Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 13 June 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• 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)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• 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?

More H.E. socks to block

H.E. is disrupting Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/His_excellency with Hisexcellencyreturns (talk · contribs), after CheckUser confirmed that Ibn Shah (talk · contribs) was identical to MomoShomo (talk · contribs). (MomoShomo was not IP-identical to prior socks, but was blocked by admin Tom Harrison as a sock based on behavior, for which the evidence is very strong). Both accounts should be blocked, and if admins could put that page on their watchlist for more disruption I'd appreciate it. - Merzbow 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Hisexcellencyreturns (talk · contribs) should be blocked; his comments on the CU page moved to his talk page; and a link to the page before his writtings were moved to be provided on the CU page for further decisions. --Aminz 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser proves that I am not His Excellency. Please stop bothering me about it. Ibn Shah 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser does not prove anything, it just gives clues. Neil ╦ 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He is now disrupting ANI with his comments, and continues to disrupt RFCU. If H.E. wants to comment he can do so on his talk page, as Aminz says. (BTW it's funny how all of these accounts that are supposedly not H.E. socks are born as adults, with the ability to find their way to ANI, RFCU, and 3RR at will, with nary a newbie edit between them. Also funny how his self-admitted socks seem to find the time to check these places multiple times a day for mentions of him, odd for a banned user who isn't supposed to be here.) - Merzbow 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a naive comment. I may be new but do you think I'm not going to look over the contributions of people who are petitioning to get me banned with every other edit? Yes, I will, to defend myself. Ibn Shah 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you never saw the need to contest MomoShomo (talk · contribs)'s indef then. MomoShomo was obviously the sock of some previous experienced user. The easiest way for you to clear your name is to indicate who that user is. (But the answer, of course, is H.E.) - Merzbow 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't desperate to contest it because I already had this account among other reasons that I listed on the checkuser. Of course the only evidence you have now is circumstantial, so I'm sure you'll try to find every excuse you can to get me blocked. Ibn Shah 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MomoShomo is banned, are you are confirmed to be identical. Unless some other admin wants to overturn Tom Harrison's block of MomoShomo, you are confirmed to be evading a siteban, and should be blocked forthwith under policy. That's all. - Merzbow 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you always go around endorsing incorrect sitebans or do you really have something against Muslims as His Excellency was alleging in his edit summaries? If Tom Harrison was so confident in his previous block then he would have blocked me himself when he was on Misplaced Pages a few hours ago. This is getting quite annoying. That's all. Ibn Shah 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"HisExcellencyReturns" and I were editing almost concurrently recently if you look through our contributions. That further proves that I am not him. Ibn Shah 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom just went on wikibreak, so your joy is premature. I formally request that an admin either block Ibn Shah as a sock of banned user MomoShomo, or overturn MomoShomo's block. The status quo as it is cannot stand under policy, with an RFCU-confirmed sock of a banned user walking around editing. That is the last I'm going to say here unless asked a question by an admin. - Merzbow 00:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Shah and MomoShomo have been confirmed as H.E. socks now and blocked. - Merzbow 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The administrative response to this thread was unimpressive.

This is as clear a warning against overreliance on checkuser results as one could hope for.Proabivouac 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If Dmcdevit had not come through with extra-effort checkuser results, we'd still be dealing with Ibn Shah and also Xiao_t (talk · contribs), both H.E. socks and both heavily editing articles together. More admins should become familiar with his editing style and be willing to follow-up on these reports; he is quickly becoming a sockmaster as corrosive as Hkelkar.- Merzbow 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No HE is even worse than hkelkar. Since he lives less than 5 miles from BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) it appears obvious that both are probably colluding in an attempt to undermine wikipedia. The information given to me by Hkelkar before his block (regarding BhaiSaab) makes string of puppetry from NYU/NYC (residence of these two users) entirely plausible.Bakaman 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the community ban discussion a couple months ago, it doesn't appear as if BhaiSaab has socked for a while; he appears willing to wait out his block now. Do you have evidence he is socking again, and/or colluding with H.E.? - Merzbow 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical threats between students

I have just blocked Silver Fang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for extreme physical threats at User talk:Jwarrior343 and User talk:Waveisback77788 (see this diff and this diff). Usually I'd revert, block, and move along. But because it appears these are threats against fellow classmates, I felt I should bring it here to be looked at further. What should/could be done about this? Metros 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Threats of buttkicking presumably happen all the time in junior high schools across the world. I don't see any reason to do anything more than what you've already done. Friday (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Threats of buttkicking are just fine, as we then get to buttkick the one who threatens! As was done here. Moreschi 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but shouldn't I at least contact the Internet police? Metros 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

...another reason I shouldn't wiki at work: random bursts of laughter is suspicious. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Whew, that picture is funny... but back to business, see this. Apparently it's just a bunch of school kids pwning each other. I gave them their wish and blocked all the accounts that were not already blocked. That should take care of that.--Isotope23 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You did all that you're responsible for. Good job!!! We need to keep that kind of crap out of Misplaced Pages!!! This is not a freaking chat room! Redsox04 19:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadkid2010 is a sockpuppet of User:Funnykid2010

My evidence is as follows:

• Similair Name
• On page of Sadkid2010, it says "HalfShadow, why are you posting stuff about vandalism on my page for my other account when I did NOTHING????" proving they have another account, and HalfShadow warned it
• User Funnykid2010 commented unsigned on halfshadow's page
• HalfShadow has warned Funnykid in the past
• On talk page of FisherQueen, they signed a message as follows: "-Funnykid2010, pretty soon Sadkid2010."

This is my first time reporting a sockputppet, so if I stuffed something up, I apologise. Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Added more evidence. Matt - TheFearow 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You would probably get a better/faster resolution of this at WP:RFCU or WP:SUSPSOCK. Feel free to ask me questions if you need help posting your case. Cheers! -- moe.RON 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User Lft6771 repeatedly pushing his original research

He rejects all mass media as "corporate media", "They are all wrong", and "misinformation" and refuses to cite any sources. I repeatedly told him and asked (and even offered him to reach a consensus, which he simply ignored):

Instead, he simply reverts to his version (repeatedly), which is not only originally researched but also full of (dozens) "citation needed" marks: Yes, he ignored my warnings too.

Thanks for taking care.--HanzoHattori 08:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Seek dispute resolution. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have time for any of this. As for now, I guess any moderator telling him along the lines of "original research is bad, m'kay" (and that he needs to provide RELIABLE sources for everything) would do. I don't REALLY seek him to be banned (after all, what problem is to get an anouther account and go back with a real vendetta). So, thanks in advance again. --HanzoHattori 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • We are not moderators. We are administrators, ordinary editors entrusted with access to certain tools. If you want the support of other editors in telling this person about original research, then use dispute resolution, including Requests For Comment and Third Opinion, as you have been told to do. Uncle G 09:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I took the time to read up on your dispute (unfortunately, administrators often don't have that time, especially for long protracted disputes as this). I would suggest filing at WP:RFC, and also, I would suggest being more precise. It's my experience that as who ramble on and can't precisely state the nature of the problem are often not paid attention to. The Evil Spartan 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • • Nah, I'll decline. I hate all this beurocracy. (Btw, he reverted your revert too.) --HanzoHattori 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (Iran)

I would like to draw community’s attention to the situation with Azerbaijan (Iran) article. This article has been a source of dispute for quite some time, and has been protected a number of times too. Right now the dispute is about over whether it is ok to add info of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports. Some users delete this verifiable info from the article under the pretext that “Misplaced Pages is not a forum or a soapbox”, however I don’t see how adding verifiable info from a third party source is soapboxing. I know that this may not be the most appropriate place to raise this issue, but I would like to ask experienced and impartial editors become involved with this article to help resolve the disputes, and also ask the admins to keep it on their watch lists. Thanks. Grandmaster 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are organizations with their own political agendas. To the best of my understanding, information must come from reliable sites, and those sites aren't. Od Mishehu 10:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that they have any agenda other than protection of human rights, plus what's wrong with reporting the opinions? Grandmaster 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The same information on human rights of Azeris in Iran is already available on Azerbaijani people, Iranian Azeris and Human rights in Iran. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, you can not spam Misplaced Pages articles with the same information on four different articles. The article Azerbaijan (Iran) is a geographical article, not an ethnic one. AlexanderPar 10:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not about human rights per se. It is about recent history. I made edit on page Iranian Azerbaijan based on multiple sources . user:Pejman47 2 times blindly reverted it without reasonable explanation. First time he left short comment on talkpage and after that I reintrouduced my edit with new sources as he requested reliable sources. Second time he just reverted without comments on talkpage. He did it after I urged him to explain his behaviour. It is interesting that user:Pejman47 arrived at this page to revert me after user:Alborz Fallah who, an hour earlier, reverted me on another page Iran-Azerbaijan relations. And user:AlexanderPar also delete multiple sourced information. I opened RfC case for that but abovementioned editors instead of deliberations keep removing historical information--Dacy69 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything has a place and a purpose. WikiNews is for current events, and Iranian Azeris, or Human rights in Iran are the appropriate articles for ethnic issues and human rights reports, not geography articles like Azerbaijan (Iran). You, however, have been inserting the same poorly-sourced information on multiple pages from "Foreign relation of" articles - to geography articles, this is blatant soapboxing. AlexanderPar 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 is attempting to spam the same information on several articles. The issue they want to insert into Iranian Azerbaijan is already included in two or three articles.Hajji Piruz 14:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, WP:AN/I is not for the content disputes. You already have an RfC open on the article. Unless you want from us swift administrative actions (like block somebody) please argue on the RfC page. Alex Bakharev 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I reported not about content but about behavior of editors. Thanks.--Dacy69 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see a problem with User:Hajji Piruz's usage of word "spam" left and right against editors. The comment above is just one example. Is there a warning or some form of reminder that can be issued to the user about it? Thanks. Atabek 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

now I see that that stuff handpicked by you from sources like isn.ethz.ch/ and amnesty international, "the most unbiased information source of the world") has been copy-pasted in the 4th article , I understand that some users have called that edits "spam", and you have not yet explained your misguiding "edit summery" in --Pejman47 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I urge admin to interfere with blatant vadnalism of User:Hajji Piruz and others orchestrated by him. without discussion they redirected page which was suggested by third party during RfC --Dacy69 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what vandalism did I commit? LOL, what did I do? Dacy69, the only one not discussing anything is you.Hajji Piruz 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz meatpuppets Pejman47 and Alexanderpar again reverting - now what it is suggested by third party mediator during RfC--Dacy69 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Undelete - compromised admin account

Please undelete Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 650l2520 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been restored by another admin, but what the heck was that deletion about? WP:POINT?--Isotope23 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the deleting admin Vancouverguy (talk · contribs) might bear some watching. Account has been inactive since October 2005 and suddenly shows up to make a WP:POINT deletion of the CSD category today.--Isotope23 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he's trying to tell us that he was really fast at deleting images, and we have silly backlogs. At least that's my AGF version. Keeping an eye on him is a good idea, though. Kusma (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been desysopped and blocked indefinitely. I blocked him after he was desysopped by User:Bastique, after I reported this account as likely to be compromised. After he played silly buggers with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion - stupid move - there wasn't much doubt IMO. Moreschi 15:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call.--Isotope23 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No more AGF after he continued trolling using admin tools. Pretty fast response time, little damage. Good work. Kusma (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainlly looks like it was got at - good call. --Fredrick day 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a footnote, 87.175.68.193 (talk · contribs) and 194.54.189.173 (talk · contribs) made a few similar edits immediately after. :-( --AnonEMouse 16:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How would the account have been compromised? I thought the weak passwords were changed? Carcharoth 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

His associated e-mail could have been compromised?--209.115.153.68 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have an idea. Email accounts are hacked easily, and all a vandal needs to do to get hold of an admin account. Is get the email account, then click the button sayijng "Email new password." emailing the password to the email account, allowing the vandal to log in... Francisco Tevez 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromised or not compromised, doesn't massively matter. If not compromised, then admin actions like that are just vandalism with admin tools. Not clever. If the account was not, in fact, compromised, he'd better have a bloody good excuse. Moreschi 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser needed? Francisco Tevez 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that the two IP's we've associated with the hacking come from Germany and Poland respectively, and VancouverGuy is from, um, Vancouver, I doubt it was really him. The Evil Spartan 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy's authentic contribs are too old for checkuser. Thatcher131 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides which, the IPs he used were, unsurprisingly, Tor. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What's really confusing is this: if someone has gone to the trouble of hacking this, why waste it with two silly, high profile, but not very disruptive,pieces of vandalism - think of what he really could have done?--Doc 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who ever said vandals are smart? Seriously... those who have been around here long enough to be creative are few and far between.--Isotope23 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Best de-adminship spree yet. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the account was not compromised, an admin from 2005 might find the Brave New Misplaced Pages of 2007 quite a weird place. ˉˉ╦╩ 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With that in mind, is there any reason why an account that was dormant for a year and a half was still an admin? That strikes me as a bit of a security hole. Resolute 19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We've been over that before, I can't find the link, though.. there are both pros and cons for doing it. Neil ╦ 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And his action of deleting C:CSD was especially annoying today of all days - I've been working like a mofo on keeping it clear. Neil ╦ 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD has been more manageable during the past couple of weeks due to the efforts of a handful of vigilant admins. I am amazed at the amount of work you guys have done. ˉˉ╦╩ 08:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:PEREN, why we don't desysop inactive admin accounts is there. Moreschi 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• However, the assumption that inactive accounts are less likely to get hacked than active ones is questionable in light of the last couple of months... Georgewilliamherbert 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (tell me where to propose) - I propose that admin accounts inactive (no edits) for 3 months are put on suspension - admin bit is flipped off, but will be restored 24 hrs after resumption of normal editing and upon filing a request on WP:RFA. Request does not need RFA approval, just create a new section there for handling it, so the bureacrats don't have to watch other pages. Admin will remain "an admin" during the suspension, just with the bit flipped temporarily. Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Three months might be too short a time period, but the Misplaced Pages:Inactive administrators proposal, which was on the page that Moreschi linked seems ideal to me. This very case would suggest its usefulness, and there is also the general security issue. Working tech support, I wouldn't ever think of leaving someone with admin privledges active should they leave the company. It is just begging for trouble down the line if that person returns with a different attitude towards the company. As Misplaced Pages grows and becomes a bigger and bigger target, it needs to minimize risk where it can. This may be a proposal that could benifit from a second look. Resolute 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wildscreen and www.arkive.org

Could I get a couple of additional admins to look at this. Either I overreacted, or we have a serious long term spam-link situation here. The mentioned user was adding links to the same site to many articles. A regular sign of spamming. I reverted the links and gave the user a warning. A search of the link shows the site is linked to already on a *lot* of pages. Some by this user a while back, misc others by other users. A look at the page shows a conservation site. Not a for-profit organization, but they do have prominent Donate Now type links around their page. I'm not a spam expert, and this is not quite the obvious case it appeared to be at first glance. Or maybe it is such a case, and all the links need to be removed. Anyway, I was hoping a couple of others could take a look at the situation and give their $0.02. - TexasAndroid 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a clear case of WP:COI and attempting to use Misplaced Pages for promotional purposes, but the pages aren't the most objectionable spam I've seen (the donate links are tiny and not the main focus of the pages by any means). We run into the same problems with people going around mass adding NNDB and various wikis and so forth... The sites have some info, but don't seem to have any reason to be as linked as they end up getting linked, and fail WP:EL on the "sites that don't have as much info as the existing Misplaced Pages article or what the article should have if it were improved" criteria, on top of the self-promotion problems. As a general concept I remove all these when I run across them, but each has pretty dedicated people pushing them back in later. All of these seem to be a calculated attempt to exploit Misplaced Pages for their own purposes, probably out of good faith (thinking the info is good, etc.), but still. DreamGuy 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(and is it just me, or does the part about the "nofollow" tag in the standard warning about linkfarming strike anyone else as pretty naive and/or deceptive... I don't know if it's from Misplaced Pages mirrors not using nofollow tags or just Google loving Misplaced Pages in general, but any link added to Misplaced Pages can expect a substantial jump in Google ranking and hits. It's just a fact, and that's why we need to patrol these things. DreamGuy 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's linked from 580 articles - now they might be in good faith and they might add something to the articles - who wants to take a look at each of them :-) --Fredrick day 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I have gleamed from some of the articles that have the site as a reference, it doesn't seem like a problem. Being a part of WP:CVU and regular member of the WP:SPAM mIRC chat room, I have a basic check list I use when investigating spam. I check if the link is a reference or merely an external link. Then, I look for in-your-face advertising on said link. In this case, all I can see is a small donate link. Next, I look at their “about us” page, to see if they are for-profit. This page states “ARKive is a not-for-profit initiative of Wildscreen (www.wildscreen.org.uk), a UK-based charity, whose mission is ‘to promote the conservation of nature and public appreciation of biodiversity, through the power of wildlife imagery’.” If there is something about this I am missing, please let me know. Otherwise, I don’t see the site as a problem here. Perhaps to some users and IPs that insert these links, they see these as the best available references. I do the same thing with All Music Guide and Allaboutjazz.com for my various WP:ALBUM and musical artist pages. -- moe.RON 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of opinions then. The site itself is not bad, and no real need for wholesale removal. When inserted on a one by one basis, the link is likely fine. But the mass insertion by User:Wildscreen was inappropriate, and at a minimum an attempt to promote arkive.com using WP, and so I was correct in reverting/warning this user. Does that sound about right? - TexasAndroid 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I now see your problem. As you describe it, whenever such an incident occurs when I am watching recent changes or the mIRC spam channel, I flash revert and warn the user that adding so many links at one time is unwise and shows an agenda. Also, on a personal side note, adding links to pages that are solely pictures and/or movies is a no-no, since those pieces of media may be subject to copyrighting, even if not uploaded to Misplaced Pages. -- moe.RON 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This external link was added previously to other articles and then discussed on the talk of WP:TOL and accepted as valid. I am restoring the links. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've utilized the link on a few articles to improve the articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were not an established user, I would be giving you a spam warning right now, Uther. Reverting all those spam links is rewarding the spammer. The spammer was placing the links in to promote the site. If it is added one by one into articles, it is not a problem. If it is added in mass to multiple articles at a time, it is WP:SPAM. WP:SPAM specifically prohibits the mass adding of links as was done. By mass revererting to reinsert the link, you are yourself now the spammer. - TexasAndroid 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To expand a little, how the heck are we supposed to tell Wildscreen that what he did was spam and improper, while at the same time Uther gets to revert all the spam links right back in, and that's supposed to be acceptable? The mass adding of the links is improper, and is spamming, no matter who does it. It's worse for Wildscreen, because of WP:COI issues on top of the spamming, but what Uther has done is still spamming the project. - TexasAndroid 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TexasA here; these links shouldn't be added back in. I accept ARKive.org as a valid reference but the manner in which these particular ones were added in bulk and the nature of the link (possible copyrighted images and videos), and these links placed above all other links on said pages shows me these shouldn't be in the external links section. -- moe.RON 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And where was that discussion at WP:TOL Uther? I couldn't find it. Also, I have just noticed that Wildscreen is the "UK-based charity" that ARKive.org is based on (I know, I mentioned it above but didn't put two and two together until now), so this is a huge WP:COI. -- moe.RON 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The www.arkive.org discussion is on Archive 17 of the WP:TOL talk. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So what now? The spam links are currently still in the articles, as I did not want to get into a back and forth revert war over this, but I still feel strongly that the spammer has been rewarded for their actions by allowing their links to remain. This whole thing is a little grey. I *think* I would be justified by WP:SPAM to continue reverting Uther, removing the spam links again, but is this whole thing worth edit warring over? Sigh. I just don't know. - TexasAndroid 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will support you to revert. The archived discussion at WP:TOL deals only with links that are directly beneficil to an article. Wildscreen's WP:COI edits are adding links to images and videos, which are most likely copyrighted. -- moe.RON 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits and Uncivil Comments

Recently, changes to the United States were made, including the dropping of a citation for basic info on the country (How many states, year founded, etc.) 1. However, Corticopia, objected to this, and re-added the citation; 2, 3, 4. 5, but then removed the warning on his talk page 6. He also wrote this message on the US talk page 7.

Since another user had already started a thread on him at the 3RR noticeboard 8, I added diffs from the United States issue (mentioned above). Corticopia objected to this, 9. An admin ruled that the violations were stale, but warned Corticopia to be civil 10. Corticopia then replied with this 11.

I also asked the user who reported him originally about writing him up at WP:ANI 12, and Corticopia responded with this threat 13.

It should also be noted that Corticopia has been blocked 5 times for violating 3RR. He was last blocked on May 20, 2007 for a period of one week. A sixth block was rescinded after an admin ruled he hadn't technically broken the rule.

Thanks ---BH (T|C) 18:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in my experience Corticopia has been remarkably intransigent and uncivil. Moreover, he seems to want to "game" the 3RR system: he'll revert three times and then promise to return the following day to revert again. He's not interested, it seems, in establishing consensus through discussion. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In the span of only three days, Corticopa reverted United States three times in succession on three separate occasions--the first time over a period of 13 hours; the second time in a span of 23 minutes; the third time in a span of 53 minutes. Here are the three separate warnings I left on his Talk page: ; ; --note that you must scroll to the end of the diff to read the new, third warning (Corticopia had deleted the earlier warnings in the interim). I also note, though Corticopia issues plaints about "personal attacks" directed against him, it was he who first made the vigorous but healthy debate over the style and structure of the United States lede personal and uncivil in the following comment on the article's Talk page, in which he charges those opposed to his argument with "sophistry": .—DCGeist 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is probably a minor thing, but it's frustratingly difficult to understand what on earth he's trying to say half the time. I was reminded of this by this edit, which is frankly unintelligible (huh? what comma splice?), let along this one (which is a pig's ear even after eight separate edits). And it was in similar circumstances that he and I started butting heads, when he insisted that I was using "unencyclopedic syntax" but without explaining what that might mean. But once he's taken a position, he's almost invariably unwilling to back down, preferring to revert to incivility (and that's putting it mildly). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia does not follow the rules. S/he is a an editor who does not wish to follow the WP:NPOV policy. I have showed him/her that a POV that differs from his/hers meets the requirements of a "majority" POV according to WP:WEIGHT, but s/he has continued not following the policy by not allowing the POV in the article. S/he continued to revert the article under question to the version that did not display a neutral POV. Her adamant refusal to concede that her edits are against Misplaced Pages Policy is flusterating. In some of my dealing with him/her, her/his accusatory remarks were completely uncalled for. When I initially started arguing with him/her, s/he accused me of sock puppetry, since anonymous IP editors took similar views in the talk page. This was against WP:FAITH. Corticopia continually disregards Misplaced Pages policies when s/he forms her arguments for article content. Whereas my arguments with Corticopia rest on Misplaced Pages Policies which I regularly call by name, Corticopia does not base arguments about article content on policy. Her arguments are based on incivil tactics. In multiple occasions s/he has argued with editors and has ended up disingenuously calling a them a troll, accusing them of "sophistry" and threatening to call down the administrators on them. These clutch arguments are put forth regardless of the situation, because they are merely empty threats Corticopia uses to scare away other editors. I have brought up this issue in a discussion with Corticopia but s/he erased my comment in against WP:TALK. The worst argumentive strategy Corticopia uses is refusing to discuss the article's contents with other editors when they try to discuss changes in the talk page. How can article improvement proceed if Corticopia refuses to discuss the modifications with other editors and simply reverts the article to her version? Corticopia has followed up exhaustive arguments with indeterminant phrases such as "acknowledged". Corticopia claims that when she says "acknowledged" it neither means she agrees or disagrees with the other editor. She has tried to use this tactic as a means to end all rational discussions, so she can have free reign to revert the article. Corticopia has not, in my mind, genuinely tried to base the reasons for her/his edits on Misplaced Pages Policy in discussions and refuses to work in accord to policy with regards to her article reversions.----Tea 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh-Oh! It looks like that irregardless of the comments by me and three colleagues, not one admin is even looking into the matter. The user in question is an edit warrer who has been blocked 5 times for actions, but yet he's still allowed to continue his disruptive and uncivil ways here at Misplaced Pages. It just makes me sick. BH (T|C) 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some admins have lives outside of Misplaced Pages. Did you take it to WP:3RR, where it states, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." You may have luck with that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it got taken to WP:3RR, where it was likewise allowed to grow "stale" by admins. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there over 1200 admins. Plus other sections seem to attract more interest. I wouldn't complain, however I don't want this go "stale" without action being taken. BH (T|C) 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK; this is really long, so let me ask, in a nutshell: is there anything here that is blockable and not already stale? Some have suggested Corticopia is gaming 3RR; could you provide some diffs to show this? Just diffs with no long paragraphs about it, please, a little explanation if necessary. Or, if the incivility is current, show me a few diffs for this? Maybe you've already listed some of this; if so, well, the remarks above are pretty long and it's hard to figure out what's up. If there's nothing blockable here, there's nothing for admins to do, and you should consider dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Potentially Uncivil: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I'd relist the 3RR stuff, but that might be harder to do without making it too long. BH (T|C) 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly current, but it's enough that we should probably keep an eye on him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for Corticopia refusing to discuss article content any further:Corticopia does not refute my arguments but calls me a troll and refuses further discussion, Corticopia's threats and refusal to discuss changes, and Corticopia calls User:Meowy a troll and refuses discussion with her----Tea 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And the diffs for the revert thing are:1, 2, 3. And here the user threatened to keep reverting the next day 4. BH (T|C) 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia was recently blocked for a week by myself and does not seem to have taken the hint. It is time for a longer block if it continues. Dmcdevit·t 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, Dmcdevit. My contention this whole time has been that Corticopia has yet to learn his lesson and a much longer (if not an indefinite) block is needed to stop his behavior. BH (T|C) 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know why incivility alone isn't reason enough for a block. WP:BLOCK mentions incivility as a reason, and also mentions that the users prior blocks can be used to impose a stiffer penalty. BH (T|C) 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, oh well. I was recently directed here by another editor -- busy bees we are. While I am tempted to address and respond to the charges of each encyclopedisteditor, which are replete with a sort of confirmation bias I can only describe as laughable, I really have better things to do. And that will be the extent of my involvement in this farce. Corticopia 02:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Farce? This is no farce. It is a serious discussion about the way you contribute here at Misplaced Pages. You have been blocked not once, not twice, but five times. This thread is to determine whether or not you've learned your lesson. And given these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, say6), I'd say you haven't. And it is within my rights to ask other users who have dealt with you in the past to comment here. Perhaps if you hadn't had so many run-ins with editors who have had to deal with your disruptive behavior and uncivil comments, they would be harder to find. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a farce: given your abortive move of America and concomitant chiding there, I am unconvinced that your spearheading of this is an overreaction and/or retaliatory attempt on your part. I will not address other comments made above -- not because I cannot but because I have neither the inclination nor the time to indulge in your witch-hunt and in the confirmation bias of like-minded editors, not to mention the circular argumentation such an exercise would result in. Your invitations to other editors to seek my blocking are more a reflection of your sensitivities and intent than of my ... editing idiosyncrasies. Despite accusations from you et al, for example, I have received kudos from others for said efforts at encyclopedism, which remains problematic amidst the often challenged editing and one-sided commentary from commenting/solicited editors above. Misplaced Pages is not your mother: if you or others cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And beyond this I will not comment further. Ta. Corticopia 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, that debate had 8 people opposed to me. So explain what I've done to witch-hunt out the others. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 05:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I myself have had problems with getting an admin to act upon another problematic user, so I can't really advise you on another place to go for help. It doesn't hurt to try, though. Following WP:DISRUPT, try going to WP:CN. If you are up to it, try seeking an admin and contact them through their personal talk page, referring to this ANI. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its very important to remember WP:IGNORE, User Corticopia edits have only served to make this a far more valuable resource of information. Many articles here have been hijacked by a gangs of users with absurd POVs and are able to force "consensus" through their mafia style tactics. I strongly urge you to research the factual merit of Corticopia's edits rather than enforcing "rules" for their own sake. Misplaced Pages can bring out cult-like behavior in some people that get obsessed with the rules over the content. Please remember this is an encyclopedia first and a fascist society of rules and their enforcers second --Caligvla 08:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Corticopia's been editing constructively for a fair bit, but it's not an excuse for doing it recklessly. Reckless editing is detrimental to community, and without that there's no encyclopedia. One doesn't have priority over the other, they go together. This is the subject of this discussion. It doesn't matter if one thinks the other side is biased, because they're probably thinking the same on you. This way of thinking leads to conflict. Assume good faith, and assume the assumption of good faith. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that reckless is a fair assessment of Corticopia. He's passionate, and let's himself get egged on, but that's not a terrible quality, just a bad one. He gets busted for 3RR because he worries about making a good encyclopaedia, not following the rules. It's not perfect, but not terrible. That he escalates problems with disruptive editors, rather than diffuses them is not so great. But since he isn't the one being disruptive in the first place, no "further" action needs to be taken against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)

What about his incivility? Corticopia loves to use the sh*t in his comments, and refers to those with differing opinions as "Sophists". See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And WilyD, perhaps your too new of an admin to know policy, but incivility is blockable as it is considered disruptive and harmful. And he's the learned the 3RR rule because he now knows to revert three times in a half-hour, then come back the next day and keep it up. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect America without consensus and despite lengthy discussion and prior attempts, then launch an abortive move at America and -- in the middle of that -- launch a contested straw poll on the same page; when that fails, insinuate the same viewpoint into the DAB. I can also expand on, for instance, DarkTea's persistent attempts to significantly skewreframe Asia with a narrow view despite near unanimity against such editing (see that talk page), and you tell me who is being disruptive? I can go on, but won't -- suffice to say that sophistry and perhaps incompetence are abound. If you prefer uncensored comments or synonyms, I can oblige, but editors can either ignore all rules or just ignore -- I make no apologies, and again Misplaced Pages is not your mother. And when junta-like editors push their viewpoints, misrepresent or act without consensus, add text with poor or unreferenced syntax, here above all, or just remove long-standing citations with little reason from articles which remain far from featured status (perhaps far off because of such removals in part), said corrections are not being disruptive but merely represent encyclopedic zealousness. That's it for now. Corticopia 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Corticopia guess what? This isn't a fuckin' debate about me. Its a debate about you. If you really feel what I have done is wrong, start a thread on me. Nobody will even consider what I've done to be wrong. My failed attempt to have America redirect to the United States? That's disruptive? No it isn't. It was an attempt to reach consensus, and you know what it failed. And I put the United States on top of the DAB page, because, in that "abortive" attempt as you describe, everyone seemed to agree that United States is what America commonly refers to. So stop shitting on those who you don't like (aka those who disagree with your agenda) and start helping to improve this encyclopedia. And by the way, my use profanity is allowed per WilyD. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive, arguably ... and it seems the end result has yielded an outcome which has yet to agree with yours. Anyhow, stop sh*tting on yourself: no one is a paragon of 'wikivirtue' and this is not a venue for the timid. I have no problem with others who 'disagree with agenda', but your attitude and expressed intent to block are precisely and partially why this whole thread is farcical. Apropos, I will refrain from commenting here and withdraw from these proceedings, which is sometimes necessary when things run as amok as this fruitless exercise. Corticopia 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking in English is usually encouraged here, speaking with metaphors like you do is the mark of a sophist. And you have also not yet mastered the art writing comments in one try, the fact that you have to edit your comments several times before you feel satisfied is extremely annoying BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

When last I checked, metaphors are part of the English language. Anyhow, your other comments and level of annoyance regarding this or that (single tear?) are of no concern and proof-positive of my prior comments. I shall waste no more time on this. Corticopia 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

These "examples" are pretty lame, to be honest. There's nothing wrong with saying "shit" - in fact, that I've used "fuck" as part of my edit summaries on a few occasions was discussed at my RfA and no one thought much about it. "Fuck you" is inappropriate, "Ah, shit - I've fucked up the table format" is not. As for the rest of it --- you generally aren't given admin tools unless you already understand policy. Refering to the arguments of other editors as "sophistry" is not the greatest way to deal with other editors, though sometimes POV-warriors need to be called out on what they're doing. Gaming the 3RR rule is bad - but Corticopia's already been subjected to escalating blocks for it - he'll figure it out or he won't. But there's nothing else to see here - certainly I've not seen any incivility that's cause enough for a block. WilyD 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Fayden

I have today received two personal attacks via email from the blocked user User:Fayden asking why I blocked his account and then going on to say rather nasty things and make threats about me. I had never heard of Fayden until he emailed, and certainly had nothing to do with his blocking. I'm avoiding replying to him as it will give him my email address. According to others, I'm not the only one receiving these, and he's repeatedly requesting unblocking claiming to have done no wrong, and seemingly has no interest in reading Misplaced Pages policy. I posted this at WP:VPM, and was directed here. Cheers, Stannered 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A diff: Stannered 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've re-blocked him with the brand-new email blocking feature enabled, as he seems to be misusing that privilege. That should dry up the stream of emails, at least. MastCell 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Stannered 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Where can we learn more about the brand-new email-blocking feature? Newyorkbrad 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same...I see the option has appeared on Special:Blockip. - auburnpilot talk 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell he would be emailing anyone other than me is downright baffling (though I did get an email from him)... I love the new feature, though. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK, under "Setting block options", for a brief explanation of the email blocking option. This is the first time I've used it, but it just felt right, somehow. MastCell 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this user faked an email pretending to be from an innocent third party entirely unrelated to the block to unblock-en-l. As such, I have also placed a block on the IP address. I suspect that google search results for Iced Entertainment Media Inc. are going to start including the links to the Misplaced Pages pages showing this Fayden person's bad behaviour. Well, he brought it on himself. --Yamla 03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jackofalltradesmasterofnone is a sockpuppet of User:Quentin X

As explained on the userpage of User:Jackofalltradesmasterofnone. Dalejenkins 20:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I my opinion, this seems fine on the surface. The Jackofalltradesmasterofnone (talk · contribs) states that he can not log onto his account, Quentin X (talk · contribs), at work, so has created this account (which works). I would probably do the same thing. The user does not hide the fact and this complies with WP:SOCK. However, if there questionable edits or the users are not actually the same user, then there could be an issue. -- moe.RON 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it does explain that. Is there a specific problem? Sock guidelines do allow the use of multiple accounts for benevolent purposes, and the explanation seems reasonable. They're not editing at the same time or anything, and the sock's talk page redirects to the main account. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote fraud by banned user

12345ak (talk · contribs) was indefinetely banned in April by Moondyne for abusive sockpuppetry. In a previous blocking of one of his sockpuppets, 131.111.8.104 (talk · contribs), Avraham cited this edit by 12345ak as one of the reasons for the block, proving that 131.111.8.104 - registered to the University of Cambridge - was one of the sockpuppets used by 12345ak.

In May a new user account was created, 12345ka (talk · contribs) (note "ka" not "ak"), which voted keep at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/State terrorism in Sri Lanka (Second nomination) as his first edit. Out of the 5 IPs which voted to keep the article, 2 are confirmed to be IPs of the University of Cambridge, 131.111.235.31 (talk · contribs) and 131.111.8.104 (talk · contribs) (the confirmed puppet account of 12345ak) . That would almost certainly mean 12345ak / 12345ka was engaged in vote fraud on the AFD.

I didn't think a checkuser request would be required in this instance given the proof, so could an admin please block user:12345ka as a sockpuppet of a banned user, and are there any other ways to prevent further vote fraud at AFDs by the same user using various IPs? --snowolfD4 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Obvious sock. Sasquatch t|c 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Momusufan reverting all my edits as vandalism

Momusufan (talk · contribs) is going aroudn and reverting all of my edits as vandalism, which they are not. Can someone please review? Thanks. --130.15.219.160 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, your edits do not look like vandalism at all. — Alex 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a content dispute of sorts. Am trying to sort out on Momusfan's talk page and will find a source for the population of the town.--Chaser - T 21:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Account compromised?

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This edit means that KP Botany's account has been "compromised" (nice euphemism!) unless I am even sleepier than I realize.

I believe that I should block the account, for the sake of the real KP Botany. But I'm reluctant to do so: (i) I'm connected expensively via dialup right now and don't want to spend the time looking up all the relevant instructions; (ii) I really am very sleepy (I've just woken up and haven't had my first caffeine of the day), (iii) I only noticed the page because KP Botany left a message on my own talk page, (politely) complaining about what I said to him or her; my block, however well intended, might look like the crudest kind of revenge (?!) for the complaint. Could somebody else take a look? Thanks. -- Hoary 22:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure that KP Botany did do that edit to herself in a fit of anger based on some discussions yesterday. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Offensive_user_names_and_biased_non-discussions. Someone called KP Botany a troll at some point in some conversation and in a fit of anger she appeared to put the word "troll" on her own user page. Metros 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is nuttier and nuttier. I'm not going to self-revert (revert-revert), but you're welcome to revert my edit (if it hasn't already been reverted). -- Hoary 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Those of us who know KP Botany both through her constructive edits and her sometimes intemperate responses to the school playground that is Misplaced Pages would never assume that her account had been compromised. Even the quickest look at the edit history of her user and talk pages will show that she routinely blanks them. I suspect the "real KP Botany" is wishful thinking on your part.--Curtis Clark 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sanity check requested for a range block

Can another admin sanity check a range block I just did for a half-hour. It's the last thing in my block log. The IPs were vandalizing Wal-Mart, User:DerHexer, and Home Depot, and possibly other pages.--Chaser - T 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Expired by now.--Chaser - T 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review: Soccermeko (talk · contribs) trying to OWN their talk page

See User talk:Soccermeko. They have posted "rules" forbidding the posting of messages to the page. They have reported 2 users to an admin. Also threatened to have User:Moondyne blocked. I've blocked for 36 hours as they had a previous block for harassment and incivility. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually say to grant people leeway to do lots of things on their own talk page, but you can't just forbid contact and expect it to be enforced. Fully agree with the block. -Amarkov moo! 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, hopefully a quick jab with the "get a clue" stick should solve the problem. --Fredrick day 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Forbidding people from posting on your talk page is only an invitation for people to do so. —Kurykh 23:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

yes and it's disruptive to boot - the use of the usertalk page is an accepted part of the communication and "glue" that hold wikipedia together. You don't get to opt out of communication from fellow editors (within reason).--Fredrick day 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree that posting such rules is inappropriate. The rules are no longer there; for those who want to see it, here's an old version. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Evaded block

User:Wikimegamaster was blocked on the 10th June for canvassing and trolling. He circumvented the block to leave a message on my talk page on the 11th the nature of the message was an apology for behaviour and a promise not to do anything else while blocked. I'm listing it here as it is a block evasion but what do people think about following up on it? Given the conciliatory comments and no other obvious edits being made while blocked should any further action be taken? Mallanox 00:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not constitute circumventing a block. People that are blocked can still use talk pages, circumventing a block means editing with an IP or a sockpuppet. DarthGriz98 01:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was under the impression that while blocked users could only use their own talk page to request unblock. Mallanox 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio uploader still active depite warnings/previous blocks

MaindrianPace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still uploading copyvio images despite numerous warning and several previous blocks for the same repeated offences. Prior to last block the suggestion was an indefinite block. But the next offence only resulted in a 5 week block. NOTE this user is also editing unlogged as IP 66.97.112.223 (talk · contribs) as can be seen in this IP's edit history. Suggest a long vacation for both. 156.34.228.140 01:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

First, this IP user helps a lot on the project, so I trust their judgment. Looking at MaindrianPace (talk · contribs) contributions, there are concerns that this user is not getting what we are asking for through policy. The talk page alone is damning. The user has been blocked five times with four of them being directly related to images. If others agree, I think it may be a good idea to take this to WP:CN. -- moe.RON 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal currently on another spree

67.49.181.250 has been vandalizing many articles in the last few days. I notice he has had several warnings before on his talk page but they have not deterred him, and his account is being used solely for vandalizing articles and his vandalism spree doesn't appear to be slowing down. Masaruemoto 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Lewisskinner

This user is doing super-speedy reversions, apparently either using a bot or tabbed editing, but whatever he's doing, he's obviously not paying attention to what he's doing, because in many of the cases where he's editing, he's reverting good edits back to vandalism. Corvus cornix 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please block him until he responds to the problem? Corvus cornix 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just spot-checked the last 10 of those he did; they were all either clear vandalism he fixed (8), or seemed to very likely be (2). I don't know if this is manual or automated, but unless you can provide us with good reason to think he's got an automated or semi-automated bot in use, it appears to be good if rapid vandal fighting.

I'm not ruling out that he may have made some mistakes; if so, please call out the specific edits he did which are goofs, preferably to him on his talk page (your note there was too vague). If he keeps making a significant number of mistakes or won't respond to them there, bring it back up here. Georgewilliamherbert 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see with his reverts, most of them are removing vandalism, but a few seem to be trigger happy. The controversial ones have been reverted back to their original ones. This doesn't warrant a block; it would be punitive in such a case. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

His proportion of "goofs" is ten times what anyone actually reading the revisions he's reverting could ever be believe to make, and he's been evasive and nonresponsive when asked to explain. I've blocked him until he gives us a darn good explanation. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See the edit history of Galeries de Hull, where he reverted my speedy delete tag back to an empty article. See his reversion of Donation. See his reversion of Tilt up. See his reversion of Gamma ray burst. Corvus cornix 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See, here's why linking to specific diffs in the initial report is so important. If the first 10 things that an uninvolved admin looks at aren't the problem, then you didn't give us enough info to begin with... Thanks for elaborating now, though. It does clarify the situation. Odd. Georgewilliamherbert 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him to give him a second chance. I hope he learned the importance of double checking what he does. -- lucasbfr 10:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Womcat: A User:Komodo lover sockpuppet

Womcat coincidentally edited some of the same page that User:Black Rhino Ranger edited, including Impossible Creatures and Animal Face-Off. The user even restored a comment made by Blue Rhino Ranger. Pants 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Komodo lover. Pants 03:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

KP appears to be getting herself more and more worked up. May I suggest that either everyone leaves her alone, ie not leave her any more messages or we take the unprecedented step of protecting her talk page to stop the rant - it might get her to step away from the computer and settle down. She is a good editor in my experience, I just don't know how this happened. Viridae 05:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I say we tolerate it, but only to a point. Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and using it to vent your anger should really only be tolerated so far. I agree that for now leaving her alone will give us the best chance of a productive outcome. 05:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that protecting her talkpage is adding insult to (percieved) injury, and might drive her away. Anchoress 05:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was worried about that one too. Driving a good editor away is the last thing I want to do, but she is stewing, working herself up further (I know that well, have been known to do it myself on occasion). Viridae 05:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The best thing would probably be to leave her be for a while, and hope for the best. We all have those "days" every once in a while. Sean William @ 05:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would appreciate my talk page being protected for a while, and my user page, in the Troll version, as I would like people to stop posting insults to me on my talk page. I've said this as many ways as possible, and just been told to shut up, called a witch, and threatened that I will be a troll if I should comment again on the subject. I would rather not have any more comments from Chris's supporters on my talk page, and there seems to be no way to say this, so please, do protect my talk page, and my user page, as they are right now after my most recent edits, for say 24 hours. Thank you. And I'm not worked up, I'm irritated at being treated like dirt, and at having no means of getting Chris and his supporters to leave me alone. No need for anyone to psychoanalyze me via cyberspace. KP Botany 05:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I protected your userpage in the version you want, however I am slightly unsure about fully protecting your talk page - it may stop legitimate users communicating with you about unrelated matters - I would like some opinions from other people please. Viridae 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

People can e-mail me or communicate via project plants or on the article talk pages, my usual method of communicating about issues. However, if it will require administrator input, or more people talking about me, please just diregard the request as someone will just take it as an invitation to call me a troll or something. KP Botany 05:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I think it's an acceptable invocation of IAR. This situation has quickly ballooned, and giving it 24 hours to collapse by such drastic measures seems like a fine idea. Other avenues of communication are open.--Chaser - T 05:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If KP has no problems with communication out of the talk page, it's fine. However, I'm growing a little concerned over these comments directed at KP, which are claimed to be personal attacks. They should probably be warned. I'll look into it a little. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, your talk page is now protected for 24 hours, your userpage for 3 days. If you would like it removed, don't hesitate to ask me or drop a note here or at WP:RFPP. Everyone else can follow KP Botany's instructions and email her about anything unrelated to this issue if you would like her input. I am archiving this because I think it is best for all involved. Viridae 05:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

misuse of admin tools by Irishguy

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl
Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
Irishguy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Irishguy and Tecmo have gotten into it in the past:

They got into a disagreement on the Kevin Youkilis article, where Tecmo a 3RR block (partially related). Tecmo reverted him at 12:17 with an edit summary that said "see talk page". Irishguy didn't wait for Tecmo's comment at the talk page and at 12:20 commented on Tecmo's talk page to let him know there was no comment on the talk page and then reverted him at 12:21. Tecmo's talk page comment clocks in at 12:23, he blanked his talk page at 12:24: "how many idiots are there in one day". Irishguy thinks this is another example of Tecmo's bad behavior:

"Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments."

Except you can see by going to Tecmo's contribution page quite easily, that he reverted and his next contribution was to the talk page. Maybe he had to go to the bathroom, maybe the doorbell rang.

AGF and what actually happened didn't seem to matter. But it should when we're dealing with new editors who could be sockpuppets or who could just be new editors.

Irishguy filed a Suspected sock puppet report. Given that he filed the report and his past with Tecmo, he shouldn't have been the one to declare that the evidence he found was "obvious" and block them both within a day of opening the report.

His solid evidence was that Tecmo warned El Redactor about a conversation on his talk page about El redactor. Tecmo warned El Redactor and no El redactor (cap difference) and El redactor found the conversation anyway.

In actuality, El redactor found his talk page and commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson section, and then the "El redactor" section. Maybe he got there because Irishguy commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page (he'd edited the talk and article pages minutes earlier). Maybe he got there because he looked at Baseball Bugs contributions (his last two edit summaries said "baseball bugs is following me").

WP:AGF and WP:BITE and policy and procedure have been ignored, and people have forgotten that their own arrogance aside, we don't know whether El redactor is or is not Tecmo. If he's Tecmo--a sockpuppet was blocked quickly. But if he isn't, then look what's been done to a new editor. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:07, June 13 2007 (UTC)

At the very least this bears looking into. If the sockcheck was not complete, then it was premature for Irishguy to block. Irishguy does appear to be 'involved', which would seem to suggest that Irishguy should have deferred to an uninvolved editor to do the blocking. I agree that the socks issue looks suspicious, and AGF says it is not a sock until proven to be one. Lsi john 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl has "gotten into it" with many editors, from the beginning. He has been blocked several times recently for 3RR violations, by other admins. El redactor's behavior fits several points of classic sockpuppet behavior, and his connection to Tecmobowl has been demonstrated. Baseball Bugs 17:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The first edit yesterday from El redactor was to the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page and somehow he already knew about me and my edit history in removing that link from articles. Please tell me how he knew to look exactly 100 edits deep into my contribution history to find evidence that I removed those links from other articles. Additionally, the only two days that editor has edited are when Tecmobowl is under a block. That's one hell of a coincidence. Why are his first edits to add Tecmobowl's spam link back? As a side note, what exactly is your connection with Tecmobowl seeing as you keep running all over Misplaced Pages to defened him? IrishGuy 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Miss M's relationship is with Tecmo, but this is one of a recent series of pages on which she has sought to defend him, while posing as uninvolved and unbiased herself, and often while ignoring other's comments pointing out his questionable actions. A brief search will yield the examples to which I refer.

Tecmo has been ignoring Wiki policies with a recidivist obsessive and non-apologetic air, claiming that the directive to be Bold allows him to do so. He within a 3-day period this month was blocked 3 times by admins for 3RR violations, and has generally refused to adhere to consensus or reason. For a number of editors, including me, his activities have proven to be a significant distraction from positive contributions to Wiki. Admittedly, it is difficult to follow his admonitions from admins (and others) as he blanks his talk pages, and asks people not to discuss their problems with his behavior on his talk page. But a review of the following will give some of the flavor of what I am referring to:

• (cur) (last) 21:56, June 12, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) (3,745 bytes) (Decline unblock, continued ranting)
• (cur) (last) 19:26, June 12, 2007 Kurykh (Talk | contribs) (1,762 bytes) (decline unblock)
• (cur) (last) 22:56, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (7 bytes) (get some sense and stop instigating things - your are the poorest admin i have ever come across - don't worry, I'll address your sockpuppetry bs soon enough.)
• (cur) (last) 20:40, June 10, 2007 Heimstern (Talk | contribs) (1,033 bytes) (You have been blocked)
• (cur) (last) 15:26, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,362 bytes) (warning)
• (cur) (last) 15:24, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (847 bytes) (→Stop - how many idiots are there in one day?)
• (cur) (last) 15:20, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,278 bytes) (warning)
• (cur) (last) 14:05, June 10, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) (1,539 bytes) (→Dispute - Add reply.)
• (cur) (last) 13:35, June 10, 2007 TigerShark (Talk | contribs) (468 bytes) (Dispute)
• (cur) (last) 13:17, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (261 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Kevin Youkilis)
• (cur) (last) 13:14, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (259 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Hideki Matsui)
• (cur) (last) 13:05, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (362 bytes) (User Warning -- Delete -- 4im)
• (cur) (last) 12:49, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (360 bytes) (User Warning Level 4 re continued deletions of baseball urls)
• (cur) (last) 12:39, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (1,303 bytes) (→Fangraph deletion - User Warning; Deletion; Level 3)
• (cur) (last) 11:41, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (23,228 bytes) (→Blocked)
• (cur) (last) 01:41, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,931 bytes) (→Blocked - reply)
• (cur) (last) 00:49, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,711 bytes) (→Blocked - block eextended)
• (cur) (last) 00:47, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) m (22,537 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - block notice)
• (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:43, June 7, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - removed a personal attack)
• (cur) (last) 00:39, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,829 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
• (cur) (last) 00:31, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,512 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
• (cur) (last) 10:03, June 6, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
• (cur) (last) 23:13, June 5, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (25,791 bytes) (re persistent ignorance of consensus)
• (cur) (last) 14:48, June 1, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (21,923 bytes) (→Your removal of urls with unique information/edit warring - Why do you assert that your talk page is not an acceptable place to discuss this matter?)
• (cur) (last) 09:01, May 29, 2007 Baseball Bugs (Talk | contribs) (9,536 bytes) (I have asked an admin...)
• (cur) (last) 20:58, October 28, 2006 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) (banned)
• (cur) (last) 11:13, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) m (→Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
• (cur) (last) 11:11, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
• (cur) (last) 04:38, October 21, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (reverted vandalism - User:Tecmobowl keeps blanking page to hide various warnings.)
• (cur) (last) 12:55, October 19, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Warning)
• (cur) (last) 06:09, September 29, 2006 MER-C (Talk | contribs) m (JS: Reverted edits by Tecmobowl to last version by TV Newser)
• (cur) (last) 06:08, September 29, 2006 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (LEAVE ME A LONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the hell do you keep messing with me for)
• (cur) (last) 06:07, September 29, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (rvv - I see you are trying to hide all the vandalism warnings.)
• (cur) (last) 20:18, September 11, 2006 Splash (Talk | contribs) (Baseball: warning)
• (cur) (last) 18:19, September 10, 2006 TBTA (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning)

Finally, as to Miss M's suggestion that he could just be a new editor, I note that he wrote to Amin Nishkid: "I am well aware of the full consequence of my actions and my behavior....//Tecmobowl 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

--Epeefleche 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

homophobia and vandalism

hi user has been making derogatory remarks on the michael jackson edit discussion page towards michael jackson himself and other editors. He refered to michael jackson as a Gay pedophile, he has called people you edit the page freaks and loners for supporting Jackson and resently called me Fagboy. Unforfunately I reacted in an in appropriate manner calling him a smart ass and crap face but have improved my manner and no longer retaliate. I left a message on his user page saying that if he just altered the way he spoke about issues he would be a useful assest to wikipedia. To this he called me a Fagboy. I have also studied his edit history on other articles and the topic of homosexuality seems to come up consistantly and other users have warned him. I hope you will take action on this and would again like tp apologies for my past mistakes. Get back to me on my user page thanxRealist2 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image tags

Dm2ortiz has uploaded a large number of fair-use images without providing any fair use rationales, despite the fact that this requirement has been explained. I tagged his images with {{nrd}}, but he is currently removing all these tags with an edit summary of "vandalism". Dm2ortiz has been unresponsive to my previous attempts to communicate with him, so I am looking for advice as to what to do next. Cheers --Pak21 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you notified the uploader when the images were tagged, though it is hard to tell with users who blank their talk pages. Do that and also mention to them that the tags should not be removed until the issues have been resolved. If that doesn't work, come back and someone will probably block. If you've already passed this step, just supply some diffs here. --After Midnight 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is this version of the user's talk page, where I have been over this with various other images, and the need for rationales has been explained on their current talk page as well. Given this comment by the user, I'm not sure that my comments would be accepted. Restore the tags and leave a message for the user anyway? Cheers --Pak21 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've left a message and rolled back some edits. --After Midnight 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dm2ortiz again removed the rationale from Image:Conan logo.gif and added a rationale to Image:I8 Ravager of Time.jpg which made no attempt to explain why an 800 pixel wide image was needed. I again tagged these articles and left a query on the user's talk page, but these have been reverted as "vandalism" and the user has responded with {{User DGAF}}. I don't see what else I can do here. Cheers --Pak21 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ready to block the user, yet, so try one more thing first. Please treat this as an editing dispute and list the image(s) in question at IFD. This will result in review of the image which you aren't going to get with the other tags being removed. Also, the user can not remove the IFD tag before the issue is resolved or they will be formally warned and blocked for sure. --After Midnight 17:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. (I've listed the two images above; the size problem applies to many of this user's images, but I don't see the need in flooding IfD with many nominations at this point). Cheers --Pak21 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the user finally began to understand what was being asked of him. The user has added fair-use rationales to images which were requesting it. -- moe.RON 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford

Mandrake of Oxford AfD

Hello. I wondered if it'd be possible for an admin to look in to this AfD discussion because the situation appears to be degenerating with allegations of this, that, and the other. I nominated the article for the reasons outlined in the opening paragraph, was promptly accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Emnx by User:IPSOS, am currently being subject to a checkuser request by User:GlassFET - both of whom edit the article - and now there are allegations against another user in support of the AfD nomination of the same sort, and a counter allegation by that individual of abuse of process. This all seems a bit much. I am also wondering if simply holding a position in disagreement to another user is enough to warrant allegations of sockpuppetry etc. This, to me, seems to verge on a personal attack and is certainly a failure to assume good faith. Before the discussion gets any worse I wondered if someone might look into it...? Coldmachine 12:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing sockpuppetry by blocked user Emnx

There appears to be continuing sockpuppetry over Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford. There is one user (Coldmachine) which appears to be an account which predates Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and another newly created (Arthana). The evidence is fairly strong. The history of Emnx is repeated attempts to delete Mandrake of Oxford, the latest using sockpuppet SKRINE2. Here is a highlight and link to full evidence for each user:

• Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Used the exact same language as SKRINE2. Compare edit comment by Coldmachine with AfD nomination by SKRINE2, both use the exact words "is not 'encyclopedic' and seems to be based on commercial-minded exposure/advertising".
  • More evidence at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd)

• Arthana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • User's second edit is to participate in an AfD. When it is pointed out in the Mandrake of Oxford AfD that the user is new, the response comes not from the user, but from an IP address in the range shown by checkuser to have been used by Emnx.
  • More evidence at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (3rd)

How much more obvious does it have to be to get some action taken? IPSOS (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake. I have nothing to do with these people, cool it down and cease with the personal attacks. I came across the article while looking through your edit history after you reverted edits without discussion on the Dune (novel) article, and I happened to agree that the Mandrake of Oxford article GlassFET created, and which you edited, should be deleted. I nominated it for the same reasons. Sockpuppetry allegations are a huge leap to make from mere agreement with another user. Note I have not accused you and GlassFET of being meatpuppets and yet there is ample evidence for that too: the reason being that I am assuming good faith. Quit persecuting me, and cease your personal attacks. This sort of case is precisely the reason why your participation on wikipedia has proven so controversial to date (judging from your talk pages, and edit history). Coldmachine 13:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also add, I made the decision to make an overt comment on the user talk page of User:Emnx to make it clear that I do not support this users behaviour or attitude towards the AfD, and to distance myself from this individual.

One further note. I refer you (again) to a decision made by an admin here in which it was made clear that "...the case is closed, and I didn't find clear evidence that User:Coldmachine is a sockpuppet. If there's further concern, it could go to checkuser; failing that, he should be able to edit without a shadow on him. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)". You persist in these false allegations: I can only assume therefore that these are personal attacks as part of some vendetta you hold against me for merely holding a different view than your own. Coldmachine 13:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note: a checkuser request has been placed, which I think is an appropriate next step (as I didn't find convincing circumstantial evidence as to sockpuppetry here). Let's disengage for a bit; the checkuser request will hopefully be resolved in the next 12-24 hours, and the AfD will close when it closes. MastCell 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Humanities Ref Desk

I'm feeling a bit jaded, so am about to take a Wikibreak. So I could be just being an old miseryguts with this edit (). Appreciate some other admins familiar with the Ref Desks casting an eye over this. At first I thought of pruning out the worst elements, but even if you do that, there's no real Ref Desk question at all. Anyway, if I've been too curmudgeonly, I happily expect to be reverted. --Dweller 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a knowledge-based question to start with, from my read. I'd say good job on sending the poster back under his bridge. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

La Toya Jackson awards and achievements

I recently added a section to the La Toya Jackson article outlining her awards and achievements. The section was unjustifiably removed by User:Metros. I reverted the section back and Metros again removed it, this time claiming that the entire thing must be removed because none of the awards were sourced.

I would like to point out that administrators are suppoed to follow the "good faith" rule, which Metros did not, and that other similar articles such as List of Michael Jackson's awards do not offer citations for every single award. Many of the awards and achievements are common knowledge, and the more obscure awards were found through images of the actual awards themselves, which were recently sold on eBay through a large Jackson family auction. I request that administration look into this issue and restore the awards and achievements section that Metros removed. This would certainly not be the first time that Metros has abused his admin powers and used his own opinions on La Toya Jackson against the article.

71.100.160.189 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the section was justifiably removed by User:Metros. We're not supposed to follow the "good faith" rule when the "good faith" rule goes against majority Misplaced Pages policies like verifiability and, more importantly, biographies of living people which states: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

So, until that's source, it will be removed. Metros 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that User:Metros is so intent on having this section removed but has no opinion on List of Michael Jackson's awards, which is the same thing, only more conentious. 71.100.160.189 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

since he em.. deleted List of Michael Jackson's awards then I think his views on that article are pretty clear.--Fredrick day 15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• See distraction fallacy or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the Michael Jackson award page. Something that large should not go unreferenced since at least May of 2006. Metros 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad I read this thread. The "fact" in the pre-revert version that she is/was a spokesperson for "Star Ice" made me smile and I really needed a smile. --Dweller 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting Deja-vu from this incident - the behaviour (and the IP address) suggests this is User:Rhythmnation2004, who has had similar problem with Latoya based articles (and admin conduct around such articles) in the past. --Fredrick day 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is Rhythmnation2004. See the IPs contributions, especially the edits to the IFD debate (where the IP signed a comment as Rhythmnation). Metros 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can outside editors double-check my actions at La Toya Jackson regarding the readditions of the awards by Rhythmnation2004? He added them here and then I basically removed all of them; some of them didn't have sources and he felt were "common knowledge" and then the ones with "sources" were links to images in Imageshack which I feel really violates our reliable sourcing standards. Thoughts? Metros 16:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

page move got kerflunkeled--help!

MrsMacMan (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

MrsMacMan's move log shows the following:

• 16:11, 11 June 2007 MrsMacMan (talk · contribs) moved Talk:Primary education to Talk:Elementary school (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)
• 16:11, 11 June 2007 MrsMacMan (talk · contribs) moved Primary education to Elementary school over redirect (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)

Primary education redirects to Primary school Talk:Primary education redirects to Talk:Elementary school

I can't even begin to figure out what happened where. Obviously an admin is needed to undo these--if these are moves that need to be done they should be done properly and probably proposed first. I'm guessing it was in the undoing that something got kerflunkeled. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:41, June 13 2007 (UTC)

Why do they need to be undone? Looks like primary education should redirect to Elementary School, as does the talk page. What's wrong with it? ⇒ SWATJester 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that MrsMacMan has declared that the Way That Things Are Done In Some Parts of the United States Of American Trumps The Way That Things Are Done Elsewhere In The World? Or have I just not looked hard enough? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've moved it back and move protected it to allow a discussion to actually take place (I would say that the majority of the English-speaking nations refer to these as "primary schools"), and WP:MOS says stick with the original title in cases of US vs British English. Neil ╦ 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Moved to SSP investigaton

This user's been blanking their talkpage - full of vandalism notices - several times this week, and has also made some very strange edits, and very few non-strange ones. As I told them, I suspect that they're a sockpuppet of Dwrules, France a, Secisalive! and Secfrance, the last three of whom are all indef-blocked, and were all self-confessed sockpuppets. Any suggestions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Users are not obligated to keep comments on their talk page. It appears he's enforcing policy such as WP:NOT as well (and to a degree WP:TRIVIA, a guideline). Matthew 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war over other editor's talkpages. MrClaxson (talk · contribs) is free to blank his talkpage if he so chooses (though archiving is always the preferable option). If you believe this person is a sockpuppet, open a sockpuppet investigation or a request for checkuser with evidence in the form of diffs.--Isotope23 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I do a WP:SSP on him, if there are two current accounts?--Rambutan (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List one as the main account and one as the sock. I'd make sure you have diffs for evidence though before opening as sock investigation.--Isotope23 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Right!--Rambutan (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Diluvien

Diluvien continues to edit or delete content from articles related to gothic subculture to force them in line with his POV, and accuses those who try to discuss it with him on his talk page of being idiots. He's already been blocked once for personal attacks and disregarding revert rules.--Halloween jack 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hannahrama

Hannahrama is with about 99% certainty a sockpuppet of Susannah_Mills. The user has made a personal attack on my talk page, erased a warning from her own talk page, and recreated a previously non-notable, conflict of interest bio of herself at Susannah Mills. I recommend a block. Chicken Wing 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, now isn't that interesting. First edit is to the talkpage for Chicken Wing (talk · contribs), then moves on to recreating a previously deleted article and uploading several redundant versions of an image with no licensing or copyright info (and they appear to be copyright violations from the looks of it)...--Isotope23 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a basis for a block. Even if Hannahrama (talk · contribs) = Susannah_Mills (talk · contribs), I don't see any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. I will warn the editor about the talkpage comment though--Isotope23 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Already warned, and I speedily deleted the article under G4 (recreation of deleted material following AfD). I agree that I wouldn't block the account right now, but I left a warning to the effect that continuing to recreate the article or attack other editors will result in a block sooner rather than later. MastCell 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious behaviour at WP:CHU

Hello, I think someone may be monitoring WP:CHU and intentionally creating accounts and making an edit in them so they cannot be renamed or usurped, earlier today I requested as name change at CHU for: The Sunshine Man to Qmt and it was not registered at the time, it was created just a few hours ago, then User:Bealljoh requested a rename to 5minuteautoloan where the account was only created a few hours ago too, its as if someone is doing this in order to intentionally destroy the chances of people being re-named. The Sunshine Man 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave a note somewhere around WP:CHU explaining that someone is violating WP:DICK and urge the bureaucrats to allow these new accounts to be usurped. Checkuser might be worthwhile if you want to flush out whoever is doing it. – Steel 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally name changes are honored if the name did not exist when the request was filed, and logs exist to show this. Make a note on your request and on talk:CHU. A couple of bureaucrats have checkuser; if it's some IP he could be briefly blocked; if its a regular editor, he needs a stern talking to at the least. Thatcher131 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

'Crats discussed this here and decided they would treat it as disruption and block accordingly.--Chaser - T 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As a little update... 'Crats are renaming the distruptive accounts, so the the reqeusted name can be usurped and the user be renamed. Anyways, that is what I understood from the discussion... Evilclown93_(talk) 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Yet another one. Yosuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been copying news articles (from the Washington Post, CNN and the L.A. Times among others) and creating articles from their content, despite four boilerplate warnings and a note from EarthPerson (talk · contribs). I deleted several of the articles and have blocked Yosuf for 24 hours. Question is, should it have been indefinite? I'm still wary of blocking users, and would appreciate an opinion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable for now. If he comes off the block and does it again, we could consider a longer block. Hopefully this first block will drive home the "yes, we're really serious about copyright" message. Friday (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Friday... 24 hr is a good "we are serious about this" block. If the message doesn't sink in and copyvio's continue to be posted, I would probably indef block pending a discussion with the editor on his/her talkpage where they affirm that they understand the policy and agree to adhere to it.--Isotope23 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll keep an eye on his contributions when the block expires tomorrow. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

24 hours seems reasonable, with possible increases if the user doesn't get the hint. Indefinite blocking should be reserved for serious repeated violations of policy. exolon 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD edit war

This AfD is getting out of hand. User:WATP added a comment insinuating that new account (User:Coeur-sang) was commenting heavily on AfDs involving User:Vintagekits. Vintagekits reverted/removed the comment. It's now turned into a revert-fest. I'm not sure whether 3RR applies to the Misplaced Pages namespace, but it's gone well past that point, with incivil edit summaries etc. Could someone have a word? Ta. EliminatorJR 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Users warned for revert warring, if it continues I'll block. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am getting confusing messeges from different admins. Can you please clear up the position.--Vintagekits 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seem like different cases to me, should be resolved with check user, SqueakBox 18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits behavior over the last 24 hours is unacceptable. Looking through his contribs just in the last 18 hours, I count another revert war (he was involved in one yesterday, too, and reported his opponent at WP:AN3), a personal attack on, of all things, what he thought were another's user's sports preferences (for the record, the user in question is not actually a fan of that team), and multiple incivilities . This is all after a stern final warning from me just yesterday. I would like another admin's opinion on a 24 hour block to put an end to this trail of disruption. Picaroon (Talk) 18:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and block, I was unaware of the previous edit war and personal attacks when I gave that warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I almost did it myself until I saw that Ryan had warned, and that was before I knew about the past history. A block seems to me to be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, how can what I did be wrong yet you said that opposite yesterday. Yesterday you said that Sqweeakbox removed that comment than that was OK, and then when I follow your ruling exactly then I am in the wrong. All I am look for it a little consistancy.--Vintagekits 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth can this be ruled OK but when I do the exact same today its not. All I am doing is following the advice another admin (John) stated on my talk page yesterday.--Vintagekits 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 24 hours. Picaroon (Talk) 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A question

Hello, recently user Metros deleted an article called List of Michael Jackson awards. There is an ongoing discussion about this move at the user's talk page. The user cited lack of citations for a lengthy period of time and the article's lack of compliance with the biographies of living persons for the deletion. I'm arguing, to put it briefly, that the article should be reinstated because legitimate articles have a right to be on Misplaced Pages, despite any problems they may have. There are many other articles like the one that was deleted with the same problems, yet no major push exists to extirpate all of them from our encyclopedia. I feel like the user's move was too rash and inappropriate and am requesting that the article be brought back. Thank you for listening.UberCryxic 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Too rash? It's been tagged for sources since May 2006. It is subject to the policies of biographies of living persons as it is an extension of his biography which is subject to removal when sources do not exist, no matter how true or how positive or negative the comments are. Metros 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for how long it's been uncited. This is not a biography. It's a list of awards. The standards are not that harsh, and certainly virtually never harsh enough to delete the entire article (unless, among other reasons, original consensus decided that such articles shouldn't exist, which isn't the case here).UberCryxic 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I did on Metros talk page, I'm going to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, whether UberCryxic thinks that argument "stinks" or not. Bmg916 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Metros, I have a proposal, which I also explained in your talk page. I will thoroughly cite as much as I can from that article if you reinstate it. If I haven't done so within, let's say two weeks, then you can delete it again. It was not explained in the talk page of that article that legitimate articles met such harsh fates if they went uncited for long periods of time.UberCryxic 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you create it in your User space, then when you're ready to display it, have a discussion with Metros? To recreate it right now when it was correctly deleted, would be rather WP:POINTy. Corvus cornix 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I can do that as well, but since I don't have the original page, I would have to compeltely re-create it. It's a very long article. I'd much rather have the original copy and cite what I can out of it, deleting the rest if necessary. Reinstating the page would actually solve all of our problems under my conditions: the article stays, satisfying me, and it will be cited, satisfying Metros. If not, it can be deleted again. I don't feel like this is an unreasonable request.UberCryxic 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to Corvus, WP:POINT doesn't apply here at all. It is so far removed from this situation that to bring it up is ludicrous.UberCryxic 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Most recent version of the deleted page has been usefied at User:UberCryxic/List of Michael Jackson's awards to allow for UberCryxic to work on getting a sourced version created. - TexasAndroid 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get on this and contact Metros when ready.UberCryxic 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's give Metros a chance to object to my actions, but unless he does object, I think we can consider this discussion closed for now. - TexasAndroid 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that removal without sourcing only applied to contentious material. A list of awards hardly qualifies unless it included negative awards like "Most overrated singer" or something. exolon 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard

• EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)
• See: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258#User:EliasAlucard archived today.

Since the expiration of the 24 hour block (as per previous ANB/I discussion linked above), the user is still raining personal attacks. To be more specific (and this is a partial exert): "This is comparable to some Nazi running around and deleting Jewish stubs and Jewish political userboxes."

When told not to engaged in further personal attacks, he responded with a "I'm just pointing out his racist motives."

-- Cat 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is only trying to get me banned. He's got something against Assyrians and he's resorting to some kind of censorship by trying to get me banned for speaking up about his motives. He's running around on Misplaced Pages and he's trying to get everything about Assyrian related stuff deleted (example ). We got a dispute here, and I'm not the one out of line. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

When told not to engaged in further personal attacks, he responded with a "I'm just pointing out his racist motives." - What's wrong with that? If I believe that you have racist intentions in what you're doing, am I not allowed to point that out? EliasAlucard|Talk 21:28, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images incorrectly deleted on June 6

Would anyone be willing to help me out with a review of fair use images incorrectly deleted on June 6? Some of you may recall that every image with an expired dated disputed fair use tag was deleted on that date, without any review to determine if the deletions were appropriate.

Until June 5, Template:Dated dfu stated that editors should not remove the tag if they address the concern; instead, an administrator should review the editor's effort and remove the tag. Many images were tagged as lacking a fair use rationale on May 31st or June 1st, had fair use rationales added in the next few days but did not have their tags removed, because the tag specifically said not to, and then were incorrectly deleted on the 6th.

Naconkantari stated that he would restore images on request, and he would also manually review his deletions. He stopped editing on June 8 and has not restored images since then, and he never even started a manual review or undeleted any files that were not specifically requested.

Is there an automated way that we can approach the task of reviewing and undeleting these files as appropriate? If not, would anyone be willing to split up the task with me? Depending on how many people would be willing to help, maybe we could divide the task into blocks. TomTheHand 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Death Threat

User:Ohmygeoffrey has created an attack page including a threat to kill the subject of it. Please take appropriate action. exolon 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)\

This user has no contribs, SqueakBox 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The users contribs were deleted. I found them and indef blocked for threats in personal attack articles. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation of a copyright holder

I came across a page on a NYC artist, Nathan Mellott, on a recent CSD patrol. The page has since been deleted, but images that were uploaded by Bluefortytwo (talk · contribs) remain. These images are the work of the artist, and are tagged with either GFDL release templates, or in some cases release into the public domain templates.

I have contacted the real life Nathan Mellott via email, and he objects to the release of his artwork under these licenses. Will an administrator kindly delete the image contributions in question and indefinitely block the offending user for impersonation and disruption. I will gladly forward the email conversation to an administrator who requests it. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets in voting

• User:Shoopshoop appears to be an account created just to comment and vote for deletions. It has just a dozen or so edits, all related to User:Sexyorge and User:Josmul123 I suspect they are coming from the same IP address to disrupt a vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing on DYK

I see that we are once again bashing the Church of Scientology on the front page of this project by means of WP:DYK. Since DYK updates are admin actions I am posting here. Would you'all please take a look at the fact that with about 270 articles related to Scientology on Misplaced Pages out of how many total articles, DYK "facts" critical of Scientology seem to show up with alarming frequency? Most are the work of one editor, Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and she has had an inordinate number, well over 30, DYKs in recent months on her anti-cult soap-boxing (see User:Smee/DYK#Created). But I do not fault Smee here as all she can do is nominate, it takes an admin to elevate and Howcheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be her willing partner. --Justanother 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot