Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:25, 10 October 2006

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

really lost bookmarking page to not loose it

THERE needs to be an article call WIKIPEDIA'S WAR ON VANDALS yea i really want to see that and u need something like regular forums for ppl who cant find things in the maze

We Have a Problem

I know that we're not suppost to log chats from any IRC chat, but apparently it's all been logged here on everyone's favourite anti-Misplaced Pages site. Everything from April to August. There is also hostmasks and IP addresses for 225 wikipedians who were on #wikipedia. I think this has gone far past any dispute. This is just breech of privacy now! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

this is known about. Other than posible copyright issues there is little to be done.Geni 00:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Stay off IRC? Or periodically post a warning/reminder? Thatcher131 00:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's still a major breach of privacy though, especially since it lists IP addresses. And btw, it isn't everyone's "favorite" anti-Misplaced Pages site. My vote goes to Wikitruth. Gotta love a site where it's impossible to get ahold of anyone and when you finally do, they don't correct anything you tell them to correct anyway. --Woohookitty 10:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We can all try and amuse ourselves with the irony that Brandt is supposed to be a leading internet privacy advocate. We can also mention this irony in the press next time someone asks us about critics. --bainer (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To respond to Thatcher, let me paraphrase Mark Twain: I would rather take my time to compose a post on a Misplaced Pages Talk page & risk everyone wondering if I'm idiot, than to participate in real time on IRC & remove all doubt. I suspect a lot of people would benefit if they considered that. -- llywrch 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

-de indent- They have my IP? How ironic that brandt considers himself a privacy advocate, yet posts hte ip's of hundreds of people. This reinforces my conviction that Brandt is a certifiable kook. And my ip there is old anyway. ~crazytales56297 O rly? 01:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha. I have it figured out. Brandt is concerned with privacy. Solely his own. That's why he blocks Gmail because they don't reveal your ip. He doesn't give a flying ratshit about the privacy of others. Certifiable kook. ~crazytales56297 O rly? 11:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Diane Farrell

Can anyone figure out what's going on at Diane Farrell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? The wub just restored it (this is the third restore) without a WP:DRV after the AfD. Should it go to DRV for a deletion review, does it need to be protected, why is it being restored without a deletion review, etc? Sandy 17:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it, salt the page and deal with the reverters appropriately. --Aaron 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC) I'm an idiot; I just asked for an admin move to be salted. I'll put it up for another full-blown AfD in a few minutes; it violates WP:C&E. (Yes, I know it's only a proposal, but most AfDs are already following it.) --Aaron 17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should it go to another AFD? This is clearly a recreation of deleted content, which falls under CSD, and should be deleted immediately. The proper way is to go to DRV. Do that. Thanks. --Ragib 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. --InShaneee 17:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point; I'll go do that now (if it hasn't been done already.) --Aaron 18:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, the version I have restored is substantially different from the version that went through AfD . It was the speedy deletion of that that was out of process. the wub "?!" 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a question of whether the version you restored is substantially different from the AfD version? Isn't it the community consensus vote on the AfD version that takes precedence? If Diane Farrell's page is back, all candidates for Nov. 7 elections need to come back: they're all in the news now, and if election articles don't have to be created first, guidelines mean nothing. Wiki guidelines are determined on IRC chat. Sandy 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, lets not get stuck with process for process sake... Malangali (talk · contribs) has made a good argument on the notability of the subject at User talk:The wub#Diane Farrell article (why it should be undeleted). Yes, that isn't the "correct" place to do it, but there it is. Thanks/wangi 17:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so AfD and DRV become meaningless: the community voted the article deleted, one person can overturn a community decision. Sandy 18:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Things move on. At the time of the AFD I guess they were not notable enough, but in three months a lot can change, especially in the run up to an election which is only four weeks away now. An AFD delete vote does not mean delete and salt - if the subject does become more notable then it is ok for somebody to re-create the article. The unusual thing her is the undeletion, but I see no problem with somebody starting with a decent article rather than a bare stub. Thanks/wangi 18:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Decisions made by community consensus should only be overturned by community consensus. Administrators do not have the power to overturn consensus by themselves. In other words, delete and bring up to DRV. Joelito (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• DRV is up. Have fun. --Aaron 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

From deletion policy - "If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Misplaced Pages article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article." The original AfD was in July and (IMO) was fairly close to no consensus. I discussed this with Malangali on IRC the other day, and given the evidence he provided then and on my talk page (including national and international news coverage) restored a reasonable version for him and others to work on. Also in future Sandy if you have questions about my actions please ask me on my talk page. the wub "?!" 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I did ask on your talk page, as you know. It concerns me that community consensus decisions are overturned by one person based on IRC chats: this goes on all too often on Wiki. Should we now restore all candidates who are up for election Nov 7? Absolutely - you've set a precedent. Further precedent that process is irrelevant next to IRC and AN/I is being established. Yes, I do believe process should be respected, and individual exceptions shouldn't override community decisions based on chats that occur out of community view. Sandy 18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy, I just noticed you did leave a note on my talk before coming here, but you didn't give me very long to respond. As for the IRC thing, believe me I'm not part of "The Sekrit IRC Cabal", in fact I am usually fairly sceptical about decisions made there. This was also one of the first times I've used it, and honestly all happened was Malangali said that his page had been deleted and he didn't know why, I asked him a few questions, and asked him to post evidence on my talk page. If you really care and Malangali agrees I can post the logs, as we were the only ones involved in the discussion.

No I don't think we should restore all candidates, but this one is in a particularly marginal constituency and has hence recieved a significant amount of news coverage.

Also note that I don't have a problem with Misplaced Pages:Candidates and elections, though it is only a proposal. In fact I mentioned it to Malangali on IRC and suggested making a page about the race, but of course he couldn't see the old Diane Farrell page to work from. I would be happy for this article to end up merged, though with all this bureaucracy she may well have been elected and become "officially worthy" of her own page by the time that happens. the wub "?!" 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Aaron's talk page, the bigger issue is why individual decisions are made on IRC, basically invalidating community decisions. This is the kind of thing that makes editors really resentful of admins. It also sets a very bad precedent: what is good for Diane Farrell should now be good for every single candidate who wants to bypass Wiki process by approaching an admin on IRC. EVERY candidate becomes more notable as elections near: that's why the election article is supposed to be created first. Perhaps I'm a policy wonk, but this is wrong. EVERY candidate is notable now, as elections near and coverage increases, the election article should have been created first, and the precedent of overturning community decision via approaching an admin on IRC is troubling. On a side note, I'm sorry for not giving you more time to respond, but you didn't appear to be online. Sandy 18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I do understand your concerns about IRC, but the fact is I would have done the same if I had been approached on my talk page. Would you still object then? the wub "?!" 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned whenever an admin overrides community consensus outside of process: I am *more* concerned when that happens on IRC. Sandy 21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, "out of process" is a bit over the top considering Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates. Thanks/wangi 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit I get a little nervous when I see something like "Per our IRC talk" in pretty much any Misplaced Pages discussion anywhere, but that's mainly due to the whole appearance of impropriety thing; in this particular case I don't see where anyone involved has done anything in bad faith. The reason I'm concerned about this article's recreation is that I have personally already used WP:C&E to get other House and/or Senate candidates' articles deleted through AfD (real, major-party candidates, not cases where someone went down to the county courthouse and paid $75 to put their dog on the ballot as a joke), and I think it's thus unfair to let this candidate's page skate past WP:C&E altogether. I know C&E is technically only a proposal, but it's in semi-regular use on WP:AFD already, so I think we need to keep a level playing field as much as possible. --Aaron 20:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless the article is protected from recreation for a specific reason, it is quite proper to create an article about a notable subject using new content from verifiable reliable sources. FloNight 21:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem: The article is not deleted, G4 was (quite rightly) contested as the article is different. This is a debate whose place is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell (Second nomination). I advocate deletion of all failed candiates with no other claim to notability (and this is one such) but you are free to air your own views. Guy 21:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The article might or might not be notable. My concern is with the idea expressed above that AFDs can never be recreated. Some articles have very few editors voting in the Afd and never get a good look see in the first place. And situations do change. IMO, all good faith recreations should get a fresh evaluation. --FloNight 21:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note to admins: Francisx (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is removing Guy's AfD tag from the Diane Farrell article (here's the diff). I've reverted it, but given Francisx's statements in the DRV discussion, I think it's likely he'll try again. --Aaron 23:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense. There are multiple overlaping discussions regarding the status of Diane Farrell, and my point was that it was confusing to have multiple contradictory community consensuses on the status of the article. Aaron is being less than honest in calling me a vandal because he disagrees with me on the status of this article. Note that he has not hestitated to interject his personal political views into discussions in the past. I'm curious as to what other statements of mine Aaron is using to label me a vandal.--Francisx 23:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm seconding FloNight's comments regarding the appropiateness of sending something to DRV simply because it has been deleted. I regularly wail to people who are trying to get useless sub-stubs restored via deletion review to "just re-write the damn thing." However, that does not mean that an admin is able to use his sysop rights in this way:

• If the Wub had restored this into user space, that would have been acceptable.
• If the user had written a new and different article from scratch in main space, that would have been acceptable.
• When something has been speedied twice by two admins, don't take it upon yourelf to undo it.

A modicum of respect for the decisions of fellow admins, a little bit of propiety, and a good long think about the path of least resistance should have been applied here.
brenneman 00:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've closed the deletion review discussion. Normally I'd have closed the deletion nomination as the review was first, but there was a good deal more deabte at the AfD and this is already confusing enough for those not intimate with our byzantine machinations. - brenneman 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. (About the only thing in this fiasco) IMO, it really did not need a DRV, just a Afd since it was not the same article. --FloNight 01:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

: That is the sensible kind of response I was hoping for: my concern is when decisions such as this one unfold on IRC, leading one to believe that "process" may mean nothing on Wiki, and one should just shortcut to an admin on IRC. Since I still don't know what IRC is, that locks me out :-) A DRV on Farrell could have been put up long ago, without any need for the appearance of circumventing guidelines because of a last-minute, pre-election rush which sets a bad precedent and is prejudicial against other candidates, who might not have IRC channel advocates. Sandy 01:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to stop removing citations on the article. Her website is a RS for past elections. Arbusto 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As already discussed on the article talk page, you need to correctly attribute statements, and not state a candidate's opinion or data as fact when it comes from the candidate's own website. I did the attribution for you, since you didn't source the data to an independent, reliable source: another editor has now provided part of the data from an independent reliable source. I wonder why you brought this here, when it was settled in the article and on the talk page ? Sandy 07:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The election article is now in place, and contains the Farrell information: Connecticut 4th Congressional District Election, 2006. Per WP:C&E, there is no need for an article for a candidate who hasn't achieved notability independent of the campaign. Sandy 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Entropy and User:Sadi Carnot

see (explanation and warning provided to Sadi):

Sadi Carnot has misused Admin tools, by placing a protect tag on the Entropy article. Sadi is not an Admin, and even if he were, he'd be in violation of the following:

From WP:PPOL

Administrators have the ability to protect pages so that they cannot be edited, or images so that they cannot be overwritten, except by other administrators. Administrators can also protect pages from moves only. Administrators have the additional ability to protect pages from being edited by unregistered or very new users.

These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful.

Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.

Clearly this is a problem. I've contacted several Admins to get their opinion on how best to deal with your behaviour. BTW: KillerChihuahua, the person Sadi reverted, is an admin.

Also, the transparency of Sadi's talkpage archiving is rather clear, and needs to be dealt with -- his primary purpose is to squelch the discussion. (see also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Entropy (energy dispersal) Finally, his edit summary is rather misleading -- there is no clear-cut consensus -- there are 5 people who want his version, and 4 who want the other version, or want that version to remain until the issue is resolved. As I explained to Sadi, even if there were consensus, it would not override WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV nor WP:NOR (which, as pointed out by KillerChihuahua (see WP:LA), User:FrankLambert is in no danger of violating). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) .

When you mentioned WP:RFA (requests for adminship) did you mean to refer to WP:RFAR (requests for arbitration) instead, perhaps, or am I missing something? 207.145.133.34 21:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I meant RfAr -- brain cramp. •Jim62sch• 00:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot flood of unauthorized password reset requests

Not sure if there's some better page to report this, but this ought to get someone's attention to put it where it needs to go if nothing else.

See User_talk:69.50.208.4 -- Someone has been using a bot to go through and request password resets for accounts that are not his over and over and over through an open proxy IP address. The IP addres has already been banned from editing, but not apparently from causing massive email floods into the mailboxes of accounts it requests passwords for. This has been going on for a few weeks and seems to be escalating across more affected accounts and more requests made. Just in a few hours today I had some 200 emails alerting me that my password was being reset because someone, "probably you", wanted it reset... which would be fine if it was accidental and a one time thing ("ooh, what was my account name? me forget"), but some of these are some 65+ requests IN LESS THAN 60 SECONDS. It's like a denial of service attack kind of thing.

Seems to me that there needs to be a change in how these things are handled, otherwise lots of innovent people's mailboxes will get full. Of course I could just filter it, but Wikimedia really doesn;t want to be sending out this level of bad email. I know AOL starts to block the whole server after a while if it sees suspicious emails, as one example.

Banned IPs should not be allowed to attempt password resets. No account should be allowed to have more than one password reset per hour or day or whatever. And so forth and so on.

Somebody please take care of this. DreamGuy 22:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone submit a feature request to put a throttle on that thing already? One password request per use per day should be enough for any legitemate use. --Sherool (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah great, another reason to discourge people from getting usernames. "Don't register with wikipedia, your email will get flooded with 200 password requests a day." I undestand telling people to ignore this when its infrequent, but really, 65 request per minute is insane and should be taken care of by more than just pointing people to a Bugzilla report. This is getting to be frequent complaint. pschemp | talk 22:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A throttel feature has aparently existed since May already (per bugzilla:5370), we just need to poke a dev to actualy have it eneabled (I suggest setting to max one mail per 24 hours). --Sherool (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I dropped a request to eneable it at the wikimedia-tech IRC channel. Hopefully some of the devs ideling in the room will take a look at it. --Sherool (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure how helpful this will be, but the same thing happend to me. I only received about 35 requests, however. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Killfile them. Set your spam filter -- different depending on the software you use -- to either reject any messages with subject lines of "Password reminder from Misplaced Pages" or send those messages straight into the trash can. That's what I do. The malefactor doesn't have the option of changing the subject line, which is automatically generated. Antandrus (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also received hundreds of these.--Robbstrd 21:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Tankred

Repeated personal attacks, since September. , (this happened several times well before also), but this was more than unacceptable from him. --VinceB 01:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:PAIN. Thanks. --physicq (c) 01:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. --VinceB 01:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny problem with false warnings on my talk page

After I told User:VinceB not to remove vandalism and personal attack warning templates put to his/her user talk page in the past, he/she responded by placing the same templates on my own talk page. I really do not know what to do. I suspect him/her of being a sockpuppetmaster and this is obviously a kind of revenge against Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/VinceB. I would like to ask some neutral admins to review his/her edits of my talk page and to remove the warning templates. The first alleged persoal attack was when I asked him/her why he/she had lied and I provided evidence than his/her accusation was indeed a lie. I was supposed to commit the second "personal attack" by telling him/her that he/she should not remove the warning templates. The third "personal attack" was the above mentioned Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/VinceB. Tankred 01:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that was your third attack, accusing me of sockpuppetry. I know that I didn't used sockpuppets, beause I has a username here. So your action is against WP:FAITH and can be considered as a personal attack. I consideret it as one. The others are clearly against WP:CIV. My userpage is rubber friendly, as you can see wich is legal here. (As far as I know, I can do whatever I like to with my userpages, untill I don't harm others.) So calling my action vandalism is another personal attack from you. Not to mention this: this is obviously a kind of revenge. (WP:FAITH) Well, obviously not. I just want to reach that you stop these actions against me. --VinceB 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Users are allowed to blank their talk page or archive it, you should however not selectively remove just warnings unless you feel they are unjust (I think). Can another person weigh in? I know they can blank and archive and the always fun "speedy archive", but can you selectively delete? --NuclearZer0 12:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't selectively delete. You either archive, or delete all. Not selectively delete. Daniel.Bryant 12:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Users are allowed to remove comments from their talk page as they see fit (as evidenced by the fact that many long-time users do), and that includes insults, irrelevant rants as well as warnings. Editing one's own talk page is not disruptive to the encyclopedia. Of course, removing a warning does not protect you from a later (escalated) warning, nor from a block for repeating the thing you were warned for. >Radiant< 14:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What Radiant! said. Talk pages exist to promote conversation - not as a 'wall of shame' with items that the user is not allowed to remove. --CBD 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Bobabobabo

Bobabobabo (talk · contribs) refuses to stop putting fair use images in User talk:Bobabobabo/works and User:Bobabobabo/works. The user has been warned repeatedly about this, and by admins. She needs a SEVERE warning and perhaps deletion of those pages. Interrobamf 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bobabobabo seems to not care about what we say concerning fair use images. I just hope s/he didn't revert my orphaning of all of them. Ryūlóng 02:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well user http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Zero1328/Work_Area&oldid=80336661 has fair use images. So why can't I? Bobabobabo (12:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

That page is a TEMPORARY workspace. They will all be removed as soon as the work is completed. --InShaneee 16:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And that means you should leave it alone in the mean time, Bobabobabo. Ryūlóng 22:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Temporary workspaces don't make using images acceptable. It's still a fair use image that doesn't fit fair use guidelines. Commenting out the images temporarily would be sufficient, however. Ral315 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Zorkfan

Zorkfan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is under a one month block for sockpuppetry after a 3rr violation. His sockpuppets can be seen here and he has in the last day continued to make puppets Luzadi7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is the latest one that I can find. Can something be done about this? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he's moved on to Luzadii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jayjg 03:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon vandal blanking their talk page

124.168.15.251 keeps blanking their talk page. Should we just wait for them to get bored and restore the page when they're gone? Or is it worth giving further warnings and possibly issuing a block? Chovain 04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've sprotected for now; let's see if they get bored. Jayjg 04:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Permanent semiprotection?

Is a permanent semiprotection on an article and talkpage a possibility? I ask this because of JB196 (talk · contribs · block log) who is hellbent on keeping his crusade up on spamming templates on articles using AOL sockpuppets. If a page gets semi-protected he starts spamming the talk page, if the talk page is them semi-protected he just waits until it gets removed and immediately starts again (the best example being after three weeks of sprotection he returned after only 2 minutes of the page being unprotected, talk about hellbent). JB196 has shown no signs of ever stopping, nor any willingness to stop the disruption. –– Lid 07:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Which articles? (use the {{article}} template to list them) Thatcher131 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Vic Grimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is definitely one of them. Both the article and talk page were taken out of semi-protection within the last week, and both have now been placed back under semi-protection because of the AOL vandalism. - TexasAndroid 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Texas Wrestling Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Extreme Warfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are the other two. –– Lid 01:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Kargil War

I had to protect the Kargil war article due to edit-warring. User:Idleguy and User:Mercenary2k were continuously reverting each other. Could some please take a look at the issue and mediate. More information here. I got to sleep. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:84.12.242.226

User:84.12.242.226 is on a mission to spam links to a music video (copyvio?) site to countless music artist pages, and is exceeding my ability to revert. I am not sure whether there is a better place to report this. Notinasnaid 13:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've blocked him for a day. NCurse _work 13:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All spam reverted. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Calgvla

This user has been disrupting the Armenia and the Armenians article for over two weeks now by doing the following:

• Uploading clearly racist and denigrating photos of individuals purported to be Armenians with comments such as typical Armenian. All the images that were uploaded by the user using obscure 19th century anthropological sources and unverified modern images were deleted and the user was warned numerous times by administrators on his userpage. The user reuploaded the images severeal times nonetheless.
• In one instance seen here , the user blamed the entire Armenian population of Glendale for 80% of all crime in Glendale with the following edit summary: Armenian Crime wave in Glendale over 30 savage murders in the last 18 months
• The user keeps reverting the Armenia article erroniously placing Armenia in the Middle East, for obvious reasons.--Eupator 15:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him again. —Quarl 2006-10-09 18:39Z

• Isn't this just an obvious troll? Danny Lilithborne 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Black people

There is an on-going edit/revert war on the page Black people between 5 or 6 different usernames. A look at the history makes it obvious who is involved. There is also some potential sock-puppetry involved. Other users have started to to add "perhaps all of you reverters could incorporate my edit into your next reverts" in their edit summaries in an attempt to get their edits kept. Good luck. Lionchow - Talk 15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected now. Joelito (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In the future protection can be requested at WP:RFPP --WinHunter 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

68.5.242.136 edits on Erin Crocker

68.5.242.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been edit warring with me and four other editors about the inclusion of a (sourced) paragraph accusing Crocker of having a "close personal relationship" with her team owner. The user has previously been blocked for the same thing. Considering the user's past contributions (especially edits like this) and the fact that he or she has no edits one edit on other topics makes me think that this user is only here to push a POV and that perhaps a longer block is in order. Recury 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Columbus Day

Columbus Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is experiencing some vandalism by various IP's. 2 or 3 per hour, I guess is not excessive, but is it possible / appropriate for semi-protection for maybe 24 hrs? --Dual Freq 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. In general, such requests are better sent to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. - TexasAndroid 18:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protection, however, RCT (talk · contribs) has successfully circumvented it by moving the page back and forth 5 or six times to Italian-American Heritage Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) destroying the edit history. I don't think I can move it back now that it is no longer redirect page, Admin help requested. --Dual Freq 19:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything has been fixed and I left RCT a stern warning. Let's keep monitoring this, shall we? Grandmasterka 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Liftarn making WP:POINT edits that violate WP:BLP

User:Liftarn has been using unreliable sources to make some sort of obscure point by describing George W. Bush and Pat Robertson as "Satanists" who "self-identify as Christians", in deliberate violation of WP:BLP, thus endangering Misplaced Pages. He's even reverted people when his entries were removed. He's been warned in the past about using non-reliable sources to make a point, e.g. . He's even been warned about it then gone back months later and inserted the same libellous material from non-reliable sources . I think at this point a block is in order to emphasize the seriousness of using reliable sources, especially when it comes to living persons. What do others think? Jayjg 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite inclinded to agree. This is harmful and deliberate. --InShaneee 19:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious. A longer block is needed. NCurse _work 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That kind of editing threatens the project. Bad enough to do it in the first place, but to revert when it's removed compounds the offense. SlimVirgin 19:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had past conflicts with him, so I'm reluctant to do it. Would somebody else mind doing it? Jayjg 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a warning on his talk page. If he persists I will block. I am keeing an eye on that article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I gave him 24 hrs, since he'd already been called on it before. FeloniousMonk 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I must say, I'm a little puzzled. How could WP:BLP be relevant? He's saying here -- and correctly, I might add -- that Bush has been labelled a Satanist (and a lot of loony ultra-weird-religious sites have indeed said that, as well as some insane conspiracy sites, and some sites which combine the two), but that he is not one (the entry is in the section entitled "Mislabeled Satanists".) --jpgordon 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Colin4C vandalized my userpage

While I was on wikibreak, User:Colin4C vandalized my userpage. Please take appropriate action or give him the proper warnings. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 19:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Drug Dealer Advertising...

Hey, a recent edit popped up on my watchlist, it's essentially an advertisement for a local drug dealer. I reverted it as spam and unverifiable, but I'm not sure if further action should/could be taken... is there a rule against this beyond WP:SPAM? -- Chabuk 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This should almost certainly be brought to the foundation's attention. I have left a note on Brad's talk page about this. JoshuaZ 20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, one of the "Drug dealer" phone numbers is a McGill Network Administrator's number. I'm guessing it's not an actual solicitation for narcotics, but vandalism similar to the "for a good time call" numbers on bathroom walls. --Dual Freq 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that I don't think it's anything worth taking more serious than normal spam and posting of private info... I've deleted that revision from the article history. Thanks/wangi 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Peronal Attack

I warned User:Grazon for vandalism and removing content from the article Darrell Anderson he retaliated by personally attacking me with a warning on my talk page, is that vandalism? He needs to be stopped check his history of contributions, there also seem to be 2 or so ISPs with similarly destructive edits on most of the pages he has edited. How can he be stopped? He has been blocked several times and warned a half dozen times, I think its time for a permanent, indefinate or prolonged blocking.Qrc2006 20:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me - he's calling you a vandal, you're calling him a vandal, but neither of you are vandalizing that I see. KillerChihuahua 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeated failure to adhere to Misplaced Pages FU policies...

Hi. I have a problem with user Buenaparte_Social_Club. He/she keeps removing the 'No Fair Use Rationale' template for the following images without properly adding the fair use rationale:

1. Image:Avalonenpolognetheatricalpolish.png
2. Image:Hellhoundsmanga.png
3. Image:Tome1kamuikerberos.png
4. Image:Amazingcomicsissue2.png
5. Image:Patlaborwxiiiscreen.png
6. Image:Otoko-tachiguishi-poster.png

Let me also add that this user quite possibly is the one who made a personal attack against me with a sockpuppet account (see my discussion page) which had words which stated my edits were "peanuts" and calling me a "dick" . Edit: I've communicated with him several times and he still does not take me seriously. See his/her discussion page; he/she was completely rude as well. New Edit: I just noticed this user has deleted my no fair use rationale warnings from his/her discussion page.ResurgamII 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Posing as an administrator

EinsteinEdits This user has caused some problems on the spam front, but now EinsteinEdits claims to be an administrator... Quite a step up..thanks LOL Hu12 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the template from his userpage. Naconkantari 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ec In the future, when using templated warnings, it is probably best to put them on the user talk pages instead of on the user page. Jkelly 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Naconkantari much appreciated. Jkelly, seems Philosopher06 may have placed it there by accident instead of the talk page, I did not want to revert out the boxes, so i did a warning revert by hand. Hu12 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just checked this person's talk page and I noticed he has moved his talk page to User talk:EinsteinEdits nonsense and removed some warnings from his talk page. I restored these warnings and warned him not to do it again. When I explained to him that removing warnings is considered vandalism, he left this uncivil comment on the page. Seems like someone who doesn't understand the problems of what he's been doing so far. NeoChaosX 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He posted uncivil comments on my talk page as well. keep an eye on this one. Hides under different ip's, heres one Hu12 02:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How to behave

I would like a suggestion about how to behave with an particularly "hot" user. EnDai and I do not agree on some edits about Shelbourne F.C. What does he think about my edits?

• "Nazism. :("
• "Revert to version before vandalism"
• "...facist..." (I suppose he meant "fascist", as per previous "nazism" comment)
• When I ask for clarifications, after another user has made some comments on my edits, he answers and ends with "Please refrain from editing what you do not comprehend."

On a side note, an IP user edits Shelbourne F.C., Talk:Shelbourne F.C., and User_talk:Panarjedde according to EnDai position, insulting me and my edits. They hold the same position (see anonymous IP's comment and EnDai's one), and both call me "nuisance" (EnDai and AnonymousCoward).

What should I do? When other editors commented with civility my edits, I admited some errors and changed them, but EnDai and his "friend" showed no intention of collaboration at all. --Panarjedde 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. We still do not agree on something. His constructive way of pointing out his position is to mock me, calling me Muppet and "nuisance". This is getting heavy, I am a little annoyed by his behaviour.--Panarjedde 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Slight Problem

On the Red Wing, Minnesota page, a person keeps causing minor vandilzation. IP(s) are 69.58.132.65 and 69.58.132.191.--CWY2190 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Movie Gallery -- Moved from WP:AIV

• Segasonicdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is part of a group continually blanking info they don't want people to know about on the movie gallery page--72.92.89.202 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Looks more like a content dispute, to me -- do you have reliable sources to verify your edits? Have you attempted to discuss this with the user, or go through the dispute resolution process? Luna Santin 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• The user is a well known Asylum member. Previously, his edits have simply been to erase all information related to the program. His most recent edit is an attempt to suggest that there is no information. The Asylum program is well known, is not at all hidden, but its members prefer to hide its existence. The fact that he would erase all information, and later simply include a line denying information being available, shows that he KNOWS he is blanking (and therefore, with the latest revision, trying to get around it).

• This page is for obvious vandalism. This isn't obvious at all, especially considering that the information isn't verifiable in the first place. As Luna Santin, please read the dispute resolution process. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Read the talk page of the movie gallery article. The following is posted at the end:

"Asylum

To any Who view this page there is a Guy who was upset with Gamecrazy so he says he will continue to post about "The Asylum" even though it is a breach of contract when he joined and posted on said site He agreed to certain Terms and conditions,

the first rule is "Dont Talk about the Asylum"

so if you see a posting under the Game Crazy Section about it Delete it ASAP"

I think that's obvious. They are insisting on blanking the information. It should be mentioned, also, they are blanking it not because the information is inaccurate, but because "the first rule is, 'don't talk about the Asylum.'"

• "Obvious" vandalism tends to refer more to "LOLZ PENIS" and the like. In this case, the edits being removed aren't verifiable and likely constitute original research -- please consider dispute resolution or take this to WP:AN/I, because it's not likely to result in action from this particular page. Our definition of vandalism is pretty narrow. Luna Santin 00:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've opted to move the above discussion here from AIV, since no one's acted on it yet, and it seems to be clogging up the page. It seems more appropriate to place it here, in any case. Luna Santin 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom Mehrer

I've been slapping the {{db-bio}} tag on this article for quite some time, and an editor (and seemingly his IP) seems keen to remove the tag every time I slap it back on. Checking the page history, I noticed that this article has already been deleted three times before. Is a delete-and-salt in order here? By the way, I've added the tag twice now; I don't want to break 3RR. --physicq (c) 00:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be under control for now...also, just FYI, the 3RR doesn't apply if you're reverting vandalism, placing a justified speedy deletion tag, etc., so don't worry about that. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --physicq (c) 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture

User:Freakofnurture has apparently left the project. Does anyone know what happened or if there is a way to get Freak to reconsider? Johntex\ 01:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• From poking through his user contributions, I'd guess it might have something to do with editing Misplaced Pages:List of non-admins with high edit counts or else Mailer Diablo's RfB; he seemed perturbed on both pages. But I'm just speculating. --Aaron 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I hope he changes his mind. I've always liked Freak. --Aaron 02:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder why. --SPUI (T - C) 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry SPUI - I don't see a smoking gun there. Are you saying he left Misplaced Pages because he was on the minority side of a poll concerning a naming convention? I'm not aware of the history and it seems a bad use of my time to route through histories if you know the answer. Could you please spell it out for me? Johntex\ 02:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards