Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:50, 17 April 2008 editStifle (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,973 edits →Template:PD ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:58, 17 April 2008 edit undoSceptre (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors79,153 edits →Block review and contributor discussion: Pixelface: reNext edit →
Line 506:		Line 506:
	::I agree that Pixelface has been generally disruptive in this whole domain of fictioncruft. Endorse block. ] ] 07:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)		::I agree that Pixelface has been generally disruptive in this whole domain of fictioncruft. Endorse block. ] ] 07:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::''(sigh)'' here we go again..everyone line up on opposing sides again....Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)		:::''(sigh)'' here we go again..everyone line up on opposing sides again....Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

			::::Seriously, he's been rather disruptive. His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case. (Specifically, edit warring on Scrubs episode articles). Him saying there's no consensus for PLOT is just ''wrong'' - only he agrees that it should be removed. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Metaphysics ==		== Metaphysics ==

Revision as of 08:58, 17 April 2008

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

From the "oh no, not again" department

I would like to see some discussion, please on ways of de-escalating conflicts instead of escalating them. On BongBoing, they have the concept of "disemvowelling", which neutralises rants without drama. I don't think that would work here because edits / posts can be re-edited or reverted, but we need a credible way of calmly reining in "rhetorical exuberance" without over-reacting to it.

At the moment we have a very blunt instrument - blocking - and a very poor way of controlling it which means that "oh sod off, we already debated that five hundred times" is seen as more of a problem than bringing up the same rejected POV for the five hundred and first time. WP:CIVIL is all well and good, but there is a world of difference between being reasonably respectful of fellow editors, and cuddling up to a never-ending parade of zealots. There is also a tendency to focus on one diff that says "sod off" and go straight into Chicken Little mode, ignoring the dozens of exchanges that led up to it, the vexatiousness of those who work their way through every guideline in the book until they find one that suggest some slight ambiguity where none, in fact, exists, in some cases legions of sock and meatpuppets, and so on. In fact, Misplaced Pages's format lends itself well to a bait and report technique which looks to me to be the MO of some of the more clueful zealots on the project these days.

And above all we appear to be requiring long-standing editors and defenders of policy to become superhuman in order to be allowed to continue contributing.

Misplaced Pages is currently almost certainly the number one most important place to get your point of view promoted. I don't think anyone disputes that. It's also the case that some promoters of fringe theories, conspiracies and the like are vicious and unscrupulous, leading many people to give them a very wide berth, and some are just plain tiresome, repeating the same false assertions time and again in the hope that one day they will become true, or endlessly trying to draw a new "consensus" between the current state of the article and their preferred POV. This is not necessarily done with evil intent; many people sincerely believe that telekinesis exists, vaccines are killing and disabling children, the World Trade Center was blown up by the Government in order to justify a new oil war and so on.

That leaves a few people (e.g. User:MONGO, User:ScienceApologist) working hard to resist long-term egregious POV-pushing, with the result that tempers get frayed. Tempers get frayed anyway, in controversial topics such as the never-ending ethnic feuds. I really don't think that blocking people for tetchiness in the face of POV-pushing is a great idea. I don't think that many people here will be unaware of my view on this, of course, but in the end we are allowed to call a spade a spade sometimes, and we are actually allowed to be human. We are also allowed to become frustrated. And there should be a way of calmly refactoring or toning down such frustration that allows people to calm down, because blocking for sarcasm or snappish remarks is about as effective as "cool-down" blocks. Blocking is supposed to be preventive, but virtually every block of a long-standing contributor for civility infringements - even (perhaps especially) including Giano - ends up looking punitive. If the block were preventive, simply posting "OK, I am calm now" on the talk page should result in an immediate and uncontroversial unblock.

But I don't think blocking is a good way of handling people whose commitment to the project and its core values is never, at any point, in doubt.

I don't have a good idea for how to handle this. I'd be really interested to hear if anyone does have one. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's probably an idea which is widely endorsed by members of the community, but just not conveyed in the actions that eventually happen. You're right about the blocking of long-standing editors though, cool-down blocks aren't permitted per se but are often implemented (at least from what I can see). Maybe a re-write in policy is needed here. Rudget (review) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree there is a problem. I also agree, Guy, that the solution, if one in fact even exists, will be messy and contentious. In other words, great essay. And also, sorry I dont' have a solution. A meaningless post by Keeper......Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I despise disemvowling. It basically says "This is not worthwhile content, but we don't care enough to remove and/or really do anything about it." ⇒SWATJester 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid view, and it would not work here. So what would? I mean, we need to run something up the flagpole and see who salutes. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, that's one of the best posts I've seen on the topic in a long time. I believe you're absolutely right.

Personally I believe we should never block established contributors except in extreme circumstances, e.g. the person has become berserk and won't stop reverting, or something. Blocking pisses people off. Good people. People we don't want to lose. Our core contributors are the project's most important asset, and a lot of administrators don't have the wisdom to see that a block which is strictly within policy can be hurtful to the project. It's something I've learned as a corporate manager: you have to give exceptional people a little extra slack sometimes. Admins here need enough wisdom to see what consequences to the project their within-policy block will cause; it's like look-ahead in chess, and only comes with life experience.

Every time a long-term contributor to the project gets blocked, there's a horrific drama scene on AN/I, and even worse, we have a high risk of losing one of our core contributors. We all make mistakes, and we all lose our tempers sometimes. Fringe POV pushers have learned to game our system, bait good users, and right now I feel like we're on the defensive, and losing ground fast. I don't have a proposal on how to fix it, ... yet. Antandrus (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just our of curiosity, how many articles must I write before I am exempt from the civility policy? I'll be sure to get writing...No user, regardless of what they contribute, is exempt from our policies. Being an asshole is not excusable because an editor deals with POV pushers. It make "look punitive" but editors who routinely engage in incivility and attacks degrade the community, even if they aren't doing direct damage to the actual content of our articles. I am opposed to the greatest extent that I can be, to any rule that will exempt certain editors from treating other editors in a respectful manner. If a certain behavior would earn a new-ish user a block, that behavior should earn a block for a "longstanding contributor" as well; double standards should not be applied. - auburnpilot talk 21:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To an extent, I agree with the above. Another way to phrase this situation might be what would we do if a certain editor who has been a polite and civil editor for a long period of time, and has not been subject to blocking for conduct, suddenly, on a given article, for whatever reason, loses it? In a case like this, that person might just, for whatever reason be having a very bad day. I had one of those yesterday, throwing up I think five times. I don't think I said anything out of line though, as I was basically logged off most of the day. If we were dealing with an established editor who has had repeated, almost regular warnings for misconduct, but had never previously been blocked or otherwise reprimanded, I could agree to that if the situation warranted it. But if Kirill Lokshin or one of the other most respected, tolerant, and polite editors we have were to suddenly become far less than polite, I can and would try to find out what happened before placing a block, as there would be some reason to think that something really extraordinary, maybe something we didn't know about, like a death threat or similar e-mail, happened. But, yes, established users with histories of less than stellar conduct who've basically lucked out to date in not getting sanctioned I can't really see any objections to blocking or banning as the situation required. And, yeah, I'd include me in that number. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's exempt an I'm not suggesting they should be. I am suggesting that people who work at high-stress points of the project should not be blocked for outbreaks of rhetorical exuberance. We should have a gentler but no less firm way to push back against that. When people are provoked, they react in different ways, and make no mistake: there is some serious provocation going on here. So I am suggesting we find a way to encourage people to be better, not punish them for not being better. This is, I think, basic psychology, in as much as parenting a teenager teaches you such things. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion; a posting time limitation - where an editor is restricted to posting an edit after the expiry of x minutes from the last. This would stop reflex responses to baiting comments, allow the editor to "refine" their response (or to cancel it), or require them to chose what venue they wish to contribute in their permited editing allowance. In short, it requires an editor to think about what they are posting before hitting the save button. Such a restriction will allow considered discourse (or good article space contributions) rather than escalating a heated argument. Again, this would be applied to accounts only after violation of policy followed by warnings.

In other places this system is known as a flood barrier. I don't know if this is practical in this Wiki, and it is likely to increase rather than decrease the sysop workload, but that would be my answer to cool down the rhetoric. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what incident Guy is referring to, but I would oppose creating a double standard for people who edit a lot. (Never mind for the moment that, in practice, there is one.) A newbie who can't keep his temper in check eventually gets blocked; sometimes (and much less often), the same happens to an established user who can't keep his temper in check. What bothers me more is the flip side of the issue; as mentioned above, when an established user runs afoul of a rule or guideline in some not-very-harmful way and gets blocked for it, there is a huge outcry, but when a good-faith newbie does the same and gets blocked, few people notice or say anything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a double standard. I'm pointing out that we have no decent way of handling people who hit the civility margins in one out of every thousand posts as distinct from those who do it every other comment, and we seem to be in outright denial of human nature, as set out in Godwin's Law for example. The problem is not people losing their tempers, the problem is vexatious attempts to push a POV and endless slanging matches between entrenched positions. Blocking people does not fix the actual problem. I don't know what would fix the actual problem, but blocking an editor with over 40,000 edits for saying "get lost" on his own talk page (to cite one recent example) does not even begin to address it. In fact, it rather tends to make it worse. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I wonder if it takes a certain personality type to consistently stand up to the fringers and loonies. (Oooh, was that uncivil?) Mongo, SA and if I may say so Guy and myself would not likely get voted into the Victorian Ladies' Tea Club and Encyclopedia Writing Society. Conversely I don't recall finding many of those who demand unwavering, unconditional civility hanging out in the darker corners of WP. Sorry for the amateur psychoanalysis but though I'd throw it out there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy has stated something that has been repeatedly noted and complained about by many experienced editors who deal with controversial topics. I have been collecting egregious examples of what I view as Abuse of CIVIL here where we seem to be applying CIVIL a bit too aggressively in my opinion, or at least approaching such a limit. The list of words and phrases which are judged to be unCIVIL seems to be getting longer and longer (I have collected some examples here). This phenomenon has been repeatedly noted and discussed at Raymond arritt's Expert Withdrawal pages. As for what to do with persistent disruption that drives people to this behavior, I wrote a draft of an essay for some measures which we find work at the pages related to creationism, the creation-evolution controversy and intelligent design. I have also developed a set of exercises, the first batch of which appear at User:Filll/AGF Challenge which describe some difficult situations which drive some people to these supposedly unCIVIL outbursts. I have found that many who lecture others about how awful it is to be unCIVIL and how mean many experienced editors and admins are to those who promote WP:FRINGE views and how they WP:BITE newbies have little to no experience dealing with controversial topics on Misplaced Pages. The AGF Challenge gives all a relatively painless chance to experience some of these difficult editing situations without reading a lot of material and without getting involved with a lot of drama. Interestingly, I have noticed that some who constantly gripe and complain about how unCIVIL others are and how we are too harsh with disruptive editors and how we BITE newbies are far far more aggressive when answering the AGF Challenge than is standard practice in controversial areas. The only reason they complain is that they are not familiar with these difficult editing situations and controversial topics. I suspect similar things are true of those who frequent places like Misplaced Pages Review, and complain at length about decisions made at Misplaced Pages; they have their own hot button issues, but when confronting a problem that is outside their area of sensitivity, they exhibit tendencies as harsh as, if not harsher than those exhibited by experienced admins and editors on Misplaced Pages. So I invite everyone; come take the AGF Challenge.--Filll (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, but basically codification of our existing double standard for "experienced" users. I'm not sure I like it, but some change needs to happen. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What about more a more granular blocking policy, if it could be programmed? I'm thinking along the lines of ACLs, which has been in numerous revision control systems for awhile now, including CVS. This way, a block could be placed on a specific set of articles for the user, while leaving the rest of the Wiki editable. Think of it as per-user page protection. This would be beneficial not only for these instances, but also in cases where Arbcom has put someone on restricted editing. Right now there seems to be a rudimentary infrastructure for such a system (article protection, which seems to operate at the group level (Anon, Editor, Admin, etc). If it could be refined to the user level, then you could just add a "Deny Write" to all articles, cats, temps, etc. related to the trouble the editor was causing. So if, for example, an Irish editor lost his cool over at one of the Irish articles enough to need a block, you would just flip the Deny bit on where he is causing trouble. We already have pretty good categories and wikiproject organizations that it should be rather simple to get all the related namespace instances which require this bit be flipped. Just a thought, since it would probably would be less punitive and much more direct in targeting the source of the problem. Meanwhile, the editor could either cool off somewhere else or work on articles which aren't a problem. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jackmantas

This Single-purpose account appears to have been created with the simple aim of blanking the article Eric Greif. After failed attempts at blanking the article, the user then began a dozen slashing edits in bad faith, without checking references or using the talk page for discussion with other editors. As soon as the account was created, the first move was a blanking attempt. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks he decided to move to Chuck Schuldiner, basically to revert and argue your edits there. Notifying him of this thread. Also, doesn't look like anything at Greif is sourced at all. Given that it's a WP:BLP concern, I think that it needs to slashed and rebuilt. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides trolling around other articles I've edited, the edits have now slid into innuendo, attacks, inferences and general bad faith. No longer is it about editing - pleasee see . This is extremely frustrating. A Sniper (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know too much about it, but it would seem there is a huge problem with the user. Needs to be warned or something. They are going on some sor tof crusade trying to mess up certain pages. Blizzard Beast 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a {{npa}} message. -- Agathoclea (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very important here to keep separate the issues of conduct and content: Jackmantas's breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are unacceptable, but that doesn't invalidate the content issues raised, which others can take up in a more neutral manner. Other context:

1) see WP:COIN#Eric Greif: it appears A Sniper has a strong conflict of interest, so this can hardly be viewed as a disinterested report.

2) While the civility is a problem (on both sides), the actual edits to articlespace by Jackmantas have mostly been endorsed by uninvolved editors. The material on Eric Greif had a long-standing absence of sourcing that needed dealing with. Removing unsourced material is not "messing up pages". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps since this thread is active, but I was petitioned to do something about Jackmantas about 10 hours ago, citing a lack of admin involvement. It is possible that this was done by Sniper, considering this modification. Since I have never been involved with this issue, I wonder if other admins were contacted in this manner. Given the location of my user name within the alphabet, I am prone to the occasional blanket plea for help by those who start from the very beginning of the admin list. 52 Pickup (deal) 15:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue with Jackmantas no longer is specifically linked to the Greif page, which culminated in a consensus of editors endorsing a complete re-build from scratch, with citations used (and was done by an admin). What it has come down to is the inflammatory personal attacks that continue to be posted at my talk page, on the user's talk page, and on article talk pages. It is the single-purpose account, trolling and personal attack aspects that leave me feeling that this continues to be an OTT problem. Making valid edits is one thing - writing attacks over & over again is another. A quick peak at the user's contributions demonstrates more than just good faith article editing. If these attacks stopped, I would easily and certainly withdraw the item from the Noticeboard. BTW: I have ceased all direct responses to the user as well as they only made the situation worse. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

@52 I actually saw the post on your page and assuming you were on wikibreak took a closer look which led me past the COI page to this item, so I don't think there was a shotgun approach in contacting admins. Looking at the issue I found that the COI situtation was dealt with by a number of editors, but the personal attack situation was not. Hence me leaving the template. @Sniper - walking away / ignoring baiting attacks is the best thing you can do and I am glad you saw that. Agathoclea (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm on a semi-break at the moment (or rather, I'm way too busy to do much here right now), so I did not have the time to examine the situation in any detail. I just wanted to make sure that there was no canvassing. 52 Pickup (deal) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee, viewable here, instruct Betacommand with regards to the operation of BetacommandBot, including placement of notifications and civility in replying to concerns raised about its operation. Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, and also to develop an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing conditions on its use.

All editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons, and are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas. Editors are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work. The community is also urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The Committee listed five specific points in the specific remedy that they believe any review should attempt to cover.

The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. However, please note that nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally. And thankfully, some of the findings weren't about Beta, as there is an underlying good faith problem on all sides. Sceptre 12:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the length of this so-called "summary" — pulling bits out of five of the longest unique remedies I've ever seen, while still maintaining the original intention as well as balance between the remedies (ie. not to include more about one "side" than another) didn't lend itself to having a short summary. Daniel (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"and either to respond directly to such questions..." or what? :D Happy‑melon 13:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

All the remedies are useless

Why urge Betacommand to change his conduct and never say what ArbCom will do to punish him if he never changes his conduct? --Kaypoh (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you give him a chance? Don't presume that all remedies are useless; show some good faith. Complaining after the matter is closed isn't going to improve the situation. Seraphim♥ 08:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely you realise that any remedy other than desysopping Betacommand, banning him, banning his bot, undeleting all the disputed images and changing foundation policy to allow unlimited use of unfree images is useless? Tchah! Oh, was that a bit sarcastic? Guy (Help!) 11:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

lol nice work decorating this amazingly undramatic thread with your kneejerk blanket defense. is he seriously still a sysop btw? last i heard he was using his bot to spam fifty or sixty msgs on the talk page of a user he didn't like, but i think he'd already been dysopped some time before. Obviously an injustice. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he was desysopped. I just want the remedies to have enforcement. The remedies must say how ArbCom will punish him if he does not listen to the instructed remedies. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing discussion

One of the remedies is that we're supposed to have a community-wide discussion about non-free image tagging and bots. Where will this discussion be held? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why not come over to Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria compliance? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd "images"

I've created a list of "images" where the MIME type doesn't match the file extension. The list isn't perfectly filtered, but it's close enough. The "number" column is just arbitrary to give an idea of how many mismatches there are. Some of the them are simple mistakes -- having .jpe instead of .jpg. Others are more nefarious (.txt files being called .ogg, etc.). Any help would be appreciated in either deleting these or fixing the file extension and re-uploading them.

The list is located here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why bmp isn't one of the extensions supported by the site? Many of these images were merely attempts to get around that problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bitmap images are highly inefficient - where lossless compression is needed, PNG can provide that, and where it isn't, JPEG does even better. There's no reason to use them, and some very good reasons not to (they take significantly more bandwidth to serve to users, even as thumbnails). Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki actually has code to verify mime types during upload. Since your list only has 600 items, that may mean that it works pretty well, but doesn't catch certain types of cases. Dragons flight (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started going through and converting some of the bitmap-masquerading-as-JPEG images to actual JPEGs at a decently high quality (95%), as well as tagging a couple of the unused ones for deletion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it legal to change a fair-use .bmp into an other format, or is it considered a modification to the image? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mu. Yes it is legal, and yes it is a (minor) modification of the image. Modifications, even very major ones, are not incompatible with fair use. Dragons flight (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is also a perfect opportunity to move the free images on this list to Commons. —Scott5114 ↗ 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Need assistance: coachella

] 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask why your signature is so illformatted? Additionally, what exactly do you require assistance at that article about? What is the nature of your problem? Anthøny 12:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The links at the top here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The redirect looks fine. I've pointed out why on its Talk page, but this editor is known to me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BoxingWear/Projects/Vesa

Once again the persistent vandal BoxingWear/Projects/User:Vesa (aka, the George Reeves Person) is doing his usual tricks of making nonsense edits , engaging in edit wars, and calling names. He is going under the IP address of 64.107.0.76. Instead of getting into a further edit war with him, I bring this situation before you.MKil (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

64.107.0.76 blocked for 31 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto 64.107.3.66 - small rangeblock coming if this continues. Black Kite 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

66.99.0.0/22 and 64.107.0.0/22 both blocked for 24 hours. Black Kite 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Now he's up to his usual tactics -- threatening me, saying I'm a member of the mafia, etc..MKil (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

Um, I think we need to have a Block on Site ban on any ip this user logs on - unless the legal threat and threat of violence is removed. This may have to be passed to the Foundation re the legal side, and perhaps to ANI to get consensus for a ban of the editor per the physical threat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He's already banned. (). Black Kite 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Owning the 9/11 attacks talkpage

Forum for voices seeking improvement of 9/11 article(s) is closed for general public. I'm certain there are better ways to deal with malicious editors and I'm certain that administrators as well as arbitrators know better.

Please resolve this issue as soon as possible. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is just semi-protected, so registered editors with accounts older than four days are free to post messages there at will. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just semi-protected you say? Yes, but editors (such as myself) unwilling (or way too busy) to create account have no means to participate in the discussion. Needless to say I'm in no way related to the persona which caused the protection. Do say, what is the use of our public service if it is not open to public? People should be encouraged to share their opinions and suggestions there, not forced to wait in front of the gate, or into this whole registration.., which even comes with the trial… eh? Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's official policy on Protection indicates that "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are ... subject to heavy and persistent vandalism." Since the 9/11 pages are some of the most heavily vandalized articles on Misplaced Pages, and as the talk page in question has only been semi-protected for a month, I am not sure what the issue is. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy, is it? Eh, I'd say don't use taser on folks until absolutely necessary, but all bright then, have it locked for general public… if you must. You know when you say how 9/11 pages are some of the most heavily vandalized articles on Misplaced Pages, you are absolutely right. And in more than one way that is… Thank you for response, till later. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To correct, the talk page in question has been semi-protected for around 24 hours, under the terms of the arbitration agreement, in response to trolling and disruption from an anonymous editor. --Haemo (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, MONGO leaves due to a bad block, and look at what happens... Just sayin'. Corvus cornix_talk 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Misspelled category

Would someone please delete Category:Cancelled aircraft projects, I've transfered all the meaningful content to a new category Category:Canceled aircraft projects. Anynobody 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any reason to {{Category redirect}} this or that we need situate anything else at the category page, such that deletion would probably be fine, but it should be observed that "canceled" need not (and should not) be preferred to "cancelled"; the latter is the usual British English spelling, and we don't (usually) substitute one variety of English for another in situations like this. Joe 04:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, we now have two categories where there should be one, with articles in both. What a mess. --RFBailey (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you asked for the wrong one to be deleted. Which one do you really want? You can empty out the bad named one with AWB. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Err... I've put everything back in the original category, but then just noticed the "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Given the consensus here and here I won't undo unless anyone is particularly upset. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Review requested

Per this instruction, I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to perform this review. While the original responding admin has taken notice of abusive behavior by a disruptive editor, two respected users and one administrator have requested that this page be fully protected. See the original request for details. Thanks in advance! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

LesTout.com

LesTout.com was salted by user Jossi‎ due to my initial lack of experience adding/editing article in Misplaced Pages. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to add a separate page for the artice at User:Shivaji Mitra/LesTout.com for him to preview the final article and approve it. Admin עוד מישהו requested me to put it into WP:RUP. I listed my message twice, but I did'nt get any response. So now, Admin עוד מישהו requested me to bringing it up on the administrator's noticeboard. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your request and to the best of my knowledge the title should be unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Soon after granting permission for the article LesTout.com it is being speedily deleted by (AndrewHowse). I was working with the Audio version of the article and now the article seems gone. Thanks. --Shivaji Mitra (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User who posts nothing but hoaxes/self-promotion

I just recently put up two articles, Akira Tetsugake‎ and Soul Blade (manga)‎, up for deletion. The author of both articles is Kira99er (talk · contribs), who I have noticed has done almost nothing but create articles about made-up anime and manga series and characters for as long as he's been registered here. His various articles have been deleted (see here, here and here for examples), and he has been repeatedly warned about creating hoaxes and self-promoting articles on his talk page, but he refuses to respond to any messages on his user page, removes deletion tags from his articles and just keeps on creating more hoaxes. Of his contributions that haven't been (or will be) deleted, they were spent adding original research to various anime articles (, )! This user has absolutely no constructive edits to the site and he has not shown any evidence that this will change. Can someone, please, take some sort of admin action on this hoaxer? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired and my mind is gone, so maybe I'm wrong, but I second the motion. Per this link, http://comixpedia.com/manga_artist_looking_wrighter#comment-30723, User:Kira99er appears to be using Misplaced Pages to promote his work. Cheers, and good night. Dloh cierekim 05:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the account, currently set at indefinite since the user doesn't seem willing to comunicate. The talk page, contributions, and deleted contributions speak for themselves. Misuse of the project, adequately warned over the past year. I advised an email to unblock-en if they wish a review. Keegan 06:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. GlassCobra 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Grawp sockpuppet

Please help. See the contribs. Page move-vandalism. Enigma Review 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it and blocked him immediately to prevent any more damage, but could definitely use some help fixing what was done. faithless () 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was using WP:HUG when all those edits started popping up on my screen. Unfortunately, I could not fix them through the program, because Huggle can't deal with page moves to my knowledge. It searches back through the history of the page, and since this guy is the "creator" after moving it, Huggle can't revert to a previous version. Enigma Review 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed as Grawp - also the following accounts. I checked as there are always more when Grawp is involved:

Unferð (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wealhþeow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Weohstan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wæls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wondred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brosinga mene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gavin the Loser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and

IP blocked - Alison 07:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

All accounts blocked. RBI now? Keegan 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Have the talk pages been salted? Whenever a Grawp account gets blocked, he locks it with an ungodly-large table that replicates a certain pic. -Jéské 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Have at is, Jéské! Collaboration, after all :) Keegan 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid to ask; what pic? - Alison 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, let me guess .... - Alison 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done the honors and salted all the talk pages, removing those avenues of attack. -Jéské 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like there's a Grawp attack every few days. Enigma Review 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been noticing a pattern recently. Grawp gets exposed and blocked, and shortly thereafter, several users are harass-crapflooded from a certain site (Not ED), which leads to (now-)3-month IP blocks on all participants and constant deletions. I swear, nowadays more than half my IP blocks and almost all my deletions involve such attacks. All the same, I'm preparing. -Jéské 07:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing we can't take care of (and thanks to Bencherlite, who tagged the userpages). Keegan 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you'd better be prepared to delete and restore pages. Keep an eye for a user talk page being blanked except for a short sentence or two, and delete the revision immediately. -Jéské 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can handle that. Keegan 08:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to all: if you're blocking Grawp socks, it is worth semi-ing your user and talk pages for a while. Black Kite 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I stopped caring long ago what vandals do to my userspace. It's a Wiki! after all ;) Keegan 07:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here. My userpage is semi'd and I have popups. -Jéské 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposing unblock for RS1900

Resolved – Unblocked. MaxSem 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RS1900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in October for personal attacks and sockpuppetry. . The threats were against user Nick Graves who has subsequently forgiven him and who sought to have the block rescinded in Decemeber but the consensus was that the user needed to sit the block out for a longer period. The user has now sought unblocking and has apologised for their behaviour and promissed to behave in future. They also understand that their behaviour is under scrutiny and that further misbehaviour will result in an instant and unappealable permanent block. I am personally prepared to unblock this user but am seeking a consensus that this is an acceptable thing to do. The user does not have a record of disruption or poor bahaviour. The sockpuppetry was inept and predated the block and the threats were completely out of character. Examination of previous contributions suggests this user is generally veru polite and careful of other's feelings. With the threat of an instant block/ban hanging over them I would say that there is no risk of long term disruption from the unblock and much to be gained from having a productive user back contributing to the project. Spartaz 10:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I take a very dim view of this kind of thing (admin only). The harassed user accepted the apology and asked for the indefinite block to be removed, so I wouldn't stand in your way if you want to remove the block, but it wouldn't be my first choice. --B (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What B said. Any evidence that the guy is no longer going to behave in this creepy and despicable manner? Guy (Help!) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the user who was harassed by him doesn't mind if RS1900 gets unblocked, I don't mind too. But only if someone explains me what the sock tag on his userpage means. MaxSem 11:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He used a sockpuppet. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/RS1900. I favor unblocking; the user has promised to behave and has already been blocked for about 5 months, and has a history of productive edits before the incident that got him blocked. I think another chance is in order. Mango juice 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a fan of second chances and since even the target of the harassment has forgiven him, so do I. Besides, if he put another toe out of line it will lead to a pretty indisputable indefblock, so there's not much risk here. faithless () 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz asked for my views on unbanning. I still support unbanning, and I think the terms of his return (permablock for any further violations) are reasonable. I believe RS will prove to be a productive editor again. In his unblock request, RS expressed concern about my exposing some personal information in the sock report I filed (note that this was information he had previously shared on his user page and elsewhere, though he later requested a wipe of the history). Out of respect for his wishes to remove that personal information from the "public record," and to erase any lingering ill will, I suggest that that sock report be made an admin-eyes-only page.

I appreciate the swift and vigilant response of admins and other editors to the original offense, and commend them for their latter willingness to give a promising editor one more chance. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked him, on conditions of good behaviour. MaxSem 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking to old versions of redirected articles

Resolved – As noted at the link below, this is fixed in the latest update. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I should wait for an answer over there, but WP:VPT is not always that visible, so I was wondering if anyone reading this noticeboard had answers to this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Boldness

There has been an increasingly acrimonious debate over a list of songs featuring "sexual attraction to children or adults". Most of the entries in the original list were not referenced or were apparently about pedophilia or sexual abuse. No unequivocally referenced items about "sexual attraction to children or adolescents" were in the list as of this morning (and yes, it was me who removed all the unreferenced ones a short while back, per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OMG). I went back through the history and discovered that the original title, which it has had for most of its life, was List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors, and most of the entries were added with this title or something close, which goes a long way towards explaining the sourcing issues - I suspect it would be a great deal easier to source them at the title the list had when they were mostly added (see for example). The article was moved in late March and several times again more recently, which has been disruptive and made sourcing next to impossible as the target keeps moving. So I have boldly moved the list back to List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors and locked moves to prevent further disruptive move warring and see if the list can be adequately sourced at something close to its original title. If we still can't source it, I will take it back to AfD. Since this required use of one admin tool (protecting against further moves) I am noting it here, if anyone feels this is unwarranted they have my full permission to lift that protection and / or implement a better solution to the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the move protection. Agree that AfD should be the next step if no sources can be found. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Hi, there are a few applications that are over 24 hours old and as suggested on the page, i've mentioned it here. Regards, CycloneNimrod (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Done-Andrew c 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just added a request for my trial approved bot. Can an administrator go ahead and approve it? Thanks! - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, never mind - another user just approved it, and my new messages bar popped up right as I posted this. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

forwarding you a message from a self claimed "government associate" i just received.

exact quote: "My project - www.pixaerial.com (also .co.uk) is a government-sponsored project that has the built-in expectation that the information will be made available to as many people as possible. With this in mind, I entered a few links in completely relevant articles on wikipedia, but this has been flagged as 'spam'. I understand the reasons for genuine spam to be flagged, but this is a clear case of automation getting it completley wrong, and defaming us in the process!

Can someone please advise as to how the defamatory page about our organisations's name may be removed, as my attempts to remove it have been perversely identified as 'vandalisation'!

Policies are fine, but we musn't tar everyone with the same brush... John Rowlands Welsh Assembly Government Sponsored Pixaerial Project."

as i'm no admin, i'll forward this directly to you guys. AnubisGodfather_© 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not and admin either but I am going to contact some one on it. Rgoodermote 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He has been indefblocked and the links removed, just ignore him. Jackaranga (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a clue, but I sent a message to webmaster@wales.gsi.gov.uk I am assuming that that is a government email. Rgoodermote 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok yeah it probably would have something to with that. Rgoodermote 16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He added only one link after the level one warning for spam, and that just one minute after the warning - so he may not even have seen it if he was already editing. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Statistics page

Special:Statistics gets a lot of views. The external link-stats are actually linked to from MediaWiki:Statistics-footer (before that MediaWiki:Userstatstext). For the last year or so, I've added the WikiCharts, then removed them once they stopped working. I added the Wikirage "most edited pages" links, and the http://stats.grok.se page. I won't be editing Misplaced Pages as much as I have been doing in the past from now on, so perhaps admins here could add these pages to their watchlists and keep an eye on whether the Wikirage & traffic stats pages are still working, and whether there are new pages that should be added. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-15 21:29

Edit warring, removal of sourced info, personal attacks

User:Noah30 keeps removing sourced info added by me in several occasions: here, here (including a personal attack), here is another example of an offending personal attack. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

one more personal --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Safe Search" or "Adult Filter" function proposal

Many search engines and websites have something called a "Safe Search" or "Adult Filter" function. Misplaced Pages does not have such a thing. This causes many parental controls and corporate content filters to block Misplaced Pages. That sucks. Is there any way we could create such a feature so that Misplaced Pages would not get blocked? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll start by throwing out the obligatory WP:NOTCENSORED, and follow up with a comment that such an idea isn't really for administrators to decide, and would probably do best somewhere on the Village pump. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be better brought up at the Village Pump, there is really no admin intervention needed here. Tiptoety 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of Live and Die 4 Hip Hop

I’d like to propose an abbreviation the block of Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk · contribs), who I blocked as as a block-evading sock of Payne2thamax (talk · contribs). Payne2thamax was originally blocked for gross incivility and personal attacks, culminating in this edit. After being blocked, he used a number of socks to evade this block:

Some of these socks also had civility issues; in fact, he has admitted to me that Payne2thamaxx was basically a bad hand account of Same As It Ever Was.
The user also had a long-running content dispute, the details of which are frankly to arcane for me to fathom, with Tasc0 (talk · contribs). Tasc0 himself was once blocked indefinitely, for incivility and personal attacks culminating in this edit. The indefinite block was shortened to a month by Fred Bauder after Tasc0 e-mailed arb comm; Tasc0 has since returned to Misplaced Pages at the conclusion of this block and is editing, from what I can tell, productively and within all policy and guidelines.
Tasc0 and Live and Die 4 Hip Hop have a great deal in common in that both are productive content editors with extraordinary incivility in their pasts. Both have been blocked indefinitely, but Tasc0 has won a reprieve. LAD4HH has e-mailed me, taking responsibility for everything and seeking a similar reprieve. Working in his favour is the Tasc0 precedent and the fact that his most recent account, LAD4HH, seems to have edited productively and within policy. Working against him is that fact, while Tasc0 responded to his indefinite block by following proper appeal channels, LAD4HH responded by engaging in block-evading sockpuppetry and occasional continued incivility. Nevertheless, I’d like to reset his block to expire May 1 (one month since he was blocked, during which time he appears to have refrained from sockpuppetry), with the understanding that upon his return he is limited to one account and on come form of civility probation. Are there objections? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that LAD4HH's socks, in addition to being block-evading, were also used to vote-stack (see, for example, here). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A user with that sort of sock history needs to do a lot more to convince me they've mended their ways. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-rhetorical question: what else could the user do to convince you? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A (personal?) note on today's featured article

OK, everybody knows that TFAs are very heavily vandalized, and just as rarely protected. I would, however, like to request that available (i.e. awake :) admins keep an eye on today's featured article and WP:RFPP and please be more lenient in their application of WP:NOPRO and (I can't believe I'm saying this) less lenient in their application of WP:IAR. Although I'm just one guy, I don't think anyone would want to see disrespectful, childish vandalism on this of all articles, on this of all days. I myself am only in favor of protecting TFAs under exceptional circumstances. To me, this qualifies. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for as long as I'm here. I know others will do the same. If it gets out of hand, I (for one) am willing to invoke IAR out of respect for the dead and protect the article. I don't pass judgment on others, but that's the moral thing for me to do. If I'm found to be out of step with the community, I'll recuse myself. - Philippe 03:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the most heavily debated issues on wiki. TFA is so heavily vandalized that I think it's embarrassing to call it "some of wiki's best" and have it be one of the first things newbies see, ie an article that's vandalized practically every minute. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All TFAs should be protected on their day, but in this case especially so. It isn't even semi-protected. Everyking (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was semi-protected originally but the protection was removed just before midnight. DrKiernan (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be my action. I've been move protecting the TFAs since late Nov '07, and usually do so as soon as Raul schedules them. For this article, I intentionally waited as close to midnight UTC as I could, due to the subject matter (and knowing that I might be away from the computer after that point). I haven't done any statistics or hard analysis, but a quick look gave me the impression this article has actually seen less vandalism than usual. I also noted several constructive edits from IP editors. Of course, the school day in the US is just starting, and vandalism will likely pick up. - auburnpilot talk 12:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your experience indicates that the article should remain unprotected for now - which is different than my initial view. Ronnotel (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Wohho

Possible conflict of interest here. Not really vandalizing, but all his edits to date have involved the inclusion of a website called Jalopnik. Been quiet for a long time and now he's adding bios on the entire staff. I've left polite word on his talk page re. COI, but he doesn't answer. He has, however, found the "hangon" template. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of self proclaimed "Asia Fan Club President"

This is a disturbing tale of abuse. Many, many months of extensivly relentless abuse of wikipedia in order to promote asiafanclub.com and use Misplaced Pages as a "vehicle for advertising"

Extensive abuse of wikipedia

User_talk:70.188.184.84
Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362
Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mondrago
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366
Talk:Asia (band)
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2008#More_asiafanclub_spam
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2008#asiafanclub.com
User talk:Nakon#Spam blacklist
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/asiafanclub.com (incomplete)
More asiafanclub spam
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Linkspammer issuing legal threats on talk page
- "I have 20000 fans in my newsletter that will come here to edit this. If we meet any resistance we will file a lawsuit for emotional stress and discrimination and deformation (as it was reported that we loaded SPAM by loading the Authorized ASIA Fan Club to Misplaced Pages) and sue personally those who edited out this important authorized site and this will go to the Arbitration Committee"
User_talk:A._B.#Talk:Asia_.28band.29.
Spamed offsite forums including email abuse
User_talk:Hu12/Archive6#Asia__spam_being_re-added_again
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_asiafanclub_dot_com_to_be_removed_from_blacklist
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_for_additional_administrator_input_on_blacklist_status_of_asiafanclub_dot_com
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_unbias_opinion_for_removal_of_asia_fan_club_from_blacklist
".... you think it's over... if you think I'm going anywhere think again, real good."

List of accounts and IP socks

Template:MultiCol

Clear evidence violating WP:DISRUPT, WP:POINT, WP:SOCK, WP:SPAM, WP:CANVASS, WP:NOT and WP:CIV. Multiple spam attacks, edit warring, sneaky attempts to subvert wikipedia policy, creating False consensus through use of mutiple IP's, attempting to circumvent blacklisting by creating asiafanclub.4t.com and worst of all the legal threats made by "Asia Fan Club President". This is a clear case where wikipedia is being terrorized by an individual in an attempt to advance a site owners agenda.--Hu12 (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse such a ban. I initially became involved with the whole Asia Fan Club link issue when the editor in question and individuals recruited from the Asia fan community first started trying to strong-arm the link into the article, in response to which I protected the page. When I attempted to extend the assumption of good faith to this user and (foolishly and naively) removed the URL from the spam blacklist it only served to increase the fervour and determination with which this user assaulted the article. I have stepped back and had no further involvment since my error of judgment but have silently watched the article talk page descend into a succession of threats (some of which he has shown that he is willing to pursue) from the editor in question and it is quite apparent that the individual will never accept the decision based in both wider policy and local consensus and will not cease in using whatever means he can contrive to disrupt Misplaced Pages. I am under no illusion that a ban will cease the disruption, but at least it will allow his dispution in the Talk namespace to be reverted on sight. CIreland (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrorized is probably extreme but this user is obviously pushing an agenda, after all of this disruption I see no reason for not banning him. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban proposal. Enigma Review 04:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse This is a whole lot of disruption, I see no other way of really dealing with it. Tiptoety 04:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse: The site's been blacklisted, and the user's request for a "second unbiased opinion" has been declined. seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per the above, and for many, many, many other reasons. Although I am worried that a ban might not work and he'll continue to "recycle" his IPs. BoL (Talk) 04:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) One question: didn't checkuser find that Mondrago (talk · contribs) wasn't the same as those IPs? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of those IPs are AFCP (he has a somewhat "distinctive" writing style), most are meatpuppets, probably recruited by appeals to his site's users (he sporadically threatens to use the Asia fan community for just such a puprpose and has followed through with on occasion). CIreland (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

...and blocked 70.188.184.84 for continued spamming. Notably for this recent edit that included a bit for "exclusive material"... The site must be getting pretty desperate. seicer | talk | contribs 04:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

66.19.204.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was just blocked for the same crap. seicer | talk | contribs 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

These ranges should take care of the other IP used by AP.

32.138.216.0/24

32.140.14.0/24

4.238.124.24/31

4.238.124.0/24 ]

70.167.100.0/24

Blocked--Hu12 (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

<--- Exit stage left. We aught to be protecting the article and (possibly) the talk page for some lengthy period of time so they don't return. MER-C 06:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Exit stage left"...actually, that was Rush, not Asia. ;) Banninate with extreme prejudice. We don't need this.Gladys J Cortez 15:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Would someone mind using one of those nice collapsible boxes to inclose those IPs? I don't know the template and that could use some tidying up. Keegan 07:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So done. If Hu (or, for that matter, anyone else) finds the boxing to be problematic, he should, of course, revert me. Joe 08:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a page protection is needed, as the site is blacklisted. They are now aware of how to attempt to get it removed, which of course, will be denied every time (or deleted). seicer | talk | contribs 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we can safely call this one banned, I don't see any likelihood of unblocking and the game of whack-a-mole is also showing no signs of abating. Site is blacklisted on enWP, and I'm now checking for cross-wiki spam. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Link info follows. MER-C 09:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

asiafanclub.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
asiafanclub.4t.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Endorse ban. Indef any non-indef'd accounts, tag the pages, list at WP:BANNED. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect sockpuppet allegation -- in response to Sarcasticidealist's question above: I blocked one of this user's accounts as a Mondrago sockpuppet after another editor tagged him as such. A subsequent checkuser indicated no connection to Mondrago, so I goofed in using that reason for blocking him. However, by that time, there were a zillion other reasons to block him starting with incivility and legal threats. Besides open proxies, I don' t block many editors but I'd block this guy again in a heartbeat, just with a different reason.

Endorse ban. --A. B. 12:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

66.19.205.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Another IP, another block? These guys are relentless to get their web-site spammed. seicer | talk | contribs 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

66.19.201.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) yet another..--Hu12 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone feel like chiming in on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Time_for_discussion, I've had to close 4 threads by these meatpuppets, yet they continue to tendentiously repost in an obvious pursuit of a certain point, despite months of discussion and opposition from multiple administrators, including those here.--Hu12 (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I closed that one also along with a list of vio's. Further posts campaigning for Asiafanclub will be removed immediately, with little or no warning. --Hu12 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse community ban. Looks like a case for which WP:MEAT was written for. I've semi-protected the article for 2 months as well. Blueboy 96 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also semi-protected the talk page to prevent their "fan club" from ranting about. If they continue to abuse the blacklist-spam forum, I'll just wipe their comments. seicer | talk | contribs 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

66.19.204.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Another--Hu12 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep an eye on these two accounts

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

They both have been "campaigning" for "AFCP" tendentiously since january and both appear to be editing on behalf of "AFCP" and have acted as proxies for asiafanclub's interests in the past.--Hu12 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP addresses at least are becoming more predictable. seicer | talk | contribs 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat of violence at George Bernard Shaw

Resolved

An anonymous user made a threat of violence at the George Bernard Shaw article in which they stated "fuck cypress creek high school i hate everbody that school is going to blow up at 10:26 wednesday 04/16/08". Although I believe it's just a case of vandalism, especially since they had previously vandalized the article, WP:VIOLENCE suggests that such outbursts be reported here, so here 'tis. María (habla conmigo) 12:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for now, schoolIP. I can't call Florida from here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll send them an email...hopefully it gets there on time..though this most likely is a prank. Rgoodermote 14:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Email sent waiting on reply. Rgoodermote 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is way past 10:26 and no-reply has come and I do not think this is serious so I am going to call this resolved. Feel free to go against me.Rgoodermote 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Usernames

Resolved

Hello

As you can see User:Police, Mod, Jock is obviously trying to tarnish my accont by using this name in the hope that the two will get confused, quite a few months ago I made another report on this exact thing where someone had copied my username for trouble not so long ago. Please see to this that the account is blocked like the last persons, thank you. ] (] · ])☺ 14:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (The genuine one)

Blocked Rgoodermote 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Agreed, this account was created to impersonate you (edited the same article immediately after you). I have{{usernamehardblocked}} it. --barneca (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, appreciated. ] (] · ])☺ 14:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kathleen21503

We seem to have a well-meaning user a bit unclear on the concept of this site who is insisting on writing, expanding and defending a seriously POV and OR essay. I'm trying to help keep her from wasting her time, but she just keeps on. Would someone else step in and have a gentle word with her? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide links? Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: See User talk:Kathleen21503. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a speedy deletion, try prod (likely to fail) or AfD if you think it should be deleted (probably). Try not to use your teeth too much. WilyD 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is potential for it becoming a legitimate article, it even has some references already. However, we should tell the user that articles are not to be self-referential, and if she has things not ready for publication to keep it in her userspace. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

MovieZen "borrowing" our content

Resolved – Reported to WP:MIRROR. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A website, moviezen.com, seems to be using our content for all their articles on celebrities. For example, here and here. Their copyright notice makes no mention that their content is available under the GFDL, nor does their terms of service. It appears to me (but I make no direct accusation) that the content is or was automatically pulled from Misplaced Pages in bulk rather than submitted by individuals, given that every single celebrity article I went to was taking content from Misplaced Pages. As such, I believe they are violating Misplaced Pages's copyright and/or the copyright of Misplaced Pages contributors. I'm reporting this here because I can't personally be bothered to take any action against them myself, but someone may want to draft up a polite letter informing them of their legal obligations under the GFDL. --Yamla (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages itself owns no copyright, it's just the contributers that do. There's a noticeboard around here somewhere ... Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks maybe? WilyD 16:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MIRROR goes into the details of handling such situations. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Unblocking of User:ElisaEXPLOSiON

Resolved – Not unblocked. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this user should be unblocked because of the fact that she didn't do anything!!!!The sockpuppets she was accused of were not her and were indeed her brother. She needs to be unblocked so she can start editing on here.Mr. Green 17:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Given your statement that you don't know this user, why should we believe your claim that the sockpuppets were indeed her brother? --Yamla (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because why would she create a number of seperate accounts for vandalizing and one for editing.If she was going to vandalize he would just do it on her page.Besides just because she doesn't know me doesn't mean I don't know her.By that comment I meant that she doesn't know who the owner of my page is.It could be any of her friends.The point is that I do know her, and I do know that that was her brother and not her. Mr. Green 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacob, is there something more to be said? Anything you wish to reveal about a user you supposedly do not know anything about? But as I am at work, I'll just say that I am endorsing the block for obvious sock abuse. seicer | talk | contribs 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is awfully bizarre when coming from an account that is less than a month old. Jacob have you seen the concept of "Good hand, bad hand" accounts, that summarizes Elisa's pattern. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

what was so obvious about it.Just because it was the same IP address doesn't mean it was her.Anybody can use any IP. As far as you know it could have been me.Mr. Green 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What you think that I'm her? No I'm not.Tell me a way to prove tht I'm not and I'll do it.I'm not her.I just support her case.Somebody has to.Since everybody else is against her.Mr. Green 18:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you her brother? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that the above user is a sock. And an awfully bad one at that. The user has now resorted to spamming various talk pages in request for assistance:

Jacob really has no real contributions to speak of, outside of comments on various talk pages. seicer | talk | contribs 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Account created not long after the block was assessed, two inconsequential userspace edits, and a whack of myspace-ish chatter elsewhere. Something smells here, indeed. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my point exactly, usually if you are a univolved party that is asked to help someone you begin the unblock argument with something like: "The user claims that s/he deserves to be unblocked because..." you don't go directly to the relevant noticeboard screaming that "this user should be unblocked because of the fact that she didn't do anything!!!!", the sense of desperation in that message seems to illustrate some kind of involvement. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa hold on a minute. I've been talking to Elisa and Jacob, and it's obvious they are completely different people. Jacob goes to a boarding school. They are two completely different people i would know more than anyone else! Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Do you care to explain, or shall we come to a similar conclusion as with the other socks? seicer | talk | contribs 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser should be able to verify if the IP address Jacob is using is from a boarding school. NOT asking that they reveal the information, just to check to see if the contention is true. Corvus cornix_talk 23:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was also good to see I was informed of this thread. *cough* Daniel (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed blocking of an IP user (62.64.200.158)

62.64.200.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would any member of the community disapprove of a block on the name IP for edits like this? I'd suggest a 24 hour block for disruption, but I am open for disapproval. Rudget 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See also: 62.64.201.155 (talk · contribs) and 62.64.213.157 (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. seicer | talk | contribs 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like an anon upset about an admin making a ruling on a debate in which they are involved. That seems like a legitimate concern, what am I missing here? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a follow-up from here and all these IPs are rather obvious sockpuppets of Smurfmeister (talk · contribs) --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block review please?

Resolved

Hey there admins, I don't do a lot of blocking, but I stumbled into one just now that I'd like a review on. I recently blocked Fieldgoalunit (talk · contribs) for attempting to out another editor, namely User:JamesJJames. (Check fieldgoalunit's contribs to JJJ's talkpage, as well as this diff and immediate withdrawal. Those two diffs piqued my interest, and once I saw Fieldgoal's contribs to Usertalk:JamesJJames, I blocked indef. Please review for me? Permission to reduce/remove block if warranted. Consider this prior discussion, no need to discuss further with me before unblocking. Thanks! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In the example you linked, the user just said he knew the other user in real life, he didn't post a phone number or anything. An indef block seems like overkill. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I read a couple of diffs (In Fieldgoalunit's contrib history, I hesitate to link here) with Fieldgoalunit taunting JJJ and calling him by a different first name, attempting to out him. I have no problem with a reduced block, hence my post here. I'd just like to see a few more eyes on this, as it may very well be I'm overreacting based on my own strong need for privacy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Would agree that an indef is overkill. Would recommend downgrading to 48 hours or so with a strong warning. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block reduced to 48h, additional warning left on usertalk. Thanks for the input AN Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block review and contributor discussion: Pixelface

Pixelface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pixelface (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

I have enacted a 12-hour block on Pixelface, further to a aiv report, for his repeated revert warring on Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Latest examples: , (today, 19:17, 19:51); (earlier example: 7 April). I would like some feedback regarding this block, and furthermore, the long-term response to Pixelface we need to take. Some formal response regarding the necessity for discussion may be necessary here; I suspect an underlying lack of understanding of the general requirement for consensus-building through discussion, rather than through forcing one's changes via reverting.

I also fear there may be underlying issues here; it may well be that Pixelface is upset, or having some RL problems. She or he may simply be angry at the project. We don't know what's going on behind the computer screen, but regardless, we need to reach out somehow. Iif we don't, further restrictions and/or an indefinite block may be up-and-coming, and we don't want to lose an editor who has made a moderate amount of article contributions. Anthøny 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface is an established user with a couple of recent blocks. Is there a way to reach out to this person? Durova 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally and as was said on his talk page I think that Pixelface is dsrupting the project to prove a point, in the past he has strongly defended some fictional articles in AFD and to me it seems like he wants to downgrade WP:PLOT from a policy such as WP:NOT to a guideline in WP:WAF in order to be able to debate how legitimate the guideline is in AFDs, this was a situation that was seen with WP:FICT before. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is instructive to read todays postings on Pixelface's talkpage, in lieu of what Caribbean H.Q. just said - the interpretation of the meaning of consensus and the removal of text is slightly alarming, but not as alarming as the threat of leaving if they don't get their way. I wonder if this is a case of burn out, and that an absence from WP may be of benefit to all concerned? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to strongly suggest that this block was inappropriate. Pixelface was not engaging in as much discussion of the issue as he should have been, but I am confident he was acting in good faith. I saw insufficient attempt to engage Pixelface in discussion (aside from reverts saying "take it to the talk page"), followed by a warning template from a user who had previously butted heads with Pixelface, and a posting by the same user to AIV, reporting Pixelface for vandalism -- which his actions were categorically not, yet resulted in a block.

Pixelface's main point as concerns the dispute -- that the passage in question does not necessarily represent "a broad consensus", as is required for policy pages -- is valid. The "downgrade" of WP:PLOT from policy to guideline status has shown a measure of support. However, Pixelface should have been making this point predominantly on the talk page, not through reverts -- but the same goes for those who reverted him.

Pixelface's choice to "leave Misplaced Pages" is representative of anger at being blocked for reasons which I must agree were inappropriate. This is of benefit to no one.--Father Goose (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The user who "reported" Pixelface to AIV is now exulting over this outcome: . I do hope that I am not the only one who finds this entire incident disquieting.--Father Goose (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Pixelface was being GF; he's been edit warring in this scope for a long long' time. Sceptre 07:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Pixelface has been generally disruptive in this whole domain of fictioncruft. Endorse block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) here we go again..everyone line up on opposing sides again....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, he's been rather disruptive. His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case. (Specifically, edit warring on Scrubs episode articles). Him saying there's no consensus for PLOT is just wrong - only he agrees that it should be removed. Sceptre 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Metaphysics

If a vandal updates a vandalism counter, does it count as vandalism? :-) Classic paradox territory. BTW, if someone wants to deal with the IP vandal? The IP was blocked for a week, but started vandalising again once unblocked. It also has some notice on the user page about reporting abuse to the ISP. Is that only for severe abuse? Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the only paradox. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Poochiedontsurf

On Poochiedontsurf's user page, he makes a truly libelous attack on another editor: "After a long break from Misplaced Pages I decided to use my intelligence and resources ridding this Wiki of pedophiles."

Pedophiles links to User:Freechild, a longtime editor and proponent for youth rights, which has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia. I don't want to start an edit war on someone's talk page, but this has to go. What should be done? (edit: sorry, forgot to sign)J0lt C0la (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I unlinked the personal attack. -- Flyguy649 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I really should have been bold, but I've never been one to edit userpages except for vandalism reverts, as people are very touchy about that. J0lt C0la (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

These edits suggest serious WP:POINT and WP:SOAP. Shame it went unchecked for so long. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 blocked for sock puppetry

Could an uninvolved administrator please review the unblock request at User talk:Giovanni33 after viewing the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers and discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers. Thank you. Jehochman 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a valid block. The history of sockpuppetry and extensive block log shows that he has clearly been using socks before. Nakon 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have provided Giovanni33 the names of three Checkusers and suggested emailing one of them to discuss the matter confidentially. Perhaps Giovanni33 can provide some sort of explanation. Further opinions are welcome here. Jehochman 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've edited with Giovanni in the past on the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (there's 10 versions of that title) where I was generally in agreement with him. I can see why Jehochman decided to block in this case, but I'm not at all convinced by the evidence presented. It would very much surprise me if Giovanni started using socks again. The other accounts, from a quick scan of some of their posts, tend to post very short notes that don't sound like Giovanni at all (I'm familiar with his writing style). Giovanni is extremely loquacious as most who've seen him around the wiki would know, whereas User:Rafaelsfingers starts out with this and this on an article talk page. Sure, Giovanni could have adjusted his writing style, but if he was smart enough to do that, why would he not have made some dumby edits using those accounts instead of jumping right into the conflict? He sockpuppeted before, and I doubt he would do it so sloppily if he did it again. But I really don't think he would start up on this again, and would ask others to note that his past sock activity is well in the past and that his block log is misleading (many of the entries there are wheel warring over blocks, or blocks followed by unblocks - though he still has been blocked a lot obviously).

The main evidence here seems to be that these accounts are interested in the same topic as Giovanni and they edit from Northern California. Honestly, if I had to pick one geographic region in the United States where it was likely to find a lot of folks who agree with Giovanni's views on the article in question, it would be the Bay Area. Thus I don't think the geographic closeness tells us much of anything. I can't help but think that the evidence here is about ten times less convincing than the evidence in the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case, and that an analogy between the two is appropriate in that in both case we are dealing with established users who have socked in the past (though Giovanni's block log is much worse than Mantan's, and that is an important difference). I'd like to see a more careful review of this situation, perhaps by comparing contributions, and an openness to the possibility that these other accounts are really run by different people.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry for this petite drama. I have too many doubts to let this stand, so I have unblocked Giovanni33. Jehochman 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I think we would get along with so much less drama if we saw more of this sort of willingness to review from people. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD

For those interested in copyright issues, I have proposed a change to {{PD}}, a deprecated tempate, in which new images uploaded with this license tag after 1 May 2008 would be eligible for speedy deletion in accordance with {{nld}}. I think this is necessary because the template has been deprecated for over two years and we still get new images with this license tag. This may be controversial due the fact of this template's usage on hundreds, if not thousands, of images, and I definitely welcome any comments on this approach, which is similar to the one which was used for {{Military Insignia}}. Any comments or feedback are welcome. If this announcement was more appropriate to another forum, please feel free to move it there and let me know. Kelly 01:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did you make this proposal? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:PD. Kelly 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be slow to implement this. For one thing, people might delete images older than it by mistake. Perhaps we could batch migrate {{PD}} images to {{PD-deprecated}} (or some other template to be created) and then make new {{PD}} images subject to deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred

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

Multiple personal attacks on his userpage against various users, currently edit warring on at least 30 pages (see edits). When runs out of reverts, goes IP. Blocked multiple times for edit warring (see block log). Also warned multiple times for edit warring as well as refraining from false edit summaries (latest warning:), wich he freqwently uses to delete things he personally dislike. Last such edit (false edit summary to remove content he dislikes): - the "forum": is a leading national newspaper in Hungary). Does anything else needed? --87.97.111.140 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tankred. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And WP:AIV. --El on ka 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages noticeboards