Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
An editor is spamming links and citations to their self-published book about Terri Schiavo. The links are at ] and ]. The editor is {{user|Patriciamariemitchell}}. After I left what I thought was a on their talk page, the user switched to reinserting the links with an IP {{userIP|207.63.16.67}}. I'm done removing these links and I'm a bit iffy about proceeding toward a block myself, so I'd like to get some outside eyes and administrative attention. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor is spamming links and citations to their self-published book about Terri Schiavo. The links are at ] and ]. The editor is {{user|Patriciamariemitchell}}. After I left what I thought was a on their talk page, the user switched to reinserting the links with an IP {{userIP|207.63.16.67}}. I'm done removing these links and I'm a bit iffy about proceeding toward a block myself, so I'd like to get some outside eyes and administrative attention. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
== Deletion request ==
Could someone please delete my userpage? The contents of past revisions are being used to harass me in real life. ] ] 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
Due to the split, this appears to no longer be getting much attention so giving a poke. Continued issues with Dream Focus increasing his incivility and personal attacks in both AfDs and the AN/I thread. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Dream Focus continues making bad faith accusations and personal attacks
(edit conflict) No progress has been made since the topic was split. In fact, the only things that the split has done was to take the issue off the radars of other admins and embolden Dream Focus in making more personal attacks and bad faith accusation in the WP:ANI split. Dream Focus is now calling editors engaged in article cleanup he disagrees with "bullies", throwing around the term "deletionist" as a pejorative, and alluding that other editors are engaged in a deletionist cabal. (For the record, I've never called myself a "deltionist" and find the term insulting.) No action was ever taken on his previous personal attacks and bad faith accusations, as previously documented, dispirit a proposal.
What nonsense is this? Copy over the entire argument then, don't just start it over again because it wasn't going your way, and you weren't getting the response you wanted. And Collectonian and Sephiroth both called themselves delitionist on their user pages, it not meant as an insult. Dream Focus19:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Everyone please click on the edit histories he has, and tell me if you don't find this laughable. Do the edit histories he links to back up his statements? Dream Focus20:25, 21 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. Hersfold02:39, 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)
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 - t03:00, 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. Prodego04:36, 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. SoWhy10:27, 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)
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)
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. --MalleusFatuorum22:10, 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. -Jeremy05:06, 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.D11:11, 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. –xeno12:49, 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)
With some dismay I note that - because of all my incremental edits to the history section of Europe, in company with User:Hemlock Martinis and at a late stage User:FT2 - I seem to have edited the mainspace article more than most. The recent edits to Definition were carefully sourced and aimed to be informative and completely uncontroversial. To give Npovshark credit, his comments or misgivings prompted these additions, which did not push any point of view and hopefully clarified certain inherent ambiguities. I have suggested Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Geography as a better venue for discussing wikipedia conventions for listing countries. Mathsci (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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 | Talk23:24, 19 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)
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 - t05:54, 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 | Talk14:18, 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 - t00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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?— Dædαlus23:50, 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 | Talk23:55, 19 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. HalfShadow22:16, 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)
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. HalfShadow01:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia, not some game that people can use to play with. This user has already shown that he is not a constructive comtributor, as he has done virtually nothing outside the userspace, and is in fact treating wikipedia as something it is not, a game.— Dædαlus05:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.D09:32, 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.D10:18, 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 threats15:13, 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 threats19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It depends a bit on who approaches him, or how he's approached (as with most of us, I would guess) - hopefully things can be settled again. - Bilby (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The February ANI was over his WP:OWN at Darren M. Jackson, and his revert-warring with other editors about his plan for archiving the talk page, which seemed bizarre since there was very little on the talk page. I see that Diamonddannyboy is not currently blocked, but Theresa Knott is having a serious discussion with him on his user talk. Passing the issue to Arbcom will slow them down even more, so why not see if Theresa can get him to agree to concessions. How about a negotiated topic ban of this editor from Darren M. Jackson and its Talk page? If the negotiation goes nowhere, I suggest a normal pattern of block escalation. One month seems like the next obvious step, given this is a long-term behavior problem and there is no diplomacy coming from his direction. He has used socks to evade blocks in the past. Perhaps Theresa can get him to agree to use a single account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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? - Steve384909:46, 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 threats10:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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.
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 Erik12:11, 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 Kite12:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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: , ,
, ).
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)
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... Sceptre14:13, 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)
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)?
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. yandman16:08, 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)
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).
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, yandman16:40, 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)
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)
If he's referring to this one, while I agree that it may be blockable for incivility and possibly threats of off-wiki stalking, it's not clearly a legal threat... the word "legally" here may refer to the manner of action (i.e., it was legally conducted) rather than the type of action. It's just ambiguous enough. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Mendaliv, I was talking about my own identity. I expect to declare one day that I contributed to wikipedia under the user name Politis. Politis (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that to be true, I mean, how else could you take: 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.. Legally, publicly, outside of wikipedia. That sounds like a legal threat to me.— Dædαlus05:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
When I take a walk, I cross the street "decently, legally, publicly and outside wikipedia". --NE207:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that reading the referenced comment as a threat to take legal action is a misinterpretation. My take is that he is saying that he will use legal methods, not that he intends to litigate. Big difference. Also, the use of "decent" doesn't connect with a threat to sue someone. Let's WP:AGF unless overt and clearcut threats are made. There is no WP:LEGAL violation here that I can see. Neutral on all the other issues in this thread at this point. — Becksguy (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Real-life "legal methods", if pursued outside Misplaced Pages and related to a contributor's real-life identity, would still constitute harassment under Misplaced Pages's standards. These are not "legal threats" in the NLT sense, but they sure are an attempt at intimidation by means of off-wiki action. Note that the posting has to be read together with its edit summary: "Outing will come". Fut.Perf.☼07:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My one and only point above was that the referenced comment, per se, didn't rise to the level required to violate NLT. Thank you for agreeing with me, FP. Outing is a different issue covered under a different policy. And I agree that the edit summary does appear to be a rather unambiguous threat to out an editor. And I find that very troubling, as I find any intimidation and harassment attempts or threats. So I totally agree with that part. — Becksguy (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
One correction
I stated that FPatS had deleted a thread. I think I have now found that thread and withdraw that comment. I blame that particular confusion on the convoluted nature of wikipedia and my own limited skills. Apologies to those affected by that mistake.Politis (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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.
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 | Talk00:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
For reference for others, while I was trying to figure out the history of the disputed content a couple weeks ago, I put together a record of the relevant changes to the disputed wording which can be found at User:Barek/sandbox/EL. I just updated it today to show the additional changes over the past two weeks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 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)
A low-resolution rendering of a relatively high-fidelity map of the world Better recheck your own quote, resolution isn't the whole story. As you mention, "resolution" is irrelevant to a vector graphic, which leaves fidelity and bit rate. A low fidelity SVG is one that doesn't contain detail beyond that required to render at a low resolution. For example, File:BlankMap-World6.svg contains a huge amount of detail, most of which is not even visible in the thumbnail to the right; a version redone to include only the details visible in that 200x101 thumbnail would be low fidelity, even though the curves would not be jagged were it rendered at 2000000x1010000. BTW, WP:USRD's shield design guidelines state that all shields should be in SVG format. Anomie⚔04:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the brightest bulb on images, however, I don't see that SVG is a dis-allowed format, even in the portion of the policy you quote. I understand what you're saying, but neither policy prohibits this format from being used. IMHO - this appears to be disagreement with images.
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. -GTBacchus02:36, 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)
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)
(edit conflict) Badagnani and GraYoshi2x: please stop edit warring. Badagnani, you've started 1288 articles. Please do something constructive. You may get blocked if you continue edit warring. I won't be happy to see a productive editor like you getting blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kindly read the above; this is not primarily about any particular article per se; it is about an editor who has elected to follow me to nearly every page I have edited, on whatever subject, always in an effort to undo or blank my contributions--the worst WP:STALK I have ever experienced during my tenure at WP. I don't know why this is and have asked an admin to please ask that this stop (in fact, the very admin who initiated this discussion, and who earlier commented to three other editors that he had hoped I would be eventually removed from Misplaced Pages), but nothing has been done. WP:STALK is a policy, not a guideline, and am I to infer that the above admin also chooses not to uphold this policy? Further, I do not understand why I was specifically addressed in the above comment, while the WP:STALK editor actively removing content again and again on any and every page I edit was not? Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a complex issue. I've not been involved with this issue. So, admins who are familiar with this issue should resolve this issue. My advice for both parties: don't edit war, please solve the issue by taking with each other. And please keep your head cool. AdjustShift (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as an admin who has been involved with one of these editors, I'm way too burned from my interactions with Badagnani to be any use resolving the issue. That's why I posted here. I don't know if anyone else is really waiting in the wings... What do you do with an editor who insists that he's entitled to never an edits reverted without his prior consent, and that anyone who finds his behavior at all problematic is a bullying stalker, who's forbidden on his talk page? -GTBacchus15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to repeatedly talk with Badagnani and try to engage in some peaceful discussion; however, he simply removes my comments from his talk page and threatens me to "not post here again", and sometimes even attacks me. Although I do realize that I got myself into an edit war and I apologize for any trouble that it may have caused. Perhaps my frustration got the better of me. GraYoshi2x►03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments; the discussion page postings from User:GraYoshi2x, from the very first I received, have been the most extreme, threatening, and aggressive postings I have ever received from any editor, ever, during my four years contributing at WP. Examples include and This was followed by a straight month (nearly 30 straight days) of any and every article I edited, on any subject, of the above editor choosing to follow me as per WP:STALK (which is against WP policy), always in an effort to undo or remove content I contributed. This creates difficulty in discussing in a thoughtful and collegial manner, when it was thoughtful, collegial, and considered discussion I requested from the outset, and all along. Badagnani (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The first example was a bit rude and I did apologize for that. However, I made a valid point on the second as you chose not to cooperate with me; in the end I decided to assume a bit more good faith and never reported you at all. Also please stop with the stalking accusations. It isn't really helping this incident in any way, and it's clear that I'm trying to fix up the articles and not purposely disrupt it (which you did do to me several times). GraYoshi2x►03:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You see what I mean? Intractable. I thought I posted the most extreme, threatening and aggressive postings he'd ever received, when I was trying (thanklessly) to help him. I kinda feel bad being upstaged. This guy likes superlative adjectives way too much. -GTBacchus05:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't have believed it until I saw it for myself. Badagnani is edit-warring over the formatting of my comments: --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani's block log. Representative interactions. Badagnani's RfC. I have no idea whether GraYoshi2x is "stalking" Badagnani. I do know that anyone who insists as Badagnani does on escalating and personalizing every editing dispute, no matter how minor, will inevitably leave a trail of frustrated editors. I see that Badagnani is on best noticeboard behavior: all he ever wanted was civil, collaborative editing and discussion. But that doesn't jibe with his record. I mean, this is someone who's exhausted the patience of GTBacchus, which may be a first. This is someone who has never seen an issue too minor to edit-war over. GraYoshi2x should disengage and leave Badagnani alone. Badagnani should stop being a chronic headache for everyone who crosses his path on Misplaced Pages. Sound fair? MastCell18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I do agree that Badagnani seems to be being stalked by a few users from WP:EL who leave pointers to the RfC everywhere, and who prefer to revert his edits - rather than offer advice and assistance and encouragement. I agree that Badagnani's style of replying to talkpage threads is not the usual anglo-western one. I would guess that perhaps he is a foreign (possibly Hungarian) and/or older individual, who is simply perplexed by the youngsters involved above who are badgering him and mocking/dissecting his language. If that were the case with me, I might use "superlative adjectives way too much" too. He needs a mentor, not a block. (If I had time I would volunteer). Some of the people badgering him could really use civility and friendliness lessons. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have grave doubts as for the motives behind filing this RfC and whether they truly seek a cooperative solution or rather to punish Collect. I guess my best summation for why I think this can be found here: . To clarify further, the Drudge Report and Fascism were used as evidence w/o anyone from either page being contacted until after it was posted (check the times). (Note: I was told to bring this up here after first filing it at WP:WQASoxwon (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The section title Soxwon is refering to is aptly named, "I can't let it go". Soxwon disingeniously doesn't mention that I completely removed the comments he is complaining about here, taking his word for what he said, writing: "My sincerest apologies, i will take you at your word"
Soxwon, you said it best when Phoenix of9 reported Collect to ANI, "Ok this suggests overkill and vendetta."
RE: "I have grave doubts as for the motives behind filing this RfC" Soxwon has attempted to close this RfC from the very beginning.
This is a tried and true tactic on wikipedia of any disciplanary page: cause so much drama and such a big circus that people close the page down in disgust. With the most edits on the RfC (69) Soxwon may, by sheer number of edits trying to change the course of the RfC, and since that failed, here we are...Ikip (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Adressing your statements in order, if you'd asked anyone involved, gone to AN/I, talked to Collect, read about the situation on talk, or even read the edit being addressed all would have shown that your charges of Tagteam and Meatpuppet were baseless and it shows an incredible level of carelessness or apathy toward factchecking. The fact that you found it on Collect's talk searching for evidence against him (or worse me colluding) shows a lack of how an RfC works. The fact that so many users endorsed your view when it was shown to have so many fact issues shows apathy for the truth or poor checking and again neither is good. Finally, in the original posting the same thing was done again with DR and Fascism. I think that Collect probably should get an RfC but not one that seems driven by ppl bent on vengeance or at least not concerned with evidence.
As for the vendetta and accusations of disruptions, funny I brought a large number of editors to the table to begin with and really most of the actual content does not belong to me.
As for the numer, considering how many times I posted when posting names of involved parties contacted and the few mistakes I made, well it's no wonder. Soxwon (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, I apologize for that section again, I was wrong. I took you at your word, and removed the entire section, and apologized.
RE:
"shows an incredible level of carelessness or apathy toward factchecking."
"apathy for the truth or poor checking."
"driven by ppl bent on vengeance or at least not concerned with evidence"
As you have repeatedly reminded other editors: NPA, AGF. I would appreciate you removing those personal attacks at the least, and maybe apologizing. thanks! Ikip (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick check on number, 20 of those edits can be knocked off on just getting users to the table and one minor edit. Considering I had many more minor edits, your statement again rings false. Soxwon (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that closing it would be harsh, but given the methods being used and other things going on, it might be good to start over. A lot of the evidence appears to be quotes snipped from random talk page discussions, articles, and talk pages. The problem is quite a bit had nothing to do with the people filing the evidence, and you have credibility issues when they makes assumptions like the one that led to an accusation of myself and Collect tag-teaming and/or one or the other being a meat puppet. Soxwon (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I also should probably bring up this attempt to close through consensus that was voted down handily, but also showed some to be focused on things other than helping Collect: If there are any other issues (such as my behavior which I will admit was not sterling) plz let me know. Soxwon (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. If any admin can close out this case, I'd appreciate it. The original article was rejected as copyright vio, so I created a new page, which should pass muster, at the Morgan Ogg/Temp page.
This guy is going around damaging every film infobox he can find. He's been warned numerous times on his talk page, but to no avail. This doesn't really belong at AIV, so I'm bugging you folks with it. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It is becoming increasingly clear that User:Bosniak is not here to contribute to the construction of a neutral encyclopedia but to push his own nationalistic point of view by whatever means necessary, including falsifying information, harassment, abuse, and intimidation. As his previous, relatively short blocks (up to two months) have failed to remedy his behaviour, I suggest he be blocked for a longer period (say, up to a year). —Psychonaut (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I recommend not taking further action in this case. There are multiple parties on each side pushing buttons. If we block Bosniak for a long period we have equal misbehavior from Dr Trifunovic and another user which would require long blocks, and there's a BLP issues discussion on the article about him right now that he really should be allowed to participate in. After the last by Bosniak I left him a strong warning and he stopped further escalation at that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Issue with Tarc
Tarc (talk) has repeatedly deleted information presented from reliable sources. I'm referring to this edit, here: (1). Can I please get an administrator to look into his personal issue with the reliable source that I am using? Please remind this user that his opinion is not acceptable as a reason for deleting source. He might dislike the source but the information presented in it is reliable. Unless Fox News is no longer considered a reliable source, I am undoing his deletion and re-adding the information which directly correlates to the Tax Day Tea Party. Tycoon24 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks as if you pulled two separate things (call for cuts and Tea Party protests) and conflated them to make it look as if one was a consequence of another. The source doesn't support that. In fact, the source reports at great length about how Obama sees this as just the beginning of the cost-cutting measures. Frankly, I cannot see how this has anything to do with the Tea Party protests. I note that the Fox News source mentions them, but that is not surprising since they effectively sponsored the event. The second part of your addition is just Glenn Beck's opinion on this matter - and that doesn't have anything to do with the Tea Party protests either. It seems like Tarc's edit was legitimate. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. AN/I is one of the last stops for editing disputes, not the first. I have edited and explained the edit on the talk page, so if you have objections, then continue to try air them there. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Involved" block for review
I just blocked Sadbuttrue92 (talk·contribs) for trolling, userspace harassment and personal attacks against myself, after a series of harassing posts to my talk page, after which I had repeatedly told him off from my page ( ). He was in fact collecting the diffs of being reverted from my page as trophies on his own user page, under the picture of a troll (I've also removed that as a personal attack.) I've had enough of this kind of nationalist harassment over the last few days.
What a pity. I was under the impression it meant "go to hell". Now I'm disappointed; "fuck off" isn't strong enough. (Note to self: must acquire better choice of Greek curses.) Fut.Perf.☼17:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think informing someone of your personal opinions regarding their ultimate fate qualifies as a violation of WP:NPA, so I guess we have to allow that one to stand. But, unless one is an expert as to what does and does not qualify one for such a fate, which I am not, unfortunately, it might be seen as being a less than constructive comment. Perhaps next time something like "Keep this up, and you will go to hell" might be preferable. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well if you "fuck off" to somewhere then literally you "go the fuck away" so you've probably got it, WP:NPA notwithstanding.--Avg (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x 2 Endorse block Maybe you should not have done it, and maybe you said some wrong things, but the block, in general, was warranted, in my opinion. The user was harassing and personally attacking you. hmwithτ16:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x a lot The fact that the editor is blocked is appropriate; harassment of that sort is entirely unacceptable. I don't think it was a good idea for you to do the block, but it's already done. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Also endorse block, although I regret that the admin involved himself did it. After he was told by you to cease posting on your page, and not only continued to do so but insulted you directly and indirectly as well, he deserved it. And, just for general principles, I really hate it when people write something in the English wikipedia in foreign languages which don't work on the automatic translators. I tried to translate the comment above myself on a few and got no results. I can understand why you didn't want a lot of people to be able to read it, and don't necessarily fault you for saying it, but wish the people who knew foreign languages didn't use them as often as they do, because it makes the conversation harder to follow on reviews like this. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse block. Dealing with clear harassment should not be constrained by "personal involvement", and Fut. Perf. did exactly the right thing by bringing the matter here for review afterwards. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that the comment was a clear violation of civility. I am far from being Future Perfect's best friend right now, but I can acknowledge that he is at present involved in a discussion where there is a lot more heat than light being cast around. I cannot and do not condone the comment myself, and I would not condone it to someone not in a situation similar to the one he is in, but I think it is reasonable to allow the occasional slip of tongue, particularly if it is in a foreign language that we can't even be 100% sure the recipient understands and the editor who made it is involved in a rather stressful argument. I don't think it in and of itself necessarily requires a reprimand to Future Perfect, but I do think it would probably be best not to use such language in any script in the future. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec with John) We apparently have different notions about civility then. I don't mind being called an asshole from time to time. But there are situations where "fuck off" is simply the only truthful, and hence, the only appropriate response. Telling this person to "please" read the "civility policy" ("dear") would, in this case, have been highly insincere on my part, and thus a lot less polite than a good, straight, honest, heart-felt insult. Fut.Perf.☼20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This edit appears to be an IP admitting to socking. I had already tagged the IP as a sock of User:Kuntan based on this edit. Is this quacky enough for a block?
Forgive me if this is a little awkward: I haven't managed proper night's sleep in weeks. I'm taking steps to fix this (needed to get a new bedframe) but...
Robertredfern (talk·contribs) is (evidently) Robert Redfern, author of a book called "The Miracle Enzyme", advocating that people take a nutrtional supplement.
He is edit warring rather badly to replace the article Serratiopeptidase with an extract of his (presuming this is Robert Redfern, otherwise this is strict copyvio) book, as credited at the bottom.
His book, it would appear, is a lengthy advertisement for the product. It lacks an encyclopedic tone, and ignores the studies showing it doesn't work.
At one point, Robertredfern, disliking studies that went against Serratopeptidase, went in and instituted a smear campaign at the article on the journal:
He could be blocked indefinitely as a promotional account. WP:BLOCK#Disruption-only notes that some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely and includes in its list accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest and Misplaced Pages:Spam.. Just sayin'. SHEFFIELDSTEEL18:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This is more of a notice than a report, but given the issues on the Obama pages I thought I should proceed carefully. Grundle2600 (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), after countless warnings, continues to fill Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama with accusations of censorship, refusing to acknowledge the "truth" about Obama, etc. The editor is ignoring and sometimes mocking demands to stop. As a least intrusive option I have been collapsing various discussions where it is clear that his proposals have not gained and will not gain consensus, after those discussions start to degrade. I have also asked the editor to take a break from working on the article, which the editor has not done. There are not very many options, but thinking this through, if neutral admins cannot help I think I have to be very firm here in the role of an article patroller. The editor is not a party to the Obama ArbCom case, and this is an instant problem, not something where we can wait weeks for a ruling. The other option, ignoring the matter, would mean abandoning the article and letting things degrade. Any help or guidance appreciated; otherwise I'm proceeding as I think best. Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I will take a look at this - I need to read the talk page and probably some comments on user talk pages - and then talk to the editor in question (not sure what I'll say yet, but I'll let you know). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Editor/IP spamming links with which they appear to be affiliated
Unresolved – Split 71kb thread to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Dream Focus. Discussion ongoing; update when resolved. slakr
--NE2 07:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Resolved – blocked & article protected Rodhullandemu 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Done . Cirt (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)