlightening. . . agree with the unblock, btw. R. Baley (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The block would have been from late December or later since his contribs ended on Dec27th. Anthon01 (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know that the indef was later, but the reason his block log was so long, was due to events surrounding the Sept. 1 time period. R. Baley (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My experience has been that QuackGuru is not the most constructive editor on the block. Whether he warranted an indefinite block, I don't know. I don't have a problem with the unblock, though he has in the past been a sort of low-level, gradual exhauster-of-the-community's-patience, so that may be where the block came from. Parenthetically, I'm sad to see that Isotope23 (talk · contribs) has apparently left, though - didn't realize that until now. MastCell 18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know Isotope, I fear. As for QuackGuru - I don't think indef blocks for low-level problems should happen without at least some discussion, and, as far as I can find, none took place. Adam Cuerden 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I don't have a problem with the unblock. MastCell 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, QG is not the... easiest to get along with, to put it mildly. However, an indef block like this is equivalent to a community ban, and should be discussed. --Haemo (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to file an RfC or something, go ahead. Adam Cuerden 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On the pages I have encountered him he appears out of nowhere (no talk page), reverts up to 3 times and then disappears, sort of like a 'drive by.' He returns a week or so later to repeat the process. Attempts to have him participate on the talk page are fruitless. Strange. Anthon01 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I advise the unblocking admin to keep an eye on the users actions and talk page. _{(1 == 2)} 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, if there's an RfC and it shows consensus for him being blocked, I'll happily reblock, but, you know, let's do this properly. Adam Cuerden 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The "usual policy" is that a banning is just an indef block no admin will undo - if Adam wants to take responsibility for the unblock, and will keep and eye on QuackGuru, I don't see there's any need for an RfC or whatever - we can always come back here if people feel Adam isn't handling the case well. WilyD 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't know the nitty gritty of the block, but I do know that Quack is on the "Sanger is co-founder of Wiki" side so that probably rubbed some folks/admins the wrong way. I personally never had any issues with this user. Just my 2 cent drive by comment :) Cheers--Tom 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Never knew that. On the other hand, that garish orange sig of his... Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was talking to Avi earlier about possibly getting a pair of mentors for QG and was intending to unblock him after I had found a set. Avi was willing to do so. Would someone else be willing to join him? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin tools needed to fix my "helping"

I tried to iron out some disambiguation problems with Santa Anna (Comanche war chief), and ended up making it worse, and it now needs admin tools to fix. If anyone's willing to help sort it out (shouldn't be too hard), leave a note on my talk page and I'll explain what I was trying to do, and what needs done. Sorry, and thanks. --barneca (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved per your talk page at 18:52. Archtransit (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, I have got confused doing this. Posted at Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen Woody (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All fixed now, I should have gone to Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen to begin with. --barneca (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to spoof result of AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz ?

user:Kubek15 created the article Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz which has been nominated for deletion. He has placed comments on the AfD stating it has been closed as "Keep", removed the notice from the article and removed a note on the talk page from the subject of the article requesting it be deleted. This looks like pure vandalism but there's no aparrent gain and thus justification, and he appears to be an otherwise good editor. Perhaps he wants more administrators to look at the AfD and I'm falling for his trap! Could someone see what he's up to? If it is vandalism, could he be given a friendly talking to? Thanks! Ros0709 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Trap worked! -- Kendrick7 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

<g> Ros0709 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Friendly talking to given. --AnonEMouse 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Ros0709 (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Odette Yustman page.

I know she was just in Cloverfeld and all, so her article is getting mad hits and all... but certain users have been edit warring on the article removing the fact that the actress is Jewish. Perhaps such attacks are based on racism or anti-semitism. In stead of the truth, some vandals are posting tenuously-sourced comments that she is Hispanic most likely to defame her.

Because of the mad hits that the article is undergoing since the success of said movie, perhaps the article should be locked down until the hype of Cloverfeld blows over. Belicia (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Odette Yustman is Hispanic, or half Hispanic, anyway. "My mum is Cuban and my father is of Italian and French descent and was born in Bogota, Colombia, and raised in Nicaragua." link. It may be that she is also Jewish, but I can't find a reference for that. If there's a reference for it, then by all means, add that reference, but otherwise, All Hallow's Wraith seems to be correct. - Revolving Bugbear 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: the editing at the Yustman article seems to be surprisingly slow seeing as she just released a movie: only an average of four or five edits a day, only one instance of obvious vandalism. Protection is in my opinion not yet warranted. I will monitor the situation; please take points of contention to the talk page. - Revolving Bugbear 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Who appointed you to "monitor the situation"? I think I should be the one to monitor it, seeing as how I know all about Miz. Yustman. Belicia (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, you reported it here to ANI because of edit warring. I am an admin, and I am volunteering to watch this situation for edit warring. That's what the admin noticeboard is for. - Revolving Bugbear 20:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my bad!! Sorry about that I got you confused with one of the involved parties, whoops. I think I gotta get off the meds and get my head clear for a bit. :) Belicia (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. No harm done. - Revolving Bugbear 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV pushing on Numerous U.S. Political figures articles., Now with personal attacks.

I had previously reported this situation:

User:Anappealtoheaven Seems to be having a serious problem with writing in an NPOV style. Despite warnings , , independently given from two editors recently, and more in the past, one example, see User talk:Anappealtoheaven for more, his only responses are screeds about how Misplaced Pages needs to be free of outside influences . Some examples of his problematic editing are seen: At Mitt Romney, where he injects POV, gets reverted(this would be a third editor recently identifying POV). At Mike Huckabee, he edits again to show purported hypocrisy , and is again reverted for POV ,. He edits Ron Paul to a pro-Paul POV. One is seen here: . Although the fact is cited, his edit and summary imply, at least, that something special about Paul other than the online presence can explain the fact, although he only cites 'time', an indication of POV editing. There are numerous examples more. One last egregious example - , he smears McCain and Graham as 'lockstepping' with "liberal democratic Senator Ted Kennedy's heated legislation ". The only intent to his wording is that he seeks to disparage their 'conservative street cred' by tying them to a 'liberal democrat'. It's partisan game playing of the worst sort. Please note that between reverts and notes about his edits, there are at least five editors noting POV, as well as previous warnings on his talk and article talk pages. Should anyone doubt he has an agenda here, please read his User Page essay about his Ron Paul support. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This was archived, unnoticed, at 08:22, see :. Five horus later, assured that it was archived, the editor left me this personal attack. I am again asking for an admin to review his conduct, esp. as it regards the original complaint. This is not a content dispute, as it regards one editor spanning numerous pages and multiple editors reverting his work, and his attitude regarding that. Please examine this. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of that did you take personally? What he put in the Graham article seems to more or less reflect what the ref he added at the same time says. If that's the most egregious thing he's done, :shrug: -- Kendrick7 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I find his assertion that if I oppose him i must be ar ight wing neo-con offensive. I find the ideas of Karl Rove and his minions reprehensible violations of American ethics and expectations regarding government. Likewise, I find the tarring and feathering that AATH does to articles he edits to be a problem. If you look, you'll see that I'm not the only editor objecting to his actions. ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought everyone but us Massachusetts liberals were neo-cons. I guess I need to get out more. Well, I need a new {{current pol}} to babysit since Dodd dropped out. I'll watchlist a few of those if it'll help. -- Kendrick7 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for the POV pushing and personal attacks. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Block review, please

I've blocked an editor for making legal threats. WxSocal (talk · contribs) created the article Ontario Weather Service. I removed an AfD tag which wasn't followed through here and cleaned-up the article. However, completely unable to find sources anywhere, I sent it for consideration at AfD a day later.

WxSocial has now appeared on the AfD, on my talk page and on the user page of the only commentator on the AfD, threatening explicitly to sue Misplaced Pages editors for editing/deleting the article. Diffs: here here and (admin only) here

I request that this block is reviewed. I am not in dispute with this editor, but, notionally, I'm "involved" with him/her or his/her article, although I wasn't threatened legally (in fact, quite the reverse). And I know we like to dot and cross when it comes to blocks. If the editor withdraws the very clear legal threats, of course the block should be lifted forthwith; if people like their bureaucracy in a neat row, feel free to unblock and reblock just so it isn't me that's doing it, if that floats your boat. Or whatever you decide, of course. Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Must be something in the air this week. Out of curiosity, was he told about the NLT policy before his block? - Revolving Bugbear 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Or, at least not by me and not by anyone where I can see it. So no. Has policy changed so we now warn/ask for removal and then block after the damage has time to set in? If so, I'm surprised and disagree with the change loudly, but profess ignorance as an excuse. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good block. If we've changed to warning people and not blocking, that's news to me as well. As I understood it, people may not continue to edit while pursing legal action, so any legal threat warrants immediate blocking. We always leave these open to removal if the editor chooses to recant anyways. Shell 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One additional thought -- implied legal threats merit warning, but this was a clear statement that legal action was being taken. Shell 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on all counts, Shell. I was just curious. I feel better about NLT blocks if it's clear the person's aware ahead of time, being as, in my experience, NLT blocks usually just make the threats intensify. But you are correct that it's a good block. - Revolving Bugbear 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Making legal threats or death threats have always been a quick ticket out the door on Misplaced Pages, a policy embraced after long experience gained from Usenet where the kooks often did crap like that. Maybe now that only a minority of us remember the "wild-west" environment of Usenet anyone might consider it a necessary first step to warn someone about this kind of gross misbehavior, but think about it this way: do we need to state the rules of behavior for everyone who comes to Misplaced Pages? If I was in a group of people discussing some topic, & one suddenly threatened to sue me for what I said, do I need to first warn him that he broached etiquette? Yes, it's important to first remind people about the rules, but in some cases if a person cannot figure them out for themselves, we shouldn't need waste time on them. -- llywrch (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur this was a good block. If the user shows contrition on their talk page, we may unblock then, but this behavior cannot be allowed to continue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may need community ban.

This is in response to an email I received from a concerned editor. It would appear that User:Coloane continues to attempt to use FAC as a weapon for causing disruption against editors he has a beef with. There was a prior ANI discussion (here about possible problems with Coloane; this was resolved by Raul, who said that mentoring Coloane was a possible option. However, one of the main points in that discussion, that Coloane was using FAC intentionally to disrupt Misplaced Pages, was lost I think, and it is still happening. Two relevent difs: here: where he claims to wish to see another editors article "fail and die at FAC" and here: where he threatens to obstruct any articles edited by another user from becoming FAC. These edits are personally directed, and represent a directed attempt to disrupt, in my opinion. Now, this was all in the prior ANI report, however the behavior continues DESPITE the prior report. At this dif where he opposes the article U2, he makes a veiled reference to his deliberate attempt to obstruct of the Russia FAC. And the final issue is here: where he cleary says that he is making outrageous and unactionable claims on the article, simply to obstruct the vote. This is stretching the bounds of good faith, and we should consider a community ban restricting this user from the entire FA process. What I see here is repeated attempts (feeble as they may be) to push a personal agenda by making outlandish and rediculous oppose votes at FA nominations. That such votes are patently rediculous and likely to be discounted by the FA director is moot. The Russia FAC would have failed regardless of Coloanes clumsy attempt to disrupt it; likewise the U2 FAC is likely to succeed in spite of it. However, these obvious and rediculous attempts at trolling need to be stopped. I recognize that he has been a valuable contributor to many articles here at Misplaced Pages, but he clearly misunderstands how to work well with others at FAC, and a community ban may be in order. Any ideas?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed his "vote" and the discussion thread from the FAC, directing him to dispute resolution. It was an inappropriate, unhelpful, and needlessly antagonistic exchange. El_C 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. I still press that a community ban of some sort on FA discussions needs to be addressed. Do others agree, or do we need to let this play out further. As I noted, the user has made some clearly positive contributions, but this behavior at FA should not be suffered for much longer... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are something wrong here. You tried to talk about the vote from Russia (or the last message from the noticeboard) and mixed up the vote I put on U2 in order to rationalise your above message. This is my first time to see it. Again, my vote in Russia and U2 are fair with highly detail reasons and they are all seperate issues. It doesn't make sense and it is rude to erase my vote over there. Everyone can go there and vote. With the message I wrote to Mikoyan is a third matter. You had better treat it one by one. So go back to the U2 issue. You made my comment over my comment, why didn't you take this to the talk page? I answered your question politely and illustrated my point clearly. The message I wrote you is to tell you what vote means and my comment is entirely my personal view. If you are not a nominator nor main editor of U2, you can simply ignore it. It is not a message to tell you that I will come here to disrupt FAC next time. Probably you didn't pay attention or misunderstood. Coloane (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please fix the Heath Ledger article

A penis vandal put a huge penis photo into a template that is currently covering the whole Heath Ledger article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please block User:ProofPlain who added it with this edit? Thanks User:John Reaves has done it now, thanks -Halo (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost completely unrelated, but Misplaced Pages breaks the news again (for me), here about Mr Ledger's death. Although I clicked on the source, and then looked for another source to confirm the first one. Which is what people are supposed to do, after all. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

CNN is now reporting it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The death or the penis? John Reaves 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment not made in the first place, due to tastelessness ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning User:Hopiakuta

Hi, I initially posted my concerns here of User:Hopiakuta making legal threats against me of libel in their edit summaries, and the further accusations made against me for no reason of hypocrisy, dictatorship, slander, conspiracy, committing fraud, etc. etc. etc. The only response I have had at the other page is someone saying that it's a user with a very long and drawn out history of problem edits and that I should raise my concerns here instead. I have briefly read through the specific page related to this user and can see no prior examples of the user making such accusations against others, so where do I add what I have experienced so that the admins get a full picture of what's going on? -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i think that your first move is to list all the diffs or link to the users contributions page so that anyone who comeshere can see what dastardly ddeeds User:Hopiakuta has perpetrated and get a full view of the sitatuion. You should probably warn him if you haven't alreadythat you've opene dup a discissuon about him on this page since that seems to be commonly procedure used here. Smith Jones (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be better to leave this to an admin who has previous experience of this user; there is an issue in communication, and needs to be handled with tact. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's what I would prefer. All the diffs concerned are listed with descriptive dialogue at the first link in this section, I would rather not have to list them here all over again. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My memory is a bit hazy: is this the young man with a handicap? If so we need to be sensitive and tactful. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is belived that he has some cognitive disability, see this diff. I think this is a very complicated issue that has been attempted before with little success. There was an ANI thread about 6 months ago. I will try and find it. Woody (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe all the appropriate/relevant links are at the top of Misplaced Pages:administrators' noticeboard/Wiki editor DonFphrnqTaub Persina, including links to two previous discussions on ANI. (I realize this may be quite a daunting reading list.) 131.111.8.102 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This all seems to stem from this edit. Clearly an accident, but I can see how he might have misunderstood (particularly as people's reactions afterward were unhelpful). —Random832 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And, later on, this made things worse. —Random832 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a role in this that I believe was initially inadvertant; somehow one of my posts at the British Airways Flight 38 talk page (the first of Random 832's diffs) resulted in the deletion of Hopiakuta's comment. I'm looking further into what has happened from my actions and have apologised to Hopiakuta on his/her talk page. I'll post more there. -- Flyguy649 01:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All the same I didn't do any of that and yet I still got full vitriol and, frankly, unnecessary accusations of every editing crime imaginable for it. I'm not worried about myself because I've learned to develop thick skin through online experience: however what about the next user who makes an innocent enquiry and finds themselves on the receiving end of what I assume is a lot of pent up anger? Are they going to be able to shrug it off as well? I think in the interests of wikilove some tactful admin known to the user should still drop some kind words about checking of facts before leaping on people. An apology wouldn't go amiss either. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a pattern of behavior with this user; see for example or or . I understand what others have said about this user and his issues, but these things are gross violations of WP:NPA. Looking through his talk page history, I found no evidence that he was apologetic for those things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Number48's user page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Inappropriate userpage blanked. MastCell 23:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm wondering if this is acceptable to have on a user's page? The user in question seems to be a little excitable so I thought I have better throw this one up the line rather than interviening. Thanks Shot info (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

his userpage is blank. please do not use WP:ANI for frivolous buletins. Smith Jones (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because I just blanked it, and was about to post here to say so. WP:CIVIL, please. BLACKKITE 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i am not sure if itis civil to blank other people's talk pages iwhtout giving them notice before hand to give them a chance to take if off themselves. `Smith Jones (talk)

Please see Misplaced Pages:User_page#Inappropriate_content. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i know the policy. perhaps it would be wise to inform the user with the ofensive user info on it to avoid making sure tha t he knows it too so that he doesnt do someting similar in the future. judging my his talk page no-one has recently tried to epxlian the policy of wikipedia to him or provide him with eeven the welcome banner links. this oversight astounds me. Smith Jones (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ctx8 & Ctx9

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Both accounts blocked as vandalism-only and socks. MastCell 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that User talk:Ctx8 and User talk:Ctx9 might be one and the same, considering they both started vandalising on the same evening – could somebody take a look? Cheers — alex.muller (talk • edits) 23:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

there is nothign wrong with having multiple accounts, and editing with multiple accounts. Smith Jones (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

....unless they're disruptive, which these are. BLACKKITE 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

well, yes, but if they're behavior is dispruptive that has nothing to do with them having two accounts. theri edits should be assessed individually and if thy are vandalizing then they shoudl be blocked in decisions independentally from one another. Smith Jones (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the decisions should not be independent. When two accounts are obviously the same user, it's OK to split the vandal warnings between them. As in, four warnings between the two (usually), then report both to AIV, it the disruption is indeed trivial vandalism. Except in a username-block, blocks and bans are against users, not accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

okay fine. Smith Jones (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked as vandalism-only; also, obvious socks. MastCell 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny of obvious disruption is a problem. This could be a case of trying to keep two accounts open to vandalise incase one gets blocked; or trying to avoid the standard warning cycle to remain unblocked longer. I would recommend that someone give these accounts a firm talking to, and keep a close eye on this. If either account misbehaves, they should both be blocked... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn... My whole point is moot now. Damn edit conflicts... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I need an administrator to please block the user DarkFierceDeityLink

This person has been removing any criticism he gets which stem from his comments towards me. While having a regular discussion on the talk page he brings up another issue and tries to troll me. Whenever I defend myself by calling him childish or lacking the mentality for knowing why I did those actions he simply removes them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&action=history

I already posted this morning about his problem but he's at it again. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not an assasin organization that automatically blocks everyone you recommend. you have to prove tha thtis user is being disruptive over a long period of time, is obviously unwiling to refrom, and has ignored any and all atempts to modify his behavior. i think that you should try to work this out with this user, prefeably with the help ofa mediator. Smith Jones (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is now the THIRD time today I have recommended that the entire situation be brought to dispute resolution. No one is apparently interested in doing that yet. Does any admin think its time to hand out some protections? This has gone far enough. I propose we protect the article page, and leave a notice that the page will remain protected until mediation is completed. Any seconds on that idea?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I favor Jayrons idea i am sick of seing WP:ANI being used as a first resort in every single dispute. WP:ANI is for administrators notifying of problems, not for users to recomend which other users should be blocked or killed off the internet. protections and a voluntaryt mediation seminar seems like it ould be in order. Smith Jones (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No not at all my goodman. The article in question before was Super Smash Bros. Brawl series. Pardon for me not being clear about this but I was having a discussion on the main article page for Brawl and the same user shows up bringing impolite and hostile attitude towards be (as well as slander). They are not constructive nor fall under the discussions. This isn't a simple edit war on the talk page, this is a case of him removing comments (which he did twice this morning) and he does it again tonight on a completely unrelated manner by trolling me more or less and when I respond he removes my comments. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:HeaveTheClay EVERY USER has the right to reove any comment off of his talk page after reading it. Smith Jones (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not on the talk page for users, it's on the article's talk page. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

every user has the right to make any comment he wishes onto a talk page. if you cant stand ato have your contributions altered or removed, then dont wupdate or contribute to wikiepdia. Smith Jones (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, knock it off. Stop attacking everybody who comes to ANI, especially when you're not an admin. (neither am I) And apply a little due diligence once in a while instead of spouting off. It was clear that the above comments were about an article Talk page, not a user page. Corvus cornix_talk 02:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Corvus cornix. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

HeavetheClay said above, "Whenever I defend myself by calling him childish or lacking the mentality for knowing why I did those actions he simply removes them." Just going on what you say here, in my opinion, calling him childish or lacking the mentality for knowing why you did those actions may be a violation of Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks and/or civility policies; and his removing them is arguably correct (there is no consensus as to whether it's OK to remove personal attacks); simply removing them without responding in kind shows maturity, civility and detachment, in my opinion. Try talking about article content rather than about the other editor. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Obituary on the main page

someone has posted an obituary for Heath Ledger on the main page. It is my understanding that there is a rule against obituaries on the main page unless the deceased is a head of state. --Ted-m (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Be bold!!! Deleite it. Smith Jones (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, unless Ted-m is an admin. It's not an obit, however, just a news item. Benazir Bhutto was not a head of state, and we had her death there. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Though this is a moot point (see below), Bhutto was a former head of state; that would still count, in my estimation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bhutto's death was a bit more significant to world events than (presumably) Heath Ledger's will be. But then again, there is an ongoing discussion about this here. You could also talk to Neil about this, as he's the one who posted it. I continue to fail to understand why people start ANI reports before contacting the user who created the "incident." Someguy1221 (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It was added by Neil (talk · contribs) in this edit. The criteria cited for the addition is here: "A death should only be placed on ITN if it meets one of the following criteria: (a) the deceased was in a high ranking office of power at the time of death, (b) the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically, (c) the death has a major international impact that affects current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion." — Scientizzle 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, an extremely thin (b) at best. Let it go. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally avoid putting it on the main page, but I'm not particularly concerned about it, either. Ral315 (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl protected pending outcome of dispute resolution

There have been no less than 3 posts to ANI regarding one editor or another demanding the block of someone with regards to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article. I have fully protected the article to stop the edit war. This is not an endorsement of either side in the dispute, or if the article in its current state. I have asked that the protection remain in place until dispute resolution is carried out, and a reasonable consensus solution is reached with the help of neutral, uninvolved parties. I also started a WP:RFC on this article, visible on the article's talk page. I am open to any comments on this specific decision to protect the article here on ANI. Any comments on the conflict itself, please make those comments at the RFC cited above. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

smart move— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

Adrianzax (talk · contribs)

Appears to be ABF/incivil to people on multiple occasions. Was in an RV war at Christmas, and this is funny; closed it as the WHOIS resolved to nowhere near Dahn (talk · contribs)'s location, and I don't want to get a checkuser for blatant trolling (and if you aren't convinced, User talk:K. Lastochka#That guy. Will 23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fred_after_pub.jpg

I would appreciate if an admin could restore this image (still hosted at answers.com here) which was deleted without going through the proper ifd process. We are having trouble getting decent free images as it is, so I don't think we need to be deleting images such as this which was highly likely imo to be a genuine upload- it is high res, and the user commented on the image here . Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think deletion review is the best route to take in this instance. The scan seems original, and it was tagged CC-BY-SA. — Edokter • Talk • 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Theground2 is at it again tonight

Again, User:Theground2 is adding copyvio images to Playmate articles. Again, I'm at work and would rather not pull the images up here. I checked one. Not sure how many they've added today. I'd add on to my last report of this but it's moved up the page some and I didn't know it would get any attention up there. Thanks, Dismas| 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal being firebombed by anons

Anonymous homophobes are vandalizing the Jake Gyllenhaal page in the wake of his collegue's death. Mainly, they're saying that Gyllenhaal died too, but it's all kinds of ugliness. Please see the history page. Would temporary protection from anon editors be appropriate now? Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection has already been requested at WP:RPP. Pairadox (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected Woody (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas...

... what this guy was up to?

link (see end of markup)

FT2  02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On first impression, trying to overload Misplaced Pages's image rendering servers by including 1 px renderings of a few thousand images on one page. I have indef blocked, though if they come up with a good explanation later we can unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On second impression, I concur with the above assessment. This is a patently obvious attempt to disrupt, and should be blocked pending further explanation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:24.18.108.5

User:24.18.108.5 is trolling and making personal attacks at the Talk:Barack Obama page. He's been warned - can someone take a look and consider blocking? (That the attacks are directed at me is funny, but fine - I've seen much worse (and better) in real life...but I am surprised we've let the trolling go on this long.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned them again about incivility, and used the word "Block". If the problem happens again, let us know here at this thread, and he will be blocked the next time he is incivil. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Canvass violation here by User:TlatoSMD - review?

TlatoSMD (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Posting this here for two reasons:

• 1. To counteract the serious canvassing by the above user
• 2. So that an uninvolved admin (if there are any) can review the canvassing and the appropriateness of the uw-canvass I left on the users talk page.

03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rolled it all back (I think). Gave a severe warning. Can you sign the warning you gave them please. Viridae 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, already have. 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs, I wonder if TlatosMD is a bad-hand account - huge portion of total edits (1/4th of about 200) just to the AfD and article in question. 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an RCU check re certain banned editors such as BLueRibbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) etc as I'd wager my right to edit that he is the sock of a banned user. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:86.150.147.133

This user has made personal attacks against me at least three times already, first on Talk:Islam and antisemitism. . Then, when he was warned, and after I removed the attacks, he re-posted them, both on that page, and on my talk page: , this time adding another attack. Yahel Guhan 03:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)