Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:11, 21 April 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE

User:Dream Focus

Copyvio report assistance

We got an OTRS complaint ( # 2009041810003627 ) that alleges that images were taken from The North Spin website images page for photographer Dan Stijovich and uploaded to Misplaced Pages apparently by User:ANigg. Specific example reported was File:MH-47G_Flight.jpg taken from here.

I have emailed the photographer (Dan Stijovich) to try and confirm that they aren't that WP account, which is possible (please do not block the account until we can confirm that). In the meantime, I was reviewing contributions by ANigg. Another image pair popped up: File:AH-1Z_NAWCWD.jpg and source here. In that case, there's a veeeery slight modification - the Misplaced Pages image has a 2-digit nose ID number (05 vs 005) and there's a yellow reflection on the windscreen missing on the WP image. I think the WP image is the modified one, but haven't pulled them into photoshop or a similar tool yet to try and validate that.

I'm going to be busy for the next 12 hours. Can I get some assistance reviewing ANigg's image contributions ? In particular, if these appear similar to images on The North Spin website.

Thanks in advance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, tail number's also been altered in that second comparison pair. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • … and there's a "veeeery slight modification" in the first pair, also. It's a small red triangle beneath the forward rotor. Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Just for information: There is a slight difference between "our" File:MH-47G_Flight.jpg and the image on http://www.thenorthspin.com/photos_people_dan_s/31.jpg. The latter has a bright red spot behind-above the cockpit.--Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another match File:UH-72A_Lakota.jpg Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• … which duplicated File:USA Lakota.jpg (which itself lists a different source). Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And another: matches File:UH-1Y China.jpg. The original is copyright Kevin Whitehead, and in this diff ANigg describes it as self made and provides a name that is neither Kevin Whitehead nor Dan Stijovich. - Bilby (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry - correct that. Superficially the same, (same angle, location and time), but not identical photos. - Bilby (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I really should run all the tests before commenting. I layered the photo ANigg claimed over the one by Kevin Whitehead, and they are identical in angle, distance, location and time of day. The very minor differences are removals from the Whitehead photo, presumably in Photoshop. So I'd call it as a definite copyvio - ANigg can't really be both photographers. - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • There seem to be artifacts in File:UH-1Y China.jpg where you can see the manipulations, where the red streamer from the tail rotor has been morphed to the background shade, and the cables above the horizon exiting the laft of the frame. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, the streamers threw me off for a bit, but then once they were combined in photoshop it was easy to see what was going on. - Bilby (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• (Photographer Tony Silva) looks to be File:USCG 1.jpg. I think that is all of ANigg's photo contributions identified... Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Is a block appropriate, then? He's been around since March 07, he should know better. Ironholds (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I note that nobody informed him that there was a discussion at ANI; I've now done so. Ironholds (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. No responses to emails yet, leading me to presume this is not the photographer (as the issues above indicate). Final request for clarification left on the users' talk page, will take up admin actions in reasonable time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

i feel jayron32 needs 2 be reined in

I am writing bc I asked 173 to help me & now Ive brought 173 trouble.
I feel j32(http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jayron32) needs 2 be reined in. See comments here : http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:173.79.58.33 .

I deleted your page history as an extension of good faith that you would stop being a disruption by repeatedly removing the WHOIS data from this page. You immediately returned to continue the same disruption, despite the fact that I, as a gesture of peace, asceded to your deletion request ~j32

...Good faith? Peace gesture. WTF? Y does jayron think that he did 173 a favor? 173 has the right to request the deletion. No 1 was holding a gun 2 j32's head making him answer the deletion request. Look @ j32's edit summary :o yea? What is j32 getting excited from blocking others? That isnt what wiki is 4. Now j32 has blocked 173 4 1 month, incorrectly saying 173 is editing war. What edit war? After the deletion 173 blanked the page, which 173 is allowed 2 do. The page was blanked only 1 time so where/when was the edit war? Per this http://en.wikipedia.org/User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space. It says quote :

Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption; removal of template warnings is rarely an urgent or important matter, and it is often best to simply let the matter rest if other disruption stops.

that even ips r allowed to edit/delete/revert/blank their page. It also says that repeatedly re adding that which has been deleted is antagonistic. 173 was helping me out & I dont want this bs on 173. Thanks. 70.108.88.137 (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

{{whois}} tags are not supposed to be removed from IP talk pages. Your friend was told this, and continued to remove them from other IP addresses as well. Additionally, this IP appears to be a sock account of previous users who have done this. Please learn to use proper grammar in the future. Matty (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Whois templates are there to signify to whom the IP is registered should abuse reports need to be filed against repeat vandals who abuse them. -Jeremy 06:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that you're being treated poorly because you're using an IP address to edit, OR if you don't like the fact that you ISP is visible when you edit as an IP address, how about signing up for a userid and be far more anonymous?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

matty, jeremy : 1)173 says: Ask them for a link to where it says that. On http://en.wikipedia.org/User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space it says that ips may remove it & that continually re adding it is antagonistic. It also says here : http://en.wikipedia.org/User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings that Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages. Furthermore @ the bottom of everypage is this : · , thus all any person has to do is click and they get the info they seek on the ip's ISP.
2)I didnt remove any info from anyone else's pages. After the abuse I received when attempting to help I told my friend I tried but you're right they're are being unfair assholes, so I'm stepping back. Since Mar30 I have only edited my user and discussion pages. I am not a sock. I was attempting to help a friend.
3)What about http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:CIVIL? Noone will call him on his rudeness and delusions of grandeur? He acts as if the deletion as something so fantastic that he did, when in truth has he not someone else would have.

bwilikns: No thanks. Isnt 1 of wiki's basic tenets anonymmous editing. Registration isnt required. & even if I was registered it wouldnt stop j32's inappropriate actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.88.137 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, the WHOIS template is not a comment. The spirit of "allowed to remove comments" refers to the ability of users to remove comments they don't want to see (although removal can be implied to "I've read it"). The WHOIS template allows users to quickly find out information about the IP address which could be necessary. There's also the argument that that page technically doesn't "belong" to the person behind it - what if that user changes IP address or ISP? While users are given a broad range of leeway with regards to their userspace, some things still are frowned upon - and here, I believe you've seen that there's enough agreement that IPs should not be removing the template. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In the majority of cases, you are correct. Any registered user may delete items from their personal talkpage. Of course, as an IP editor, the talkpage for your IP address is shared by anyone who eventually uses that IP address, which means it truly is not your personal talkpage. In many cases, a specific IP address (or range of IP addresses) has been "problematic" in the past. In that case, the WHOIS data has been added as a necessary tool. It may not have been you, merely someone who used that IP address (just like the police might have concerns about a certain rental car - it was used by many people!) As such, it becomes improper to remove the WHOIS data from the page, just like it would be improper to remove a block notice while a user is, indeed, blocked. It in no way violates your privacy, or is problematic as long as you remain an IP editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The rule allowing the removal of comments from talk pages should not be extended to IPs. They don't own their IP, they are just using it. What is more they need X warnings and a final warning before they can normally blocked. We can't have anonymous editors removing warning templates. They can always create an account if they want a userpage of their very own, but IP user pages are not assigned to a specific user. Chillum 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. IP addresses do not own the IP address talk page. If they set up a user account, they don't "own" that talk page either, but they have much more flexibility. They don't have to set up a user account, as noted, but by not doing so that also restricts their privileges. It's their choice. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have always been in favor of NOT allowing anon IPs to edit wikipedia. More often than not, the result is usually vandalism. Yet since there is no rule against an IP editing, we cannot stifle anyones ability to edit any talk page (or removal of content).--Jojhutton (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, the large percentage of IP address edits are either junk or sockpuppetry. There's also a fair number of useful edits. But it means that anything on my watch list edited by an IP gets my "special" at tention. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it make a difference that this appears to be User:Lilkunta, logging out and using multiple ips to avoid his block? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It might. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 15:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Either way, that IP he was using is blocked and properly labeled {{IPSockCheckuser|Lilkunta}} as such. Momusufan (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For anyone looking for more information on this situation, a similar thread at WP:AN has been started to discuss usage of the abuse filter on this set of IPs as a rangeblock would cause too much collateral damage. Also see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lilkunta/Archive. MuZemike 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

New IP sock of Lilkunta, 70.108.94.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) making comment on one of his IP pages, see HERE. I know that the /16 may be busy, but I propose that the range block be reinstated. Momusufan (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to deal with this one, hopefully if he sees that his edits are actually against policy he might stop. If someone could help me out that'd be appreciated, it's getting kinda annoying to explain the same thing over and over to him. Matty (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ban proposal (of Lilkunta)

I think this is time to propose a community ban on Lilkunta (talk · contribs) due to the excessive abuse coming from this set of IPs and tremendous disruption made on the mainspace as well as ANI. Thoughts? MuZemike 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BAN, and I quote "If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has blocked the user long term or even indefinitely, and where no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user is considered to be community-banned" the ban appears to be already in effect. Additionally, there is a discussion over at WP:AN which are discussing ways to use the Abuse Filter to curtail this users particular pattern of disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. The AN post seems to focus more on the technical means of stopping the disruptive editing, while this ANI post, well, focuses on more of the social aspect. That's why it seemed to make more sense placing this here than over at AN. We can wait and see what the abuse filter accomplishes, but I'm skeptical however. MuZemike 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Full Support: User is clearly disruptive, shows no willingness to cooperate and give excuses for his actions. Removing WHOIS templates is wrong and he should know this. Also I think that part of policy at WP:BLANKING where IP's can remove warnings should be amended because an IP does NOT belong to anybody whereas a user account talk page belongs to that user. An IP goes to someone else eventually. Momusufan (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nawlinwiki and Abuse Filter

For those who didn't find themselves blocked from editing just now, NawlinWiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has once again messed up an Abuse Filter and inadvertently caused widespread damage to innocent users. Fortunately this time nobody was de-autoconfirmed, but every editor for a period of three minutes just now found themselves temporarily unable to make any edits. This is the third time since the filter was activated NawlinWiki has caused this sort of damage; the first on March 19, where a filter de-autoconfirmed somewhere around 200 users; the second on March 27, whereupon User:Werdna issued NawlinWiki a stern warning to be more careful in the future.

AbuseFilter is a highly dangerous tool that (obviously) has the capacity to stop all edits to the project. NawlinWiki has been asked to test filters using the components provided in the software before making them live, and has either failed to do so or done a poor job of it. This is the third such instance of that mistake that has led to severe problems. If NawlinWiki is going to continue to make problems like this with the filter, his access to the tool needs to be removed. I am more than ready to remove that access myself right now. The only reason I haven't is because such a removal would undoubtedly end up here anyway, so let's get the drama out of the way now so we can get things done. Hersfold 02:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How can we not have a vetting process for new abuse filters? RxS (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I caught the mistake myself (after a minute or less, not 3 minutes). I thought I had tested it. I'm willing to self-impose a month-long ban on myself from editing the abuse filter and will promise not to do *anything* there without testing in the future. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly did you do to test it? Hersfold 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Werdna's prescription at the end of the above-cited warning was "requiring your filters be reviewed by other users or discussing your write access to the abuse filter." Can we pursue the former with an eye toward avoiding the latter? I'm assuming testing didn't include review by other users, but I'd like to hear from NawlinWiki about what they did first.--chaser - t 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You probably have a unique perspective on this, do you think we could use some sort of approval or vetting process? RxS (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I tested this change against the edits from the General Tojo sock User:Sea Reen, and it picked up the offending edits but not the two dummy edits Sea Reen made to his user and user talk pages. That indicated to me that it wasn't catching all edits -- but obviously, I now realize, I should have tested it without a username specified (to check it against all recent edits). That, and the fact that I was adding an entry to an existing filter rather than creating a new one. What I wanted to do is now in the separate filter 146 in log only mode and seems to be OK so far. All that said, I do understand the need for a consequence, and I'm certainly willing to have my filter edits reviewed before making them. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

NawlinWiki, do you understand why that failed? I am disturbed that you made essentially the same logical error as you made on the 19th. In either case using the batch testing interface against normal edits — which should be a routine step in filter editing/testing — would have shown that you were matching way too many edits (approximately 40% of all edits in the current case). Dragons flight (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the OR operator | improperly left one side of the entry as universal. And yes, as I said above, I do understand that any future change (even to an existing filter that's been working properly) must be batchtested against recent edits by all users. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• You should never be testing a filter on Disallow/Warn, or any other setting. Change the filter and set it to log only. Check for bad hits. If all is well, then turn back on warnings, or disallow, or whatever. Werdna mentioned this as well. There is really no excuse not to test filters before turning them on. Prodego 04:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why should it take three times for you to realize that? Three times is enough. I support removal of the tools. Frankly, we should demand that everybody go through Misplaced Pages:Abuse filter/Requested and give it a period of time for review. I doubt there's anything so urgent that having another pair of eyes won't help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should make that like a BRFA process, where even members of BAG need to get approval of their bots by others. Seeing that we have some pretty experienced AF editors already, that would probably allow to reduce such mistakes by all editors, not only NawlinWiki. SoWhy 10:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So, can we consider this an official, last warning for NawlinWiki? --Conti|✉ 13:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes, in addition to the voluntary 30 day self-imposed ban. --–xeno 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, this is the third time? And this is the same person who repeatedly broke the title blacklist, stopping all page creation and moving? NawlinWiki, your personal vendetta against Grawp is not as important as everyone else's ability to actually edit the fricking encyclopedia. Please stop messing with things. Gurch (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Personal vendetta against Grawp??? Every admin should have a 'personal vendetta' against blatant vandals, for pity's sake! Does anyone propose that Grawp is a good-faith editor? I applaud the constant hard work that Nawlinwiki does to protect and improve the encyclopedia, and I see more than adequate contrition and intent to avoid any future mistakes. Enough of this. My heartfelt congratulations to those who have never, ever made a mistake in using ill-documented software. Edison (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Noone should ever have a "personal vendetta" against a vandal. Emotional involvement is precisely the kind of thing they tend to crave. C.U.T.K.D 11:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • The problem is that NawlinWiki takes any bout of page-move vandalism personally, which results in him doing things to stop it without considering how they would impact non-vandal editors. --Carnildo (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    Most of his mistakes seem to have been errors in regular expressions and misuses of weak typing, neither of which can really be called "ill-documented". Gurch (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    The big mistakes, yes: he implements things without testing. However, looking at the history of the title blacklist, there are three brief edit wars over which is more important: blocking pagemove vandalism, or permitting normal editing activity. There are also an average of three times a month where a blacklist entry was added that would generate significant numbers of false positives, without rising to the point of widescale disruption. --Carnildo (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    The fact that there even has to be a debate about which is more important does not bode well for this project. I am sick of the "us vs. them" mentality here, the abuse filter is the worst example of it yet. Gurch (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• More generally, we do need a vetting process. Are the people working on these more or less the same people who work on bots? DGG (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• The ability to edit and create abuse filters is one that administrators can give to themselves. Nawlinwiki is a very clear example of why that's a bad idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is precisely why I don't bother with userrights, either giving or revoking - I fear I'll dick it up. -Jeremy 05:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is certainly a huge cause for concern. This is an EXTREMELY dangerous tool in the wrong hands, and it should only be available to the most trusted - ie those who we are certain will not abuse the tool AND won't make mistakes. I am woried that potentially NawlinWiki's personal issues conflict with both these points. I'd endorse a removal of the tools and a vetting procedure for future granting of these tools. C.U.T.K.D 11:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You folks might want to weigh-in at the conversation at WT:ABFIL regarding just bundling it with the sysop userright. Last I checked it was a little past the post on acceptance for bundling. However, I don't see the immediate urgency here to create a process when there's been only a handful of fuckups and, as far as I know, only one admin has been responsible for more than one of these. Just accept the 1 month editing ban, and if he screws up again, take the right away. Just because he has the ability to re-grant it to himself doesn't mean he will. –xeno 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Presence

User:Stevertigo has moved Presence to Presence (Led Zeppelin album) despite there being a clear cut consensus on the Talk page to let the Led Zeppelin album stay as Presence. MegX (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just from a look at the disambig page,there are a lot of things that use the term presence. Under the circumstances, it makes sense to change the title to something more specific. HalfShadow 05:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus vote was to keep it the Led Zeppelin album. On wikipedia we work by consenssus. MegX (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sockpuppets of yours swayed any consenus Theresa Knott | token threats 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This needs fixing ASAP. Presence is currently BLANK and neither Presence or Presence (Led Zeppelin album) has a link to Presence (disambiguation) - what a complete mess. Exxolon (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a clear cut consensus to keep Presence the Led Zeppelin album, see . User:Stevertigo moved it without taking it either through Requested Moves or leaving a message on the Talk page for discussion. MegX (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No there was not because of your sockpuppetry.Theresa Knott | token threats 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A consensus of LZ fans? It's not that this album is that important with its less than 1,000 views a day - even in LZ terms it's at the bottom line, only short above Coda (yeah, it has the better cover). Re-open the vote and let's see what happens. I'd say move the DAB page there. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 05:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The vote was held for 7 days and legitimately done and open. I hardly would believe this was c losed for only for LZ fans. There seems an effort by some editors such as the recent Queen and Pink Floyd tour AfDs, to attack classic rock bands. MegX (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Not legitimate. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether the album is kept at the original page or not is secondary at this point. We currently have a blank page and no links to disambiguation anywhere. Fix that FIRST, then worry about which page will eventually go where. Exxolon (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a consensus vote legitimately held isn't good enough for some editors. I really fear for the future of wikipedia. It seems a minority are trying to bully the majority into their line of thinking. MegX (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple use of socks clearly makes the vote illegitimate Theresa Knott | token threats 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is: Who knew of this vote? Only the people that have the page on their watchlist, plus some organised at WP:LZ? Sorry, but if I think of "presence" the LZ album is not the first thing that comes to mind - and I have this album. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 05:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It was listed on the Requested Moves page and the Presence article and Talk page and advertised as such for 7 days. What did you want, the move advertised on your perosnal Talk page? Let's be reasonable here. It followed correct procedure. MegX (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Except for all the socks you used. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved the original page back into its place. Having a blank page was silly, and having a redirect was also silly - either have an article there, or have the dab page there. Viridae 05:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. MegX (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

MegX has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik 02:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion started

See Talk:Presence#Move_Discussion. Exxolon (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I will comment there. -Stevertigo 06:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Stlunatic071 is going repeatedly against WP:proper names

Hi, I don't know if this ist the right place to ask, but User:Stlunatic071 insists on changing the country of birth of the football players Edin Džeko and Vedad Ibišević to Bosnia and Herzegovina (which didn't exist at the time their birth) instead of SFR Yugoslavia. This is against WP:Proper names and consensus of WP:FOOTY (for example here). Nobody denies that they are Bosnian now, but even after explaining this to him (by me and other editors) he insists on his point of view , . Can anyone tell me what to do in this case? --Jaellee (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell him about Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC and that he doesn't stop, he'll find himself blocked because people have been disputing much more stupid points in that region for much too long? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what? We're going to the talk page and talking about it. That's it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nasal irrigation

For a long time there has been a slow edit war between Grockl (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) and everybody else. Grockl is a SPA pushing the POV that pulsating nasal irrigation is wonderfully beneficial and all other methods of nasal irrigation are essentially inefficient. For important further information on Grockl see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Grockl/Archive and . So far I have seen Grockl as the main problem. Since I alerted WikiProject Medicine and the COI noticeboard, Grockl has been slightly less obnoxious.

Grockl's main opponent is static IP 67.170.1.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a Comcast user from Mt Vernon, WA, with a history of outing Grockl as a certain medical doctor who lives in the same large city as Grockl and is known for a brand of pulsating irrigation devices.

Now there has been an escalation due to unacceptable posts by 71.227.174.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a Comcast user from Seattle (60 miles from Mt Vernon). Per WP:DUCK this is the same user as the Mt Vernon IP.

• Extreme personal attack by 71.227.174.7 against Grockl.
• Predictable response by Grockl.

In addition to any immediate actions, I think an experienced admin should watchlist Nasal irrigation and User talk:Grockl. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is no admin interested in dealing with the IP that left "Hi I'm Grockl, a massive homosexual." on Grockl's user page? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That IP has received a final warning. I've semiprotected Nasal irrigation due to IP vandalism, and notified Grockl that he can ask at WP:RFPP for his own Talk page to be semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Hans Adler (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Npovshark's persistent tendentious editing on Europe

Europe has been for a long time a stable article in which editors have worked by tiny increments to improve the sections on history, economic history, maps, and so on. It is amongst the top 200 most consulted articles on this encyclopedia. Occasionally editors have disputed border or transcontinental countries, but ambiguities because of possible differences in definitions have been carefully sourced, discussed and annotated. Npovshark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a recently arrived editor, whose main previous contributions have been to British National Front and Nazi Germany and their talk pages, arrived at the talk page of Europe with a drama-mongering complaint about the article . He since withdrew this unsourceable comment about religion and European identity. Over four days he has tendentiously disputed the principal map, which he has attempted to delete a number of times; the map, overlaid with links to states and seas, was carefully prepared by User:Ssolbergj over an extended of period of time, having obtained consensus. Npovshark has not respected etiquette on the talk pages and has not provided sources when requested. I realize that he is inexperienced.

However, this is no excuse for making a huge undiscussed change to a stable article which can be seen in the following recent diff , where, incorrectly claiming consensus, he completely rewrote the lede, which has been constant for years. In this change he has unilaterally created a separate status for various states mentioned in the main article, justified in the lede "because of differences between the populations in terms of historical, political, cultural and legal and philosophical traditions." The states recategorized in the main article are Azerbaijan, Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey. (No citation has been provided for what seems to be a very clearly expressed WP:POV.) I reverted this edit, which he restored with a personal attack in the edit summary. Normally people tinker with one or two words in the lede, but they do not make wholesale changes of this type, falsely claiming consensus. I hope this highly disruptive editor, who is edit warring with false claims of consensus on a central WP article, can be strongly cautioned and blocked if necessary. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that this problem, hopefully now a non-problem, can be solved by adding more sourced scholarly material to the article. The historical evolution of the term "Europe" as a continent from antiquity to the modern age of plate tectonics has been extremely well chronicled in the academic literature. Mathsci (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is really neccessary for me to respond to the above, it is mostly sensationalist. I tried to delete a controversial map, but I immediately agreed that it was one heck of a nice map visually, and I changed my position. Since then, I have been trying to work on how to include it in the proper, NPOV context. Lately, Mathsci appears to be interested in working with me on this, which is good. Still, while the only other respondant at the time agreed with me on the map's lack of neutrality (That map only fulfils one specific definition of 'Europe', so in a way it violates WP:NPOV. It is a well-made map though, perhaps it could be modified to allow multiple definitions to be observed? Hayden120 (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) Mathsci wrote "You removed it because of WP:DONTLIKEIT, which is not how WP articles are prepared."

As for my rationale about separating 'undisputed Europe' and 'extending into Europe' into two categories, I never said "historical, political, cultural, legal justifications..." were the grounds. So no, that is not my "very clearly expressed POV"; in fact, the part about "historical, political, cultural...etc" was actually lifted by me from the German version of the Europe article on wikipedia, an article I found to be much more neutral. I told this to Matsci, and he dismissed my claims and made me feel stupid. I also told him what was better about the german version, namely its neutrality, and he said the English version was better, essentially because it was larger and had pictures. Also note that the German version separated Europe into European and extending into Europe, so no surprise where that came from. Furthermore, I followed the source that was used for the chart and...guess what? It split up the countries, too. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, et. al. were included in groupings for Asia. So that alone was a fairly obvious problem in the article: claiming to use a source and then portraying something contrary to what that source says. I pointed this out, but Mathcsi said nothing about it and proceeded to revert again.

Generally, the above User has had a tendency to jump to conclusions and this is reflected here on this dispute page (where he is putting forth his own pet theory about my decision to include "historical political, cultural"), but it is also well reflected in the talk page of the article. In addition to that, it is plainly easy to see his aggressiveness on that same talk page, which I have commented on several times, in the hope of inducing change. As for my alleged personal attacks against him, to claim there was such a thing is completely unfounded. I expected he would write something over the course of one day, or at least have the courtesy to say he would get back to me later. I was waiting on a response regarding my changes, and what I got shortly before he disappeared for a while was a summary which compared his interest in editing to what he conceived to be mine (a complete lack of good faith, which I mentioned shortly after Matschi first responded to me). Mathsci was overly unwelcoming of any criticism towards the article in the first place, using hostile language to more or less discourage my involvement in the article. He seemed to think that the article's high view count and long-standing status proved it was nearly flawless (hence what he wrote above, about "tinkering" being acceptable). Actually, the article was loaded with problems! As for consensus on all of them, I never "falsely" claimed consensus or claimed consensus...and it would have been hard for me to do, considering only two or three people frequently visited the page, including one Turkishflame, who was even more determined not to discuss changing the article, coming up with vague excuses not to. What I ultimately hoped to have take place is make the changes and, if they were objectionable, have a discussion about what was wrong with this. This never happened, but I am hoping it happens now. I think Mathsci also sees now that the article needs work.

It would be good to see the article develop it this direction, I agree. Considering the focus is supposed to be on cultural and political, I think this would be a great. I am hoping Mathsi can act more civil towards me, and I will also try to act more civil towards him.--Npovshark (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The tendentious editing is continuing without consensus. Npovshark, without providing academic sources, is insisting on the separation of the countries or states Azerbaijan, Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey in the table in the Political Geography section where they appeared with careful annotations. The description he added to his new table was unhelpful, unsourced and WP:WEASELy. The way to edit this article is to find sources and then use them: there are plenty of books and academic articles on Transcaucasian countries, European Russia, etc; equally well there seems to be no reason why Cyprus and Malta should be treated differently. I spent the second half of yesterday painstakingly researching/sourcing the history of Europe as a continent, which I carefully added to the article. I did not know ahead of time what this would involve (I'm not a historian); I simply added a summary of what was in the two academic texts. This seems to be the only way to proceed in editing this hopefully neutral article. Mathsci (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that you have also inserted your edits without prior approval, not that I really took offense. The point is the version with the table changes had a few other changes, and it was easier for Matsci to insert the tables we've had (for now) than it would ahve been for me to go back through and note every grammar change, re-wording and minor alteration I have made thoughout the page. We are now working with the proofread version, and although he has reverted to the old grouping table within this version, I will not change its content until we are in agreement.--Npovshark (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked anon back with new IP

81.132.184.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was blocked as 86.143.154.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see AN/I) and 81.158.54.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has returned and resumed vandalising. Neither block has expired as far as I know. Orpheus (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. TNXMan 16:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I will just add a comment here, because I just looked at a sockpuppet report involving these IP addresses. While I do not approve of whomever is behind the use of these IP addresses (which are on a dynamic ISP) edit-warring on the various articles involved, I note that a goodly number of the edits that were made are entirely correct and should not have been reverted in the first place. It takes (at least) two to edit war, and the named accounts who continued this edit war are equally culpable. If I had made many of those same edits, I daresay that I would not have been reverted. Reversion should only be done after careful consideration of the content being edited, and should not be done in such a knee-jerk manner. Now we have poorer content, and an anonymous editor who's been politicized. Risker (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive sig?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A while ago, there was this conversation about an editor whose signature was disruptive because it was too big. Now, there's an editor whose sig is so small it's almost unreadable: shoot!. I had to hover my cursor over it to see what it was. A direct request to the editor to fix the problem was turned down -- would someone care to advise the editor to alter the sig so that it can be more easily read? Sigs aren't supposed to make identifying the editor more difficult. The editor is currently standing for admin, so I'd like this to be cleared up before he or she is presented with the mop. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Reads ok for me. --John (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (ec) I'm having no problem reading it – are you using an odd browser or a very small screen? For me, the font size is displaying at the same size as (for example) that in Pedro's sig, which he's used for years without any issues. – iridescent 17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Nothing odd - IE on a laptop. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Re: Pedro's sig, that's actually not the case. They're both small, but Law's is a superscript, which is rendered smaller than small regular text. Same with small and subscript. Compare: shoot! and Pedro :  Chat  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (ec)At least one admin has a sig that doesn't link anywhere, thus breaching WP:SIG and making it hard for editors to communicate with him. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Duncan: I'm aware of that situation - but at least you can read that sig and know who it is. (Besides, I think the argument in favor there had to do with long precedent. But I would prefer this specific discussion not get sidetracked.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I actually can't see it (I use the blackscreen gadget), but this as custom sigs do not appear to have to be compatible with Misplaced Pages gadgets that's not all that unusual. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC) It reads well in Opera 9.64 --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, I've just checked under Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari, and it seems as if IE is the only browser that has a rendering problem with that size of type -- it looks quite reasonable under the other browsers (so I'm not surprised that a lot of people haven't complained). But since IE is used for about 60% of online activity... Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Looks fine and readable in Internet Explorer 7 and 8. seicer | talk | contribs 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, I disagree. It does not look good with IE7 under Windows Vista. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Why did you bring this up on ANI? What immediate, administrator action is required? He already replied on his talk page that he'd modify his signature if there was consensus; so far, you are the only one to chime in that it is too small, and thus the complaint revolves solely around you. seicer | talk | contribs 17:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I made my request for admin action in my initial post above: "would someone care to advise the editor to alter the sig so that it can be more easily read?" Every complaint starts with somebody. Incidentally, why would the editor need a "consensus" to solve a problem brought to their attention that is easily solved by the editor? Unless one thinks that I'm just an asshole complaining for the hell of it, wouldn't a more reasonable response be "Sorry, I wasn't aware of the problem, the sig is of no real importance, so I'll fix it?" Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC) So, if one person complains, then it must be valid and must be fixed? Fine. I find your "t" and "c" in your signature to be far too small. I demand that you change it. Not doing so will be considered disruptive to the project. seicer | talk | contribs 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I suspect that you're just being obstreporous rhetorical and pointy, but if you actually do find the "t" and "c" hard to read, please drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll be glad to adjust them -- although the talk and contributions links aren't nearly as important as the sig, which identifies the editor. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Works fine for me (Safari and Firefox on Mac OS X). I advise you to use a different browser. Tonywalton  17:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Uh, I'm using the browser used for 60% of transactions on the web, you can't wave your hands and tell me to get another browser. That's just silly. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I believe that everyone should use a browser other than Internet Explorer, but that isn't a realistic expectation. There's no valid reason to have a signature that's essentially broken in any major browser (though I'm sure that Law was unaware of the issue). —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think it is disruptive in any way. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Having a signature that's practically unreadable to a large segment of users isn't disruptive? (As noted above, I'm sure that Law was unaware of this.) —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I don't see it as a big deal. Ikip (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Having a fancy signature definitely isn't a big deal. Maintaining its intended functionality always should come first. —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Looks ok to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC) It looks fine in all of my usual browsers, but when I load it in Internet Explorer, it's virtually unreadable. —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) It looks a mite small in IE, but not to the point of disruption. You really ought check out Firefox, it's world beyond IE. Unless you can't, for whatever reason. –xeno 18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC) No, as I mentioned above, I have Opera, Chrome, Firefox, Safari and even an old copy of Netscape, but I use IE as my default because it's the browser used by the majority of people, and the one that a casual user of the Internet would be most likely to use. I want to see Misplaced Pages as those people -- our readers (i.e customers) see it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC) This is my hopeless plug for an end to custom signatures. Thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Gwen - I love playing around with them, but I think that you are correct - there's really no need for them. All sigs should appear in a standard manner. I will now mount my horse and tilt at that windmill over there. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I evangelize Firefox to everyone who'll listen, but it irks me when people respond to complaints regarding rendering issues by telling others to make the switch. There's no valid reason for a signature to be difficult to read in any major browser, period. The fault may lie with Microsoft, but the solution is to adjust the signature code. Note that Law has not yet been advised of the issue, so this should not be interpreted as a criticism of that user. —David Levy 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I normally use Firefox, but I loaded up IE7, where the signature is a bit small, but not disruptively so. At least it links to his userpage; I find users who refuse to link to their user or talk pages to be far more disruptive than those who have small signatures. FWIW, I run my screen mode in 1280X1024 and medium text size in IE7, on a 19" monitor. Horologium (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I have a 15" LCD with a resolution of 1400x1050, and I'm literally unable to read the signature in Internet Explorer. —David Levy 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC) SO let me get this straight, the user said essentially "You're the first to complain, I didn't know there was a problem, if others have a problem, let me know and I will gladly change it without further fuss" and your first inclination is to start a WP:ANI thread and call him disruptive?!? Please, let me use User:Law's own words here: "If it is, i'll change it. I'll be happy to revert back to the the default. I will truly do so. In fact, it may be a problem, so I will bring it to another forum. I don't want to be obtuse about it. Thanks." I've never seen someone brought to ANI for agreeing to fix a problem. Goodness gracious... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Indeed, I see no evidence that Law is aware of the problem. I'm going to explain it (if no one beats me to it). —David Levy 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC) David, Law was informed of this thread at 17.01 UTC today. He does not appear to be currently editing. DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I meant that I would leave a note on Law's talk page explaining that there is an issue relating specifically to Internet Explorer (which I just did). I see no reason why Law should have to wade trough this questionable thread to be advised of that simple fact. —David Levy 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Jayron: I'm not going to respond to a synopsis framed in that manner. I simply do not understand why a user, especially one who wants to be an admin, wouldn't accomodate a reasonable request, that's easily done, from another member of the community. After all, a sig is not big thing. It's not like I'm asking the user to change his or her name - it's just typography. Being able to read the editor's sig using the most popular browser on the Internet seems quite reasonable to me. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Again, there's no evidence that Law is aware of the IE issue. —David Levy 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Actually I was gonna say about his sig on his RfA, but not due to the letter size matter at all. The sig looks very small to me in my browser (firefox) too, but not unrecognizable "with efforts". The sig only consists of a little bit boldy "black texts" and has no background color nor a frame, so I happened to missed his comments several times (eg. T:TDYK). The sig is blend with texts, so makes his comment inconspicuous indeed. But does the sig breach the policy? Nope--Caspian blue 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC Oh, in IE 7 (I tested it) and IE 8, the sig looks much smaller. The complaint seems legitimate now.--Caspian blue 19:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Looks fine to me. –Juliancolton |  18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC) How many people are going to write that (without elaboration)? Are you using Internet Explorer? —David Levy 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC) That "example" picture being used is misleading because signatures always appear next to a timestamp which makes them stand out. Nevertheless, I would advise Law to embiggen his sig a bit, just to help those of us who are still using IE, for whatever reason. –xeno 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I've changed to an image showing an example from the editor's talk page. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, still would make one squint I suppose. –xeno 19:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Are you trying to say that it is a perfectly cromulent signature? AniMate 18:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC) It's incredible how well-developed our coverage on The Simpsons is... I did not know they popularized the word embiggen! Cromulent, no, not quite, given the new IE8 example which is even worse. –xeno 19:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Looks mine to fe. HalfShadow 18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I can only read "Half" of HalfShadow's. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I also find the signature slightly hard to read -- I'm using Firefox on Linux with the DejaVu fonts as the characters run into each other slightly -- especially the a and the w of "law". I also would find it easier if the font size were larger. ] 18:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Looks ok to me, no problems reading it. We can't fault the user for anyone's own bad eyes/age/computer issues. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 1. Again, the signature looks fine to most of us not using Internet Explorer. Have you viewed the IE8 screen capture? 2. Indeed, we shouldn't fault the user (as there is no evidence that Law is aware of the IE issue). —David Levy 19:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC) It looks fine to me, but I think accessibility trumps taste issues. I've worked in the third world, and I have absolutely no room for dismissal of people with behind-the-times computers. The people most in need of Misplaced Pages have the shittiest browsers. Write for them. -GTBacchus 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you! I can't understand why anyone would regard the ability to have a fancy signature as more important than other users' ability to read it. —David Levy 19:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC) ↑What he said! And ↑↑him too! DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC) At least on Firefox, you can adjust the standard text size. The relative size of super- and subscripts might depend on the standard font. Maybe changing the standard font is the best idea in some cases, because all super- and subscripts would be affected, not just those used in Misplaced Pages signatures. (There are some sigs on WP that are really hard to read, but super- and subscripts is a standard functionality in all browsers that should result in readable letters.) --Cs32en (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Wow. All this fretting over something that's just so meh. Seriously. As far as I'm concerned, there are several more-distracting sigs in this thread alone. —Travis 20:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Law's signature isn't distracting; it's difficult or impossible for many users to read. —David Levy 20:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC) From User talk:Law I apologize for being obtuse and firefox-centric. I'm really sorry that my sig cause any problems. I've gone back to the default. Law (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Well, at least I learned a couple of technical terms from this case: embiggen (above) and littlefy (here). :D —Travis 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Cheese...I hope my sig's ok ... I would hate for there to be a "technical" reason for opposing me in RfA (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Same here - I use superscript for my links after the ID part. -Jeremy 05:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Chronic IP vandal on Name-dropping

Beginning about a quarter of a year ago around January 2008, an anon IP editor has repeatedly inserted 2 names into the article which are non-notable, harrassing and attack edits. The article has been protected numerous times but everytime the protection is lifted, he keeps coming back and inserts the same names.

The IP ranges looking at the history are 58.178.128.0/17, 58.179.128.0/17, 210.50.192.0/17, 211.26.224.0/19, 211.27.0.0/16, 202.138.0.0/16, and 203.134.128.0/17. I tried to figure out the ranges, if i'm wrong on some of them, please correct me. All IP's trace back to Primus Telecom in Australia. Also the article has been semi-protected for another month. Since all these ranges have been virtually one in the same person, should the article continue to be protected, or keep the protection and block the ranges? Looking for input on this one. Momusufan (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Whomever it is adding the same two names also makes requests for the article to be unprotected for the specific addition of those names so it's not as if the users aren't savvy to some extent. I'd say it's something for the abuse filter given content never changes. treelo _radda 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw that unprotect request, Chaser made a good call denying that request. Never thought about making an abuse filter out of that. That sounds like a good idea, someone should consider making a filter to stop the additions of those two names. Momusufan (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It also might be worthwhile going through the IP addresses and hitting them with {{isp}} using both arguments- I believe that and related templates serve as a much better deterrent than warnings and blocks alone since it suggests something beyond blocking (hint, hint). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that right now. :) Momusufan (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still open to somebody creating a filter to stop this vandalism. I doubt when the protection ends, it will stop completely. He will just keep doing it again and also make those frivlous unprotect requests. Momusufan (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Make a request if nobody will do it from here. treelo _radda 09:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for filter made, see here. Momusufan (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2

I request that Ludwigs2 and his proxies--if any--be banned permanently from editing Dignity.

Ludwigs2 has made many edits to Dignity since November 2008. His edits have consisted of moving sentences, rearranging paragraphs, deleting text, and composing an introduction. At this point, all that remains of his edits are some deletions and the introduction. Ludwigs2 has never contributed any referenced information to Dignity. I object to the introduction by Ludwigs2 because I find it inaccurate, unreferenced, sophistical, and incoherent. I object to his deletions because I find them frivolous.

I find that any discussion with Ludwigs2 is futile. He does not care if he is disruptive. Misplaced Pages has blocked Ludwigs2 five times for disruptive editing (See .).

Ludwigs2 made the following statement at NPOV.

Ludwigs2’s statement tells me—burdened as I am by strict rationality—that he is too highly evolved to be editing a simple article like Dignity. His “real rationality,” with its indifference to fact, reason, references, and good writing, is not a good fit for such an ordinary and scholarly subject.

22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A few points: 1) This is a content dispute. For content disputes we have WP:DR (which isn't particularly good), not ANI. 2) After a quick glance at the talk page and the reverts it seems to me that you are at least as wrong as Ludwigs2 in the content dispute. 3) When you report someone to ANI, you are supposed to notify them. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hans, thank you for your response. I have placed a notice on Ludwigs2's talk page. Please identify about what it is that I am wrong.

PYRRHON

talk 01:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

should we move this discussion somewhere more sensible, or continue it here? Either way is fine with me. --Ludwigs2 02:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to know if this is the place where banning is discussed. If the admins would rather have irreconcilable differences settled through WP:DR, then the direction to bring such applications here should be changed.

PYRRHON

talk 03:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually, serious attempts at dispute resolution are prerequisite to calling a difference of opinion irreconcilable. But unless there are specific policy violations, it probably doesn't belong here. Durova 03:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, heavens... I suggest we close this thread and move it over to dispute resolution where it belongs. Pyrrhon, I'll go ahead and start something up there; I'll leave a link on your talk page. --Ludwigs2 04:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mhazard9 - possible disruptive editor?

Mhazard9 (talk · contribs) This user has recently made a number of edits to two articles I watch, Franz Boas and Cultural Relativism. The edit summary always indicates that the intention is to "clean up" language but all I see are edits that make the language more obscure or confusing, unclear or imprecise. I checked the user history and saw that s/he had done the same thing at the article on code switching. Then I read the user's talk page and saw that a couple of other editors have expressed concern regarding other pages. All of this leads me to suspect that this is a classic disruptive editor, hard to tell at first because a pattern emerges over a range of articles. But I admit this is a subjective judgment and while I believe strongly in eliminating disruptive editors, I also know many are quite rightly cautious about applying this label to editors. Honestly, maybe this person is acting in good faith. But it seems to me to be a puddle of poor prose slowly spreading across varous articles. I'd appreciate it if other editors checked this user out, comparing his/her edits across a range of articles, and tell me whether my concerns are ill-or well-founded - and keep an eye on him/her for a while, or suggest a course of action ... Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified Mhazard9 about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.--chaser - t 02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Chaser's response relates to the fact that Mhazard altered Sirubenstein's message. Since we can't be having that sort of thing, I have taken the more active approach of reverting back to the original form -- adding this message to alleviate confusion. Looie496 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You reverted? .--chaser - t 05:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see some of this, but adding some diffs to your statement above would be helpful so that whoever is looking at this (me now, I guess) doesn't have to re-do the same detective work. I saw nothing actionable after a glance at contribs.--chaser - t 05:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Chaser, I direct you to the edit diff you produced - namely, the way Mhazard9 edited my comment. Folks, I think you are all misinterpreting Mhazard9's act. You seem to think it is a naive newbiew mistakenly editing another person's comment - the mistake being that we edit one another's work all the time, except when it is on someone else's user-page, or someone else's talk, and this is a common newbie error. I do not think Mhazard9 made that error. I think Mhazard9 was mocking me and the report of disruptive editing with a precise example of the disruptive editing to which I am calling attention. Mhazard9 added a few words to my comment. I am bolding what sh/e added:

I'd appreciate it if other editors checked out this user, comparing his/her edits across the range of articles s/he edits, and tell me whether or not my concerns are ill-or well-founded

My point: the changes do not change my meaning at all and thus appear innoccuous. But they do add unnecessary words. This is what Mhazard9 is doing in every edit i have looked at (and there is no point in my providing edit differences, just go to the user contributions; every edit I have seen does not fundamentally change the meaning, but does add unnecessary verbiage, or makes the phrasing more awkward. One edit would not be a big deal..But it adds up. It adds up at one article, and it adds up over many different articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at a few of his edits, & can't find anything actionable at this time: as long as their edits are still intelligible, we don't ban people just for being lousy writers. My guess is that Mhazard9 has just finished reading Strunk & White or Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", & has decided to rewrite articles according to the insights he had after reading -- which obviously have some problems. Although there's nothing that an Admin can do at this moment -- beyond helping Mhazard9 with his writing skills -- Mhazard9 may be worth watching in case his skills don't notably improve, especially in consideration that he hasn't responding to this thread beyond vandalizing Slrubenstein's post. -- llywrch (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is basically what I was thinking but failing to articulate. Don't hesitate to bring something more actionable to my talk page, Slrubenstein. I take a dim view of his edit to your initial comment in this thread, so I'll give future malfeasance particular attention.--chaser - t 00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Keystroke logging

Anonymous IP's constantly adding spamlinks for their warez to Keystroke logging. Use of widely different IP ranges makes action against the spammers tricky. Please semi-protect the article. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Added to spam blacklist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - one more with the same issue: Registry cleaner Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Also added. Please report future spamming incidents at WT:WPSPAM or Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Math Champion

• Math Champion (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cool piplup2 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PakoPenguin (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The user Math Champion, and his quacking sockpuppet, Cool pipup2, appear on the surface to be semi-constructive editors, but in reality, MC appears, from studying the contributions, to be a vandal-only account. This account, as well as the sockpuppet, have vandalized several user pages, and, at one point, attempted to out PakoPenguin a user that he or she has been harassing. At least that is what it appears on the surface to be. Pako could be a sock of MC, based on the edit history of the userpage, or even a meatpuppet. Either way, the vandalizing needs to stop, and the blatant sock needs to be blocked, as it appears he was using it to vandalize other user pages when his other account was told to stop. Opinions?— Dædαlus 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! My take on Math Champion is that he is using Misplaced Pages solely as a playground. I do not know if this is squarely vandalism, but if we do not have a policy for such hyper-trivial use of Misplaced Pages we should. I am for banning, on the face of it, but look forward to other views. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified Math Champion about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I know them, so I can give some information.

First, Cool piplup2 = Math Champion. Second, PakoPenguin, who doesn't really edit anymore, is his friend as well as mine. Finally, Math Champion is not outing PakoPenguin; he is outing download, whom is also a friend of mine. Basically, I think this is just a friend issue. MC10 | Sign here! 01:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, all 3 are my friends. Math Champion doesn't really like download. MC10 | Sign here! 01:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(Note that I am MathCool10 even though my signature states me to be MC10; MC10 is just a redirect account I created.) MC10 | Sign here! 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Facebook is that way -> HalfShadow 03:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Math Champion has four edits to article space since October (three today) with a host of nonsensical userspace deleted edits. Cool piplup2 has three edits to article space since June when he last edited. User talk:Math Champion looks like enough to me. I agree with a ban and moving on. I honestly don't care if they are friends, not friends, don't know each other off-wiki. That's irrelevant and should remain so. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

←Math Champion should not be banned. Knowing him in real life, he can be immature at times but is an asset to Misplaced Pages. -download | sign! 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As effectively all of his edits have been to user pages, I don't think Misplaced Pages will be missing much. HalfShadow 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he should be banned if he vandalizes another page; however, I oppose his banning immediately. Perhaps he will be a good contributor to Misplaced Pages in the future. -download | sign! 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We usually don't ban Wikipedians for focusing on userspace edits. Blocking would be a better strategy. Remember that banning is not blocking. MC10 | Sign here! 00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Math Champion isn't making constructive edits. For making the majority of his edits to the userspace, that only escalates it. Also, if you haven't noticed, he doesn't vandalize articles. He probably thinks the userspace is a "free" area, which is a lack of knowlege of policy, not vandalism. P.S.: Thanks for the explanation, but I know what difference between blocking and banning is.  ;) -download | sign! 01:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If he were actually doing something here, I'd be more accepting, but it seems as though he's just using the place as a sort of toy. HalfShadow 01:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Employee Free Choice Act semi-protect request

Would an admin kindly put a semi-protect, say for a week or so, on Employee Free Choice Act. Disruptive edit warring from several IPs all in Milwaukee, Wisconsin ( 129.89.24.99 , 129.89.24.98 , 173.89.48.219 , 129.89.32.101 ) . Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for page protection are in aisle 6. Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I Semi'd it. The correct way to respond to a request like this is to take action on it, then inform someone how to navigate the bureaucracy. If you don't want to take action, help them make the request in the other forum. Please don't just punt requests away. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correct page Looie496--duly noted for future reference. (Aisle 6 is the bottled juice aisle, no? whatta mess, lol. :) I appreciate your taking care of it, Protonk. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi BLP violations

IP addresses keep adding obvious BLP violations. Semi-protection until after the 2009 Indian General Elections will probably be needed to stop it. Priyanath  02:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This actually belongs at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection.--76.66.184.249 (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Priyanath  02:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Guy" vandal socks

Just created by Beverly Hillbilly's Greatest Chases:

• User:Lifetime World Guy
• User:Rise & Fall Guy
• User:Parachute Guy
• User:Up on the Roof Guy
• User:Global World Guy

See, for example,

--Rrburke 03:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Quack!. All blocked, it is User:MascotGuy. Tiptoety 03:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And now should we call him "Blocked Guy"? -- llywrch (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

When in Rome..

Can I get a ruling on this? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ 06:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If they want to take the time to add those to all the pages, I see no problem in it. As long as it is correct. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 20, 2009 @ 06:50

Linking to holocaust-denial material

Markacohen blocked for now for edit warring over the links, but ironically makes a very good point in spite of the fact that he failed to go about it the right way. Another country can ban whatever content they want, distasteful as it is, and as this material clearly is. However, the laws we follow here for what is "legal" to link to is United States of America law. So, Markacohen was right about that 100%, that still doesn't excuse edit warring or calling people Nazis. Good block, and yes, links to this sort of nonsense hate material are allowed, if they meet the appropriate local requirements we have like WP:RS and WP:EL. We don't follow German, Swiss, UK, French, or whomever's law here. rootology (C)(T) 16:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm talking about Markacohen (talk · contribs) and his insertion of links to the Leuchter report on that item's page. Countries like France, Germany and Austria forbid access to revisionist sites and do legally pursue Holocaust denial (cf. the sentencing of Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel, Horst Mahler, David Irving). Now, i have warned the user () but to no avail, and he doesn't seem to be considered as a vandal as of yet. I mean, what we are talking about here is a very serious legal offence in some major countries, so something should have to be done, doesn't it? Regards, --RCS (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really, unless the links themselves violate WP:EL. Our servers aren't in France, Germany or Austria, and we aren't subject to their legal systems. If we had to follow every legal system at the same time this would be unworkable. Ironholds (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Granted, but we are talking Holocaust denial here, which is quite a sensitive subject, if i dare say.--RCS (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't matter. We don't censor particular articles based on the fact that some people might find them "a bit iffy", and I say that as a Jew of Polish/Lithuanian descent. Ironholds (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This issue is long resolved I believe, and there is no policy against violating laws in countries other than the United States. Half of Misplaced Pages is probably illegal in one country or another. Per WP:NOT#CENSORED, we do not censor material on Misplaced Pages. Although individual editors must deal with the country where they happen to be, Misplaced Pages itself is subject only to US (and Florida) law. In the United States it would be considered an unconstitutional restriction on free speech to outlaw writing, reading, hosting, or linking to material simply because it denies the holocaust. Assuming the link is not to a WP:COPYVIO site and is otherwise appropriate (per WP:EL) it is fine per Misplaced Pages policies. Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Holocaust denial illegal in the Netherlands? Because I'm sure some of the WMF's servrs are there. Sceptre 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't illegal in the Netherlands, and that's irrelevant anyway. Please try to be more constructive Sceptre. C.U.T.K.D 08:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck? It's actually a relevant question. Sceptre 13:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• If the foundation wants to take a position on whether or not we should remove external links they may. absent that, I'm uncomfortable doing so based on the prospect of European legal action against the foundation. Though I could wager that the links themselves may violate EL and will also say that external links in all articles should be used sparingly and proportionally. Protonk (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would caution Markacohen's inclination to liberally add these links. It is fundamental that fringe theories such as a Holocaust denial cannot be construed as fact - let's not spoonfed them to the reader by being a directory to denier materials. WilliamH (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As a Jewish-American born and raised in the United States of America let me step forth to clarify and bring well thought out lucidity and truth to the issues at hand here and then hopefully from this point onward we can try to be intellectual adults (without weaselishness (a new non-judgmental word is born)) about these very important issues and not descend into the primitive ways of our ignorant human ancestors which often lived under closed minded dogma, as was the case in Europe when the Christian Church was in power for so many centuries and forced its dogma on humanity. Now the Christian Church is no longer in power or declining in power (thank goodness), but there are new forces emerging out there with some degree of power which attempt to force their dogma on humanity, these are the people with little power who censor additions in wikipedia or others with greater power who pass dogma laws in their respective countries preventing the open intellectual discussion of topics in their countries - Dogma. Let us move forward in our self directed evolution as a world human species and rise to a higher level of consciousness, hopefully far above these unenlightened primitive ways of our ignorant close minded ancestors. Let us step forward and say there are no Dogmas and Taboos, we as enlightened humans have the freedom to discuss all topics even the ones which are very emotional, sensitive and could possibly hurt the feelings of some people. Let us step forth and be intellectually brave and courageous, and not cowards.

The Ad Hominen attack in your accusation of Vandalism directed at me, when I have not committed any Vandalism is unacceptable and shows your lack of knowledge on how things work on Misplaced Pages. Putting in relevant and factual information in articles pertaining to the specific article topics is what wikipedia is all about. Your accusations of Vandalism because I put specific relevant links in an article about the relevant topic is an Ad Hominem personal attack and reflects your own personal emotional biases against allowing links to the relevant pseudo scientific information. Maybe because you don't want people to be able to have access to these materials and debunk these pseudoscientific materials. Your own personal biases are lack validity and merit.

Now Let me explain in deeper details, the wikipedia servers are in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) and FLORIDA, which are bound under the United States and Florida Constitution which recognizes FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States is FREEDOM OF SPEECH. What Freedom of Speech means is we have intellectual freedom to explore all topics whether controversial or taboo - including topics which are not allowed to be discussed in other countries because of ignorant unenlightened dogma laws which prevent open intellectual discussion. Thus, with the knowledge that Misplaced Pages is located in the United States, Misplaced Pages is not subject to the anti-intellectual dogma laws of other countries, like member states of the EU for instance. So your statement that there can not be links to Revisionist web sites is 100% False, your countries have their own ISP blocking these materials anyway, which is sad and pathetic.

We in USA dont tuck our PP's between our legs and run away the way they do in Europe, and I dont mean that as an Ad Hominem attack, but that's how I view it when people try to prevent access to information or pass dogma laws preventing the free intellectual inquiry into historical events. You see we in America we strive to not censor people and ideas, because our great founding father Thomas Jefferson said there is No Truth with which I fear. When you censor research and information into historical events, it means you fear it, you're afraid of it because it possibly proves you wrong.

We don't censor Revisionist material on Misplaced Pages or in the United States, we bring it forth, we shine the light of truth, research and science on it, then we debunk revisionism as pseudo science. This is how it works in my country, in your country maybe you revert to the old primitive ways with your pathetic dogma laws, in America we have no such ignorant pathetic dogma laws for the most part, we shine the light of truth on the pseudoscience and the people researching it gain greater truth and depth.

So allow me to debunk your first statement that Revisionist Material in Germany, France, etc... so that it can't be published on Misplaced Pages. You are patently incorrect in this thinking, Misplaced Pages is not subject to Anti-Revisionist Laws which exist outside the United States, so this will represent my debunking of your statements and hopefully you will stop your irrational behavior as a result of your incorrect view and thinking about wikipedia. Markacohen (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And the links are to hate sites and totally unnecessary, as a Google search quickly finds the report. If you actually know anything about the First Amendment, you know it doesn't apply to Misplaced Pages. See WP:Free Speech. Also read WP:AGF if you don't want to end up blocked for personal attacks. What User:WilliamH says is correct, this is a fringe subject and Misplaced Pages is not going to be a directory for hate sites. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the desire to keep adding these links, eg here - also (not aimed at this editor, a question to others) what is our policy about identifying people's religion -- and, as a separate question, adding people to religious categories? I'm asking because of this edit: - personally I think that unless religion is clearly relevant (an article on the Pope could mention it I guess), then certainly a person shouldn't be in a religious category - nor in an infobox (a creation of the devil) and certainly not without unequivocal evidence that they practice that religion. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just warned him for 3RR. And, his user page now says "There seems to be a nazi element in wikipedia trying to make sure the pseudoscience is not linked to so it can't be readily debunked,". I am trying hard to AGF here, and hopefully someone else will do something about his user page, but calling editors' Nazis isn't tolerable (and ironic). Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

CEASE AND DESIST - YOU and your lackeys keep deleting relevant links and information which is specific to the article, stop trying to use some kind of pathetic red herring excuses to prevent relevant links from being in the article. The links I added to the article are specific and pertinent information valid for the article, and hundreds of thousands of other articles out there which might be considered "fringe" have specific and relevant links added to them and are not deleted. Misplaced Pages is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge and The Hitler Card has no merit on wikipedia and is a pathetic disgusting excuse used by you and your lackeys to vandalize my relevant and valuable contributions to wikipedia. Markacohen (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note that Mark is in breach of 3RR after completely ignoring Doug's warning and may now be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. On a side note, as the editor responsible for 90% of Leuchter report, I never thought I'd see the day when I would be labelled a neo-Nazi. Unbelieveable. WilliamH (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

On another side note: If Markacohen is jewish, Henry Ford also is. Just a thought. --RCS (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now he's called me a neo-Nazi. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen this movie before. Blocked for 48 hours. Protonk (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not my favourite ending to a movie, but hey ... it's not the first time I've been disappointed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. He's asking for an unblock, saying that "in the future, I will go through the normal resolution procedure when people vandalize pages you work on by deleting valid information from them." How generous of him. Meanwhile, what do we do about his User page which, besides saying a goal of his is to have the keyword pseudoscience included in the pages of holocaust deniers, which is fine by me, & that their works are always linked, which is not, says "There seems to be a nazi element in wikipedia trying to make sure the pseudoscience is not linked to so it can't be readily debunked, I will be closely watching those revisionist areas to make sure they can't prevent the light of truth to debunk pseudo science and pseudo history."? Given the recent drama around a certain editor calling people anti-Semites, do we just ignore this or? Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh. I don't really like the hyperbole and the escalation but we have to be careful not to apply our policy on personal attacks to comments that aren't directed at persons. E.g. if I said "Everyone at wikipedia is a fascist" that's not terribly collegial but it is not a personal attack. If I said "Protonk is a fascist", that would be a personal attack. I'm sorry if this sounds remedial but I want to nose the thread away from reacting in that direction.

As for the unblock request, someone will come by and judge it on its merits. I'm going to school after a little bit so I will note here that I am ok with an administrator reversing that block without discussion it with me first, provided they are sure I messed up or that he has obviated the reason for the block (I'm not sure he has). Protonk (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin (especially considering my current RfA), but I don't think that he quite "gets it", and that a couple of days rest might be a good idea. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside view on User:Diamonddannyboy

I need an outside view before I indefinitely block this guy, generally for being a pain to deal with. Basically, a few weeks ago, User:Theserialcomma reported him again to ANI for trying to archive Talk:Darren M. Jackson (there had been no discussion on those sections for months). I started a discussion there, where Theserialcomma settled on being ok archiving the discussion, so I did. Instead of leaving it alone, Diamonddannyboy decided to get into personal arguments here, for which I warned him. Back and forth with insults by him at my talk page and finally this nonsense. He was last blocked for disruption in February at that page and I think it's time again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

he is also socking under http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/86.11.100.50 and he denies it. i would have filed a checkuser, but i figured it'd be a waste of time per WP:duck. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the IP. Someone may wish to have a word...? C.U.T.K.D 08:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit tricky to distinguish between IP socking and forgetting to log in, and in general in this case I think it is the latter - noting that the diff is a tad odd, as it is hard to argue that you're barred from editing while editing. :) Perhaps he was confused? - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it. He appears to be upset but I can't see behavior worthy of a block. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an outside view, but my impression from watching this is that neither editor has behaved completely appropriately (as seems to be the case with most edit wars). That aside, in the past Diamonddannyboy has been helpful, although he's been frustrated at what he saw as large scale changes to the article he started. I'd see an indef as overkill for what has been fairly minor disruption, that could have been solved with a compromise some time ago. - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the socking I'm most concerned about. C.U.T.K.D 08:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not his first time, so I'm not particularly shocked at this point. If someone wants to give him a warning he might take seriously. Frankly, it's not like he has a great history of civil conduct here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My experience of Diamonddannyboy is that he does listen, so while yes, he did sock in the past, that was 12 months ago, so I'm still happy to AGF. As mentioned, I've tended to see this habit of his as failing to log in - he generally doesn't seem to hide when doing this, (even stating in edit summaries who he was), and his IP didn't edit when his account was blocked. But it is a difficult distinction to make, and in general I'm happy to defer to people with more experience on socking issues. - Bilby (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit: link fixed) according to the block log of his ip, he's supposed to be blocked for 3 months. i'd assume if you block someone for 3 months, them logging into an account and resuming editing a few days later would constitute a block evasion Theserialcomma (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you fix that link please. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(Never mind, got there another way). It depends what Toddst1 meant by the block. Presumably he knew of the account, yet chose "anon only". Theresa Knott | token threats 09:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

True. I was going by the block of his account - he didn't edit from the IP while his account was blocked in February, but I now realise that it says nothing as the IP was blocked as well. This, of course, is why I defer to others on socking issues. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm an expert on socking by any means, but as far as I know, there's nothing wrong with logging in to edit on a blocked IP if the IP's block was not directed at you? Afterall, that's what soft blocks/accounts are partly for right? Does anyone know if the IP block was specifically targetting him? C.U.T.K.D 09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked User:Toddst1 here to comment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The edits the IP made in that period were the archiving edit war that Diamonddannyboy was involved in. - Bilby (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Right ok, so technically that is block evasion, as the original block of the IP was designed to target his behaviour (I'm not sure I would have agreed with 3 months though). That said, there is a clear difference here between someone who forgets to login, and someone who switches accounts to deliberately evade a block - I'm pretty certain the latter does not apply here. Any block evasion in my opinion has been fairly inadvertant. Bearing this in mind, and judging by the edits (which could be far more serious imo), I don't believe indef is necessary here, given the user does have a history involving some constructive editing. I think a short block (days/weeks perhaps) would suffice, else a stern warning at least. But I'm not admin, and like I said earlier, no expert at these things - just an opinion. C.U.T.K.D 10:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

While the duck test says 86.11.100.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are the same person, I don't see any edits showing block evasion. One could assert that abusing multiple accounts is enough for an indef block, but I would propose a different solution: a topic ban on Martial arts/fighting and artists. Toddst1 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see pretty obvious block evasion here. I would normally advocate for a longer or indef block here. I'll let the group decide. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I really am not happy about indefinitely blocking a long term user. This is what we have the arbcom for. As for sock evasion, I don't know. Since he has made it pretty clear that the IP was him, and since his user account was not also blocked, it kinda feels like putting a cake in front of a two year old, telling them not to eat it, then stepping outside the room. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree with Theresa - something like this requires a broader discussion. I recommend taking this to arbcom. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I recommend waiting for a bit. Bilby states above Diamonddannyboy does listen so I'd like to see how he responds to my advice on his talk page. Actually, come to think of it, we are required by the AC to do it before they will take the case. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:JamesBurns: Socking ...and more

This puppetry was recently discovered Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of JamesBurns. During the time that I was discussing an article with this user's puppets on which we disagreed he did a couple other things that should be noticed. Under his primary account name he started New delete processes on April 11 for only two articles both of which I created (both are now deleted). I'm not concerned about the articles themselves, it is being stalked. More importantly he then created a puppet that mimics my account. Please compare this to my own user page. Furthermore the only edit he performed with this User ID was vandalism. He's blocked now. Is there more that to be done, or is blocking it? - Steve3849 09:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• What probably needs to be done is for us to go through all of his edits and those of his socks and identify those that may have lead to a wrong consensus conclusion in debates. A lot of work! Theresa Knott | token threats 10:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • List of jam band music festivals (AfD discussion) is two sockpuppets and the article's creator all opining to delete. Taxi (EP) (AfD discussion) is two sockpuppets, the article's creator, and a third party. The sockpuppetry at Talk:Presence (Led Zeppelin album)#Move Discussion has already been noticed and taken care of.

    But there are some problematic discussions here. "The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes (AfD discussion), for example, was eight sockpuppets opining to delete versus three editors opining to keep, resulting in deletion.

    It might help to know that the blocking administrator has done some of the work in identifying these discussions. See User:Paul Erik/Sandbox. See also the list at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    • I believe I've taken care of all of the active discussions in which there was sock puppetry. It's a large task now to go through the old AfD discussions listed at User:Paul Erik/Sandbox, the list in which at least two of JamesBurns's puppets appeared. Any suggestions on how to approach this? Present a list at DRV? Approach each closing admin one by one and ask them to undelete and start a new AfD? Oh, and to answer your question about potential stalking, Steve3849, we'll hope that blocking will be enough. The IP ranges that JamesBurns uses have been blocked for a year by one of the CheckUser investigators. Paul Erik 12:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I've made a start on these, striking out ones that ended up keep or no consensus, are still ongoing, would've ended up with the same result without the socks, or have other issues (i.e. an unsourced BLP of a very minor musician). Looks like a lot of these will probably end up having to be relisted, to be honest. Black Kite 12:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Much appreciated. Paul Erik 13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I've already listed one at DRV (for the second time). I looked at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Killing Yourself to Live and didn't think it worth relisting at DRV, although someone else may have a different view. (Misplaced Pages:Mergers for discussion/Killing Yourself to Live might need revisiting.) I've also struck sockpuppetry in a couple of article talk page discussions that Paul Erik missed.

          There is a parade of abuse here, of which the votestacking is but a part. There's taking other editors to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts for not using the correctly gendered pronoun, when the sex of the account may have been a complete fiction in the first place, through things like this, to edit warring BLP violations into Lindy Morrison using two of the sockpuppets, to the extent that the article's subject herself (Lindymorrison (talk · contribs)) had to make an OTRS complaint to get the article fixed.

          And I haven't even been through the entire article-space and talk-space contributions histories (let alone looked at other namespace contributions). Two of the accounts have been highly active in parallel for at least three years. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I shouldn't take the impersonation personally, Steve3849, by the way. This is not the first time that this person attempted to impersonate someone else whose articles xe wanted to have deleted. User:Marvin Cee was a significant contributor to the now deleted Lucifer Rising (album) (AfD discussion) article. The sockpuppeteer impersonated xem as User:Marvin Ceee. (You've tagged the wrong userpage, M. Erik.) Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oops, thanks Uncle G. I corrected my mistagging. Paul Erik 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Another example: User:E-Kartoffel was the creator of "The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes, and the sockpuppeteer used User:A-Kartoffel to nominate that article for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Although this is a no brainer, do we need a vote on a community ban? That way if he comes back we can block him on sight. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Swoopo

Could someone take a look at the editing of User:Bearrocksmoon with regards to the above article. This is a WP:SPA (edits : Special:Contributions/Bearrocksmoon and clearly lacking a WP:NPOV with this article and attempting to inject their own biased opinions into it. This user has also issued a "warning" for reverting such edits to another user . Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article removing WP:NOR and unsourced and poorly sourced info , then I left a note for the user on their talk page . My edit to the article was reverted by the user , and I warned the user about WP:3RR . Cirt (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This guy doesn't want to give in! Cleaned up and reverted minutes later. Is it time for a block? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Update: Ongoing disruptive editing by Bearrocksmoon (talk · contribs), post warnings . Cirt (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nouse4aname that a block of Bearrocksmoon (talk · contribs) would be appropriate. Cirt (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What can be done about the article? It is currently in a mess with the WP:NOR, unsourced, POV etc statements included. I do not want to revert as that would take me to 3RR, but would this be classified as a content dispute, as the edits are clearly violating several policies... Can this user's edits be reverted without fear of 3RR reprisals, with escalating blocks for Bearrocksmoon if he/she continues to ignore policy and reason? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment by Nouse4aname, but would appreciate it if another administrator acts here, as I stepped in initially to (try) to clean up the article itself, and warn Bearrocksmoon (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. Should this be marked as resolved? GlassCobra 14:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The user is requesting an unblock... Cirt (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Declined, and reblocked for 72 hours (along with another user) as they are evading. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I keep trying to clean it up based on the few sources available, i think this editor clearly has an agenda here and possibly uses ips too so if someone could watch it. Also therew is a current request for comment on the talk page. --neon white talk 18:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Harassment

Politis (talk · contribs), a long-time user, has recently gone on a spree of classical harassment/wikistalking against me, following me around with comments like the following that unfortunately contain some rather ugly real-life overtones: , , , , , , (He's also been following me around to articles to revert me, like here: , , , ).

This is now seriously getting on my nerves. Can something be done to switch this off? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ugh. Some of those are troubling, though I think that a few of the first batch may be your being on the lookout rather than any real malice on his part. Of the bunch, this is the only one that sticks out. Protonk (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, it's the whole pattern over the last few days, where he has been almost completely concentrating on following me around. I found today's comments on Yannismarou's talk page the most ugly, together with the sarcastic ones afterwards. Add to this that I'll have this person against me in an Arbcom case soon. At this point, I seriously want him to shut up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I guess I should have been more clear that I didn't dig too deeply, just looked at the diffs you presented. I also didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't make a more complete case that he was harassing you (or whatever we call it now). Protonk (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
      • This diff alone, which Protonk pointed out, is entirely unacceptable from any perspective, and I applaud your calm presentation of it, Fut.Perf.; if I had been on the receiving end, I would have felt legally and socially threatened at the least. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it's on the edge of NLT. I'm not keen to block folks for marginal legal threats given the kerfluffle over the last marginal NLT block. But maybe he can be convinced to retract it. Protonk (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
          • The above diffs are unacceptable. We have certain social rules, and nobody should cross it. I think Politis should be blocked for sometime. Thoughts? AdjustShift (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Yep. Clear harassment. Block. Sceptre 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I analyzed the edits of Politis, and he has some positive edits. He should be blocked only if there is a clear consensus to block him. More input is needed from other editors. AdjustShift (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
                • Speaking from experience, harassment concerns tend to go over positive contributions. Seven featured articles and twice as many good articles didn't really mitigate stuff for me... Sceptre 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
                  • • Politis made concrete allegations against Fut. However, he failed to back them. There is thus indeed room to block him. On the other side, I would like him to be given a chance to defend himself. We should listen to him before blocking, in order to give him a chanve to prove what he said. He made serious accusations against Fut (which I do not repeat in case they are false, but you can check the differences), which either are serious breaches of policy by Fut either despicable lies. I also confirm that he has done positive edits, and that he is usually one of the politest users I've ever met. But, of course, if he is indeed making accusations without any eveidence to back them, he should be blocked.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
                      • • It isn't about evidence or no evidence. It's the fact that he has been spreading smears about my off-wiki personal and professional life, and that's something he simply has no business talking about in any shape or form, backed up or not backed up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
                          • Concerning his comment in my talk page, Politis said that it has nothing to do with your off-wiki life, and that it was not personal. This is maybe not the truth, but I'd really like to listen to him, because he is accusing you of doing the same thing against him. Honestly, when I read his comment, I couldn't realize it had anything to do with your off-wiki life. If it did, of course it is very serious.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
                            • • Forgive me Yannis, but you must seriously work on your reading comprehension skills then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
                                • I am more interested in my writing skills. Thanks you anyway for your advice.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
                      • Re: AdjustShift- it doesn't surprise me that Politis has a decent editorial track record. If he didn't, I'm very sure he would have been indeffed as a result of that particular diff. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
                    • If it is really what Fut says, yes I'd agree with you. As I said, when I read the comment, and I was asked by Fut to block him, I hadn't realized there was anything off-wiki personal in the comment. I regarded it as an ironic comment of general character. When I visited my talk page again, the thread was deleted by Fut, and I had to check the differences to find the continuation of the discussion, and see that initially Politis refused it was an ad hominem off-wiki outing comment, and that then there was an exchange of serious accusations by both editors for outing. It is exactly the seriousness of all these accusations that make me say: block him, but try to listen to him first (in case he has to say anything in defense of himself).--Yannismarou (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
              • It may be of your interest or not, but I thought it was my duty to mention that Politis has announced his commenting today on the ArbCom case Fut mentioned above (and where I am the filing and an involved party as well).--Yannismarou (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
                • Right. He had better be very careful then, because, independently of off-wiki stuff, if I see him making unfounded allegations of on-wiki misbehaviour against me one more time, like the claim that I deleted some evidence or something, made below, then I will seek to get him sanctioned just for that alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my user page regarding my philisophy on wikipedia and how I view my contributions. How does a non-experienced Wiki user (such as myself who is hopeless with the wiki technology) defend him/herself. I have repeatedly (since 2006?) begged, argued and reasoned with Future Perfect NOT to include racial characterisations of users, especially of myself. I did this on wiki and by emailing him. He has repeatedly ignored those pleas. Yet, he is the one who told me about the risks of 'outing', then he went straight ahead to parade my (presumed) ethnicity!

He cannot help himself identifying users with their ethnicity or making ethnic comments that I interpret as racially motivated. He cannot stop using the ‘f’ word and other offensive words. For this, I believe he should loose his administrator status, he should be banned from editing some articles and allow him to edit where his good self can shine (we all have positives)

I have also argued that he should stop intimidating people, abusing them verbally, etc. Arguments do not work with him. Could it be because it offends his bully nature? I really do not know and could be wrong. But if someone IMO bullies, the editor/user who is bullied needs some support. I try to offer that support, even if I disagree with that editor’s edit.

I am not too sure what ‘following around' means. Probably what FP is doing with other users, including with myself, following all their edits and intervening where he believes it to be necessary? In wiki there are people who keep meeting across some articles. We have joked about this. I respect him for 'following', he obviously does not with me.

Apologies for not being wiki expert with the technology. But again, how does one defend oneself agains an administrator who understand the art of writing, defending, deleting track of debate, compiling links (no disrepect intended for such skills)?

If anyone has any questions, please go ahead. I have a busy schedule but will do my best to answer.Politis (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Politis, please provide diffs for what you say (each claim you make against User:Fut.Perf., so as to substantiate them), and answer in particular to the outing accusation made against you.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• What are these racist comments you allege Fut Perf. keeps making? If this is more drama about being called "greek" (!!!), you're cruising for a bruising. yandman 16:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For an assessment of Politis' sense of reality, see, this , which came immediately before the notorious , and was in response to mine here: . Basically, I was calling a notorious former Misplaced Pages vandal (who had been harassing both myself and Politis, ironically) a "weirdo", and he jumps at it and accuses me of racism against minorities. Other than that, yes, all his complaint is that I called him a Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yandman, please read again my comments. I would not say 'racist' (at least I hope not...) He identified, for instance, a whold group of voters as Greek and under derogatory terms. He eventally deleted the evidence (s I said if being technically incompetent with wiki weakens one's argument, what is going on?).

I am not aware of trying to out anyone. Users who also communicate by email may allow some things to slip in their exchanges in wiki. My user box clearly states in the opening: "

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.

If that is what I did, then apologies but please point it out where the attempted outing took place. But I insist, FP keeps identifying people racially and that, I am afraid, is unacceptable. In fact it actually forced me to make enquires how to initiate Misplaced Pages policy specifically to make it a ‘bannable’ offence. Politis (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This and

Politis, apples and oranges. Threatened outing is serious business (also see below). •Jim62sch• 16:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. For the first comment, "Such behaviour in Europe would have an 'academic' expelled from his institution but in Wiki it can have currency." Reasoning behind the comment. Misplaced Pages aspires to a large extent to be of academic relevance. Students use it,academics use it, the media uses it. Its criteria for users and editors are, to a large extent, of academic standards. Therefor, all us users/editors exert 'academic' skills - we are, in effect, playing an academic role. But the behaviour of some users/administrators on wikipedia, would have them reprimanded if they were real academics in the real world and esepcially in Europe. Who is an academic amonst us? I really, really do not know, not even their user page is 'proof'. Misplaced Pages is an anonymous site. All I know is that we are held up to maintain academic standards.

The second comment was, "if I become convinced that there is racism by any known or unknown persons on wikipedia I will try to express those concerns decently, legally, publicly and outside wikipedia." Reasoning behind the comment: As I said, it is important to be decent and legal. If there is suspicion of racism in wikipedia, it should be investigated. No people are mentione because it is not specific to any one person, it seems to be systemic in wikipedia that we feel we can get away with some things. I would like us to put an end to this. But then one user, FPatS takes it personally and 'declares war' on it. Why? To silence me? To prevent me from stopping people making ethnic generalisations? I do not know, but I had no one in mind. Politis (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So, if I correctly understand you (because my comprehension skills are questioned above), you deny that you attempted any kind of outing (or that you threatened outing) by the above comments.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Yannis, that was a cheap shot: you're correct that you need to hone your writing skills -- there's a definite Greek syntax to your English (and I'm not saying that because I know you're Greek, but because I know Greek and can "read" the syntax).

Politis, see resp below by Yandmam, and stop self-identifying in a public forum. •Jim62sch• 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To conclude

I suggest that we introduce a wikipedia clause whereby no user can make ethnic references when asked to, that no user can bunch groups of users under an ethnic tag. That Future Perfect refrains within reason from identifying users ethnically. That users should be banned for using the 'f' word and other such words. And any other solution that presses the pause button on this debate. Politis (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Don't put user boxes on your page identifying your nationality" might be a bit of valid advice. If one self-identifies in a public forum, one can't tuern around when someone else points out that self-identification. •Jim62sch• 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat this one last time: Saying you're greek is not a bannable offense. It's not even any kind of offense. It's common sense. You've got a bloody logo on your user page saying greek is your mother tongue, and you edit pages related to Greece. If you complain about "racial persecution"/"identifying users ethnically"/"ethnic references" once more, yandman 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The only reference I see that Politis "is a native speaker of English" (that could place him anywhere between Hawai to New Zeeland via Gibraltar, Nigeria and Hong Kong, and that he speakes French and Greek at near native level.Politis (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Politis, the issue here is not to introduce any clauses. If your accusations against User:Fut.Perf. concern anything else besides the fact that he called you a Greek, please tell it. If you have anything to say on your comments I pointed out to you before (are they misinterpreted?), please do so. If the answer again is "no", then we have a problem.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, some text has been deleted by FPatS. It has nothing to do with being called a Greek (as such, it could mean I belong to a US college Greek fraternity), but the context and the background to that context, both on wiki and by email. How do you access it? And how does a non wiki expert line up the technology to match the comment/concern? I will do my best but promise nothing. Politis (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"How do you access it? " -- huh? •Jim62sch• 17:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A "US college Greek fraternity"? Politis, you obviously haven't attended a US college/university, where the phrase "Greek fraternity" evokes an an image closer to Animal House than a college society devoted to promoting Greek language & culture. -- llywrch (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yannismarou. I deny I wanted to out anybody. If that person had not made such (a habitual?) fuss then we would all have more time to spend on editing wikipedia. In fact, I fear that I was targeted on the pretext of outing.Politis (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

He's still at it . This is incredible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And he has English listed as his Muttersprache. A bit disconcerting. As for his "racialist" bit, just dismiss it. •Jim62sch• 19:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'll block him, next time he does it, for making threats, wikistalking, and harassment. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would a Greek person be offended if someone called them Greek? I don't get offended when someone calls me American. Also, saying 'the f word' is not (and will not be) bannable. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Your WP:Wikistalking is completely unacceptable behavior.-- Darth Mike  20:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've got to agree with Hiberniantears, Politis' behavior is unacceptable and I will block if he continues it. MBisanz 21:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MBisanz and Hiberniantears, this is getting pretty ugly and needs to stop now. Dreadstar † 21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Block indef

Per no legal threats, until he retracts it, or am I the only one that read the part of that diff that mentions legal action?— Dædαlus 21:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Which one, the last http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Macedonian&diff=prev&oldid=285072316 one? I don't read that as a legal threat. If you're referring to another diff, please disambiguate... So much here to sort through 8-( Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Messing it up

Messing it up (talk · contribs)

Could an admin please block this guy? See here and here for why. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 14:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done In the future please take obvious Vandalism only accounts to AIV. Protonk (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Protonk. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 14:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Xtinadbest

User:Xtinadbest has repeatedly created and recreated Wake Up Call (most recently as Wake Up Call (Hayden Leslie Panettiere song) and Wake up call) and Falling Down (the unsourced album, not the film, also called Falling down (Hayden Panettiere album) and Falling down). Although I'm doing my level best here, I'm finding it very difficult to assume that these odd names were good faith, rather than attempts to circumvent prior deletions. The user has been warned a number of times, but I don't think I can really ask for a single opinon at AIV for a second warning block on this. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, although I think a report at AIV would definitely have been appropriate here. If he/she starts up again after the block expires, feel free to let me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Waterspaces

Waterspaces is currently indefinitely banned for being persistently uncivil and edit-warring, particularly at Everton F.C. and Talk:Everton F.C. as well as several articles it would seem from a quick look at his contributions relating to Merseyrail and other rail-related articles. He's now evading the ban as User:79.66.16.26 (see Special:Contributions/79.66.16.26) and User:79.66.108.6 (see Special:Contributions/79.66.108.6) and continuing to be rude and insulting (e.g. here to anyone who dares to edit the article.

- Chrism would like to hear from you 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Bowen

Hi. I'm in an edit war over at Jeremy Bowen with an anon editor. I think I'm in the right (of course) but would ask that the article be protected (not semi-protected) to prevent either of us from getting blocked. Thanks. Then, it would be nice if someone came and helped mediate as the only other inolved editor is only involved peripherally. GDallimore (Talk) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You should probably take this over to WP:RfPP, and then ask for a third opinion. If I can, I'll try and help out myself, but you should start a discussion on the talk page.--Iner22 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've given up talking since it's getting nowhere, which is why I'm now looking for help. I'm already at 3R, but will keep on going through that barrier since this is a BLP article. GDallimore (Talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Full protected for one day. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try the BLP noticeboard again for some assistance, although I posted here because I'm hoping for more active third party intervention. GDallimore (Talk) 18:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Misplaced Pages:External links

There is some serious edit warring going on on this page that needs addressing urgently, while no 3RR rules appear have been broken, everyone certainly needs heads banging together. I have compiled most of the obvious reverts below, while there are other edits which are "kind of" edit warring, but rewording. I know at least one of the users has recently been blocked due to edit warring. Maybe a sensible idea to protect the page for a few days.

• User:Barek
• User:Timeshifter
• User:PSWG1920
• User:2005
• User:Beetstra
• User:Melodia
• User:DreamGuy
• User:Jenuk1985 (me)
• User:Ronz
• User:L0b0t
• User:Dlabtot
• User:Orangemike
• User:Themfromspace
• User:Colonel Warden
• User:Conti

Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like this all relates back to the RFC on the Susan Boyle article relating to the issue on whether or not to include the YouTube link. Perhaps someone didn't like the way things were going at talk page here, and decided to just change the WP:EL guideline. Either way, I agree, it should be stopped. — Ched :  ?  00:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose a revert to the last "good" version before all of this war started, protect the page for 2 days. Get everybody to sit down, have a cup of tea and work out an adequate consensus without edit warring, possibly a couple of short blocks may be a good idea too. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Overpush

I'm hoping that this forum will help with a situation I've encountered today. User:Overpush created an SVG version of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) at File:WSDOT.svg. He uploaded the image on April 4 and replaced the previous PNG version of the logo in the article. The PNG was tagged as an orphaned, fair-use image on April 6. I stumbled upon this change and reverted it. Under WP:Logos and WP:Non-free content, SVGs aren't allowed. Fair-use images should be of the minimum quality necessary. SVGs are raster images and they can be rescaled to any size and retain their quality, meaning they aren't acceptable under WP policy. This is the rationale why I reverted the changes in the article.

Today (April 20) my changes were reverted, meaning that the SVG version of the logo was re-placed on the article, and the PNG version was tagged for deletion. I've reverted and redone the tagging, only to have it reverted again. I commented at the user's talk page to offer an explanation for my actions. He replied with and reverted the article and image tagging again a second time for the day. I reverted a second time with a more in-depth explanation at . This was reverted again with this comment on my talk page, which was removed by User:Rschen7754, who also reverted the article and image tagging in favor of the PNG. Rschen has also warned the user here: .

In scanning through Overpush's contributions, I've found many, many other logos for state DOTs and other agencies created in the SVG format, tagged as fair-use with rationales. I don't know from my cursory glance if this has resulted in any correctly-formatted fair-use images being deleted as orphaned images by the bots. Please help me deal with this situation. Even though I consider Overpush's reversions in violation of policy to be vandalism, I don't want to risk the appearance of 3RR. Any advice and suggestions is appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Overpush seems to be aware of and to disregard this discussion. He blanked your courtesy notice on his talk page pointing to this thread and immediately made the same edits to WSDOT again, with an edit summary consisting solely of "m". Time to follow through on Rschen7754's warning with a short block? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think you could have explained yourself any better to Overpush. Obviously, they don't get it and aren't going to follow our guidelines. Perhaps a short block is in order to give the user a chance to read over WP:NFC and WP:LOGOS. -- Darth Mike  01:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

His last set of edits is 4RR on the two images and the article. 1) early today, 2) in response to my first reversion, 3) in response to my last reversion and 4) now in response to Rschen's rollback. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone notified him of 3RR? You can't just block without warnings. List the SVG image for deletion. Where does it say that SVGs aren't allowed anyways? Point out the specific section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFC, Policy 3b: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." SVGs by default are resolution-independent by their nature. WP:USRD only creates PNG-formatted road sign graphics for fair-use images, but SVGs are created for all others, as an example. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, if anyone cares

Hi. It's been brought to my attention that User:Badagnani and User:GraYoshi2x are reverting each other on multiple articles and leaving (and reverting) unpleasant messages on talk pages. User:Ronz can tell you more. I've dealt with Badagnani in the past, and I'd recommend blocking him; he's intractable and doesn't care about consensus. I don't know much about the other guy.

I'm posting here because I won't get involved. Badagnani wouldn't listen to anything I say anyway. I tried to help him once, and he rudely threw it back in my face, so... yeah. -GTBacchus 02:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:GraYoshi2x has subjected me to the worst WP:STALK I have ever experienced during my time at WP, over the past 4 or so weeks following me to nearly every article I have edited, on all subjects, always to revert or remove my contributions. The discussion page postings and edit summaries were similarly over-the-top--the most threatening I have ever encountered. As WP:STALK is against WP policy, I had asked an admin (in fact, the admin just above) to please ask that the WP:STALK editor please stop doing this, and he informed me that he would not, and that in fact he does not take either WP policies or guidelines into account when carrying out his admin duties. If no admin will ask that WP:STALK be stopped, our fundamentally positive, collaborative, and collegial project can easily be undermined in a manner very damaging to the above ideals. The admin just above did state, twice, privately to other editors, that he hoped I would eventually be blocked, and it seems that the above comment is an effort to get that to happen. As one of the most sincere and productive contributors here--one who loves and cares about this project and its collaborative ethos--the above request that I no longer be permitted to contribute here comes as a huge blow. Badagnani (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Badagnani for details on many, similar situations.

I'm not sure what else to add. The edit-warring over Rice noodles vs List of rice noodles should stop given that lack of dispute resolution attempts on the matter. The issue over Wiktionary linking should be discussed and resolved before trying to apply it to multiple articles. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yer shittin' us. They're edit warring over rice noodles? HalfShadow 03:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards