Misplaced Pages

ItaliaVivi is blocked for 48 hours for (unrelated) violation of 3RR, and has announced that he leaves Misplaced Pages, which makes this all rather moot. Fram 09:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that may be relevant. Szero's comment on Italiavivi's user talk page included the word "confabulating" used in an unnecessary and provoking manner and may possibly have been a contributing factor in Italiavivi's decision to try to leave Misplaced Pages. I think that users should not have total control over their user talk page. They should not be able to use it as a forum where a limited group of people can develop a consensus that does not include all points of view (as I tried to do on a user page once and was criticized for it and stopped). However, posting a comment which does not assume good faith and which is provoking and at the same time is overstepping a request to stay off the talk page is a combination which I think is worse than any one of those things alone. I think Szero has mistaken a user with a very different point of view with a user who does not have good faith -- they are two very different things. --Coppertwig 12:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have not mistaken anything. This was not a matter of a different point of view but of different facts: those in the edit history and those in Italiavivi's mind. The word "confabulating" was carefully chosen to describe what I believe Italiavivi was actually doing, and what I believe s/he has done before. It's as much good faith as I can muster for him/her, and bear in mind that I am under no obligation to assume any GF, having had plenty of evidence to the contrary, but rather than accuse him/her of deliberately lying (as s/he did to me) I gave a more innocent explanation. But the facts remain the facts, and they're not as Italiavivi has represented them, either in that case or in the previous ones.

And it remains the case that nobody has the right to ban others from appropriate use of their talk pages, and defying such a purported ban does not constitute harassment. Which means that this complaint was frivolous, yet another violation to Italiavivi's account. -- Zsero 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of this

I've seen quite a lot of people lately who think they can "ban" other people they dislike from their talk page. It may sound like stating the obvious, but perhaps WP:UP needs to point out that they can't do that? >Radiant< 09:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. Viridae 09:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly true, but it's often wise to honor a request to stay away. Tom Harrison 11:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a balanced edit to UP, once which explicitly states taht 'while a user's request that you not continue using his talk page is not enforcable because it constitutes a WO:OWN violation, it's often wise to be CIVIL and disengage, at least for a brief period (such as a day, or weekend), to allow both parties to cool off and return their focus to the content dispute.', thus making it clear that it's good manners, but not policy, to stop when asked. ThuranX 11:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally consider it really bad form to post to someone's talk page if they make it clear they don't want any communication with you. I don't think there should be a policy about it either way. We shouldn't encourage Wikilawyering, but we shouldn't encourage WP:DICK violations either. – Quadell 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I consider it really childish to tell people "whatever you have to say, I don't want to hear it". It's the wiki equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la" at the top of your voice. >Radiant< 13:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand the concerns about harassment and incivility, but I think these can be dealt with by other means than talk page embargoes. These include comments by uninvolved admins, the dispute resolution process, and (in extreme cases) admin actions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. As a policy, it could be gamed and used to justify harassment. Radiant's stance would make for a mighty fine essay though. ˉˉ╦╩ 18:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • • Perhaps we could add Radiant's note to WP:UP, but also bring up WP:HARRASS on the page and specifically state that as an exception, or something. You Can't Review Me!!! 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Codyfinke6

Hello, This is a repost, The user Codyfink6 is making these edits again, this time on the Wendy's article. Could some on please take the time to block him? The complaints are piling up on his talk page. I do not believe he is a sock puppet, but he causing issues that are disrupting several articles. - Jerem43 05:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't udnerstand why this User has not been blocked. Could someone please explain? Corvus cornix 15:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, since my original post on the 7th: According to his contribution page, he has made approximately 8 edits, only one of which was productive and not reverted. There is one article that he has created that has been tagged for speedy deletion as non-notable and one that was deleted for the same reason. Again he has been requested to verify all edits and ignored the requests. - Jerem43 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Original post

I made a request earlier this week that this user be blocked (again) as that he is consistently making disruptive/unproductive edits and/or creating articles that are non-notable (I cannot find the archive of it). He has been requested to stop by myself and at least 10 other editors or administrators, yet he ignores our requests and continues to do so.

He has created at least nine non-notable articles that met the criteria for speedy deletion, two of which he tried to recreate several times. Several articles that he did create, he was asked to modify so that they met the criteria of a notable article, yet he did not and another editor had to. When he does create an article, it is usually just a sentence or two long, does not cite any sources and he fails to place a {{stub}} designation.

Here are some articles he has made disruptive/unproductive edits to:

• Burger King products - keeps putting incorrect or conflicting data in;
• List of CBS slogans - created an article that was basically a duplicate of the main article;
• CBS Records - put incorrect or conflicting data in;
• Dice Game (pricing game) - deleted a section of the article without stating reasons why, was requested to do so and did not. The edits to the article were were reverted and cited for vandalism on it as a result;
• Farmer Jack - deleted a section of the article without stating reasons why, was requested to do so and did not. The edits to the article were were reverted and cited for vandalism on it as a result;
• WLS-TV - put incorrect or conflicting data in;
• WNYW - keeps modifying their slogans with incorrect data.

Mr. Finke will not respond to any posts on his talk page, so this has been very frustrating to many editors who have tried to engage him in a productive dialog to help him understand what he has been doing violates the policies of Misplaced Pages. He has already been blocked once and I believe that he needs to be blocked again, for at least 30 days if possible. This will hopefully get the point across that he has been causing harm to this community.

Jerem43 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds strongly like User:MascotGuy. Corvus cornix 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Has this user made any constructive edits? If it's not something from the sock drawer (as suggested by Corvus) maybe it's time for a WP:CSN? --Rocksanddirt 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that any sanctions against him would be ignored as that he does not read his talk page. ---Jerem43 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why not just block him like all of his other sockpuppets? Corvus cornix 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure this guy is a sock puppet, but he is being disruptive. Could an administrator please put a block on him for a 30 day period, as the first one seemed to be completely ignored. - Jerem43 02:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring on today's featured article

Two editors have been reverting like mad on today's featured article, Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. I've blocked both of them for 12 hours, but since this is my first 3RR enforcement, feel free to adjust length or overturn as needed. Resurgent insurgent 05:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here yourself and hopefully and admin can soon have a second look. Let me just note that it is very unfortunate that we arrive at a situation where the author of a featured article gets blocked for multiple reversions on 'his' article the same day that it gets posted and can't help feeling that we should have been more vigilant / helpful in the first place --Tikiwont 15:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor in question claims he was reverting vandalism, and a cursory review of the diffs seems to bear that out. Please keep in mind that obvious vandalism is an exception to the 3RR policy. When an article is a TFA, it's a magnet for vandalism, and we need to keep that in mind and approach things a little more carefully. I think you owed the author a bit of an explanation when you blocked, telling him why the vandalism exception didn't apply in this case, assuming you believed that it didn't. AKRadecki 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Err Resurgent insurgent's block doesn't show up in the logs at all. The users in question are User:BQZip01 and User:ThreeE, for the record (took me 10 minutes to find out who he was talking about :P). The two user block logs in question: and . Ignoring that confusing note, 3rr was indeed broken, and it was not vandalism. One editor removed a bit of unsourced information in the lead and it was reinserted back and forth, so the block was appropriate. Cowman109 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BQZip01 has done the 3RR thing again today -- the second day in a row on the article in question. ThreeE 06:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am only partially involved as I was working vandal patrol yesterday but he is reverting other edits not related to this particular subject you guys are fighting about. There has been a LONG discussion on the talk page and consensus appears to be near but you came along and went ahead and edited anyway despite the ongoing discussion you knew was taking place. That is my observation. I am going to try to get BQZip01 to cool it a bit but you need to participate in the discourse. It would be better for the article. Spryde 11:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Two bands called The Need

Currently, Misplaced Pages has an article called The Need about a late '90s queercore band from Washington. Recently, however, the article has been getting edits that change the subject entirely, to a different band located in California that happens to have the same name. Starting with this edit on August 10th, several users and IPs have been changing the article to the same version, all discussing this other band. Oddly enough, all the editor names are similar to the lead singer of the band, Garrett McArthur. Gee, wonder who it could be...

Garrettmcarthur - only edits have been to The Need
72.129.69.164 - only edits have been to The Need
Wgmcarthur - edited The Need, also created page at Garrett McArthur

After the IP vandalized following a suggestion I left on Wgmcarthur's talk page to just create a new article, I got a bit fed up. I've requested semi-protection for the page, but I'd also like to see the two editors and the IP blocked as single-purpose accounts. Garrett McArthur probably ought to be deleted as well. Thanks. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Would either band even qualify per our notability criteria?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The original one is marginal - probably passes WP:MUSIC per their touring etc. The "new" one almost certainly doesn't - and Garrett McArthur is definitely A7 and I've speedily deleted it. ELIMINATORJR 06:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The California band definitely doesn't (and by extension, neither does its singer). To be honest, though, I haven't read the original article too closely, so I can't vouch for its notability either way. I'd be okay if someone wants to tag the whole thing for deletion. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

New development: Semi-protection has been declined. I'd still like the users in question to be blocked, though. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The promoter (self promoter?) adding the new California band needs a stern warngin at the least. His article's entirely CRYSTAL, as it predicts where we might someday hear their music, based on the fact that they know a producer who worked with some big names. The other band, int he older version of the article, has a passing notability, but not much more. However, that the older article has mild notability, and the new one has nothing but maybes, I'd support a long talking to or a short block if the edits persist. ThuranX 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

72.129.69.164 has just attempted to revert The Need to the version about the band from California again. This has really got to stop. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 09:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Final warned that IP. Jmlk17 09:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Recourse for being falsely attributed to broad ranges of IP addresses.

User:Hu12 is attributing past edits made from an entire range of a large ISP to myself, including many which are literally years old and pre-date my introduction to Misplaced Pages. He insists on attributing this range of IP addresses to me, and I would like to know what kind of recourse exists for these types of claims.

The IP range in question has made over 7,000 edits total according to Misplaced Pages Scanner. There is inevitably overlap when using such a large ISP, and I will not be held accountable for every edit from my geographical region in the past three years (especially when I have only known of Misplaced Pages for one year). Numerous editors have already raised concerns about the compliance of Hu's page with WP:RFC's guidelines (especially the lack of prior resolution attempts, mischaracterized diffs, and certification by completely unrelated users), but this most recent development (attributing an entire IP range to myself) is of serious concern to me.

I am also requesting serious independent review of Hu12's RfC against me. I do not believe Hu's page abides by the guidelines at WP:RFC, which reads:

From WP:RFC: "The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it."

What is going on at Hu's RfC is getting out of hand; it is exactly what WP:RFC says is not the way to approach things. It is not a page which complies with WP:RFC, it is not organized, and it is making accusations which I have no apparent recourse against (attributing large IP ranges to me). Hu is placing placing warnings on my talk page for contesting his use of IPs which are not my own; please, I ask that others here take the time to review what's going on at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Italiavivi and tell me if it is what WP:RFC really prescribes. I am open to conflict resolution, but this RfC has been nothing but conflict, with no resolution or good faith whatsoever. Italia 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Will another sysop please prevent this user from removing content from his own RFC? The content that is being repdedly removed is a part of the origional filed Sept 2cnd. thank you--Hu12 07:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I politely as possible asked Hu to stop attributing these IP addresses to me, and Hu responded by claiming that my request was threats and personal attack," for god's sake! Hu has described me as "irredeemable" and expressed a desire to "firmly remove me from the project." This individual has no interest whatsoever in resolving anything with me, and shows no concern about his falsel, sweeping, indiscriminate attribution of IP addresses to myself. What kind of recourse exists for me here? How is this dispute resolution, and how is this pinning of IP addresses to me not harassment? Italia 07:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the disruptive behaviour that has got you into an RfC in the first place. During the whole process you have denied that there is a problem with your behaviour but it is obvious that you now need to open your eyes and listen to what the community is saying. There's nothing wrong with how the RfC is formed, it's a lot better than most - you now need to accept what other users have to say. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Half your malformed RfC's responses are editors expressing skepticism about the behavior and merits of those who created the RfC against me, and there are suspected sockpuppets endorsing your particular section of the page. You are not a spokesperson for the "community," and you are not an outside view on the compliance of your own page. Italia 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Same pages, same range. Quack quack. CU would say "sockpuppet. And yes, whole ranges have been blocked for one disruptive user, e.g. Manchester vandal. Will 08:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we forgo with the taunting? Also, what's Hu using {{uw-delete2}}? Can he not express his own thoughts? The use of templates to communicate in such instances is not acceptable. Nor is revert warring in one's own RfC, of course. El_C 09:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Many users feel that standardized templates are the best way to keep things from getting personal. See, for example, WP:TTR. I don't agree with that essay, but simply point it out to illustrate the opposing view. -- Satori Son 12:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is not many users, it is basically a provocation. El_C 14:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say most users, I said many, and I stand by that. If you look at the debate going on at Misplaced Pages talk:Don't template the regulars, I hope you'll agree there is a lack of consensus on this particular issue. Just for the record, I agree with you that it is almost always better to use a personalized message when dealing with a long-time user. I'm just saying not everyone else feels the same way. -- Satori Son 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ItaliaVivi is blocked for 48 hours for (seriously) violating 3RR, and has announced that he leaves Misplaced Pages. Fram 09:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Hu12 for 24 hours for also exceeding three reverts in this conflict. The first removals of content, and edit warring to keep them out, from the RFC were actually Hu12 repeatedly removing Italiaviva's comments. Both users also took part in the subsequent edit war with Italiaviva similarly attempting to remove content added by Hu12. While both clearly exceeded three reverts, and were aware of the prohibition against doing so, Hu12 (unlike Italiavivi) has not previously been blocked for this and thus I gave a shorter block period. --CBD 12:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Fram supposedly failed to check both sides. -- FayssalF - 15:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I only checked what happened at the time I saw the dits (through recent changes), and those were way too many reverts by ItaliaVivi: I also did not consider the reinsertioon of Hu12 of his own comments as reverts, as removing other people's comments is vandalism, and reverting vandalism is allowed. However, I should havce noticed the other edits (reverts) by Hu12, which also deserved a block. Thanks for keeping the balance here and looking at both sides a bit more carefully. Fram 15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is just normal as contributors in general tend to consider admins as a good example and therefore believe in advance that we (admins) do respect policy more than anyone. This is waht happens. -- FayssalF - 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Check again, Fram - you were right the first time. As you say, the reinsertion of the IPs doesn't count for 3RR, because it was reverting vandalism. And the other edits you refer to are not reverts at all, they're moving comments to the talk page, where they belong. It seems to me that Hu12's block was mistaken and should be lifted immediately. -- Zsero 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So... Hu12's removal of Italiavivi's statements that two of the IP addresses listed were not his was 'proper', but Italiavivi's subsequent removal of those two IP addresses (after his disavowal of them had been taken away) was 'vandalism'? No, I don't think so. Vandalism is a deliberate act to damage or disrupt the encyclopedia. Italiavivi only removed those IP addresses from the page after his statements that they were not his had been taken off. He clearly was not committing 'vandalism', but rather removing the content he objected to since he was not being allowed to show that objection on the page. The vandalism policy does not prohibit removal of materials from RFC pages (else Hu12's removals would have been 'vandalism' too). There is a general prohibition against rewriting the comments of others to change their meaning, but that is not in issue here as Italiavivi left the general claims about IP use and various other IP addresses in place - only removing the two that he was disputing on the talk page. That's a content dispute. As was the repeated removal of Italiavivi's comments from the page. --CBD 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Remark: User:Hu12 is waiting for a review of his block: user talk:Hu12. --Dirk Beetstra 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, admin got the "Hu thought he was doing the right thing, and since blocks are preventitive, not punitive, there is no reason for this to continue, now that he has been informed." The editor got no such treatment. Keep up the good work admins. -- FayssalF - 02:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The cases are not even remotely similar. Italiavivi was removing content from the RFC, on the grounds that s/he claimed it wasn't true. It's to be expected that the subject of the RFC will deny some or all of the accusations, and that's why s/he has a space to put his/her side of the story. That was the proper place to claim that those IPs were somebody else, and offer whatever proof s/he could. Instead s/he simply asserted that it wasn't true, and edited the material out. That's not acceptable, and s/he must have known it.

What Hu did, on the other hand, was either proper, or if improper not obviously so. Hu removed, not material belonging to the RFC, but comments that did not belong there. The RFC instructions are clear - comments about the subject go on the main page; comments about the comments go on the talk page. All Hu did was move the meta-discussion from the main page to the talk page. S/he moved all the meta-discussion, not just Italiavivi's. Now maybe s/he shouldn't have done that; I don't know. But s/he certainly had grounds for believing that s/he was doing the right thing. There was clearly no intent to disrupt anything, and therefore no need to block.

Zsero 04:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of what you said above confirms what the said editor was having at their userpage long before Hu12 decided to AfD it and file a RfC on them. I've seen a lot of administrative misguidance. Whatever is the case, admins should show a great deal of patience which this particular admin hasn't. Check their RfA. The admin in question has already been blocked before but was unblocked just because he is a good person. I am ringing this bell and would like to see a better attitude from this admin. -- FayssalF - 10:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

italvivi is unblocked as well. See CBD reasoning above. -- FayssalF - 10:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, and how have you discussed this with me (the blocking admin?)? Furthermore, where has ItaliaVivi indicated that he recognises that he was in error? He didn't even ask for an unblock, he asked to be indef blocked and to have his user page and talk page deleted. I may have missed the CDB post you referred to, but all I can see is a post by CDB agreeing that ItaliaVivi shuldbe blocked, but pointing out that Hu12 should have been blocked as well (albeit for a shorter period). Where has he reasoned that ItaliaVivi should be unblocked, and where have you discussed that possibility with me? You have unblocked him "because he is now informed", which is a rather poor unblock reason.Fram 12:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Fram and agree w/ some of what you say but the situation is totally different. There was a prior AfD of the user userpage and a subsequent RfC. There is a clear conflict between the user and the admin. You may not have known about all the story but it seems that the userpage in question was talking about admins misguidance (not your of course) and that Hu12 as an admin took it too far until it became a personal conflict. So when the admin was reverting, he wasn't doing his job as an admin but as a regular editor. Admins in direct conflict w/ an editor should show patience and common sense but it wasn't the case here. I saw a clear bias (not from you of course) and i cannot keep silent. Admins and editors are no different except the tools. Hu12 has clearly led italvivi to react that way and vice versa. Keep in mind that this is the second time Hu12 is unblocked because he is a good person and he thought he was right. We do justice. Free them all or keep them locked alltogether. -- FayssalF - 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why has italiavivi been unblocked? He reverted 6 times in an hour, has a previous history of edit warring and we have had no comment from him that he will stop. Hu12 admitted his errors and said he would not edit war any more so got unblocked. This should have been discussed more as I stongly object to the unblock in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The unblock will probably do no harm, so I'm not going to actively go after a reblocking. I can follow part of your reasoning, and am certainly not trying to put all the blame on ItaliaVivi, but the difference (to me) is that Hu12 is unblocked because he "now realizes he should have done it differently" (from the unblock reason), while I have seen no statements indicating this from ItaliaVivi. However, as he has supposedly left Misplaced Pages completely, keeping him blocked serves no further purpose. Fram 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's probably gone anyway guys. I hope admins realize how chasing an editor is bad for Misplaced Pages health. If Hu12 has apologized than great. If Italiavivi didn't it is because he is most probably gone away. The issue of italiavivi has been dealt w/ in an improper and exaggerated manner. -- FayssalF - 13:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep on missing an essential point: Italiavivi and Hu12 were not blocked for the same offense. Italiavivi was blocked for 3RR, in the form of removing part of the accusation against him/her 6 times. Hu12 was not blocked for reverting those edits - on the contrary, Fram agreed that Hu12 was right to do so, because it was reverting vandalism. Instead, Hu12 was blocked for removing comments from the RFC page; but that block was in error, because all s/he was doing was moving the comments to the talk page, which is where they belonged. Now maybe s/he shouldn't have done that; maybe once the comments were made in the wrong place s/he should have left them there. But that's a very different offense from Italiavivi's, so unblocking one should not have any bearing on unblocking the other, and it's wrong to see the two cases in parallel. -- Zsero 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On Privacy and Harassment

Looking further at the underlying dispute, I think there is reason for concern and greater consideration here. Essentially what has happened is that someone dug up two instances where Italiavivi made edits without logging in, but signed his username to them. Then taking those IP addresses they went through other IPs in the same range and picked out some that they felt to be 'similar' and listed all of these IPs (and the two with identifying signatures) on the RFC. The wikimedia:Privacy policy states that we will only reveal IP addresses in response to a court order, to deal with extensive vandalism from a range, or the like... and WP:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information prohibits revelation of personally identifying information the person has not themselves chosen to make public. Now, it can certainly be argued that since these IP addresses belong to ranges held by ISPs they may not be personally identifying enough to be of concern and that Italiaviva 'chose' to make his association with these IPs public when he signed his username to edits by them.... but it doesn't smell good. Nor does the listing of IP addresses as supposedly being his seem kosher when Checkuser would turn down cold any request to so link them. Italiaviva says some of them aren't his, and checkuser considers it a privacy violation to review the matter at all... so how is it ok to post them without the imprimatur of checkuser?

Bottom line - we shouldn't be attempting to 'ferret out' the IP addresses of users. If we continue allowing this practice (and I've seen other recent examples of it) then eventually there will come a day when an IP address which does lead directly back to the person behind it is revealed. Hopefully it will be an innocent case and no harm will come of it, but we can't really know. As I've said before... we should either always protect our user's IPs and identities or clearly state that we don't. Right now we say that we do, but allow alot of behaviours and activities which compromise that. --CBD 13:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a very valid point to make CBD, but if a user chooses to edit with their IP or for that matter a changing IP from an ISP then that is upto them. If they are using IP's to make it appear that they haven't been editing a particular page, or skip past a 3RR violation then that is up to them, but we have a duty to compare these edits and if it is clear a user has been using an IP to make disruptive edits, bring it to their (and the communities) attention. We're not talking about outing an IP that a user has been editing on - that would be wrong as the user hasn't chosen to do this, but comparing edits and saying that an IP and a user are the same person, ultimately abusing WP:SOCK. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact: our privacy policy does not promise to protect the privacy of those who are not logged in, and even specifically says that users who are concerned about their privacy should log in. All promises of privacy that follow are qualified with the words "when using a pseudonym". Without commenting on the appropriateness of all of Hu12's actions, Italiavivi is the one who revealed his own IP address. Natalie 13:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... so if you don't realize you aren't logged in and you make an edit which can be linked back to you then you are out of luck? Or, as occurs in this case, if people simply think that an IP address may be yours they can and should go about posting it as evidence? We can go that way if people want. I don't see any pressing reason to do so, but if we are going to then I think we should make it more clear that we allow (encourage?) users to do what they can to dig up and post the IP addresses of others whom they are in dispute with. --CBD 14:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say there is a difference between making an edit from you IP that maybe able to be linked back to you, and going back and signing your name to an IP edit you made. The first can only be guessed to be you, and if you really don't want people to know your IP address you have plausible deniability. Whereas the second is more than just not paying attenion - it's not paying attention and then going back and deliberately tying yourself to that IP address. Misplaced Pages only promises privacy to logged in users, because it is impossible to provide privacy to anonymous users, and Misplaced Pages cannot do anything if users reveal their own IP addresses. To clarify myself, though, I don't think what Hu12 is doing is acceptable, and I would describe it as harrassment, but I would not describe it as a privacy violation. There is a difference. Or rather, a violating someone's privacy is a form of harrassment, but all harrassment is not violating privacy. Natalie 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand the impulse to 'catch the bad guy', but am not sure this manifestation of it comports with actual practice. I recall a case where an IP address made a 4th revert, identical to three preceding it by a logged in user, and WP:RCU refused a request to determine whether that IP address was the same as the user for purposes of establishing whether a 3RR violation had occurred. IPs aren't useful for most types of 'sockpuppet abuse' as they aren't considered in RFA comments and often receive less weight in *fD and the like as well. Thus, they'd only really be 'helpful' in edit warring... and people can always be blocked for that if it goes on at length even if 3RR is never surpassed on any particular day. Thus... is there really any great need to identify 'IP sockpuppets' which would outweigh the potential harm in doing so? If people feel that there is then I return to my statement that we should be warning people about the possibility of their IP being dug up and posted about... and not just with 'abusers', because there are always plenty willing to use any such tool to 'go after' those they simply disagree with. It's the old Ben Franklin, 'if you give up liberty to gain security you will have neither' situation. --CBD 13:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user keeps deleting screenshots

In the articles ArmA:_Armed_Assault an anonymous user (72.188.213.190, 70.118.89.204, 70.118.90.29) keeps deleting a ] with the argument that it's not "web-resolution". He even keeps reverting the copyright and fair-use rationale that is supplied with the image.

Can we do anything about this situation? --Frescard 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The resolution of that screenshot really does need to be reduced. WilyD 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there's an exception to fair use policy for video games, even if what you are attemping to illustrate is the high resolution of the game. Although the anon should not be replacing the fair use rationale with the statement that there is no rationale. If s/he thinks the rationale is invalid, that should go to the talk page or some appropriate venue for discussion, rather than be edit warred over. I notice, though, that no one has attempted to engage this anonymous user in discussion at their talk page, which should be the first step. Natalie 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a 300x250 pixel image at Image:Arma33.JPG that satisfies the low resolution requirement. WODUP 16:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at that size the whole point of the image gets lost...

But I've contacted the developer, and they will try to set up an image tag like Ubisoft, in order to allow any kind of screenshots. --Frescard 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but if you're trying to illustrate the resolution, how about cropping down to just a 500x500 small area of the screen? That would still show the level of detail and (while still technically a copyvio) might be less of a problem — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... is "web-resolution" defined anywhere? I looked, but without much success.

I would imagine that nowadays, with the majority running at least 1024x768 that that would fall into the definition, but it seems that some people feel different... --Frescard 19:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always understood web resolution to mean the same size as it's displayed in the article, typically 180 pixels wide. —Cryptic 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For things like album & book covers, I generally use between 300px & 500px - not everyone uses the default thumbnail settings, but I can't imagine anyone having it set higher than that. That's the size Amazon uses on sales blurb, so I treat it as a de facto web standard — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Web-resolution" is largely dependent on the layout of a site and the lowest common screen resolution used by visitors. While there's no one standard, there is a clear differentiation between that and print resolution, which is drastically higher (a 300dpi 8x10" image translates to 2400x3000). Also, Misplaced Pages users may have different thumb size settings in Special:Preferences - all the way up to 300px width. Fair use images should be no larger than necessary, but the 300px max guidelines are arbitrary and meaningless (though favored by the image patrol posse). However I have difficulty imagining a fair use claim where a resolution larger than .3 megapixels is necessary. ˉˉ╦╩ 20:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dacy69

User:Dacy69 (under supevision at ]) despite a discussion is going on related to the neutrality of March Days, he deleted the POV tag and also deleted some sourced information related to the numbers of killed people without asking why? Andranikpasha 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked by Seraphimblade. Natalie 18:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It was 14 days ago . Now he's unblocked!Andranikpasha 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. I did not read that closely enough. Natalie 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do love this - two arbitration cases and still the Armenia wars will not cease. Very silly! Fortunately, however, the kind gentlemen of the Committee have given us the tools to fight back. We simply have to drag this area of the encyclopedia back under control, and if that means playing a tad rough, so be it. General comment. Moreschi 18:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn

Would somebody please help me at User talk:Alansohn. I asked him really quite nicely nicely not to use misleading edit summaries, which prompted him to accuse me of all kinds of shit, and he also thinks that reposting a cached version of an article is fine by policy whereas deleting an article on a living individual drawn entirely form tabloid news reports is Evil. Judging from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Alansohn this is pretty much normal behaviour for him. Is it time for further action? Guy (Help!) 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Quite nicely? You accuse me of deliberately falsified edit summaries to disguise changes made to the Lizzie Grubman article: "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." You then made an "or else" threat: " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." There is no policy requiring that any edit summary be entered, whatsoever. Every single word added to the article included a reliable and verifiable source. We now have a completely imaginary WP:TABLOID policy that has been violated, when in fact every single reference added comes from a reliable source, and that no one else has challenged. Even the admin who deleted the article in the face of unanimous consensus to keep the article as is (other than the nominator) didn't use teh excuse that teh sources weren't reliable. No other editor has claimed that the content added was "controversial" or attempted to change a word of what you have decided was inserted misleadingly. Every single edit that I have made over the past few years includes an edit summary that provides a clear, concise and accurate description of the changes I've made. That, despite repeated requests, you have never specified what Misplaced Pages policy has been violated, you have failed to specify what the "or else" part of your threat is and to take take the action you keep on threatening is evidence that there is no legitimate purpose here. It amazes me that an admin can improperly delete an article, another admin can improperly delete the same article after sources were added, and a third admin can make false accusations of a policy violation, accompanied by threats of further action, that I can plead with this admin to move on and have him refuse. I finished my edits of the article, which is balanced, comprehensive and in which nearly every sentence is thoroughly-documented (including such "tabloids as The New York Times and New York magazine). I had already moved on, but an admin wants to fight a non-existent battle. And who has a problem here? Alansohn 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with JzG in regards to you using a misleading edit summary. I do not see where JzG has breached WP:CIVIL here? He did not right off the bat come to you with a stern warning. I think you overacted to what he was leaving as a notice/reminder from the start. Also, there may be no policy about entering an edit summary but policy is clear enough in saying "do not enter a misleading edit summary."¤~Persian Poet Gal 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." followed by " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." An accusation of "misleading edit summaries" followed by a threat "to bring this to wider notice" when NO ONE HAS SPECIFIED WHAT WIKIPEDIA WAS VIOLATED, may not be a violation of WP:CIVIL, but it is certainly not "nicely". What battle is being fought here? Are we just having admins defending other admins by attacking non-policy issues? Alansohn 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Calm down. No battle is being fought here. Your edits were believed to be inappropriate. I am not really aware or involved about the controversy of your content additions (so I have no comments in regards to that) but it is easy to tell that you were using a misleading edit summary. Just understand that it is honestly not appropriate to do so. That's all.¤~Persian Poet Gal 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do you (or anyone else) seriously believe that the edits were deliberately "misleading" as User:JzG accused or (at worst) brief? Do you have any shred of Misplaced Pages policy that requires any edit summary for any article (Answer: none exists)? Was any Misplaced Pages policy violated? What is the "or else" threat "to bring this to wider notice" and why was it necessary? I had finished editing the article and moved on. I'm trying to build an encyclopedia here; Your fellow admin User:JzG is trying to fight some sort of battle about the article, citing his brand-new WP:TABLOIDISM policy. I don't suppose that you know his motivations or the answers to these questions, but we need to hear a thorough explanation for these actions directly from the horse's mouth. Alansohn 19:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I do and I explained to you why. You labeled them copyedits when they had nothing to do with small grammatical, spelling, etc. fixes. However, I do understand it might not have been your direct intention to make the edit summary misleading.¤~Persian Poet Gal 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I left this comment on his talk page describing the difference between what is considered copyediting and introducing new material into an article. I also alerted him to this ANI thread as common courtesy.¤~Persian Poet Gal 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have last week been in a very similar dispute with Alansohn, and this behavious seems to be all too common for him. The RfC hasn't really achieved anything, sadly. Fram 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to see all the old tricks here: the SHOUTING, the accusations, the outrage, the wikilawyering and the mindless repetition, all without admitting even the slightest possibility of having done something wrong. The RfC could be re-opened. Eusebeus 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Or escalated, since he shows every sign of not just not learning, but of denying any need to learn. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is not a new problem by any means. wikipediatrix 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• No disrespect, Guy, but given that your response to his "what the hell are talking about?" was to simply repeat what you originally said, with added boldface, talk about escalation cuts both ways. --Calton | Talk 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• That was the third or fourth iteration. But you're right, it should have been apparent that Alansohn's response to any form of kickback is reliably denial and attack, so yes I should have taken it straight here or maybe arbcom. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• <Slaps forehead>. Guy, doing the same over and over again and expecting different results is, what, exactly? And yes, I mean both of you. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually Calton, he didn't ask for clarification, he asked what WP policy he was explicitly violating in his summaries, which is wikilawyerish & belligerent, given the discussion that had already occurred. Eusebeus 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Asking "what did I do wrong" isn't asking for clarification? On this planet, it is. And the answer is, to tell him what. If he doesn't shut up then, yeah, it's Wikilawyering, but citations to the International Journal of Because I Said So (to use one of JzG's formulations) are bad regardless of who's doing it or how microscopically thin-skinned your respondent is. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If your edit summaries were misleading, and it was an accident, then just apologize and explain that you'll be more careful? Is that a really difficult thing to do? Why all the shouting?--Haemo 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems apparent that he didn't understand what JzG was talking about -- whether he should have is another question, but is at least ambiguous -- and since JzG's response was to repeat the same thing over and over, with added boldface, it seems Alansohn's response to repeat the same thing over and over, with added boldface, was at least at the same level. --Calton | Talk 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• A note on my page that read "Alan, please try to leave more descriptive edit summaries when making edits of this nature", would have gotten a prompt thanks. I have nothing to hide, and stand behind every single edit (and edit summary) I made to the article, despite the claim of "violating" the brand-new WP:TABLOID policy that JzG created earlier today. Instead, my first contact from User:JzG was the baseless claim of making knowingly misleading edit summaries in bad faith "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." followed by " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." An accusation of "misleading edit summaries" followed by a threat "to bring this to wider notice", which User:JzG presents as "asking nicely", is anything but. We deserve far better from an admin who seems to be desperately trying to manufacture a controversy here. Alansohn 20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really see why one would get a "thanks" and the other would cause you to react like this. You've made it clear that it was an accident; that's good now. Everyone here appears to be acting in good faith, and it would probably be beneficial if we just left it at that. Sometimes cheerfully responding even to things you feel might be pushing it prevents a lot of trouble. After all, we all have better things to do. --Haemo 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• My version is a suggestion; JzG's version constitutes an accusation and a threat. And you think they're the same? Accusing someone of maliciously hiding nefarious edits to an article and threatening action is your version of assuming good faith? Alansohn 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Except that the issue wasn't that your summaries weren't descriptive, it was that they were misleading, representing significant textual changes as "copyediting". Most editors will not check or patrol an edit labelled "copyediting" by an account with a bluelinked user page. You didn't suggest that this was accidental, what you did was to demand what the hell was wrong with calling it copyediting - and all that does is make it look very much more like you are deliberately setting out to mislead and far less likely that you simply hadn't thought it through. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are still making the baseless and bad faith accusation that the edit summaries were misleading. You still have not justified just how it is that you "know" that they were misleading. You didn't make a request. You didn't make a suggestion. You made an accusation accompanied by a threat. If you look at my past 30 or 40 thousand edit summaries, you will see that a significant majority are prefixed with the words "copyedit and wikify re..." Yet, this is the first time, in over 40,000 edits, that anyone has ever accused me of making a "misleading edit summary". Did you bother to review the edits and look through my edit history, or were you just trying to manufacture a controversy about an article where there seems to have been clear administrative impropriety? Someone else mentioned WP:COPYEDIT as the issue here, but that's a "how to", not a policy. I've asked a dozen times, and you still haven't specified what Misplaced Pages policy was violated. Why was the bad faith accusation and threat necessary, and why on earth would you think it was appropriate. ? Alansohn 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a serious charge: a baseless and bad-faith accusation. So let's have a look, shall we?

(copyedit and wikify re bio) - but the "copyedit" re-inserts gratuitous detail about her mother's death. Misleading? Certainly not just a copyedit, and when it follows this edit which has the edit summary "(what her mother died of isn't really relevant and adds nothing to the article)", and removes precisely that fact - and that fact was inserted by you in the previous edit! - you cannot posisbly be unaware that what you were doing was, far from copyediting, reinserting disputed material. So: I would call that a very misleading edit summary.

(add additional biographical details, with sources) - really? So the statement "An expert hired by the plaintiffs in a civil case against her who reconstructed the accident based on data from the car's "black box" determined that her actions intentional" is a biographical detail? Since when did experts determine things in civil suits?

But I guess not all your edit summaries are misleading. Take this one, for example: - (You were the one who intruded with knowingly false claims and made pathetic empty threats that you refuse to follow through with. Put up or sht up, once and for all.) Oh, my! Knowingly false, eh? No chance of even a difference in interpretation, knowingly false. Dear oh dear, sounds like you might need to open a request for comment, what with me going round making knowingly false accusations. Or... wait... is it perhaps the case that others here have also said that your edit summaries were misleading? Why, they have! So perhaps it's not knowingly false after all! Perhaps it's a perfectly reasonable interpretation under the circumstances! Perhaps, after all, you might need to, you know, be a bit more careful? Perhaps someone should go to your talk page and suggest that you're more careful with the summaries? Ah, but I see that a helpful admin already did that.

FYI: acceptable responses would have been "oops", "sorry", "that's not what I meant" or even nothing at all.

Unacceptable responses include "HOW DARE YOU!" and "SHOW ME IN POLICY WHERE IT SAYS I CAN'T DESCRIBE REVERSION AS COPYEDITING, GO ON, SHOW ME!".

In short, then, I left you a polite note, and you went utterly ballistic and in the process made a total fool of yourself by asserting that it is knowingly false to describe as misleading those edit summaries which were, very obviously, misleading. And from your RfC it seems that this is repeatably how you react. The question is what we might want to do about that. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already written an outside view on the original RfC asking why a particular old, resolved dispute was there. Amusingly enough, in that old, resolved dispute, it was Guy/JzG who said at the time as a neutral admin that both disputing parties had lost their perspective. The general consensus on the talk page of the RfC was that the RfC result could be described roughly as "Alansohn never responded directly to the RfC; although some users noticed changes in some of his behavior that seemed to them to reflect criticisms made in it. Other users did not feel he showed any sign of modifying his behavior. No consensus was reached as to whether the RfC had its intended effect or not." If we think there is a general pattern repeating, another RfC seems to be in order, possibly escalating to mediation or beyond. Frankly, I think there is a bit of a general pattern repeating here. GRBerry 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Alansohn's view (see his screed below) seems to be that a good offense is the best defense. The RfC highlighted various tendencies, including:

1. A tendency to repeat his viewpoint with legalistic reference to policy, regardless of the response of those who disagree with him. This drives many editors to extreme frustration.
2. A tendency to accuse those who disagree with him of making personal attacks.
3. A tendency to insist upon the merits of his viewpoint without regard to a consensus or body of opinion that he disagrees with.
4. A tendency to reinforce his positions with nasty characterisations of those with whom he disagree
5. A tendency to extreme wikilawyering in discussion, often to the point of disrupting the larger debate.
6. A tendency to avoid all compromise, or even the invitation to compromise, in instances where he is convinced of the rectitude & probity of his position, sometimes modulated by an ingenuous (or perhaps heartfelt) belief that he alone is acting to build consensus (or in this case an encyclopedia).

   Many of these are on full display here and below; it is distressing that there has apparently been no willingness to moderate any of these instincts. Eusebeus 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Again, we have Eusebeus and his selective misinterpretation of facts. JzG violated WP:POINT by placing a knowingly false accusation and a threat on my user page in response to a made up policy violation regarding edit summaries. Despite repeated requests for the policy violated, JzG has stubbornly refused to specify what Misplaced Pages policy was violated; one can't be "legalistic" when there is no legitimate basis to the patently false "warning" and its accompanying threat. That you have added to the disruption in no way minimizes the abusive action by JzG. A cursory review of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Grubman, shows unanimous consensus that the original article meets any and all standards of notability. That JzG refuses to abide by this consensus and has manufactured an imaginary "WP:TABLOIDISM" policy to justify his actions is further evidence of bad faith on his part. I stand by every single action and every single edit to the Lizzie Grubman article. I invite any individual who believes the current version of the article violates any Misplaced Pages policy to take another stab at deleting it at WP:AFD. Until then, this entire process of intimidation is intended to be disruptive, the very definition of a WP:POINT violation. This abuse by JzG must be put to an end. Alansohn 03:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong on two counts. First, WP:POINT is doind something you know is wrong in order to demonstrate it's wrong. Second, as outlined above, your edit summaries were misleading. Your obdurate refusal to accept that - and yourt increasingly hysterical atacks on me for even daring to say it - is a cause of concern here. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• You have repeatedly stated that you believe the article should have been deleted, and that in its current state it violates the "WP:TABLOIDISM" policy you made up. You acknowledge that there is no Misplaced Pages policy that was violated, nor have you ever mentioned a real policy as an excuse for your actions. Your attack and its accompanying threat were intended to interfere and disrupt an editor who had the nerve to recreate an article you still think should be deleted, but refuse to start a second AfD. The attack and threat you posted are the very definition of WP:POINT. That you can claim to have believed your attacks to be anything other than a bad faith backdoor effort at deleting the article is utterly shameless. Your refusal to acknowledge the intentionally disruptive nature of your threat should demonstrate your unsuitability to serve as an administrator. An apology from you, accompanied by a commitment to refrain from use of knowingly false policy violations, will end this matter once and for all. Alansohn 15:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• What would be the point of another RfC? Alansohn displayed no interest in the prior one, and any lessons he might have taken from it have proven ephemeral. RfC (or RfM, come to that) presupposes that all parties will come to the table and accept some measure of consensus resolution. What would make this any more likely now than the first time out I cannot guess. In my direct experience, Alansohn does not cease objectionable behavior until he is ordered to do so.  RGTraynor  03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure myself. I'm certainly not going to object if the next step is further along the dispute resolution path. The outcome I want is Alansohn to continue as an editor with improved success at working well with others he disagrees with. I'm not sure how to get there though. GRBerry 14:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Blatant Obvious sock

Pflanzgarten was blocked indefinitely several months ago for edits like this on the Jim Clark article. Now, today 217.247.30.91 made this alarmingly similar edit, and 84.177.127.124 made another very similar edit. I think they should be blocked indefinitely as obvious socks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davnel03 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they look like IP socks, and I see this has been a problem in the past. I've issued a short-term (12-hour) block to the most recently used dynamic IP, which will just force him to switch. I've also semiprotected the target page, which should be more effective. MastCell 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Aynabend

User:Aynabend (under supevision at ]) despite a discussion is going on related to the Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan), added unrelevant information with a semi-vandal marking "Arran and Garabagh are almost synonyms." Andranikpasha 18:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha (talk · contribs)

Earlier on this fellow was placed on supervised editing, revert limitation and civility supervision for disruptive editing. Since then he's done nothing but wrangle pettily on various noticeboards. I've blocked him indef as a disruption-only account. Moreschi 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah good work, most probably a sock by his editing pattern anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The world will probably continue to turn on its axis with one less nationalistic edit-warring single-purpose account in it. Er, good block - may just want to make sure it's logged on the Arbitration page. MastCell 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Moreschi 19:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job guys, this user needed guidance not an indef block. In any case the world still spins. Justice prevails VartanM 19:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. We've seen so many of his type before (we've probably seen him before, too: how many new editors are all over ANI after 2 weeks?) that we've come to realise single-purpose disruptive edit-warring wrangling accounts will not be changed. Moreschi 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha is a genuine user. First off, he is, from email conversations, pretty much fluent in Eastern Armenian, Artaxiad can barely speak any Armenian and Fadix writes in Western Armenian. So he is not the sock of a banned user. If you are to ban him for unjustified reasons then also ban user:Ehud Lesar who every one of us knows is user:AdilBaguirov and who, unlike Andranik, keeps a nice account while his edit warrings are relied to other suicide accounts. I am ready to defend my claim that user:Ehud Lesar is banned user:AdilBaguirov and armed with many evidences before an AA3. Blocking indefinitely users while others have had two arbitrations as chances and still disrupt (Atabek) is unfair, which won't be the first time I witness here.

The reason why you see him so many times on ANI is because Grandmaster and Atabek abuse the process by provoking members by reporting them on every given occasion, Vartan was reported three times to the Arbcom enforcement by Atabek for insignificancies in a very short time, while Grandmaster submitted Andranik for checkusers more than once. While this abuse of process was documented during the last arbitration, case it was ignored by arbitrators like most of the other disruptions. Andranik was harassed and provoked the day he set foot on Misplaced Pages with multiple attempts to get him blocked. (whatever happened to the principle don't bait newbies?).

1) Report members as much as it is required 2) create the illusion that only disruption comes from them and finally 3) expect him to be blocked on the given next occasion. 4) And then have other administrators support the block to make it more official, endorsing by the occasion Grandmaster and Atabek abuses of process which has done nothing other than destabilising editors. - Fedayee 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no - my question is, why was this user reporting everyone else to ANI? I care little if this user is a sock: the point is that he's a single-purpose account created purely, so it seems, to disrupt articles relating to Armenia with edit-warring and tendentious editing. We have quite enough of those without adding more to the mix. Moreschi 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For now, I object to this block. The user may well improve sufficiently with mentoring. Any objections if I explore that (including unblocking)? El_C 21:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not volunteering myself, to be clear! (I don't really do mentoring) I meant, someone else! El_C 21:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find someone responsible and willing to mentor, fine, but I would question whether we really need dedicate such time to SPAs here purely to fight on what's already our biggest battleground, even without this one. I don't really objec to close mentorship + restrictions, though. Moreschi 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I hear that. I'll look into it, thanks. El_C 21:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea as i was going to say that the block is a bit exaggerated but i am just busy mentoring another user. -- FayssalF - 02:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:69.230.48.225

This guy has gotten away with vandalizing too many articles for too long. I and numerous others have warned him/her in the past, yet (s)he refuses to relent. He continues to vandalize such articles as Ozzfest, Slipknot, Satellite (album). Please prevent him/her from disrupting these articles any further. Thank you!

Firstly, the IP hasn't edited since yesterday. Secondly, his/her history doesn't appear to contain any vandalism, but rather good faith edits like this one. Now, maybe you disagree with those edits, but that is not vandalism. Could you provide some diffs of this vandalism? Natalie 22:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This guy continuously adds bands like Simple Plan onto the Ozzfest page, and then adds a bunch of nonsensical miscellaneous information (incorrect band line-ups, etc.). It's happened at least ten times now. But I'm sure you'd know that if you looked at the history...

Also, I find it ironic that you mention Slipknot, given that he totally butchered that article yesterday...

Here you go:

This looks like good faith to you? I didn't think so. 75.60.240.144 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Honey, we're all volunteers here. So when you're asking the volunteers with keys to do something for you, it helps when you provide evidence of an actual problem. I can't speak for everyone else but I can tell you that I don't have time to go through every single edit of anyone, especially for vandalism that hasn't happened in two days. So please try to react a little less poorly when you are asked to provide diffs.

I'll agree with you that it's vandalism, but this is all days old. What are you expecting us to do about it now? Natalie 12:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters you could get off your butt and make sure it doesn't happen again. Or you could wait for someone else to do it, since, as you said, you don't really HAVE to do anything, honey. At any rate, expect to see me back here when it happens again. Stargazer eternal 13:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How about using the various warning templates available and reporting to WP:AIV when they hit a level 4 warning and do something again? Nothing really requiring Administrator attention really needed here, but although this IP has a history of vandalism, we never block IPs indefinitely, because they may belong to many people. And note that anything we do cannot fully block vandalism - short of blocking all editing of Misplaced Pages. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll remember your warning templates and rest assured I'll make good use of them. :) 76.247.76.79 19:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton

I have indef blocked Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See his Rfc and the talk page, as well as his talk page. Multiple editors have tried to help Moulton and work with him, to no positive result - the result is usually Moulton insulting those trying to help him. It appears Moulton has confused Misplaced Pages with some kind of forum where OR and POV reign supreme. He uses the "martyr" card or makes personal attacks regularly. He not only hasn't learned a thing about how Misplaced Pages works, he has continued playing games with manipulation and misdirection, albeit so ineptly that he is driving away anyone who has made the attempt to help him. He's not here to assist in building an encyclopedia, and he's getting very much in the way of that aim with his disruptive tendentious proselytizing for his POV.

Per usual, if anyone wishes to unblock feel free. IMO giving him another chance will waste more time, but I have no objection if someone else wishes to waste that time. I'm done. KillerChihuahua 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I commented as an outside view at the RfC, or I'd have done this myself a few days ago. Persistent talk page disruption, and trolling in the purest sense of the word - that is, editing with the apparent primary objective of getting a rise out of people. Sadly, he was all too successful. A good block. MastCell 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this block. Checking over the RFC, accounts that are here solely to push original research (some of the stuff he wrote was outstandingly original!) are not welcome. As little time should be wasted over disruption-only accounts as possible. Moreschi 19:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hate to see someone get blocked, but there was little else that could be accomplished. Good block and its a shame he wouldn't listen to what other editors had to say. Baegis 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sorry to have extended good faith towards him, but I'm not sorry to see the back of him either. The smart trolls are the worst. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I commented at his RfC, although I did not have direct contact as others have. I think once he printed private emails (and who knows if or how they were edited by Moulton, which is why I think it's not appropriate), that was it. This is unfortunate, since he seems to be quite intelligent and well-read. But he didn't want to play by the rules. OrangeMarlin 21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell - it's a good block. I tried reasoning with Moulton several weeks ago, but gave up rather quickly. He just doesn't seem to be able to grasp the point of Misplaced Pages. Guettarda 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Grant_Chuggle

• HE'S BACK ~ not a big surprise. New IP is 41.241.8.137. He also uses IP 41.241.74.5, and just added 41.241.14.73 not sure if you have that one yet. He has also posted this in the Misplaced Pages sandbox. I'll not link it because, you can tell from the title, what the picture is. Image:Hot_naked_woman.jpg He's been repeatedly blocked but continues to use sockpuppetry to get past the blocks. More information can been found on my talk page.IrishLass0128 20:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Along with placing the pictures of the naked women in the sandbox, he is putting obsene phrases/"invitations" in. He has a long history of this behavior and has been reported several times. He also uses user:Hen55 as a user id. He continues to remove verifiable information and place assumptions and personal opinion in articles. He is constantly changing his IP to evade blocking.IrishLass0128 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• User has abused people, posted pictures of naked women, bragged about evading blocks, repeatedly invited people to "enjoy his man parts" and changed user reports about him. He's blocked for a week but has evaded the blocks again. As I have never encountered such a problem, is there a procedure for getting him banned for good and blocking his sockpuppets? He is disruptive, participates in edit wars, adds unverifiable information, and reverts edits made by multiple editors ignoring consensus decisions. Please advise on how to get user banned. CelticGreen 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's back again this morning. 41.241.14.73. He's making the same changes and vandalising the same articles. He seems to believe there's no such thing as "step-siblings" such as step-brothers or step-sisters. It's what makes it so easy to tell it's him. CelticGreen 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Abtract - disruption.

User:Abtract has edited WP:Lead section four times imposing his own view as to how articles should begin which goes against a long-standing consensus. His decision to edit this page was prompted by a number of users reverting his changes to United Kingdom, where he made the article begin with United Kingdom rather than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I pointed out that the UK article was following the guideline at WP:Lead section, and so Abtract decided to change the guideline to suit his view. I also pointed out that very many articles followed the agreed consensus and gave the following examples United States, BBC, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher. Abtract then decided to edit just these articles to follow his preferred style. Abtract's edits with regard to the lead are but one aspect of his determination to change the UK article to his own way of thinking and to repeatedly ignore the consensus. Please see Talk:United Kingdom for the evidence. Jooler 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly disruptive behavior, in my opinion. --Haemo 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly unimpressed by almost every single incident of this type, where someone is cited a policy, gets conronted by consensus on a page, then runs to the policy to get his way. I've already addressed at Lead Section, that he's making end runs around consensus across numerous pages, and hopefully that will sort this out, but I doubt it will be that easy, and I concur, it's disruptive. ThuranX 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Very disruptive, indeed. GoodDay 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

11 reversions on United States

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_States&diff=157133791&oldid=157109634
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_States&diff=157224515&oldid=157221207
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_States&diff=157226644&oldid=157225475
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_States&diff=157231654&oldid=157229558
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_States&diff=157233128&oldid=157232011
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_States&diff=157234670&oldid=157233580
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_States&diff=157237114&oldid=157236778
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_States&diff=157237655&oldid=157237434
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_States&diff=157240830&oldid=157239367
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_States&diff=157242208&oldid=157241659
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_States&diff=157244046&oldid=157243630

Jooler 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that you have provided a warning, this user may be blocked under Misplaced Pages's Three-revert rule. If he qualifies, you should bring this up on WP:AN/3. You Can't Review Me!!! 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?

NOTE: This is a copy of an archived incident, resolved here. I've added one question and a proposed exception to the decision.--Kitrus 20:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is keeping a record of (spurious) sockpuppetry accusations, such as held here User talk:Kitrus accepted? Interesting juxtaposition of warnings and records http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kitrus&action=history. Thoughts? -- Avi 06:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I always enjoy accusations of sockpuppetry against the likes of Jayjg, they make it so much easier to work out that the accuser is deluded :-) No, this is not an acceptable use of user space. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought so. Thank you, and it's good to see you back, Guy! --- Avi 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Funny, before other things came up for Jayjg, he was editing so heavily any sockpuppeting would have prohibited a job, eating, and sleeping. --MichaelLinnear 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Which administrators were involved in this decision?--Kitrus 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I will restore the section that lists KNOWN, verified sockpuppets and leave "suspected" deleted.--Kitrus 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need this list? Shell 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you care? Why do you have any number of things on your own userpage?--Kitrus 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I care because I can't think of a reason you would need the list, however, if you have a legitimate reason, that would be something to consider. If you don't have a reason beyond singling out these editors then its blatantly inappropriate. Oddly enough, my userspace is used to facilitate working with the community to build an encyclopedia - but you looked at it before asking that question, right? Shell 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Using your userspace to attack other editors or deride other editors is an inappropriate use of your userpage. Plain and simple. Guy is an administrator, by the way.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Consisten personal attacks on myself.

User:Uss-cool has plastered Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz with a number of attacks on my integrity as an editor due to a content dispute, which I am wary of as I suspect he may be involved in this open case. I'll keep it short, this is not about the content dispute as I understand this isn't the place for it; this is about this user's consistent inability to behave in a civil manner. As can be seen by his contribs, most of his activity on this site has consisted of attacks on myself:

• 13:58, 10 September 2007
• 15:09, 10 September 2007
• 11:32, 11 September 2007
• 13:10, 11 September 2007
• 16:29, 11 September 2007
• 16:36, 11 September 2007
• 16:39, 11 September 2007

In addition, he has also used this IP address, for what it's worth.
Normally I would just chalk this up to a newbie not knowing how things work, but that coupled with my suspicion of him in regard to the above mentioned sockpuppetry case and his persistence in these attacks makes me a bit suspicious. Please advise. MezzoMezzo 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He just added three entirely new sections to that article's talk page this morning, all three of which are dedicate solely to launching more personal attacks on me. Even the very section title's are personal attacks. MezzoMezzo 18:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Giving warning to Uss-cool. Advise if attacks continue.Rlevse 19:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Skatewalk and User:Funkynusayri: disruption and canvassing

Could I ask someone to review User:Skatewalk and User:Funkynusayri's conduct? Skatewalk has been cross-posting on various users' talk pages for days to encourage them to engage in revert wars on several articles, lastly asking them to deal with a user "known for his/her Anti-Arab agenda" . He is also fond of soapboxing on article talk pages, for which I left him two not-a-forum warnings, which he deletes then posts on my talk page instead. Funkynusayri is the user who frequently responds to his calls . Please review our contribution histories. — Zerida 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted on members of the Arab world wiki project, because you are trolling Arabic language pages and claiming dialects as languages!

• the only language to split from Arabic is Maltese, every other nation speaks Arabic as its official language and has numerous local dialects. I ask the admin to review Zerida biased edits history to see what type of agenda she is pushing!
• wikipedia is a scientific encyclopaedia not a place to play edit wars! 90% of your contribuitions are original research that opposes reality and science!--Skatewalk 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Again, when I see sections of articles that are clearly false, or push a nationalistic agenda, I change them to the better. The "Egyptians" article is a huge problem, and is based on a false premise. Funkynusayri 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User Zerida contribuitions to Misplaced Pages!/sock-puppet Hamada-2

It will take me pages to detail the atrocities this member commited.

• Creating Sock puppets such as Hamada2. participating in negative revert wars. that reduces the quality of wikipedia and its articles., ,
• A habit of blanking talk pages!,
• we are dealing with a rude user, who wants wikipedia to reflect his personal feelings!--Skatewalk 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The only claim to which I can respond here is the blanking of the article's talk page, which editors are allowed to do if they are being used as a forum or disruptively. I only blanked that part that was in violation of policy. The rest is a rather long string of personal accusations and attacks that leaves me, more than anything, pretty surprised since I've had almost no interaction with Skatewalk until he began "editing" articles to which I frequently contribute. At any rate, content disputes, if there are any, are not an excuse for disruption. — Zerida 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but explain the sudden apeerance of Hamada2? He only appears to be interested in your edit wars? Look at my history I expanded over 1000 articles, and I use respected refernces in every edit I add. Unlike your biased reverts or ommissions of refernces!

• Please explain to wikipedia, why did you delete this reference? , its already known and official that Arabic is the language of egypt. The Egyptian govt websites operate in Arabic, the Egyptian dialect exists on TV just like the Southern American dialect or Italian American dialect exists on TV and the streets. However its not a language!. I referenced it because you seem to live in a fantasy world (which is beautiful), just dont spam wikipedia. They have Dramatica for creative users such as yourself.--Skatewalk 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line

Both parties should try WP:AGF and stop their "agendas and sockpuppetry" if they got any. -- FayssalF - 02:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if asking both parties to assume good faith and to stop their "agendas and and sockpuppetry" (quoting Skatewalk) is exactly assuming good faith. At any rate, I've looked a little deeper into the past, and seeing these page histories , throws in a bit more perspective for me. It would be nice though if the sockpuppet accusations and especially the anti-Arab charge weren't bandied about every time one wants to get one's way, particularly when one is standing on pretty thin ice . Another thing that would be nice is perspective by much less involved editors. — Zerida 06:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I talked to Skatewalk both on article talk pages, his user talkpage and even via email to stop creating havoc and avoid confrontation. Next time, he will be blocked. I am of course concerned about the obvious sockpuppetry from both sides. You, him? i don't know and my idea is to run a checkuser on all involved parties in those sets of articles includng myself. How is that? -- FayssalF - 10:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies? Sockpuppets?

Two Ip accounts User:86.145.251.168 and User:84.67.181.45 are obviously the same person, one was blocked for 3RR and the other restarted the edit war, the other couple of articles each has edited are identical as well. How can one tell if these are open proxies? Carlossuarez46 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Try reporting them over at WikiProject on open proxies. The users there will check them out. --snowolfD4 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Carlossuarez46 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not proxies, probably the same person, though, on a dynamic IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Arthur Rubin

I'm not sure whether this should be here or WP:COIN, but I just want to confirm that I can revert clear vandalism on an article about me, especially if it's from an anon and claims to be reverting edits made by me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what board this should go on, removing clear/undisputed/undeniable vandalism is absolutely an exception to WP:COI. So its quite alright of you to do so, no worries.¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that another voice is needed here, but I surely think PPG to be quite right. Joe 23:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, reversion of obvious vandalism is appropriate by Misplaced Pages standards. The press and public can be harsh critics, though, so if you want to be avert potential off-wiki problems (which are beyond our control) then some alternative solutions are:

• WP:AIV - vandalism in progress noticeboard
• WP:BLPN - biographies of living persons noticeboard
• WP:RPP - requests for page protection (if the same vandal strikes several times)

Best wishes, Durova 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanity

I have blocked User:Abtract for disruption on United States. I don't know about blocking the other reverters, could I have a second opinion? Thanks, Navou 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If a user has 'reverted' more then 3 times in 24hrs, that's a breach of 3RR. GoodDay 23:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not even remotely surprised. Attempts to get "your way" in an editing dispute by changing the guidelines, and then changing other articles, are bound to get messy. It was disruptive to begin with, and this is just a symptom of that. --Haemo 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand, however, you and another did revert exactly three times, and I considered blocking you two as well. Please do not participate in the edit war, even if you limit your reverts to exact three reverts. This is also disruption, and a block will prevent that disruption. Navou 23:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

:::I've only reverted 3-times (pointing out my third, was my last). GoodDay 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)