Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:15, 19 April 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

IP range from Wichita spamming Talk pages with illogical barnstars and creating other vandalism.

66.87.2.33, 66.87.0.115, 66.87.2.119, 66.87.2.2 and 23 other IP addresses in the same range, apparently the same person, has, since March 30, been anonymously spamming user Talk pages with barnstars for no apparent logical accurate reason. Examples particularly include barnstars for being "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when the edit counter was broken for numerous days so no one knew how many edits anyone had made. My Talk page, for instance, received two of these spam barnstars in the space of 10 days (still there, if you want to check). I contacted the admin Materialscientist, who said, "It is a busy range with lots of vandalism/trolling. Technical solution is easy: rangeblock of 66.87.0.0/16 for a few weeks, and the edits are here , but in this case, I would prefer to have some consensus reached, e.g. at WP:ANI."

I really think something should be done to stop this trolling behavior. I hope something can therefore come of this ANI. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, an anon-only rangeblock of this address range for 2-3 weeks seems appropriate. Whatever they're up to, it doesn't seem to be beneficial to Misplaced Pages. -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is escalating to a disruptive level, then a limited time block is probably in order. I recently received a 'Smile!' myself, which wasn't unpleasant on its own. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Added Comment as nominator: I'm all for barnstars, but their value and purpose is diluted (could even say desecrated) when meaninglessly sprayed shotgun by a constantly changing and anonymous IP range for no good reason. The IP doesn't even have a substantive record of good-faith edits. Seems to clearly be trolling behavior. Perhaps a block should include an encouragement to create an account if the multiple-identity person wants to actually spread some Wiki-love (which seems obviously not the case here). Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with nominator - there is far worse vandalism than this, and many more people should be praised for the work they do, but this is just random and devalues well deserved recognition. The IP editor clearly knows how to edit, and the right sort of phrases etc. to use, so they are not a novice, and could make useful contributions. My concern is that a block may result in far more destructive vandalism, when the block expires, or they use an IP out of the blocked range. Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally can't see how anything can make the whole barnstar schtick less random and valueless than it already is/ Bearing in mind the fact that my previous post to this one was dishing out a barnstar maybe I should shut my trap?. :-) Spartaz 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them. That's not how their value is measured. Like any token gift, it's always worth exactly as much as the thought behind it. If you got a barnstar for nothing, it's worth nothing. But that has no effect on the worth of others. --Escape Orbit 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a flower put on my page, then taken off, then put on again. Which is a bit confusing, but I'm really not getting this thread.

Is it maybe possible that the IP is just eccentric and harmless?

Seems like you can call anyone anything you like and threaten to burn their house down and all you get is a no consensus discussion about it. But if you go round putting flowers and smiles on people's talkpages, that's when you cross a line. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC

You also need to consider the effect on the person who received one of these anonymous barnstars. Chances are they smiled, said "that's nice" and moved on. Then if the barnstar gets REMOVED from their talk page without explanation, as happened to me, that's puzzling. Now that I know why, and realize that it was random and meaningless, I will go back and delete it again,. But IMO it really doesn't hurt anything to have someone going around distributing random attaboys. I agree with FormerIP that the practice seems eccentric and harmless. Block any further such spamming, if you like, but removing them seems unnecessary and a bit of a downer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I got a sun flower for reason I am still looking for. But yeah it felt nice.--Vyom25 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's benign spam that hurts no one. I don't think it's any big deal, possibly aside from the misrepresentation of some as most active. If we got to the point that we're worrying about devaluation, much less desecration of barnstars (if that's even an appropriate use of the word), they're being taken far too seriously. I've gotten two spam barnstars; they made me smile for a minute, then shrug my shoulders. Frankly, we've got bigger fish to fry around here, particularly given the recent outbreak of incivility that's lead all manner of strife. --Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had two 'awards' from this anon editor now. The behaviour is odd, but I was a little surprised to see that an ANI was raised. This would seem to come under WP:CIR, but seems 'mostly harmless'. I was initially a little concerned that editors who responded to the anon IP might then be targeted with further 'mundane' conversation that might lead to some form of con, but this doesn't seem to be the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• <<<This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them.>>> You haven't clearly read the thread or investigated the situation. The IP range is giving totally random people barnstars and telling them they are "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when they clearly aren't. This is not only spam, it's fraud. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that this is disruptive (the 5% claim is flat out wrong, though I don't think I'd call it fraud). Unfortunately, though, looking at the contributions on that range you gave, I see a fairly large number of good faith contributions unrelated to this problem. At least for me, I think we need to whack the individual addresses for now and see if they get bored. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If an editor with a username similar to Jimbo Wales posted comments on user Talk pages about a cash prize for the top 5% of editors in return for a small down payment, that might be considered 'fraud'. I'm not sure this qualifies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• So, the verdict is: let's break a butterfly upon a wheel.  Tigerboy1966  20:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Methinks there was an editor some months back who was indef'd for similar activity. That might be in the ANI archives. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A quick survey of the archives indicates that this kind of thing comes up every so often, and is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • This incident, for example. (I found it completely hilarious, but then again I have a very strange sense of humour.) It ended in an indef block; a benign time-sink is still a time-sink. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that's the one. 13 months ago. Wow. Fruit flies like a banana. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I just blocked ] since I saw it active now. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but did anyone else seem to think that this is someone on a cell phone? My phone's IP (not similar to this IP) comes back to the same spot northeast of Wichita, and I'm nowhere near there. Notice that the actual data does not mention the city. Perhaps the map is defaulting to that location because it is near the center of the US? Calabe1992 00:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be unusual, but I suppose it's possible. Geolocation services usually to err towards the nearest big settlement (ie. where a telco has a presence) rather than just sticking a pin in the middle of the map. bobrayner (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm using T-Mobile in the UK. I'm in Bristol at the moment. My IP geo-locates to London. 31.110.67.249 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(I am one of the users in this IP range who made some of the good-faith edits mentioned by Qwyrxian.) Yes, this IP range is a mobile system. Use "whois" instead of "geolocate" and you'll see all 66.87.x.x IP addresses are registered to Sprint-Nextel at their corporate offices in Overland Park, Kansas. Each time a user connects, the system seems to issue a different (effectively random) IP address: blocking individual addresses will have no effect on the offending Barnstar Bandit. Blocking large ranges would block anyone using Sprint's network, a bit extreme for such cutesy vandalism. 66.87.0.37 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(Same user here) I just disconnected and re-connected and was given this IP address 66.87.2.151 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This IP 67.80.64.128 is pro active in giving such awards. This is far bigger racket then I first thought.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a Virgin Mobile USA phone which i occassionally tether to my laptop. I have not left Michigan's state lines for over two years, yet geolocation on my phone's IPs always comes back to Overland Park, KS because I'm assigned an address out of the Sprint range. ~Crazytales (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone thought to plaster these few IP pages with alternative wikilove messages he or she might use ?. How about a few messages 'Hey you're doing a great job, try this cute message as well'.... Give them your favorite message, they may well pick up on it, one of the messages might take their interest, and you have a one editor welcoming/wikilove/cheersquad committee. Penyulap ☏ 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

+1 FormerIP and +1 MelanieN. This place needs more eccentric editors, it's way to homogeneous. Penyulap ☏ 01:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

well, Penyulap I posted a wel come message earlier and gave cheese burger to the other one but still no reply. There are a whole range of IPs working here.--Vyom25 (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It certainly didn't upset me, getting a WikiLoveSpam message. I just wish I had been one of the top contributors! I like the idea of showing them some alternative messages (and Penyulap is an absolute ace at creative stuff, mega-impressive mind :D ... I am perpetually astounded at the capabilities). Pesky (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Pesky, Vyom25, spam the IP range with wikilove, if you can find anything appropriate, I had a look at what's available on the superbright whimsical skipping in the afternoon-sunshine kind of thing and thought eewww, we got nothing in the wikilove standard messages. Give it a go just the same, cut and paste wikilove so that the IP editor has a larger vocabulary than just barnstars. If he or she has never seen a wikilove message, they can't use it. Spam wikilove, it is the proper response for cases like this. Penyulap ☏ 11:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tigerboy1966's comment makes me think that people are bringing guns to a foodfight, which is ill-advised, like 'bringing a knife to a gunfight'. So it's more a matter of fighting butterflies with butterflies, and I would think it's bad sportsmanship to use a vacuum cleaner on all the butterflies that have been left on peoples pages. Sucking them all up causes more harm than good. Penyulap ☏ 13:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a slightly modified one of Penyulap's:

		Good little things mean a lot
		This is in recognition of all the helpful little things you've done. Pesky (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just adding that I got one that said I was in the top 5% most active Wikipedians. My thought is that we make it so you need to be autoconfirmed and have an account to give barnstars and other WikiLove. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what mine said, too. I kinda like the autoconfirmed + account thing, except for the fact that we do have some people who are regular IP editors (and have been so for ages, some of them on static IPs) and it would be a bit of a shame if they couldn't hand out WikiLove where they see fit. It's one of those swings-and-roundabouts things. Pesky (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• IP 66.87.7.204 has been awarding Golden wiki award appears to be the same person. A lot of editors whom i interact with have been awarded the same (I am not sure if they were the same or different IPs). -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also seen numerous random barnsters given by 68.87.... IP's in Kansas. This DOES do harm in various ways. North8000 (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"DOES do harm"... how? The whole WikiLove thing is meant to be light-hearted and fun. If some people treat the whole thing as a bit of a joke it's hardly a surprise. This is like criticising someone for disrespecting the flag of Grand Fenwick.  Tigerboy1966  08:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Crank calls are also "light-hearted fun." But if someone does it to everyone in the city, repeatedly, it ceases to be fun and moves into disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We highly encourage IPs to get an account to gain extra benefits. WikiLove should be one of those benefits. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 13:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't hear any pummeling. Why don't I hear any pummeling ? I see a notification on the user's talkpage but I don't see any attempt to fix the problem. It's been like a week, with people wanting blocks, and others objecting to them in roughly equal numbers, so the solution will never be found there. A solution that everyone would be somewhat happier with is available, but has yet to be attempted, so the problem can simply drag on in a deadlock, or we just find one of the many solutions that everybody is comfortable with.

Remember Skeptical of Love ? he was excluded from wikipedia, effectively banned (has he been back anyone ? I don't know) and stopped editing because of too much warm fuzzy attention. Whilst it was unintentional for us to exclude S.o.L., the principle has proven itself effective.

Admin action is not required here, regular editor action IS required here. I'm not a party to the barnstar exchanges, so it's not appropriate for me to thank that editor. Further, I don't watch recent changes, so I have no opportunity to respond in the window of opportunity indicated by the contributions page, it seems to last on average at least ten minutes, and up to 40minutes, plenty of time for a pointman to intervene with some WL. Penyulap ☏ 18:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of Autoreviewer Rights

• Alexxander3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been creating more than 200 articles recently related to motorcycle racers with a speed of 1 or 2 articles per minute. most of these do not follow the notability guidelines for sports persons and does not provide wp:RS , and should have been deleted. Patrolling is needed on such articles. I propose revoking the autopatrolled/autoreviewer rights. Please guide me If this is not the correct place for reporting this. thanks and regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also an admin would need to check the articles recently created by him as they have escaped from the newpage patrolling. also see -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NMOTORSPORT would suggest notability, and he does provide one source. It's another situation where the question is - is it better to have a pile of stub articles, or is it better to have fewer, better articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about notability? Of course people who have competed in MotoGP are probably notable, but these mostly haven't; they have only ever ridden in the "minor" leagues of Moto2 or Moto3, which aren't fully professional. I would have thought that these don't pass WP:NMOTORSPORT - anyone with more knowledge of the subject shed any light? Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought the source was saying they had competed in Grands Prix, but I only looked at Álvaro Molina. If they've only competed in the second division, I'd say probably not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

According to that data, Molina has only ever competed in Moto2 and 3 (250cc and 125cc). MotoGP is 990cc. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Second-level series are a bit murky at times, but certainly don't pass the "competed in one event at the top level" standards (bit tautological there!). I'd say that MotoGP riders = notable, Moto2/Moto3 riders = possibly notable (per WP:GNG like everyone else!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Considering I got my autopatrolled rights revoked, seemingly on a whim and in the middle of a dispute, I'm curious as to why this user's rights haven't been removed yet, either... (oh, and incidentally, did anyone ask or notify Fastily (talk · contribs) about this?)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • • It might have something to do with the fact that Fastily left this project in disgust. Or they just forgot, no one reads the instructions at the top anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I saw his gripe about "...frivolous claims that could have been easily resolved through talk page discussion." In the case I'm thinking of, he stonewalled and absolutely refused to discuss the issue. It took a ridiculous amount of jumping through hoops to get his bad-faith deletion reinstated. So I would have to quote Elmer Fudd at this point. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that a further look at the articles reveals poor formatting, typos, 404 links and content which is effectively completely copied from a third party website, I have removed the user's autopatrolled status. I will inform them, though they appear to use talkpages very minimally. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The user also does not seem to pay heed to so many deletion notifications on his talk page. besides with a speed of 1 to 2 articles per minute its obvious that he is creating articles for all the persons listed on that site with no second thoughts about notable or guidelines, Thanks for looking into the matter, but some one interested would want to take a look at the articles that had been created as they have not been patrolled. (is there a way to mark the articles as unpatrolled again ? )-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

@Ohm's Law - what's the link to Fastily - I'm missing something here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The connection to Fastily is that he is the one who granted the autopatrolled permission in 2011. See logs and Special:PermanentLink/434813722#User:Alexxander3000. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we be reverting the article creation, or just PRODding them?Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, the pilots of Moto2 and Moto3 is encyclopedic because it is a world championship, the highest level! Then, all entries have been created offline and then put together after all of wikipedia. I must say that I think is important to include the articles of these pilots, these people certainly encyclopedic. I await instructions on what to do.Alexxander3000 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And I apologize for any inconvenience that I created.

Moto2 and Moto3 are not "world championship the highest level". MotoGP is the top level of this sport, the Formula One to Moto2's GP2 and Moto3's Formula Three. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, Alexxander3000 has since created another 11 reference-less stub articles after posting here. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Make that 14 stubs. Blackmane (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A look at his talk page shows a distinct lack of communication; I also notice he got a BLP-4 warning back in October. I've given him an unsourced-3, along with an explanation of the need to reference (and a couple of BLP-PROD notices)... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

God (or administrators) save the dispute resolution process

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

I approach this group as a last-ditch appeal for assistance with the following matter of concern: In February, a content dispute re-erupted at Template:Music of Canada. The previous two times the same editor tried to make the same deletion, the matter was resolved quickly. This time, however, more editors became involved and the debate dragged on. Fair enough. However, the discussion quickly evolved into a nest of personal attacks (some quite vitriolic), assumptions of bad faith, revert warring, and defenses for those reverts based possibly on misinterpretation of policy. The dispute was going nowhere.

Within that context, the dispute resolution process was started:

• An appeal for outside input was made.
• An RfC was mounted, which, unfortunately, resulted in only a bare majority (7-6 favouring inclusion of the royal anthem (with an additional supporting vote given in a confusing additional straw poll at the talk page)).
• A MedCab case was opened next, but consisted of repetition of the same arguments (with the same vicious personal attacks), thereby resulting in a continued stalemate.
• A MedCom case was then started, but key participants in the dispute are refusing to participate, either by not signing on or stating their categorical refusal to take part, while they continue to revert to their preferred version, both at the template and now at other articles (see below).

Additionally, to minimise the number of distracting side issues:

• A request was made for assistance with ending the sub-dispute over Misplaced Pages's consensus policy and how it applies to the template, but this was dismissed.
• The personal attacks and bad faith assumptions were raised at WP:WQA, but received no attention from anyone other than those involved in the dispute.

To make matters worse, this has all now spilled over to the infobox at the Canada article, taking the same edit warring and misunderstanding of policies and guidelines with it.

I'm not right now so much concerned with the outcome of the dispute (i.e. whether the royal anthem stays or goes) as with how the dispute is being resolved (i.e. via many breaches of policies and guidelines). I therefore ask if we can get some administrative help with this matter, even if it's only some oversight and prodding here and there to keep the parties involved focused and acting within WP's rules. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal is pushing a Monarchist agenda on the template and most editors have tired of his constant shifting of venue. There would be no dispute if he were to drop the matter. As for the nation article, since there is a parameter for royal anthem, it's probably acceptable to leave it there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, running off the opposition is certainly one way to reach consensus...

I don't necessarily agree with Miesianiacal here, but this justification always bothers me. It's one link to one song on a template though, so really the criticism cuts both ways in this dispute.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Walter's claim that the dispute would end if I were "to drop the matter" certainly works both ways. I may well have dropped the matter if not for the fact there are currently nine editors favouring inclusion of the anthem and six opposing it, meaning there's certainly no consensus to delete the song from the template. This isn't the "Mies against the masses" scenario that Walter paints. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Mediation is not possible if all parties to a dispute do not agree to participate.
2. As WP policy clearly states: "Consensus is Misplaced Pages's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." We would need consensus for the addition of the God Save the Queen to the Infobox (not the other way round). There is no such consensus. We do not decide things by a vote on article talk pages. At best, voting is a way to gauge support for a particular option. One can only conclude from the poll, that there is not adequate support for the proposal. Sunray (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The song was there for a year and a half (since June 2010) and the last discussion about it (in December 2010) resolved to keep it. Is it not now up to those who want to delete it to find consensus to do so? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• As usual, Miesianiacal is being economical with the truth. The inclusion of the song has been disputed for two years, and the only reason it made it into the infobox in the first place is his usual tactics of strongarming, wikilawyering, and wearing everyone else down. → ROUX ₪ 18:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at the template's edit history and the talk page will show the above to be patently false. Roux here has provided an illustration of the kind of nasty attempts at character assasination that have marred this dispute almost from day one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, if you're trying to gain sympathy for your position, making personal accusations is exactly the wrong way to go about it. If you want support for this addition, you need to show there is a policy-based consensus for its inclusion. I don't see that you have done that, and I don't see that there is any admin action needed here - you have not asked for anything specific, and admins don't have the authority to override the WP:DR process. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking here for support for inclusion; that's a content matter that doesn't belong in this forum. However, whether or not a consensus for inclusion of the song existed prior to the current dispute is one of the sub-disputes that hasn't yet been resolved and continues to bog down discussion about the wider issue. I asked this above, but I'll pose the question here again: apart from two attempts to delete the song (one six months and the other a year after it was added, and both of which were quickly reverted), the song was there for a year and a half (since June 2010) and the last discussion about it (in December 2010) resolved to not delete it. Is it not now up to those who want to delete it to find consensus to do so? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And there's more dishonesty. Two attempts? I count nine. → ROUX ₪ 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say that's something that can only be decided by the Dispute Resolution process, and cannot be decided by admin fiat (because we have no authority for such a fiat) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mies knows that, of course; he's just forumshopping this around until we give up and let him have his way. This is not a new tactic, it's how he operates: forumshop everywhere he can, wikilawyer everything he can, and generally be obstinate and obstructive. → ROUX ₪ 18:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a fairly straightforward question: Was a consensus established for including the song that now needs to be overturned by those who want the song removed? AQFK seems to agree below with my interpetation: Yes, those who want to delete the long-standing material must find a consensus to do so and otherwise leave the status quo alone. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Aw, it sucks when people come along and show your lies for what they are, doesn't it? Looking at the diffs below--even a cursory glance--shows I'm right. → ROUX ₪ 18:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think it shows that the song "made it into the infobox" not by "strongarming, wikilawyering, and wearing everyone else down", but with ease (no immediate dispute), and that the presence of the song was disputed on three separate occasions at six month intervals over a year and a half, not coninuously for two years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You think a great number of things, I'm sure. It's such a shame how few of them have any relation to reality. → ROUX ₪ 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I don't know about that. Yes, Miesianiacal was the one to add it on June 25, 2010 but that version remained stable until December 16, 2010. I would think that if the article is stable for 6 months, that is the concensus version, and it requires concensus to remove it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the behavior seen here, I think the infobox should not carry the earlier anthem; it should instead be covered in the article body, not the infobox. The infobox is for right now. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a 1RR per day rule, should be imposed on the articles-in-question. Back-and-forth reverts only make opposing editors more frustrated. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Could some brave uninvolved editor take a look at Talk:Canada, as well as the recent edit summaries on that page, and figure out some way to cool down the situation? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected, A Quest For Knowledge points out that "God Save the Queen" was listed in the Infobox long enough to be the stable version. In any case, as Nikkimaria says, the dispute continues on the talk page. I'm uninvolved, so will look in on that. Sunray (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• One thing that I'd like addressed here is the comment above that: "(User) is pushing a Monarchist agenda". To me, this makes the whole dispute appear to be a political fight. If that's true, I find that to be extremely concerning. If there's some sort of test for political affiliations required to edit certain items on Misplaced Pages now, I think that we need to get rid of that behavior ASAP.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Miesianiacal's extreme pro-monarchist POV is not news to anyone who edits anything which relates even tangentially to the monarchy in Canada. Virtually every edit he makes is in service of that POV; NPOV isn't something he seems to comprehend in this area. Coupled with his obstructionist tactics, it makes any page he edits--and, more to the point, challenging any edit he makes--a nasty, toxic, energy-draining wasteland. This is not a new problem. This should illustrate how far back these problems go. → ROUX ₪ 19:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Isn't odd that an editor is regarded as pushing a monarchist agenda in an article about Canada, a monarchy? The impression I have seeing for afar is that there are strong republican feelings going around, trying if possible to diminish or remove any monarchical character on Canada's articles. But this is merely my opinion, of course. --Lecen (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • No more odd than, e.g., someone pushing a pro-gun agenda in an article about the USA. There is a wide range of feelings about the monarchy in Canada, from full-on republicanism to more-British-than-the-British fawning adoration. Miesianiacal falls into the latter camp. And fyi, I too am a monarchist, but unlike Miesianiacal I don't try to use Misplaced Pages to advance any agenda. → ROUX ₪ 19:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • To use your example though, if the "pro-gun agenda" (which should be "gun rights", but whatever) is being whitewashed, or even just outright removed, by "Gun control advocates" in the name of some sort of "neutrality", then that's a severe behavioral problem which should be dealt with. The claim made here seems to be a quite serious one, so I hope that you're willing ot back it up with some concrete evidence.
          — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
          • He's a bit more subtle than whitewashing; his edits serve to support an extreme pro-monarchy agenda that simply does not exist outside of a very, very small minority in Canada. Any edit of his which is disputed is met by intense wikilawyering and obfuscation, and now we have moved into the phase where he feigns stupidity/disingenuousness in order to make opponents repeat the same points over and over and over and over and over. See the current discussions at Talk:Canada and Template talk:Music of Canada for the most current examples. They are nothing new. This problem with Miesianiacal goes back to his multiple previous usernames (User:G2bambino being the most recent). His use of the passive voice in opening this section quite neatly obfuscates the fact that the endless discussion is so only because he is making it endless; he is forumshopping relentlessly to try and get his way. → ROUX ₪ 20:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
            • • Ohms', you may also wish to look here, a discussion with which I have been uninvolved, for more evidence of the obstinate behaviour, the obfuscation of issues, the wikilawyering, and the pro-monarchist editing. → ROUX ₪ 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
            • ROUX, you used a bad example. By talking about "pro-gun agenda", which is generally view as a conservative agenda, and comparing it to "pro-monarchy" you're clearly showing your political view, which is... the opposite side. In fact, by writing "pro-monarchy agenda that simply does not exist outside of a very, very small minority" you made it all too clear. Let's make a better example, by taking your words and changing it a just a little: "...someone pushing a pro-republic agenda in an article about the USA". Would someone here see it as odd? But someone writing abou monarchy in... the Kingdom of Canada is seeing as a bad thing? I simply can't understand. --Lecen (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
              • • Okay, the example was poor. But to address your confusion: yes, Canada is a monarchy. But in very real terms, the monarchy has little impact on the day to day lives of Canadians (far less than the day to day lives of the British, with whom we share a royal family). The institution--an institution which I love, respect, and cherish--is simply irrelevant to most people in the country. Yes, the Crown is everywhere in government, and yes, there tends to be an outpouring of interest when members of the family visit (e.g. last time HM was here I got up early in the morning just to go see her. Got to exchange a couple of words with her, even, which was a definite high point in my life), and yes, The Queen is on all of our money. But in real terms the effects of, and the feelings about, the monarchy are low-key at most for most Canadians. If pressed, most Canadians (and without evidence other than gut feeling, I would say that 'most Canadians' in this case are basically WASPs and/or those in the military, which is necessarily very closely associated with the Crown) would mumble something about history and tradition, and then get on with their lives. And, FYI, pro-monarchism in Canada is largely correlated with small-c conservative/right-wing positions. → ROUX ₪ 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If I might be able to speak on my own behalf here: There's no doubt I focus almost exclusively on (mostly Canadian) monarchy related subjects. However, as far as I can tell, concentrating on a topic doesn't equate with pushing a point of view. What I add to Misplaced Pages is not my opinion; it is (to the best of my ability) reliably sourced (such as "God Save the Queen" being the Canadian royal anthem). Where the facts go or how they're presented can be debated (the dispute around the inclusion of "God Save the Queen" in Template:Music of Canada being an example) and I suppose one could push a POV by inserting material (even that which is sourced) in many inappropriate places. But, I don't believe I'm guilty of that; I do try to be reasonable. (For instance, it doesn't seem like a POV push to argue it's apt to place the Canadian royal anthem below the Canadian national anthem in a navbox relating to Canadian music.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Except of course that there is no Act of Parliament, regulation, or order-in-council defining GSTQ as anything, much less Canada's royal anthem. This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely the POV-pushing I am talking about. There are Acts of Parliament defining our national flag, our national anthem, and so on. There is no such law defining a 'royal anthem' (in fact if you search the database of the Revised Statutes of Canada, the words 'royal anthem' do not even appear together anywhere). While the song is used, it simply has no official status in Canada whatsoever. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Roux, you were presented, more than once, with more than a dozen reliable sources that affirm "God Save the Queen" is the royal anthem of Canada. Yet, still you persist with this assertion that an act of parliament or an order-in-council is absolutely necessary to prove "God Save the Queen" is the royal anthem of Canada, even going so far as to imply Canada doesn't even have a royal anthem and call the aforementioned sources "incorrect". In other words, you've set down your own personal parameters for inclusion of content and tried to enforce them. With respect, I think you should be careful with accusations of POV pushing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

@Roux: I can see from the comments here and elsewhere that this is a nasty, toxic editing environment. The problem is that Miesianiacal is not the one making the nasty, toxic comments. Now maybe Miesianiacal is a civil POV-pusher - I don't know - but to the outside observer, it does not appear as if Miesianiacal the one causing the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The MedCom case has, of course, been rejected, since those parties on the "delete the anthem" side refused to participate in that stage of the dispute resolution process. Since that was the last step of the DRP, what's to be done now? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh Jesus Christ... you're still forum shopping the hell out of this? What's next? Arbcom? Why do you think I wanted nothing to do with the informal mediation? I knew right away you were going to ensure this would be a long, drawn out waste of time. Resolute 00:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get a dispute resolved via the dispute resolution process isn't forum shopping. It's the editors who refuse to follow policies and guidelines who're lengthening the dispute. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly this is not the place to continue this discussion. I suggest that editors either take it back to the article talk page where I am willing to facilitate the discussion, or open an arbitration case. Sunray (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this aint the place. GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User Compy90

Compy90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

This editor has been going through articles on major championships and fleshing them out. I admit the articles need this but I have become greatly bothered by the inaccuracy of the work and Compy 90's regular removal of inline citations and unnecessary changes aka making something from correct to incorrect. I have addressed my concerns to this editor but he continues to make mistaken edits.

Removal of inline citations

• 1970 US Open. Here he removes both a controversial quote about the golf course and its IC. The quote is still famous 40 years after it was made.
• 1975 US Open. Here he removes mention of a golfer setting a scoring record and its IC.
• 1984 US Open. Here he removes two IC about a golfer's past history at the golf course. This edit also includes a unnecessary change to the location of the golf course. It was originally pointing to the town article but was changed to disambiguation page.
• 1986 US Open. Not just the removal of a inline citation, but changing the total of the amount of golfers tied for the lead from 9 to 7. The IC and the supposed sources Compy90 is using say its 9 not 7.
• 1994 US Open. This edit is strikingly similar to the one for 1986. Compy90 removed a IC but also changed a golfer starting bogey-triple bogey in a playoff to the golfer starting bogey on the first hole and triple bogey on the 3rd hole. Again the IC and the supposed sources Compy90 is using state the original score as being correct.

Content mistakes

Let me first say this editor is knowledgeable about golf history. He's made a long list of mistakes, and I'll provide a link to some of them later. The mistakes were preventable but somebody will say WP:AGF but two of them are so egregious they need to be pointed out.

• The 1984 U.S. Open edit I already mentioned above he edited into the article 'Jim Thorpe finished in a tie for 4th place, becoming the first African-American to place in the Top 10 at the U.S. Open since John Shippen in 1902.' This is very wrong not to mention WP:OR. Calvin Peete, the winningest African-American golfer in golf history prior to Tiger Woods, had finished in the top 10 of both the 1982 and 1983 U.S. Opens. I don't know how this editor couldn't know that when his edit history clearly shows he worked on the 1983 golf article before going on to the 84 one. The bit about John Shippen is unsourced and out of thin air.

• The 1960 U.S. Open. This particular open is part of golfing lore(due to Arnold Palmer's huge final round comeback) so why would this knowledgeable editor write 'Ben Hogan, aiming for a record fifth Open title, got to within three of the lead, but he found the water on his last two holes and finished in 9th, four back of Palmer.' Someone knowing golf history would know Hogan was tied for the lead not within three before finding the water. The sources Compy90 is supposedly using is clear on that also. Hogan's late failure in this tournament is brought up every time the 60 Open is discussed. It's not some obscure factoid.

His Open Championship edits

After working on U.S. Open articles, Compy90 moved onto ones about the Open Championship aka The British Open.

The verification of anything Compy90 edits into these articles is difficult because 1- He doesn't do inline citations and 2- The locating of News articles on the Open Championship using Google News Archive to corroborate facts is not easy.

Nevertheless I have found these problems. Compy90 changed the par scores for the 1949, 1950, 1952, and 1953 Open Championships. In each case from correct to incorrect ones. For instance the 1953 Open, he changed the scoring to that for a par 71 course than that of a par 72. Ben Hogan from -6 to -2 when -6 was the correct score.

In all these edits, Compy90 does not cite a source for his changes. The sources he is putting into the article(external links at the bottom) don't back up his changes. How did I verify them? Google News archive. Note- till recently golfobserver.com would have been the source for scores but that website's owner recently put that information and more behind a pay wall.

Other wrong edits Compy90 has been making to the Open Championship articles has been the changing of golfers nationalities from either ENG to GBR or SCO to GBR or ENG. Why he has done this is hard to understand because these golfers articles show their nationalities clearly in most cases and they don't backup the changes Compy90 is making.

Another golf editor has gone back and reverted these changes. They can be seen here and here for example.

Notifying this editor about my concerns

I've done so on multiple occasions. Here, here, here, and here Note The last of those talk page posts has a list of other factual mistakes I have found and alluded to earlier in this post.

There is a editor who does considerable work on golf articles, and I addressed the issues I have with Comp90 to him. These talk page posts can be found here and here.

Have I notified Compy90 of this post

Not yet, but I will when I complete this post.

Clear about myself

I'm not the most diplomatic of editors. The factual mistakes I keep finding in golf articles is one of my admitted bugaboos especially when most of them are easily preventable. I pointed out mistakes to compy90 gently but but when he said in one talk page post that he didn't see where he was wrong, I started losing patience with him because I had sources to back up what I was saying.

What am I asking for from administrators

I'm not sure. Either that this editor have someone mentor him or that it be required that he provide inline citations for any golf article changes he makes so another editor can verify them. The adding of content to these articles is good but it needs to be accurate and verifiable....William 14:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just add the cites yourself instead of coming here and posting all these words? Jtrainor (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the burden of proof should be on him. Has he gotten it from Sports Illustrated The Vault? Google News Archive? A paid subscription to GO? A book? A golf website? Why should I play or any other editor have to play guessing games?

How many citation needed things are put in by editors on WP wanting confirmation? Thousands, over a million? It's quite routine to ask facts be verifiable.

Oh and if you bothered to check, I've added citations after proving what he's written is wrong. For example here, here, here, here....William 16:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's difficult to tell exactly what's going on here because this user appears to believe he is adding correct information from reliable sources. If you challenge any of his edits (and you seem to be challenging quite a few of them), he needs to provide a reliable source backing them up. Is there any consensus among golf editors or a relevant WikiProject about which golf sources are considered reliable and which aren't? Hopefully the user will chime in here with their version of what's going on. We can't have people adding masses of incorrect information to articles that has to be monitored and challenged. --Laser brain (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There has never been a discussion among golf editors about what is a reliable source. Generally anything on the websites of the pro tours around the world is accepted. The World Golf Hall of Fame is acceptable too. Golfobserver was also considered a RS but as I said earlier it is now behind a pay wall.

Just about all those reliable sources have or had errors in their stats. I've ferreted out quite a few and gotten the tours to correct themselves. Here is one example and the World Golf Hall of Fame took note of it almost at once. Because of this I usually poke around golf articles looking for mistakes. I don't blame the editors if all they're doing is copying from the tour websites and the tour websites are incorrect. Like they were in this case

Other sources, well....Golf history(like a lot of sports) has a tendency to lead to exaggeration over the years. For example a ESPN writer told a tale about Arnold Palmer at Pebble Beach one year. Out of curiosity I checked it and found what was described to happen by a writer today didn't match how it was described when the event actually took place in 1962. The ESPN writer said he was relating Arnold's story. I therefore give more weight to golf articles written at the time something took place rather than one written 30 years later. That's me but some golf editors don't practice it.

Compy90 is continuing to edit even though he was notified of this discussion and his edits still continue to have the same problem. For instance here. He changes the nationality of certain golfers from ENG or WAL to GBR in the 4th round section of the article. The thing is....

• These golfers own WP articles say they are either from ENG or Wales not GBR. Golf biographies say Dave Thomas is from Wales.
• Compy90 changes the nationalities only in the 4th round section of the article. For instance, Dave Thomas is listed as being from Wales in the 1st round, but after Compy 90's edit, he is from GBR in the 4th round section.

Compy 90 has done these nationality change in every Open Championship article work of his that I've checked on. NOTE- I haven't checked every year and some article only have final round scores, not scores for after round 1 etc etc.

In the 1957 Open Championship edit of his that was done after this conversation began, he put in bits about a rules violation and the site of the tournament being change. There is no inline citation for this, but one of his EL backs it up. Problem is- I can't find Google News Archive news articles that corroborate either the rules violation or the site change. Update I found a source. It mentions the petrol rationing that causes the site of the Open to be changed but makes no mention of the rules violation and the article was written days after that Open took place.

Yesterday Compy90 edited three open championship articles, 57, 58, and 59, and I reverted all three because of multiple mistakes in all of them or unverifed information in them. I told this editor I would do this....William 11:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments section

• Holy tl;dr, Batman... I just wanted to chime in saying that the current convention in the sport internationally is to list the specific nationality (intimating ethnicity) of golfers from the country of Great Britain — so England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland would be correct, not GBR. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the current convention of golf editors to be specific about nationality. There are some golfers who have no WP article of their own and their history is murky and unknown and the consensus in that case with the British Open is that they be listed GBR. I would go blank myself but I appear to be a minority. Compy90's edits haven't so far as I know involved any of these golfers....William 16:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is somewhat tl;dr, but there seems to be a lot of history here. Compy seems to be editing incorrectly on a quite frequent basis and either unwilling or unable to communicate clearly about it. --Laser brain (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Compy90 has edited again. This time it is the 1960 Open Championship.]. Once more he has incorrectly changed nationalities for golfers but only in the 4th round scoring section of the article. Which puts that section in conflict with other sections. For example in the 3rd round Syd Scott is listed as from ENG but in the 4th round as being from GBR. Factually, the article looked fine to me except for one potential quibble. He described a player hitting a ball out of bounds. The news source I used to check it, Sports Illustrated, described the ball as ending up top of a wall not OB. OB might be right(The wall might have been out of bounds), but I tweaked that bit of article, added a online citation, and reverted all the nationality revisions....William 19:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A different point

Why are so many of these golf articles full of little flag pictures? Specific example of the problem:

• Does Darren Clarke carry a Northern Ireland passport?
• Was Clarke playing on some kind of "Northern Ireland" team in the 2011 Open?

If the answer to both those questions is "no", why is Clarke's name always prefixed by a little flag picture that looks almost but not quite like an English flag? bobrayner (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer is that precious few sports-related WikiProjects pay MOS:FLAG much attention, and even those that do get locked into interminable discussions as to what is and is not an appropriate use of representative nationality. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with fixing it is that it's an utter nightmare to remove all of them without AWB, and with AWB (which is what I did in articles about supercentenarians) one typo can completely destroy a table. If anyone wants to learn how to quickly get remove all the flags in these articles, ping me on my talkpage and I can give you a crash course; WP:FLAGBIO is very explicit on this matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been standard to put the flags into golf articles as long as I have been contributing to them. I myself think the info is not necessary and it would be a royal pain to remove them all. Want to see alot of flags? Go here] where a golfer has 88 wins and 28 playoff results all of which contain at least one flag. BTW I did those boxes for Kathy Whitworth....William 14:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It took me about 2 minutes to fix that article by simply pasting the stuff into notepad++ and replacing every flagicon entry with a blank space. Kaboom. Jtrainor (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

...aaaand it took someone else 2 milliseconds to undo it. --64.85.221.126 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well AWB basically does the same thing, except more efficiently if done right; all you have to do us put the flag icons in once in ind/replace, then go to every article and hit the edit button. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Unfortunately I have had to block Compy90 since he has ignored this matter and continued to edit. The block is indefinite since he has not engaged in any discussion. As I noted on his talk page, any administrator should feel free to lift the block without consulting me if they are satisfied he has addressed and discussed the concerns raised here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want this outcome, rather have this editor change his ways and I would have been perfectly willing to teach him the tricks of trade for verifying info for golf articles. One question- He's banned but how can he try to communicate any willingness to change if his account doesn't work any longer? I am just curious....William 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he is not banned. He is blocked from editing until he displays a willingness to discuss these matters at the very least. He can edit his Talk page; that is where he can discuss and place an unblock request. Right now, my only goal is to get him to acknowledge and discuss the matters you've raised. If he does that, we can unblock and move on. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation and I hope Compy90 eventually replies back and we move on as you say....William 15:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Serbia100 again

Talk page is inappropriately being used to host what looks like Soccer rosters. Multiple editors have blanked the page but he simple restores it. He was warned and blocked by User:Bwilkins here, but has since restored the material without comment.

His entire contribution history since inception in 2010 is to his user page (with 2 or 3 exceptions), so obviously WP:NOTHERE. SÆdon 18:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the content (though kept the ANI notification). There are no edits outside of the talk page bar a November 2010 edit to an article, then on the following April and one in January. Not here to use the encyclopaedia I would say, but is he causing active disruption? S.G. _ping! 18:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Aside from skirting the rules regarding user talk pages and making other people take time to constantly revert and discuss his page, no not really since he doesn't edit out of user space. Since they haven't responded to any editor concerns I don't know if they even understand what the problem is. My recommendation is an indef block, because they edit sporadically enough that they're unlikely to notice short blocks. If we indef hopefully they will make an unblock request and we can start a dialogue. SÆdon 18:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we forget sometimes that WP is not just for the editors, but for readers. They are our audience...our "customers." Most people have an account, not for editing, but for ease of use, like keeping a watch list for example. User space can be used for multiple purposes other than editing; taking notes and keeping lists seem like a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to do who is actively researching their interests. In short, there is no rule that you have to edit WP to be welcome here. So if he's breaking some sort of rule about talk pages, then fine, take action, (I'm not familiar with every aspect of the alphabet soup), but it seems to me keeping a list of soccer rosters is not especially disruptive, especially if it is a subject the person is interested in, and is useful for him in the way he uses the encyclopedia. Talk of indef blocks and how many edits to article space he's had seem a little over reaching. Also, he obviously put a lot of work into a page that is know gone. Admittedly, I have not looked in detail at this particular case other than the ANI posting and the history of the user-page, but wanted to interject a broader point that I often observe on this board and others. Quinn 20:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is still not a webhost. The question is not whether this particular user page is disruptive. The question is whether letting everyone in cyberspace know they can use Misplaced Pages for a webhost is disruptive. It is, and furthermore it's against Misplaced Pages policy. Ravenswing 22:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I spend half my life on here blocking users who put c*** on article space pages. However, what we have here is a user who is misusing/misunderstanding his user space but who is actually doing no harm and, so far as I can see, is not acting in bad faith and seems not to understand the nuances of our policy. OK, what he is doing is against policy but I see no urgency to block him. Let's try to educate him and take him along with us; who knows, he might one day might become a good editor. What I have done is moved his squads to User:Serbia100/Squads. We should encourage him to develop them there and perhaps move part of them, if appropriate, to article space. If he shows no intention to do so, and continues to misuse his talk page then we might need to block him, but I would prefer a softly, softly approach first. We are not "letting everyone in cyberspace know they can use Misplaced Pages for a webhost" we are dealing with this particular user with his particular misuse of his talk page. If another admin considers I'm being too soft and wishes to block him then fine; I just think that in this particular case trying a slightly less harsh approach is worth the attempt. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't recommend that he be blocked out of any sort of malice or desire to see him blocked; I only recommend it to get his attention. Since he doesn't edit much, it's possible we're not going to get him into a dialogue any other way. A block isn't a big deal in a circumstance like this, and if we can get him talking we can explain WP:WEBHOST. Anyway, I object to you moving the page to user space and I don't find the comparative argument to be convincing (i.e. that half the people you block put crap (I'm assuming the word was crap, though I suppose it could have been cunt) on their user pages). That WP is not a webhost applies equally to good content and bad, harmless and disruptive. There are plenty of free hosting providors out there but this isn't one of them. SÆdon 01:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we must disagree on the use of admin tools. I do see blocking as something of a big deal and I see absolutely no basis for the use of the block tool to catch someone's attention. My view is that in these particular circumstances we can take time out to try to educate a user. TerriersFan (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• To lay out the chronology here, Bwilkins deleted the content , then the user reverted Bwilkins on the same day. Then Drmies reverted it clean again and left them a personal message (still on the 6th) and the editor reverted and put it back on their page 1.5 hours later . A few days later, Bwilkins caught the revert and cleared the page yet again on the 10th of March and blocked them for 48 hours. This isn't the second time, this is the 4th time. Three times in 4 days, and now here again in a 2nd ANI. I'm not a fan of blocking, but this might be the right time to use the tools. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib)

No worries, TF, I can't really fault you for being conservative with your tools as it's much better than over zealous use. I still don't think you should have moved the page to a subpage and so I'm going to MFD it. Best. SÆdon 02:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have listed at MFD here.

@Dennis: I copied your chronology post above and put it in the MFD, thanks for that. SÆdon 02:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And because of this chronology I re-discovered my involvement. I thought I recognized the name. I'd appreciate a note next time. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Answered your concern regarding the note at MFD. SÆdon 02:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have tried with this guy but in the light of further talk page abuse I withdraw my objection to him being blocked. For preference, I would block for 1 month in the first instance to let him know we are being serious, rather than indef. TerriersFan (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• How about this: he does this again, we block indefinitely. A temporary block right now smacks of punishment--if anyone wants to block now I think it should be for good, but I prefer to wait and see if they change their ways. Hope against hope. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Good enough for me. He's just passed his one-year anniversary since his last edit to mainspace, so he's not here to build an encyclopedia (or at least our encyclopedia). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Denhaagandy

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

User:Denhaagandy (contribs) has been repeatedly edit warring to remove the section on child abuse at Downside School. Despite being warned by User:Peteinterpol, User:Purplewowies and me, this behaviour has persisted, and has also developed into a number of personal attacks, threats to continue disrupting, legal threats and thinly-veiled personal threats:

• "I think Hitler had the same views about Jews"
• "I have access to many thousands of ip addresses... I have limitless time"
• "My lawyers say I have a case now in the courts to present a legal action"
• "I will mention your name in areas where your name should not be mentioned. I assume you do not have children, but you probably have parents and maybe a girlfriend."

This user has been given an unusually large amount of slack (most new users who blank sections for their first few edits run up against AIV pretty quickly, but in this case every effort has been made to try and explain the situation to them). However, the grace offered to new editors can only be stretched so far, and repeated claims of IDIDNTHEARTHAT suggest Denhaagandy is not here to build an encyclopedia. I request a block, for the legal threat if nothing else. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked for the legal threats. Would be happy to lift the block, or see it lifted, if this user can assure us that s/he will edit more collegially in future. I'll look out for a block appeal myself but if others see a convincing one, please lift! Kim Dent-Brown 13:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I find the vague mention of Yunshui's family members worse than the legal threat. Why would you ever consider unblocking someone like that?--Atlan (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Purplewowies family, actually... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Well, just as bad.--Atlan (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The legal threats were bad form, but I can see a beginner user not being aware that such conduct was prohibited. The veiled threat against family members, however, makes me think that the person should be permanently banned.JoelWhy (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, I hadn't realized that was a veiled threat at my family. :/ I just shook it off and tried to explain things, since he seemed pretty new. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Now apparently socking as User:Potty1234 - I'll file an SPI if I must, but since this is still open, could an admin perhaps step in and block? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Obvious duck. Maybe semi the article for a few days as well?--Atlan (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sock blocked, article protected by User:Lectonar. Nice work. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, if "MI5 are scared of" this guy, maybe we should be good Wiki-citizens and notify them of his activities so they can go get him and "question" him "as they always do"? MSJapan (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, fetch the comfy chair. (please) Drmies (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Onoes! Not ... the comfy chair! Pesky (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This may not be over yet... User:Bunglezippy has just emerged as another Downside SPA, and has posted some fairly serious personal threats( and ) directed at the users who have been reverting Denhaagandy. Lectonar has asked me to copy his comments across here:

"I'll post that here, but it goes for all involved: I've hardblocked the new sock, but the seriousness of the threats makes me think that it is really time to contact the police. Alas, I'm not savvy enough to do that, but I'd say to let the ANI thread stay open, and would you be so kind as to put my comment over there to, as I will not be able to edit more today. Heads up, 109.45.0.1 (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC) (User:Lectonar, from smartphone."

I'm not sure that this is quite at the level where the Foundation needs to be e-mailed, but it's pretty close; I'll leave that decision up to another. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is definitely at the "report to the authorities" level. Best to err on the side of caution rather than dither. Blackmane (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You think? Very well, I'll send an emergency email. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Good move. I was going to put an emergency mail together at lunch when i had a bit of time. Blackmane (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

John Searle

Something fishy is going on. A User:Hibrido Mutante (who has suggested that he is in fact the French philosopher Jean-Michel Salanskis) has been arguing against several editors who thought his additions gae undue weight to a minor dispute Searle had with Jacques Derrida, and that they were also not very well written. Today after a two week break Hibrido Mutante came back today, and two new accounts (User:Sonduarte & User:Sofia Almeida) also registered and their first edits were declarations in support of his edits on the talkpage. Some admin attention might be useful.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you can always try an SPI, though Sofia seems to be a horse of a different color. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are sockpuppets. Judging from some of his comments I am thinking it may be a kind of breaching experiment regarding some of Derrida's ideas about the construction of power and knowledge through language. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Sonduarte is your edit-warrior 2.0. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Did not notify the users in question, because I was distracted by something else. I do apologize.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Some admin attention might be useful. thanks. best regards --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hibrido Mutante is guilty of ongoing edit warring at that article, most recently here, and I'm considering reporting him for it. If there is evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry there, that should be investigated. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Buckshot06 protected page after a one good faith edit

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

Buckshot06 who is a admin protected the article "Sudanese People's Armed Forces" and moved it to Sudanese Armed Forces without sources after a editor made a good faith edit once (see page history of the article) i do not see the point of talking with him on his talkpage due to his recent behaviour. "Sudanese People's Armed Forces" has been the article name for a very long time and just because he doesnt like it, it does not mean he can protect a page after a single good faith edit, and renaming it due to WP:POV 95.199.151.53 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have notified User:Buckshot06. Article renaming aside, the page protection does seem unjustified, at least according to the stated reason of "persistent vandalism". The last instance of obvious vandalism to the article was December 2011. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that this isn't a particularly serious issue, I think the IP editor should attempt to resolve the issue directly with Buckshot06 before its considered here. Point out it was a good faith edit, and there is no recent vandalism, and give Buckshot06 a chance to correct the issue. Monty₈₄₅ 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody unprotect the article then ? Since it was unjustified. and if one admin resorts to such actions, one can assume he will not willing to change anything (except confuse the whole situation by turning it outside in) 95.199.151.53 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You are upset that the admin failed to WP:Assume Good Faith regarding your edit, but yet you refuse to allow for the possibility that Buckshot06 was acting in good faith or that they will act in good faith going forward? Monty₈₄₅ 18:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how that should work in practice ? if i leave a message on his talkpage, i do not think he will reply, seeing how he does not respond to this ani (hes been informed) or revert it as "vandalism" or something, and even if i were to discuss the issue with him, he will probably bombard the discussion with policies and outside in arguments, nothing will change that way anyway 95.199.151.53 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I neither understand what going on here, isnt someone going to do something about it ? this was not about me being upset according to some policy, this is about a admin protecting a page for no real apperant reason, and acussing me of "vandalism" because of one single edit, and the move are not justified either as it amounts to new original research 95.199.158.210 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How this should work is that you should always try to discuss things directly with another editor/admin first before bringing it here. Buckshot hasn't edited anywhere since 04:42, 18 April 2012. That was 13 hours before you posted this so there is a good possibility they don't even know about this thread yet. Give people a chance to respond before accusing them of not responding. GB fan 20:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem you're reporting is. Is it a) the page needs unprotecting (RFPP); b) that you disagree with the admin (then you should have spoken directly with them first); c) you think the admin needs a spanking (then you're in the right place) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"spanking" ? are you serious ? dosen't anyone see the disruption taking place ? and yes the page both needs to be unprotected and moved back to the name it belonged 95.199.158.210 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hear Buckshot06's reasons before jumping to conclusions. I would extend this same courtesy to you. It might have been a mistake, a good reason we don't know about, or maybe he does need a spanking. Since he is an admin, the likelihood that he will come here and explain himself is very high, so we can at least wait a little longer to hear his reasons. As to the name change, he did provide a rationale, New apparently used name - SPAF is c.1991 at latest, whether or not that is correct, I couldn't say. Normally, that is a discussion that happens on the talk page of the article, not here. As to unprotecting the page, I don't see the persistent vandalism that he used as a rationale for protecting anywhere in the article history. I don't see any reason it needs to stay protected, but that would be up to an admin to decide. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Come on people, comments so far have agreed that this isn't a legit protection, dust off your shiny tools and fix it instead of process wonking the IP to death. Arkon (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand where this is coming from, but the article isn't going anywhere either. Give it 24 hours (at least), to give Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) an opportunity to reply, at the very least. It's also important to reinforce the point that AN/I is a last resort, not a first.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It certainly reinforces the point that even simple things aren't corrected/handled without hoop jumping. Arkon (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How it it "hoop jumping" to say that policy states that issues should be handled at the lowest level possible (namely, by the people directly involved), before going through process? That's been the standard here... forever.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

@Arkon: You're assumning that there's something to be "corrected."

• A few minutes of Googling shows decisively that the armed forces of Sudan are now called the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), so the move of the article was legitimate, and there's nothing to "correct" there.
• That leaves the question of whether it should have been protected or not, and it's perfectly reasonable to give the protecting admin some time to respond, considering that the haven't been editing since this happened.

In short, chill out. This is not evil "process wonkery" it's simply finding out what happened before deciding what action (if any) needs to be taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

@Ohms, hoop jumping, process wonkery, call it what you will. But all voices so far have stated they don't believe the protection to be correct. This has not been corrected, due to....see first sentence. Arkon (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken, as I said in my first comment, I spoke only about the protection, which all (so far) have agreed isn't justified. The protecting admin isn't somehow excluded from responding if this protection is reversed, and consensus is that it should be. Yet, here we still are. Wonkery. Arkon (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, the theory that an article should remain protected in the absence of an appropriate reason from the protecting administrator is not correct; Misplaced Pages's default is that all articles are unprotected unless there is clearcut reason to protect them. Like every other editor who has reviewed this page protection, I cannot see any reason for the protection. (The page move, on the other hand, is a perfectly reasonable editorial decision and is supported by reference sources that were included by the editor who made the page move. Any discussion of the article title should be taken to the talk page of the article.) It is preferable to assume good faith that Buckshot06 was mistaken in protecting the article he was editing and moving (the buttons are beside each other, and errors can occur) rather than to assume an error in judgment or any form of ill intent. I am going to unprotect the article, while also reinforcing to the IP editor that if he would like to start a discussion about the article title, he should do so on the article's talk page. Risker (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Note: I forgot to point this out earlier: We even have a noticeboard (WP:RFPP) where unprotections are routinely processed without required discussions with the protecting administrator. This is a standard practice, particularly in a relatively clearcut case. Risker (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you kindly. I assume this can be resolved now? Arkon (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

208.81.184.4 shared IP address linking to malware sites?

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

The IP address made these two edits and . When I went to varify them I recieved a mass attack from the site that my computer blocked.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The site linked to at is the official site of the LDS Church (see Whois lds.org and when I visited the link (Macintosh running Lion, Firefox with Noscript) I had NO problems. I think you have a false positive here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem from those URLs. (Using Chrome on Vista). 78.150.212.13 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It could well just be something entirely unrelated just happened at the moment I was attempting to check out these links and the problems encountered in opening them may be unrelated to the attack on my comuter. But I am looking at a few more references to be sure as I could have even made th mistake of hitting the wrong reference on the list. But at this point I feel it is better to retract this for the moment and look a little further. The Shared IP address threw me a little i suppose and made me suspicious. I apologize for the mistake--Amadscientist (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but my computer had no problems with the link either (Firefox in Windows 7). ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OK.....so I went back and started at the bottum of the references and the same thing happened again. This time I am reporting exact details. Internet Explorer could not open the web page and Norton blocked this: Web Attack Mass Injection Website, Attacking Computer: themormonworker.org-IP (208.109.181.140,80), Attacking url= www.themormonworker.org/, Source address= 208.109.181.140 (208.109.181.140)--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "the bottom of the references". As far as I can tell, there's only one URL (in both of the edits), and I have no problem with it, either in Firefox or in IE. I do not use Norton; nor do I use the antivirus program I have to verify websites, so maybe there's the nub, can't say. BTW, we have an article on The Mormon Worker that lists the "attacking" website as its official site. You might have better luck with this at the Pump or even at the Help Desk.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

IANA computer specialist...but this smells to me of the notoriously...we'll call it "quirky"...behavior of Norton. Microsoft Security Essentials+Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is the current preferred combo for computer protection, AFAIK, while Norton is contrareccomended. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Aye, MWB has no problems with it; Norton ... well, I won't say. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

um... I use Norton (came with the comp), and haven't had any problems. I'm not sure what you guys are going on about, to be honest. (regardless, the help desk seems like a much better venue for this, as suggested by Bbb23 up there ↑)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:HasperHunter / User:38.114.81.204

In addition to several other disruptive behaviors (e.g. deleting cited information - ), User:HasperHunter / User:38.114.81.204 has been posting fairly nasty comments about me on my Talk: page; for example, this one and particularly this one. After his IP was blocked for the latter comment, he apparently convinced the blocking admin to allow him to edit through a hard block. The IP is obviously HasperHunter's; they both edit and revert for each other on a variety of unrelated articles (e.g. List of Jewish Nobel laureates, Kathmandu, High Five Interchange, 2011–12 La Liga, Ghana) - almost every page edited by the IP has also been edited by HasperHunter. I'm bringing this issue here now because HasperHunter is not only apparently deliberately logging out so that his IP can act as a "bad hand" account, but has also gotten his account modified so that he can edit even when his IP is blocked. Jayjg 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what this claim is about at all. The IP that I use is the one that I am using right now . This 38.114.81.204 looks like from my workplace. This is a group IP address of a university. There can be 100s of people with that same ID but that does not mean I was the one using them for all the edits. I have no idea what bad hand, account modifies and all this claims is. I dont think anyone can claim what a random IP did and blame it to random users like me. There could have been many users using wikipedia at the same time when I was using it from my office. It could also have been possible that I had left my user id logged in although i doubt it. I am sure though there were many users using from the same ip as it is of a workplace.HasperHunter (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For reference on the interactions between HasperHunter and 38.114.81.204, see Snottywong's new tool. Monty₈₄₅ 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hasper, I believe the quacking behaviour is a bit too loud to ignore. :) Salvidrim! 01:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying every edits from that IP which probably is connected to over 100 computers in a university is done by me? I would like to see what edits were done from that IP and I can prove that it was not me, definitely not all the edits as I usually only edit from my home.HasperHunter (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, that IP seems to mostly edit the exact same (apparently completely unrelated) articles that you do! And with the exact same POV! You even revert for each other! Are you really claiming you didn't leave those comments on my Talk: page? Jayjg 01:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not touched your page at all! I dont even know what for? How did you and me get involved in the 1st place! I am being blocked for reasons I dont even know yet and out of nowhere. You tell me why would I edit pages without being logged in. If i ever did would be from my workplace but as I already said that IP must be connected to over 100 computers. I am just curious as what are the wikipedia edits from that server. If i were disrupting others pages or reverting edit my own edits from a different server why would i not be doing this all the time!?HasperHunter (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just not plausible - the evidence is too strong to be simple coincidence. Jayjg 02:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to consider logging in from school? This would be helpful. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do i need to do that? I do my edits from home. I am ok with this.HasperHunter (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, logging in would clarify the situation. It seems there is someone in your school who thinks, edits & behaves exactly as you do, which certainly is a surprising coincidence. Salvidrim! 02:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I can definitely do that. But still not sure how logging in will help. How can that person think edit behave exactly like me when there are articles that I have never edited and that ip has. I have already mentioned I use that IP sometimes while I am at work but then others might be using it at the same time as I did, can they not? I usually edit the la liga and football records, kathmandu (my homeplace) but definitely not that user talk pages of others that is being claimed. Now, I am not a computer expert. But if a few users use the same IP can they edit a few articles at different times? my workplace is a university so it can be possible many users editing same articles.HasperHunter (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I will go ahead and login from my workplace tomorrow as per your request.HasperHunter (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Whilst looking at the evidence I was quite happy to indef both the account and the IP, I've just noticed the comment made by a CU here, so I think I'll hold back until they've commented. Black Kite (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I originally blocked HasperHunter, but after taking another look at the situation after an unblock request from him, I have erred on the side of caution to AGF and unblock, mainly because of the difference in edits between the two accounts.

That being said, if another admin and/or CU wants to look at this, I don't mind; alternatively, a full WP:SPI case can be opened up, in which I would naturally be recused. I know I am capable of making mistakes as an admin and a CU, but I would be more comfortable knowing that I have prevented more than likely sockpuppetry than feeling guilty about indefinitely blocking an uninvolved user who is happening to be sharing the same IP as some other troublemaker behind it. --MuZemike 05:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

After comparing the edit histories of the articles mentioned above, I wonder if I have made a grave mistake in unblocking; in this case, I will need an uninvolved admin to reassess this situation. --MuZemike 05:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would endorse an indef on the account at this point. Block the IP for a couple of months. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Saccyind

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

Saccyind (talk · contribs) has been causing some problems. The root issue is WP:CONSENSUS: Saccyind either doesn't understand the concept or is simply willing to disregard it. He's been told numerous times why his edits are problematic, and been asked numerous times to discuss them on article talk pages, but the only responses he seems to give are all-caps rants, profanity, and accusations that every single editor he interacts with is "misusing power and bullying" (specific examples can be viewed by checking pretty much any talk page edit he's made). He's been blocked twice in the last 3 weeks for edit-warring, and when the blocks expire he just resumes making the exact same edits to the same articles. At least 7 other editors have tried to communicate with him and straighten him out, but to no avail. At this point I feel safe saying he's exhausted the patience of the community and demonstrated that he's a net negative to the project, and I think an extended or indefinite block is warranted. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. --Blake Burba (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. I would also consider an extended or indef block on Saccyind, since he refuses to follow consensus. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the various attempts I've made to guide this guy towards an understanding of WP:CONSENSUS, he clearly has no interest in abiding by it whatsoever. He has recieved a short block before, which did nothing to stop his mindset; I can't see further short-term blocks being effective if they haven't already. A longer-term block, or an indefinite one, is probably the only way to go here—at some stage it becomes clear when the project is better off without an editor than it is with them. GRAPPLE X 02:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this user's behavior, and I think IllaZilla's estimation of it is justified, unfortunately. Would support an indef. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, I felt kinda too lazy to start an ANI-section at the moment; but yeah, echoing all of the above... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made at least two attempts to discuss the user's edits, along with an explanation for why I consdier them to be inappropriate, under the assumption of good faith. Both times I've been ignored and the reverted material reinstated almost instantly. Euchrid (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeff'd. The immediate resumption of bad behavior upon the last block finishing is a clear WP:NOTHERE indication. However, should Saccyind be willing to commit to good faith, collaborative editing, xe can be unblocked at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy continues to slow-edit war and stonewall at Red Hot Chili Peppers

• Relevent background first:
  • Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Red Hot Chili Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Radiopathy's history of these kinds of problems
  • most recent discussion regarding this same issue 1 month ago

Nothing much has changed in the past month. Radiopathy has a version of the article Red Hot Chili Peppers he prefers, and he continues to edit war to force it in, albeit slow enough to avoid 3RR, most recently yesterday: . The discussion on the talk page is enlightening. Radiopathy insists he is correct, but he is the only person who thinks so, and has also provided no sources which state that he is. Several people, on the RHCP talk page, and on his own user talk page, have provided sources, and he ignores these insisting that, because the sources disagree with him, they must be wrong. Also problematic is the fact that he seems to be possibly logging out to avoid the appearence of edit warring, as shortly after the above edit, this edit showed up: . I am at a complete loss over how to handle this, and am open to any suggestions for sanctions and/or fixes to get this problem to stop. I had never run into this user before last month, but as evidenced above, he's been having these exact sort of problems for years, and it needs to stop. --Jayron32 03:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left this warning on the editor's talk page to ask that they respect consensus at the RHCP article. Kim Dent-Brown 11:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright issue - edit warring by blocked users and IPs

At Garner Ted Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for the last few days, several (now blocked) users and IPs have been edit warring over the addition of an image which has copyright concerns.

• The image was initially uploaded by Garnerted (talk · contribs) (now indef blocked for "Disruptive editing: / using wikipedia as a promotional vehicle, personal attacks, ownership of articles")
• Then added by TheWorldTomorrow (talk · contribs) (received a username block) - the user included an edit summary stating "We are the sole Copyright and Trademark owners and it is our "picture of a picture". www.cogwwm.org (All rights reserved)"
• Then added by 64.134.189.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked for making legal threats)
• Now being added by 12.124.83.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has made the false claim "Photo cleared by admin"

Could use some more eyes to watch the page and review the situation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected the article for a week. Garnerted is free to appeal his block, but circumventing it with IPs is not the way to go. I'll leave him a note at Commons explaining the copyright problem with the file. Jafeluv (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat over World Tomorrow

• merged "Legal threat over World Tomorrow" with "Image copyright issue - edit warring by blocked users and IPs"

Julian Assange has a news show called World Tomorrow. I visited the talk page of the user who created the Misplaced Pages article for this show and saw that he had received a legal threat for creating it. The threat is here - User_talk:Sladen#Lawsuit_talk and I am posting a notice of it on this board per Misplaced Pages:No_legal_threats. I do not want to be further involved in this and am reporting this here because the rule is to report legal threats when anyone sees them. I do not want to participate in this issue or give any comment. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP that issued the threat has been blocked for a month, and I don't see any WP:DOLT issues here, so I guess this resolved. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I will watch the article, as I suspect the socks will return after block expires in a week. -RunningOnBrains 15:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

HISTMERGE gone wrong. Help?

Basically, a HISTMERGE was performed on one of my articles, Rosalina (character), by adding onto the history from User:Androids101/Sandbox/Rosalina (yes, it is deleted). I wish that the Histmerge be completely undone for the following reasons:

• Since at the time the article was not a real encyclopedia article, the page was repetitively blanked, then written, then blanked etc. And since it is a sandbox, there were edits I definitely would not do on a normal Misplaced Pages page, ranging from testing my signature to testing fonts to others, which are completely strange as no edit summaries were provided.
• The page in question has already been deleted. I had on purpose tagged the page for speedy deletion as I felt it would be not necessary; and I did not want the content to be there.
• As it is a sandbox, there was a time where the subject of the sandbox is completely different from the subject at hand; this would obviously also been confusing as I did not add an edit summary, as it is, originally, a sandbox.

I did know about the tool, but I did not move due to the reasons stated above - with the state that the sandbox is in, it would be impossible to do due to the problems stated above. Since it is that confusing, and I do not feel comfortable with the merge at all, is it possible for it to be completely undone, or the edits removed?

Thank you for reading, Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 10:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Answered on user talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Unregistered User:50.95.41.4 threatening, racial slurring in Deletion proposal

Please take into serious consideration this comments here Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gjekë Marinaj. Obnoxious and dreadful nationalistic threats towards another user and a whole community. This IP should be blocked immediately, not only for vandalism, but for serious threatening of Misplaced Pages's continuity and welfare. I advise a serious investigation to be carried into consideration since such threats have been materialized into real deletions, POV edits, ultra-nationalistic policy and propaganda hidden behind pseudo-encyclopedic articles that only intend realizing the aims of this mentally-unstable-looking comment. All this then concludes with real frustration towards users, contributors and readers of a whole community.

You kindly oblige me by working on this issue. Sincerely, Empathictrust (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, consider also this new user's dubious edits , who seem to have opened his account for the sole purpose of eliminating Gjekë Marinaj in wikipedia and his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empathictrust (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The first IP has been blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise for 48 hrs. The second IP last edited almost 5 days ago. If they're an IP hopper, they'll have likely moved on already. Blackmane (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Taiga000

A search of User:Taiga000's talk page and contributions reveals numerous warnings for vandalism and speedy deletion. This user appears either incapable or unwilling to contribute effectively to Misplaced Pages. A heavy warning at the minimum, and a block at the maximum, should be considered to prevent further damage. Chutznik (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Twenty edits in total? This isn't an issue that needs wider administrative attention. Stick a final warning template down and take it to AIV if it happens again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Final warning given, take it to AIV if he does something stupid again. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 14:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Bullied by an edit warring admin

Nightscream (talk · contribs) has been constantly adding ( ) the words "Max Nicholson of IGN compared" to a simple observation stated by a reviewer. The observation merely points out the similarity between a part of the episode and a bit by Bill Hicks. Since this is a simple compare and contrast between two spoken texts, backed up by a RS, it falls under WP:NOTOR. A conversation was initiated on Nightscream's talk page; he carried it over to mine with a snide comment about what is and isn't his job and how he is above the EW law by WP:GAMING (quote: "3RR does not apply to editors addressing or reverting clear policy violations, such as the removal of valid, sourced material"), then shut me down and refused to communicate after asserting that it's an opinion and I'm removing valid sourced material. The material was sourced by me. The addition was initially made by an anonymous IP, and Nightscream kept reverting it ( ) instead of doing what I did – Google a source. Jc37 (talk · contribs) protected the page and urged us to solve the dispute through talk, but Nightscream quit replying. Now he's bullying me on my talk page into quitting. This is no longer an edit warring matter, it's intimidation and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by an admin. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's no 3RR exemption for "clear policy violations", last I checked. Left a 3RR warning. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The source says that the "kill yourself" joke in the episode was "almost eerily similar to a standup bit from Bill Hicks." The content that you're trying to save says that the joke was "a nod to Bill Hicks." I'm afraid I have to agree with Nightscream on this one, there is no source which states that "this joke is a reference to Bill Hicks" as a fact, it's clearly an opinion and if it's going to be included in the article, it should be stated as such. It's also an extremely minor issue, certainly not worth climbing the Reichstag over. How about we all just calm down and move on? ‑Scottywong| talk _ 13:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I thought the only exemption from 3RR was a BLP one? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There's been a burgeoning list.Stifle (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• I've just looked at the timing of this issue and self-reverted the 3RR warning. This issue happened three days ago, why only raise it now? Stifle (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't get to a good Internet connection until just now, and besides, the bottom line is that I'm still under Nightscream's threat of being blocked. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

After numerous ECs: There is no 3RR exception except for BLP, and this does not fall under BLP. You may be right abotu the content and wrong in the approach, which is where NS and SW are falling. That given, this is basically a very stale EW report + a warning from an involved Admin. The admin did not block. Is there anything to be currently done regarding this? I suggest we wait until we hear NS. KillerChihuahua 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x manyI was going to say the same thing as Scottywong. It's better to have the statement fully attributed (both by ref and in the article) to avoid the possible misunderstanding by a reader that the "joke is a reference to Bill Hicks" is universally accepted. I think this can be solved by a simple case of "if I were a reader.." Blackmane (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• To Scottywong (talk · contribs): I didn't write that it was a reference, just that it's similar. We don't have to add the reviewer's name and the fact that he made the comparison, the footnote is more than sufficient. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The text was that "it is a nod to Bill Hicks", which implies that you know that the writer intended this as a reference to Hicks, as opposed to an unintentional similarity. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 14:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Unattributed opinions are problematic at best, policy violations when presented as fact. When rephrased, they can be even more problematic. Nightscream was correct there, and so is Scottywong. The warning NS left was entirely appropriate, IMO. And you are making this a content dispute on ANI, not about the admin's alleged bullying. If you want to argue content, go elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Do you mind explaining why it is so important to you that this comparison is not presented as an opinion? ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I believe there is a huge confusion. The "nod" diff was by an anonymous IP. My version is here, and it states as follows: "Stan's phone call to J&G, in which he angrily urges the host to kill himself, is similar to the "Marketing and Advertising" bit from comedian Bill Hicks' 1997 album Arizona Bay." What exactly is problematic here? And KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), I'm not arguing content, I tried that with Nightscream and was rudely shut down, which is why I came here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are arguing content, and so is Scottywong. Could we please stick to the issue at hand, which is whether Nightscream acted appropriately by his numerous reverts, and giving the warning? All else is inappropriate on this page except as context, which has been clearly established. KillerChihuahua 14:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reply to Scottywong: because it's as clear as the sky is blue, and we have a reliable source that also states that. Nightscream's edit is an unnecessary bureaucratic word clutter. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment to KillerChihuahua: "acting appropriately by his numerous reverts"??? Don't you mean "inappropriately"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Just because you have the information doesn't mean it's common knowledge. It would be a good thing to leave the reasonable preamble identifying who has that viewpoint before the quote. Otherwise the text implies it's a widely held viewpoint (which from what I can tell it's not). Trout for you for raising this old edit war after it's been quiet for a while. Trout for Nightscream for participating in an edit war. Happy? Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment for Scottywong Because when this editor gets a bee in his bonnet about something and decides that he's right, he's right, and let's you know in no uncertain terms! CaptainScreebo 14:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Bravo, Captain Screebo. Now we're resorting to "let's get the editor who dare come here and complain about our administrative brethren". Cue the booing audience! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Look in our brief encounter, I found your behaviour stubborn, rude and self-opinionated, and I let the talk page stalker deal with your aggressive and uncivil comment to avoid getting into a spat. So I was just adding some context in response to SW's question. When you're wrong or consensus is against you, why not just accept it gracefully? Cue round of applause and a self-congratulatory pat on the back! CaptainScreebo 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Something may indeed be "as clear as the sky is blue", but that's not succificent for Misplaced Pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• To Bushranger: this is why it is backed up by a reliable source, therefore completely in compliance with WP:V.
• To Captain Screebo: if calling you out on your rudeness is rude, then cue the sympathetic chants. There was no consensus, just Nightscream continuously reverting me in a self-righteous manner. Besides, your attempt to discredit me by quoting an unrelated incident borders on a plain personal attack. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

From your own talk page, Get some manners and use them. Sound advice, I'd say. CaptainScreebo 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• • If there weren't consensus there, there certainly is now that there's been some discussion on it. You are, simply put, wrong that a journalistic interpretation of the similarity of these works somehow makes it an obvious fact which can be presented as such. Nevertheless, Nightscream should have been mature enough not to edit war with you over it, let alone escalating it to warning templates. That is ideally what we should be discussing, and the actual content dispute dropped (as you're the only one who apparently doesn't agree with Nightscream's interpretation of how we report opinions). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, I say, put yourself in the reader's shoes and think, if you knew nothing about the subject matter and just wanted to read Wiki to get some info on that particular episode and read that statement without an in-article attribution to the journalist who stated it, would it not be reasonable to expect the reader to believe that he comparison is exactly what the episode writer wanted? Before the usual ANI shitfight kicks in, can we all settle down and chill out? Rather than dig up past dirt lets deal with the, content-unrelated, matter at hand. Tea anyone? Blackmane (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• If we leave out the various digressions that have come into this discussion, the essential points are:

1. Nightscream and Hearfourmewesique have both edit warred.
2. Contrary to what Hearfourmewesique says, this edit was not bullying, but a simple explanation of what the problem with his/her editing is.
3. There is a clear consensus that Hearfourmewesique was mistaken.
4. Contrary to what Nightscream says, there is no exemption to the edit warring policy for "addressing or reverting clear policy violations". (Though, contrary to what some other people seem to think, BLPs are not the only exemption: the policy lists eight different exemptions.)

What is the way forward from here? We could consider blocking one or both editors. Better, though, in my opinion, is for the matter to be simply dropped now, with Hearfourmewesique accepting consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I just saw the message on my talk page regarding this discussion. I think a lot of what I would have said in response was covered by the quite-reasonable reactions already here, so in order to avoid a comprehensive rehash of everything, I'd like to narrow my focus this: The notion that I edit warred; violated 3RR or came close to; and the suggestion that I should be blocked. I'd like to explain my position here, but I have to go out now, and don't know if I'll have time to compose the thoughtful response I'd like to by later this afternoon, later tonight, when I get home from the city (and might be tired), or first thing tomorrow. May I be allowed this time to respond? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this here and not at WP:AN3 or WP:DRN?  --Lambiam 20:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be at DRN when there is no apparent discussion on the article talk page? Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry block on User:Schrodinger's cat is alive

Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for apparently having a sockpuppet, ThatManAgain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Schro is an editor who is otherwise in good standing, and I would suggest that this is a wrongful block that I would like another admin to look at.

The block seems to be very light on justification. There is no WP:SPI case, as far as I can see. Conceding that ThatManAgain is a relatively new user, the two users have barely interacted with each other according to Scottywong's Editor Interaction Analyser. There does not seem to be any previous, current and/or continuing disruption to the project.

It seems likely, then, that the explanation that Schro gave in her unblock request is likely. That the two users use the same connection and they happened to cross the same page, once at some point. If that was a reason to block, then you'd probably have to block me because no doubt I've crossed paths with half the staff and students of the NSW Department of Education. For example, one of the history teachers at my old school who, after discussion with me, has responded to vandalism on a couple of pages that I also edit occasionally. This is a weak case for a block.

Bwilkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) declined the unblock request on the basis of a decidedly unWP:AGF reading of what Schro said and then followed up with a suggestion that Schro do some performing pony tricks with WP:GAB to get unblocked. This isn't reasonable.

I realise that I'm sounding a bit militant here, but, hey, I'm definitely not in as good standing as Schro. ˜danjel 15:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Separately, while I'm posting as a result of discussion at Schro's talkpage, I think the block on ThatManAgain is also worthy of a second look. ˜danjel 15:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would unblock both accounts. The cat is denying its him and a minor meat issue is the most there is - explain to him as the two accounts are from the same ip to avoid any editing that might appear meatish and unblock for time served. - Please don't do it again, or rather, allow an appearance of doing it even if you didn't and unblock. Youreallycan 15:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Schrodinger's cat is alive has been unblocked by User:JamesBWatson.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• I don't know how thoroughly Danjel checked the editing history, but there are several pages that both accounts have edited. Nevertheless, having read Schrodinger's cat is alive's comments and looked carefully at the editing history, I see no unambiguous evidence of abuse (both posting to the same AfD is the one that looks most doubtful), so I have unblocked Schrodinger's cat is alive. I do wonder why I wasn't consulted before this thread was started. My understanding is that, if you disagree with someone's action, the first thing to be done is normally to raise the matter with that person, and only to start administrators' noticeboard discussions if you have tried and failed to reach agreement. As for ThatManAgain, it seems to me that the only reasonable thing to do is to consult DeltaQuad, the blocking admin, because as far as I know he/she is the only person who knows what other account(s) he/she had in mind when blocking for "Abusing multiple accounts". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that blocks should be used to prevent disruption of the project and generally shouldn't be fired from the hip. ˜danjel 15:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a general understanding of what the American colloquial expression "fired from the hip" means, but could you explain what you mean by it in this context? If you mean that you presume that I blocked without due consideration of the evidence, I can assure you that you are mistaken. I spent five minutes carefully considering the evidence. I would also have thought that AIV discussions should not be "fired from the hip": your failure to consult the relevant people before starting this discussion, suggests that you may like to think about whether your house is made of glass. I have also just looked at your posts to User talk:Schrodinger's cat is alive, and I do wonder why you thought such an aggressive response was the right thing to do first, rather than beginning by politely consulting the relevant people. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You say that you gave the situation due consideration, and, yet, you blocked a user in good standing on the basis of what? There was no disruption to the project, ongoing or otherwise, there was no SPI case, no other complaint anywhere else. Why don't you leave the holier-than-thou and innocence-abused attitudes behind and just leave a mea culpa? ˜danjel 16:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• So this is one of those mornings I woke up to one of those 'you've been taken to ANI' messages. Nice and I did not even know what this could have been about. I go with JamesBWatson's comment in the fact that I was not consulted at all either before the issue was taken here. If you need the link, it's in the block message or right here for you. Anyway, I'll speak more to my block below, but just for the record, I don't need an SPI to issue blocks, I can call it as I see it without an SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ThatManAgain

...is still an open issue for discussion. ˜danjel 15:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As the user has only a few recent edits I suggest leaving him blocked unless he requests unblocking. Youreallycan 15:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Strikes me that this is a particulary bad way to welcome and encourage a new editor. ˜danjel 15:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well he did have a chat with his amigo and with his first edit he then opened a ADF discussion - not bad for a newbie - I say, let him explain if he wants unblocking - Youreallycan 15:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this, DeltaQuad's block reason (inappropriate use of alternate accounts) is spot-on. ThatManAgain has another account that they used to edit Carratu International. Editors should not use multiple accounts to edit the same article. TNXMan 15:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Who are the socks? I see 4 edits from ThatManAgain on Carratu International, none of which seemed contentious in the light of edits from the one other intervening editor. Where's the disruption? ˜danjel 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• So my block was done on the basis of not knowing who the master was, and was done because the likelihood that a new user, would not be able to pull of an AFD nomination in so few edits. That combined with the policy WP:ILLEGIT #2 which says "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections." is why I issued my block. Could it of been a meatpuppet, I doubted that fact unless the person was standing over their shoulder and told them to type ] into the AFD. New people don't just know project acronyms like that. So with that being the case, I don't have to make the differentiation between WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT as WP:MEAT states "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."". So my block is completely valid and I will not stand down from it. I'm not pointing the finger of the master at anyone, but the technical trail lead for at least a discussion. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You blocked this user on the basis of:

• The fact that s/he opened an AfD;
• Knew some WP acronyms;
• A suspicion that he was a sock;

...and nothing more. No apparent disruption. No complaints at any noticeboard. No CheckUser involvement (I note that you are not a CheckUser).

Are you serious? Of course this should have been discussed, perhaps at SPI or here or wherever else, beforehand. You have the temerity to say that you should have been personally consulted before this discussion, yet you act without any consultation at all on the basis of nothing more than suspicion and block a new user? No wonder we have issues with attracting and retaining editors.

I don't know if ThatManAgain is a sock or not, but, you're right, it does deserve discussion. As does your action here as an admin.˜danjel 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser Note

←Alright, so I have been asked to look into this in my role as a Checkuser. I will preface all of this by saying that the range that these accounts are operating on is large, and according to my research is problematic on other sites as well. From a purely technical stand point, the following accounts are  Confirmed:

• Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ThatManAgain (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The following account is highly  Likely related to the above two:

• Hydeblake (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

That said, Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs) and ThatManAgain (talk · contribs) tend to edit within hours of each other, but when they do 99% of the time, their useragent is different. So, this could mean that the person gets up and spends an hours worth of time changing computers with the intention of throwing off a CheckUser, or the story that Schrodinger's cat is alive is telling is correct and the IP range is shared but they are two people editing from two different computers. I will note though, that their useragents have overlapped before. Additionally, there is some "editing while logged out" going on. For obvious privacy reasons, I will not publicly release the IP. That said, it appears that ThatManAgain (talk · contribs) is the one doing the editing via that IP given that useragent matches. Lastly, as I said before, the ISP that they are editing via has been blacklisted on a number of sites for excessive spamming and torrents. So, take all of that as you will. Tiptoety 18:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so all we have is some very circumstantial evidence that appears well explained by what Schro has already said (keeping in mind that Schro is a user who is otherwise in good standing). All being told, there would be no gain for Schro to use a sock in the way that would be suggested from ThatManAgain's edits (being that the one apparently contentious edit where the two users overlapped was an AfD that ended non-contentiously). If ThatManAgain has been editing under an IP, as suggested, then it's entirely possible that s/he does have more experience with acronyms.

I suggest that the way forward to to WP:AGF and unblock ThatManAgain's account with some stern advice to both users to avoid creating a perception that they're related. ˜danjel 18:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Danjel, an important thing to realise is that administrators and checkusers are entrusted by the community to make judgements. Very often those judgements have to be made on the balance of evidence, where there is no absolute certainty. If you disagree with another person's judgement, it is helpful to politely raise the matter with that person. My best judgement at the time when I blocked was that the evidence strongly suggested sockpuppetry. My judgement at the time when I unblocked was that new evidence had cast enough doubt to encourage me to give the user the benefit of the doubt. It is perfectly reasonable for another person to hold the opinion that one or other of those judgements was unwise, but holding such an opinion is not justification for ranting about how grossly unreasonable I have been, that I "shoot from the hip", that I have a "holier-than-thou" attitude, and so on and so on. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Holy cheese and rice. The editor admitted to chatting with their friend, then editing the same article. I politely declined the first unblock, and gave them FRIENDLY advice on how to compose a new unblock that would address it and get them unblocked. In short, I highly suggested the re-request unblock and pointed them to GAB where it says "show the community it won't happen again". Suddenly I'm asking for some dog-and-frickin-pony show? No. All I said was "do another unblock that says this you'll get unblocked". What a bloody waste of time some people like to perform around here. A single declined unblock, and someone else gets their shorts in a knot instead of doing the right thing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• The checkuser evidence combined with Scottywong's tool points in the direction of a sock connection between Schrodinger's cat is alive and Hydeblake.  --Lambiam 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute with Editor 7&6=thirteen

Yesterday I made an edit to Edward Terry Sanford's See also section which had a link to List of United States Chief Justices by time in office. Since Sanford was never Chief Justice so a link to the list is irrelevant. This particular associate justice served under just one chief justice and most AJs serve at most under two or three. How is a link to a list of mostly people he had no association with relevant. There is a SA link to cases of the Chief Justice(Taft) he served under and I have no problem with that.

I've noticed similar links to the list article in other justice articles and this morning and began taking out more See Also links. This editor, 7&6=thirteen , reverted my Sanford edit and a few others I do. I reverted them and also posted to a talk page so to work this matter out.

This editor though has been belittling me and I'm getting a little tired of it. My edits and even reversions were never personal however he wrote "Nobody else is "confused." Its not confusing to readers." Why the bringing up of confused? I never use the word. He addressed me as Mr. William before listing every post I changed. Nobody calls me Mr. William. It's obviously a first name.

My reply to him- An offer to get another editor to mediate. His response included more swipes at me 'your new found epiphany'. J A check of my edit history will show me regularly cleaning up See Also sections including in one particular instance where I took out some 20 or so links and which he didn't like but another editor ruled in my favor. It's possible he's carrying a chip on his shoulder from that or he thinks he owns certain articles. I'll let somebody else determine that. No epiphanies, just me poking around parts of wikipedia I follow and making attempts to improve articles in certain subject areas that interest me.(Golf, Baseball, Judges and law articles, aviation incidents, Florida, town articles to name a few)

I told him I didn't like his attitude(The harshest thing I said about him to that point was 'one editor disagrees', So he replied. 'I'm sorry that you don't like my attitude. WP:Civil precludes me from discussing yours.' He also wrote 'You either overlooked or chose not to respond to my proposal. Duly noted.' I went to the talk page, made my points, offered to settle this through the help of another editor and promised to maintain the status quo till the matter was settled(I've made no more changes since I made that offer), but get this reply 'While I have no problem with mediation or arbitration in theory (I do that for a living), I don't think we are there yet. Let's get the input from the other concerned editors. This is actually a bigger issue (with other implications) than this relative 'tempest in a teapot.' I expect that we can come to a consensus, and do this through reason.' Is he now saying I can't reason?

He defends the links because they have been up for a long time but where in WP does it say something can't be removed just because of the length of time something has been in an article.

So I brought the matter here and I'll inform him as soon as I leave....William 15:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I stand on the record. I am not belittling anyone. If I got his name wrong, I am sorry. No offense was made and none was intended. I was suggesting that we ALL should try to come to a reasoned consensus. Hypothetically, even if WilliamJE and I agree, it is no substitute for informed debate and consensus by the larger community. When I said, "This is actually a bigger issue (with other implications) than this relative 'tempest in a teapot.' I expect that we can come to a consensus, and do this through reason." I was trying to work through to consensus and to put the matter in perspective. I was not impugning WilliamJE's intellect or rationality. In fact, I was hopeful that we could harness it and come to a good wikipedia solution without intervention by third party intermediaries. WilliamJE is being overly sensitive. It isn't about him. It isn't about me. It's about coming to a good solution through recognized debate and decision making.

I note that he indulged his editing decision by vandalizing a bunch of pages. He then invited debate and told me to go to the judiciary page. He continued his editing, notwithstanding calling for a truce. I went to the section of the page that he created, and tried to engage him and other editors. I also asked him nicely to stop the wholesale changes, and to engage in the debate he started. Those pleas have been ignored.

I truly don't understand his complaint, if there is one in there. Apparently he doesn't want the matter debated on its merits. If this is a personal complaint, I request that you DISMISS it outright. If this is an attempt to invoke arbitration of mediation, I have not and do not consent. While I could ask for retribution from the Administrators, I choose not to do that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

William, what administrative action(s) are you requesting exactly? After looking at this, what I see looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute. Wouldn't it be better to wait and let this discussion pan out?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

IP 76.75.41.66

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

The user 76.75.41.66 is a repeat vandal who has received warnings every month without fail, so I am suggesting blocking him for 1 month for continually vandalizing Misplaced Pages.--Deathlaser 16:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. In the future, WP:AIV is the best place to report vandals such as this. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

user:RepublicanJacobite, Steampunk, WP:OWN and forum shopping

There is a long-running WP:OWN issue regarding RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) and Steampunk. Part of this involves the film The City of Lost Children, which is widely regarded as having been an inspirational film in the steampunk genre, at a time (1995) before the genre was widely recognised or known under this name.

At the end of last year, RepublicanJacobite retired with the traditional page-blanking flounce. To be honest, I've missed him since - although we disagreed on the issue of new additions to an article on a pop culture scene that's at its most active right now (see Talk:Steampunk/Archive 9#David Bruce.27s .22Steampunk.22) we probably agreed on more edits than we disagreed, at least when it came down to pruning the obvious spammy crap. Since then the steampunk articles have suffered somewhat from the addition of poorly-written and over-promotional content. Unfortunately I'd be seen in the steampunk world off-wiki to have a COI about some of these, so I've felt unable to remove them.

Recently though, RJ appears to have returned - I noticed this when once again he removed the category Steampunk films from City of Lost Children. I restored it, he removed it again with the (not unreasonable) message, "Provide a source showing this is steampunk; whether I've retired is none of your damn business.". So I did. Three of them, with added text. Since then he has removed these three references.

More than that, I now notice that he has been forum shopping amongst admins, presumably to seek a block against me. User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Andy_Dingley, User_talk:NawlinWiki#Andy_Dingley, "I reported this to another admin., but he took no action."

In a not-entirely unrelated issue, there has been a question about one of the refs I added. User_talk:Andy_Dingley#The_City_of_Lost_Children Another editor added a fourth reference and removed one of those I'd added. Now I accept their point - it's a low WP:RS blog cite, however we're not required to hold every ref to the standard of WP:RS, when the crucial issue of notability etc. has been demonstrated by solid WP:RS and this ref adds something in addition. In this case it's a pop culture blog discussing a pop culture issue with a useful direct quote that indicates the strength with which this film has been adopted by the steampunk community.

I would not have brought this pretty trivial issue to WP:ANI (and I don't think I have done previously, even though the WP:OWN goes back years). However secretively forum-shopping amongst admins is not a practice that we should stand for. If admin involvement is required on either side, then let's do it openly. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

RJ has removed the three added refs once again.

One of these, Blake Peterson. "City of Lost Children" (PDF). Film Notes. Brattle Film Theatre. The cyberpunk fringe movement commonly called steampunk is a page from the regular viewer's notes for a serious and established cinema. Far from a lightweight blog, but WP:OWN doesn't see a distinction, just a pre-judged goal. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

First the two of you should stop edit warring. Second the content is still there, only now it is sourced to academic sources and not blogs. I fully agree with you that there is an OWN issue, I also fully agree with the last edit by RJ. If we have academic sources the others are not needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So would you claim that any statement on WP should have at most one citation to support it - and that any that have more than this (as here) should have all but one removed? That's ridiculous. Other sources, particularly as here, where we use such a strong direct quote, add breadth. After all, this is a content issue that has been challenged so strongly by RJ so far that he has repeatedly removed the category, even though that one source was already listed on the talk: page.

Why do you claim that the Brattle Film Theatre reference isn't WP:RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said Brattle Film Theatre was not reliable, I said as there are now two academic sources the others are not needed. Especially the blog . Is there a particular reason that source needs to remain? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Where are the two "academic" sources? Cohen, yes - although it contains almost no content beyond the title, the word "steampunk" and a vaguely professorial imprint. Even then, this is no more than a student dissertation that we're reading. The Vandermeer anthology is far from academic - it's one of those innumerable sf anthologies that rushed out a few years ago to jump on the steampunk band-zeppelin. Removing the three other references removes the two that (whilst hosted on wordpress) actually contained accessible on-line content that benefited the readers of WP articles. I don't believe RJ is concerned about such matters - indeed, I believe that he deleted this content more because of who had added it than because of the content itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Steampunk and dubious references again? Sigh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

At least it's not dieselpunk.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Editor Deleting Content

This morning I created a page for Asia Food Recipe. The page was marked for speedy deletion within minutes of creation and was deleted within 10 minutes of being marked for speedy deletion. I contacted the editor and the page was reverted and allowed for comments on the talk page (which was also deleted and had to be recreated). The page was deleted again within a few minutes by another editor with whom I also left a message. Since that time the page was returned and marked as recommended for deltion, but not speedy deletion. This is a good process as others can now weigh in on the matter.

However, I made a comment to one of the original editors (user: JamesBWatson) reasons for wanting the page deleted. The comment can be seen=HERE. This user has since gone through my article page and deleted another article (TravelFox) that I just published. This is not the way to edit on Misplaced Pages. I understand that he/she may not agree with my opinion on why Asia Food Recipe is notable; however, the retaliation just to make a point is unacceptable.

I would request that both Asia Food Recipe and the article TravelFox both be protected and that this user refrain from going through my edits just because they disagree. --Morning277 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional Information - The reason posted for the deletion of TravelFox was A7 which is listed below. Note that the bold section applies so I am unsure of why the article was deleted without being tagged for speedy deletion or nominated for deletion. This falls within vandalism. --Morning277 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (for example, a band, club, or company, not including educational institutions), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

• No, they won't be protected. If anything they'll be protected from recreation. Sorry if you feel like your welcome was less than hearty, but these articles simply do/did not credibly claim importance, and the article currently at AfD is headed for deletion as well. Notability must be established using reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've just looked at the deleted TravelFox, and it was a good A7 deletion. It was an article about a website that was only launched on March 1, and it gave no indication of the site's importance - it just described what it does. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  (I see the article contradicts itself and says launched March 1, 2012, but founded in 2010, but no matter, there's still no indication of importance) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for both responses. The issue that I have is with the process. I have no issues with an article being nominated for deletion so that others can weigh in. Here, an editor disagreed with a comment that I wrote and instead of coming to my talk page (which is the first step in the process), he simply started to go through and delete anything that he could within what he probably thinks he can defend. The process A7 is if the claim of credibility is unclear, then it can be improved (which it was not), propose deletion, or list the article at article for deletion. None of these were done, it was just deleted. So, aside from the credibility of the article, I have an issue with the editor as although I will not consider it vandalism (as I think it falls short of the Misplaced Pages definition), the conduct is not appropriate.

As far as claim of importance, there is one for each article. TravelFox is a different kind of travel search engine that uses other travel search sites and not the travel companies (hotels, airlines, etc.) themselves. This is notable to me however, we seem to disagree. This is why the page should have been left and nominated for deletion instead of blanked. For Asia Food Recipe, it is the largest recipe submission site in Asia and also uses YouTube uploads (you should try the site it is actually pretty cool). They also have Asian recipes for diabetics which is soemthign you will not find on other recipe websites. If Asia Food Recipe is deleted because it is not notable, then the following should as well: AfroFoodtv.com Cookin' with Coolio Epicurious FoodPair RecipeBridge Yummly. Some of these articles have NO SOURCES yet they still remain. I pointed this out to JamesBWatson but instead of going to those articles, he decided to delete TravelFox. I would delete the other articles for recipe websites; however, I fear that I would be blamed for vandalism and blocked from Misplaced Pages. All I am saying is that things need to be fair. If Asia Food Recipe is not notable, then neither are the others and they should be nominated for deletion or deleted immediately as TravelFox was.

Finally, sorry to rant. I have been on Misplaced Pages for many years and have made numerous edits and page creations. I now need to delete my "bragging" section on my page in fear of another editor doing what JamesBWatson did for me disagreeing with him. Thank you for taking the time to respond and please consider the other articles listed above as a base for Asia Food Recipe. I looked at all of these prior to creating the article and determined that it was most certainty notable compared to the others that are still on Misplaced Pages. --Morning277 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:otherstuffexists? The "but these pages are here and they're worse" argument is never taken as valid in deletion discussions. When determining the notability of a subject I really recommend that you don't use other pages as examples, as there are plenty of not-very-good Misplaced Pages articles. Regards, Bunnies! Leave a message 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar. What I am trying to say is that I feel that I am a very good contributor to Misplaced Pages. I have reverted countless vandalism and have made may edits and article creations. I would not put something up that I feel did not meet the guidelines. I felt that this article was not only notable but an overall improvement to the category. Thank you for the information. As far as the other articles, can I delete them without being accused of vandalism? --Morning277 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying that you're not a good contributor. I believe that you are, and if others feel that something you created should be deleted then that doesn't make you a bad contributor. People disagree and all that. And yes, you can nominate the other articles for deletion if you think they should be deleted. That's certainly not vandalism. Bunnies! Leave a message 18:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• I have no idea why Morning277 thinks "The page was deleted again within a few minutes": it has been deleted only once. After I deleted it and Morning277 questioned the deletion, I restored it to allow him/her to improve it even though I still thought (and still think now) that it does not satisfy Misplaced Pages's inclusion standards. (Incidentally, the deletion did not take place "within 10 minutes of being marked for speedy deletion", it took place 29 minutes after being tagged: the times were 12:33 and 13:02.) The deletion of TravelFox was not "retaliation just to make a point", but because the article made no claim whatsoever of significance. I wonder what makes Morning277 think it was "retaliation just to make a point". As for "this user refrain from going through my edits just because they disagree", rightly or wrongly the way the Wikimedia foundation runs Misplaced Pages involves entrusting certain editors, called "sysops" or "administrators", to make judgements as to whether pages satisfy Misplaced Pages's speedy deletion criteria. Rightly or wrongly the Misplaced Pages community has decided that I am one of those entrusted with that task. As long as that is so, I will exercise that trust in good faith, to the best of my ability, and the idea that I should abstain from doing so in the case of articles created by one particular editor because he/she disagrees with some of my judgements does not seem to me to be within the spirit of how Wikpedia works. Finally, if there are other articles which you think should be deleted, then please nominate them for deletion. It is unreasonable, however, to criticise another editor for not doing so. There are over three million articles on English Misplaced Pages, and there is a limit to what any one editor can do. It is inevitable that among the millions of useful things I could have done but didn't, there will be some which you think would have been more useful than some of the things I did. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Ultimately, "credible claims of importance" need to turn into evidence of notability (though actual notability doesn't need to be demonstrated to avoid A7), so we're not looking for "I personally think this site is important because it's different from other sites in that it has xxx", what we need is "People out there think it's important, because they've said xxx", or it's featured in mainstream media, or things like that. So ultimately, an article needs evidence that the subject is considered notable by independent parties, and that must be supported by reliable sources. Now, to judge the "importance" needed to avoid A7 speedy deletion, I tend to think along the lines of "Is anything currently in the article likely to be the kind of thing that could ultimately turn into notability as defined by WP:N?" In my opinion, nothing in TravelFox came close. It's a meta-search that uses other searches? That's no big deal - sites have been doing that for years in all sorts of fields. But if you disagree and you believe there is more out there that can at first support a claim of importance, and ultimately show notability from independent reliable sources, an admin can userfy a copy (that is, provide a copy in your user space) for you to work on - ask the deleting admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

One more thought has occurred to me. Morning277, you accuse me of deleting everything you created that I could "within what probably can defend". How does that fit in with the fact that I restored a deleted article to give you a chance to improve it? I suggest you reconsider your view that I am out to get you. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As stated on your talk page, you are an expert contributor. As such, I feel that you know the guidelines of nobility and know the process for when an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability. The first is to contact the article creator or an expert on advice where to look for sources. The second is to use a notability tag. The article could also have been nominated for deletion instead of simply being deleted (I am referring to TravelFox at this point). That is why the immediate deletion of an article that has been online for a month without leaving any comment on my talk page (which I did to yours before coming here and not getting a response) led me to conclude that you were trying to prove a point.

Again........I have no issues with you. What is done is done and it is only wasting time talking about something that obviously will not be undone. I will do what I can to find more sources for TravelFox to show its notability. This may take more time but I will make sure it meets your definition before re posting it (and according to Wiki guidelines, will even let you know before I re post it). I appreciate what you are doing by protecting Misplaced Pages from vandalism, spam, and un-notable articles. I get upset when the process is not followed as I am a good contributor on Misplaced Pages and not someone who is just spamming information. I do give credibility to my edits (even if others do not always agree with them). With that being said, you can close this discussion unless you have something else you want to get in. I will hopefully run into you again in the future under better circumstances. --Morning277 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Morning277, you're really not correct about the process here. If an article doesn't make any credible claims of importance, then it is not required to discuss it with the creator first - we get so many thousands of A7 articles that we'd never have time to deal with them if we did that. And it is not necessary to go to AfD either. If an article on a topic that fits the conditions in A7 does not make a credible claim of importance (and in my view, TravelFox did not), then it is perfectly proper to nominate it for Speedy Deletion, and if an admin reviews the nomination and agrees with it, it is perfectly proper for them to delete it. I understand this is frustrating, but please don't see it as criticism of you. When an article is tagged, you can contested the deletion - but if it is deleted before you get the chance, you can still have a word with the deleting admin and ask if it can be restored, or possibly userfied. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I copmletely agree. I have reverted hundreds of vandalism edits so I understand that there is no time to go through the entire process with every article. The issue here is that the TravelFox article was not tagged. It is important to look at an editors credentials as most A7 articles are created by people who only have minor edits. I am an experienced editor and we simply disagree about the notability. Unfortunately, I am an editor and not an admin so your interpretation is what sticks. I accept that fact. When editing content made by another editor, I always look at their contribution history as their experience also gives weight to the information they edit (this does not mean that it is correct, but it would lead me to contact them as opposed to someone who only has a few minor edits). Again, it is no longer a big deal. I will either find the information (if it is available) or wait for it to become more notable and re-post the articles at a later date when they will meet the requirements. Thanks for the comments. --Morning277 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I should also have said is that is that if an admin sees an article that is a valid A7 candidate, they can actually opt to delete it without tagging it first. But one other thing - I don't get to be right just because I'm an admin, and you have just as much right to opine on policy decisions as I do. Anyway, the first thing to do if you have an article deleted is have a word with the deleting admin - so what I'd suggest is that you just ask if he'll userfy the article for you - then you can try to produce a version that is properly supported etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what you are saying about not getting to be right. I am an attorney by profession (not quite starving yet) and my opinions do not always agree with the judge's opinion (some of my clients will tell you so). That was my point. Although I do not necessarily agree with the notability as discussed, I honor the fact that you and JamesB are admins and that the final say is left to you. As such, I will do what is necessary according to you in order to have the article included. Also, I have a copy of the template that I used to post the original article so I will just use that when it is posted in the future. And yes, I am experienced and know the editing process. Although he probably will not speak with me, I will contact JamesB prior to re posting the article as he is the one who deleted it. Hopefully, it will satisfy his opinion on the notability requirement. If not, I will just keep doing what I have to until it does. Thanks for the advice. --Morning277 (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we put a "resolved" tag on this thing or what??? --Morning277 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Anatomist90 image spam

This user seems to be doing one single thing on Misplaced Pages: Rapid-fire posting of his own photos of cadaver dissections with no regard for policy or guidelines and no communication. Images are usually added to a gallery rather than integrated within the text. There are often minor variations of the same image. Some images are only tangentially related to the article and there is usually only a simple title for a caption rather than an explanation. He has 1,075 live edits after 141 deletions, and a quick scan of his history suggests that nearly all of his edits represent this problem. He has never once edited an article talk page and has made only two edits in user talkspace. He often makes 20-40, sometimes as many as 70 (April 11), of these edits per day, typically with only one or two minutes between each one. He has had numerous warnings and one block related to image posting, with four warnings closely related to the problem I describe here. He has not responded to these warnings, neither by communication nor by change in behavior.--Taylornate (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect to "he has not responded to these warnings". Let look at this one . The user in question has responded here and appears to be a "she" not "he".

A couple of these are not "warning" but rather guidance. This is some advice and looking at one of the pages in question we do need a better image to replace this . The other one starts with "I am very pleased to see you contributing"

The user in question also is from Romania and there might be a bit of a language barrier. I think we need to assume good faith at this point.

I have send the user in question a well deserved barnstar! And will provide a little further guidance. I make at least 70 edits a day. Hardly a judge of a bad editor. In fact if you look at the number of images they have uploaded it is greater than 1000. So they are not adding the same image to every page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: Where is the multiple attempts to discuss this problem with this user that the OP has surely attempted before coming to "the court of last resort"? All I see is one message 7 days ago but no further attempts at resolving this with the user or attempting to get people involved with pictures (or anatomy articles) to help weigh in. Can you go back and try to work with the user? Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto's sock's sock

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

Recently, User:DeFacto's sock User:6 foot 6 was blocked. As stated on the talk page of 6 foot 6, he created a new account, User:6feet6.  megaphone Can someone block 6feet6? Thanks. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done - File an SPI case next time though please. It helps to create a better paper trail. Cheers, Tiptoety 20:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

RFO Backlog?

Hello, I put an RFO request in early this morning and have not gotten a response. It could be that it got lost in the system, but is it possible there is a backlog at RFO? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards