Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) at 05:53, 22 March 2009 (→Issue with Wikimedia software not reporting image use, so don't delete images without checking: seems to have cleared up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Huge copyright mess, redux

Hi. Those of you who saw this ANI conversation already know that we are dealing with possibly about 1,000 copyright violations related to Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 ISBN 0-00-216906-1. I'm quite pleased to say that clean-up is well underway. It's a lot of work, but Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gastropods has rallied around it, and there are contributors to the cleanup from the newly (and just in time) formed Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. The project task force set up for cleaning it (a bit chaotic, which is understandable in the scurry; I think it's astoundingly well organized all things considered) is here.

However, it has just been confirmed at that project taskforce page that the contributor involved, User:GrahamBould, has also introduced infringement from at least one other source. User:Sadalmelik notes here that Blotchy swell shark and Blackspot shark both copy content from fishbase.org, which has a non-commercial cc license and hence is unusable here. (I haven't been able to load the sources personally to verify these articles, both of which are still viewable. It may also impact non-shark articles like Longtail skate, which also cites that website.) That means we go from 1,000 or so articles to, well, I don't know how many. Sadalmelik also notes that User:GrahamBould has created 2,543 articles. We could really use more assistance on this. The articles in Category:Gastropods of New Zealand may be underway, but I do not know the full scope of this problem.

I am concerned that there may be infringement from more sources than are currently identified. For example, in the February 2009 article Phillip Pearsall Carpenter I see piecemeal borrowing from the source, , in a way that gives me great concern. His article says, "He devoted the majority of the remainder of his life to these shells, presenting part of his collection (8,873 specimens), mounted, classified and many described, to the British Museum in 1857." The source says, "He devoted the majority of the remainder of his life to these shells..." "He presented part of his collection (8,873 specimens), mounted, classified and many described, to the British Museum in 1857" (I have not gone over the article line by line to see if infringement is extensive.) I worry that other articles may also contain a pastiche of fragments from copyrighted sources.

I think we need to discuss if and under what circumstances this contributor can be safely allowed to continue. It worries me that he persisted even after offered guidance over a year ago.

I'd also really appreciate feedback on how best to process this. Neither the Gastropod project nor the new Copyright Cleanup project have the manpower to evaluate 2,500 articles. I think the 1,000 they're working on is pretty heroic as it is. Should we delete with extreme prejudice? Provide a bounty for cleanup? Recruit assistance from other projects? How best to proceed? --Moonriddengirl 00:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

He has a list of sources on his userpage. Since he's violated the copyright of two, its safe to assume that he may have done so with others. Avruch 00:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this really a case of a misunderstanding? That appears to be the way the discussion was heading prior to discovering the other instances of copyright violations. If the user genuinely did not understand how copyrights work, and is working with others to correct problems, then I could see a justification for leaving him unblocked. On the other hand, if he had the opportunity to point out that this behavior pattern extended to other sources and did not... That would be active deception, which combined with everything else may mean that an indefinite (re)block is in order. Avruch 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

May I interject this: I was the person who first spotted all this. On February 26th 2008, on his talk page, I clearly told GB about copyrights and copying over a year ago, and gave him a link to the policy page. See User talk:GrahamBould#Doto pita and others or below:

Thanks for your attention on this, best to all, Invertzoo (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And here is GB's reply to me on my talk page, User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 5#Dotidae and Dotoidae where he admits one copying, but fails to answer my question about many other articles and whether there might be copying verbatim from the Powell book and other sources:

Thanks and best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You should indef immediately, and notify the WMF of the issue. Musn't fool around with stuff like this. Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the scope, I'm inclined to think that Looie496 may be right about notifying the WMF.

As regards teh contributor, I think confusion is a possibility, but there is the matter that the copyright policy was pointed out to him in February of 2008, at the bottom of his talk page here, but he persisted. He has expressed remorse over this, here and at my talk page a couple of minutes ago. I believe he may well be sincere. But if he persisted after that February 2008 warning because he didn't understand, how can we know he understands now? If we do not indef block, I wonder if he would benefit from mentorship from someone familiar with his field. I can't undertake that, both because I'm swamped with this cleanup and because I'm already mentoring somebody for just that very concern. It's time consuming, checking for possible infringement.

This is, really, a problem of a much greater magnitude than I've encountered. :/ --Moonriddengirl 01:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It might make sense to move the thousands of articles he created to his userspace temporarily while they are evaluated and cleaned. User:GrahamBould/Copyvio_Check/Article_Name might be a way to go. A bot could presumably scrape his create log and move all the pages. The first priority would be creating clean stubs and moving them back, and then improving the articles themselves over time. Avruch 01:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we'd need the articles subpaged, a list of redirects generated to be deleted by hand, a list of articles moved (perhaps by category or alphabetical? I know they are already being worked alphabetically) and, er, maybe thats it. Avruch 01:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what the Gastropod project has been doing. A good many of those have already been cleaned. I wonder if there's a way to move all of his articles that do not fall into Category:Gastropods of New Zealand. (A few articles from other categories have been cleaned, but not many.) User:Dcoetzee ran a bot to blank the ones in that category, but at some point the bot seems to have malfunctioned, as the later letters do not seem to have been blanked. --Moonriddengirl 01:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, my script had a problem and did not complete tagging of that category; I can fix this and will be careful not to retag ones that have been cleaned up.

Also, at this point, I'm tempted to consider all of this contributor's major prose contributions as suspected copyvios until demonstrated otherwise. My ContributionSurveyor report on GrahamBould points to a number of problem articles (some not even related to biology), such as Battle of Kufra, Maungatautari Restoration Project, and Hubert Scott-Paine. It's also important to keep in mind that not just articles he created are at risk, but any article he made substantial prose contributions to; examples of this include Rhaphidophoridae and Powelliphanta. Dcoetzee 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving them into user space is unnecessary, as I understand User:Dcoetzee can fairly easily blank them in place if necessary. The complete list of articles started by GB can be found here. Some of the have already been fixed (in Category:Molluscs of New Zealand). Other than a couple shark articles, I have not checked anything else. If somebody could do a bit more spot-checking, it would be appriciated --I'm supposed to be at work now :) – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• "That means we go from 1,000 or so articles to, well, I don't know how many." I doubt it is this drastic. A single line copy from fishbase is not really a copyright infringement. It's only the case if extensive sections of text are copied. Citing for example a definition of something can rarely be done in your own words without compromising on proper meaning. Be careful of deleting material that can be saved by rewriting and deleting the copyvio history instead. - Mgm| 12:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you volunteering to help with the fishbase articles, then? :) As I said, I haven't been able to load the source myself, and I'm pretty preoccupied with the molluscs (to wit Special:Contributions/Moonriddengirl) --Moonriddengirl 12:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Why is this person still not blocked? Durova 06:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I had requested that he come here and give us some frank information on how widespread this problem is. Whether his infringement was based on not comprehending copyright laws and policies or something else, his expressions of remorse have seemed sincere, and admitting sources he's copied from would be a big help. However, he hasn't edited since that request. He was blocked earlier, briefly, by another admin, but the same admin unblocked him to allow him to respond to these concerns. As far as future contributions, I don't know if supervision from one of the several project members who have encouraged him to continue editing at his talk page after this event would be sufficient safeguard or not; I would feel very uneasy with his continuing to contribute without close supervision. Since he hasn't been editing either to react to or ignore my request, it's been a lower priority for me. That said, if this conversation heads towards archival without feedback from him, then I think reblocking would be a good idea. There's no harm in waiting, but forgetting could be a different issue. And if somebody wants to take his lack of response here and at the earlier ANI thread as indication that he isn't going to respond, I certainly have no objection to his being blocked before that happens. --Moonriddengirl 12:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Why is an unblock necessary to respond to concerns? That's what user talk access is for. He was confronted with concerns a year ago and kept right on doing it. With a problem as massive as this, shouldn't the onus would be on him to earn back the privilege of editing? Perhaps by assisting with the cleanup. But the problem he's caused here is much more disruptive than the typical things we block for. Durova 15:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • If he continues to add content without responding to the concerns, a block would be appropriate to prevent further copyvio. If he's not editing the mainspace though, there's no immediate concern and a block would be punitive. –xeno (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
        • It might encourage him to take actions that would remedy the existing problem. There's nothing wrong with setting unblock conditions, since a huge amount of copyvio material remains to be cleaned up and he should be expected to help with that cleanup if he wants to edit this site again. To block someone after an edit war has ended would be punitive, since that problem ends when the edit war ends. But the damage here has not been undone. Durova 18:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I just wanted to point out that GB was still editing in mainspace as of yesterday 18th March. At 4:45 on Tuesday March 17th, he actually started a new gastropod (sea slug) article Berthella ornata, and started a new shrimp article Alope spinifrons on that same day. In the sea slug article, there are no long copyings, but the short phrases "Endemic to New Zealand" and "under rocks" are verbatim, if that's relevant. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Oh good grief! There are some phrases that simply cannot be avoided. Any author on the topic will use them, and its not an issue of copyright. See Endemism - endemic has a specific meaning - it is not the same as native, and there is no acceptable synonym. dramatic (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
              • I do understand that. However, he needs to be watched very carefully. The important point is that despite being blocked and then unblocked only so that he could reply to the very serious charges, he is still editing in mainspace (Xeno thought that he wasn't doing this, which is why I pointed it out) and he is creating articles by himself without any supervision, and without being given the OK. Despite being asked to do so twice, he has not come to this noticeboard to answer the very serious charges against him, and he has not agreed to help us by telling us anything about what was copied and what was not copied of his thousands of articles, thus forcing us to scramble to attempt to ascertain this ourselves. I personally don't see very much evidence of remorse, and his history of persevering in the face of having been warned clearly a year ago suggests the intent to deceive. Invertzoo (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Very well said, Invertzoo. Durova 01:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be some form of Wikiprobation where problem editors willing to be reintegrated with society have all their contributions moderated. It would be better than indef-banning someone and then having to watch for new accounts who are suddenly active in the same fields. Anyway, I'm off to reassess all the WPNZ statuses for the mollusc articles, because (on my advice) GB tagged all the more substantial ones as start class. dramatic (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is such a solution, but it hasn't been implemented here. He was unblocked unnecessarily when user talk access would have been adequate. He was not placed under mentorship, not assigned any formal restriction, and has ignored the stated purpose of the unblock while returning to article edits. Meanwhile over a thousand pages of his creation--much of which are probably copyvio--await review. The admin community has not even required that he give any assistance at all to the volunteers who are starting the daunting task of cleaning it up. And in case the weight of this hasn't sunk in, what he's been doing is illegal. He kept on breaking the law for a year after he was asked to discuss it. Something is very wrong with our site culture, when all of that gets a wink and a nod. Durova 02:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can't require that he give us assistance, unfortunately, until the Wikimedia Foundation earns sovereignty. :) There's no winking & nodding on my part, anyway. While I have been extremely busy in the trenches cleaning up after him, I take copyright problems very seriously, and I have been watching for a return to any activity on his part. We have collectively cleaned around 1,000 articles since this was brought to light and are trying to figure out how to handle the next nearly 1,000. Meanwhile, what's really wrong with our site culture, I think, is that so much of this goes undetected. Just yesterday I found another contributor whose entire history seems to have involved violating copyright on Misplaced Pages (see background). I'm kicking myself on that one, because the bulk of his infringement came after the first time I encountered him at WP:CP. If I had followed up on him, I could have stopped him. (I follow up on some, but not most; there are so many. :/ I've given him a block warning, since he had not received one, and will be watching him now. The vast majority of copyright infringers who land at CP get {{Nothanks-web}}, which is a very warm advisory operating on the obvious presumption of error. I've wondered if it should incorporate some of the stronger language at {{Uw-copyright}} to emphasize that this isn't an "Oh, gee" problem, but a serious concern.) Maybe it would be worth talking to WP:NPP about scanning for copyright violations. Given that I have several times recently found DYK articles that infringed; since the hard working contributors at that project evaluate articles, perhaps they could be asked to keep an eye out, too. --Moonriddengirl 12:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We require mentorship as terms of an unblock; we topic ban people as terms of an unblock. In same spirit we could require cleanup assistance as terms of an unblock, for prolific copyright violators. At least to inform other volunteers of the titles, authors, and chapters used. Durova 16:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I would so support that. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'll be explaining this on the policy talk page. Durova 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re-blocked. --Moonriddengirl 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check this out

Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wrote in a number of articles (Francisco Combés, Enrique of Malacca, Carlo Amoretti, First mass in the Philippines, Mazaua and Andrés de San Martín) that have improper refs and have not addressed various tags slapped on them. One editor has tried to talk to him about NOR, without much success. Please assist, especially those from wikiproject history. thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to edit Mazaua, but accomplished nothing. I was going around in circles trying to clean it up and getting nowhere. It would have to be rewritten from scratch. The text there does not appear to be salvageable. Enigma 03:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you recommending rewrite tags on one or all of them?--Eaglestorm (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. They aren't even close to becoming articles of passable quality. Enigma 06:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Before and After > I just improved the Mazaua article. Take a look and let me know what you all think. I got to tell you, it looks way better than it did before.--Michael (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

AFTER is more pleasing to the eye, at least all the URLs are not mixed with the finished text. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, If you need me to fix any other articles. Just let me know.--Michael (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice job. The other articles listed at the beginning of this thread could use some fixing too... - Biruitorul 18:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing Speedy rationale

Bolwar Mahamad Kunhi has been tagged for speedy as WP:NN. While I believe that issue is arguable, the real problem is that the article is a copyvio of this (see page 2 of 11). As a rule, I won't challenge a copyvio. What is the process for this? Can I replace the tag with a {{db-copyvio}}, or does that gum up the works? TIA 74.69.39.11 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're concerned about removing the notability tag, you can always just add db-copyvio without removing the other one. There's nothing inappropriate about having two speedy tags on an article — maybe it will lead to deleting it twice as fast. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The abuse filter will probably prevent you from removing it even if you add a new one, so just add the db-copyvio as suggested by David. –xeno (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed to G12 tag. Remember A7 is about assertion of importance not notability. Read the criteria. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, in the future will just add a db-copyvio tag. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, the abuse filter will not block changing a deletion tag, only removing it. Prodego 17:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

gotcha. (it's been set back to warn anyway) –xeno (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If the abuse filter is blocking editors from removing speedy deletion tags, then I think it's misconfigured. I put a heck of a lot of speedy tags on articles and as I understand the process, the creator of an article may not remove a speedy tag, but anyone else can. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't stopping established editors, and it's been downgraded to warn-only now anyways. –xeno (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Miguel Andres Matienzo Guerra Prod

Sorry to bother everyone with this one, but it's another protocol issue I'm curious about. The referenced article has been prod'd (though speedy is far more appropriate). The interesting thing is, the article has been so heavily and consistently vandalized over the past two years, it bears almost no resemblance to the original content (a link can be seen on the article's talk page). However, the original article should be speedied. Should the article be reverted back through almost two years worth of vandalism to an article that still should be tagged for a speedy (and is a pure vanity piece anyway), or should a {{db}} just be placed over the top as is? My biggest concern with that, which is admittedly just a matter of procedure, is that the article would be deleted for the wrong reasons. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I restored an unvandalized version of the article from 21 November 2008. Take a look at this version and see if you want to apply PROD or a speedy tag. I will notify User:Angelo.romano who left the PROD. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

unblock template

Is there someone who can help me to find the right template to put on the userpage of this user User talk:Redriderrebel88 whom I have blocked indefinitely for vile racist vandalism, and whose userpage I have protected for more of the same. I think there is something somewhere about who to email, but I haven't been able to find it. Not that s/he deserves it. Thanks for your help. --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. If they seriously want to edit constructively (which, on the face of it, is doubtful), they can start a new account. Personally, I wouldn't want to be associated with those edits. Classic WP:RBI. --Rodhullandemu 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This confirms my opinion. I'll just leave it be unless anybody cares to act differently --Slp1 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember you can just reblock without talk page access instead of protecting the page. And details about emails and stuff are all here--Jac16888 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg

Someone (I think I Know Who) has created this duplicate page yet again and it's just getting stupid now. Is it possible for somone (you maybe?) to lock this? http://en.wikipedia.org/Rhydfelen and prehaps http://en.wikipedia.org/Ysgol_Gyfun_Rhydfelen (not the article it re-directs to) as a precaution. Thanks a bunch --Glenny127 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored Rhydfelen to redirect to YGGO for now. Please let us know once the name change has been confirmed. If I remember correctly there is a meeting in the next few days to determine the official name. Once that meeting happens, please let us know the resolved name and that should be the article title. Valley2city 04:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Image overwritten; how to revert?

How does one deal with the mischievous (malicious? ignorant?) overwriting of an image? diff

• Original image:
• Current image: , which is identical to File:Pandora Moon.jpg
• User: Dannyboybaby1234 (talk · contribs)

Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the image by using the "revert" link in the file history portion of the page. In the future (I'm fairly certain that all users can use this link), you can use this link, as well. I will also be deleting the improper image uploads (Pandora Moon.jpg doesn't have any fair use stuff).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add a redirect from "Tam Valley" to Tamalpais-Homestead Valley"

Locals use "Tam Valley" when referring to this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessiehdc (talk • contribs) 06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected Tam Valley to Tamalpais-Homestead Valley, California. In future, you may want to post requests like these at the Help Desk, as no administrator involvement is needed. Regards, Skomorokh 06:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlogged

please help Enigma 07:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I need some assistance

After recently dealing with DreamGuy in another page (and a fairly long and unpleasant history elsewhere in the wiki), I am coming here first. In Dan Schlund, the result of a few AfD's found first keep, and then no consensus. Despite this, a few editors (read: approximately two) have been trying to end-run the decision to keep by consistently redirecting the article to jet pack. Now, maybe I am mistaken - I often am - but I am not sure that people (even Californians) are jet packs. I am pretty sure that DreamGuy (and the other editor) are aware that humans aren't jetpacks, either. This has been pointed out within article discussion repeatedly, and yet DreamGuy (and another) keep redirecting the article. I have no real interest in the article (though the idea of flying a jetpack sounds pretty freakin' awesome), but I am concerned that two editors are taking it upon themselves to game the system to neutralize the effect of two different AfDs which decided to keep the article. I think that most redirects are done in good faith, but this one seeks to conceal the article in a nonsensical way.
Due to my often contentious contact with this editor, I would appreciate some guidance on how to approach this problem and this article, as any contact with this editor often devolves into being called a wiki-hound who "blind-reverts" and "OWNs" the article. I'd really like, just once, to have a conversation with him that doesn't turn into a rant by him. Help, please. - Arcayne () 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The essence of dispute resolution is getting input from the wider community. Archived AfD discussions are a good record of community consensus (or indeed lack of consensus). Although "delete & redirect" is always an option at AfD, the only editor I see suggesting that is the nominator at the second AfD, and there is certainly no consensus to do so. I can only suggest that all editors involved try further dispute resolution steps and try hard to assume good faith of others. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some WP:OWN issues to me. He redirected, you reverted. Fine that far. If he redirects again, he is being disruptive and he probably knows that (see WP:BRD). Seeing that the last AFD was without consensus, I'd suggest a RFC on the issue. SoWhy 15:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Sheffield, i should have noted that DG has redirected the article X times (before Philippe dispute-locked the article: 1, 2, 3 and after Phillipe removed the dispute-lock on the article: 4,5). I think I am not the only person who has found DG unwilling to work politely and professionally with others (which is why I have some history with him; I tend to react poorly to personal attacks). I am seeking a handle on how to interact with him that doesn't get him (or myself) in hot water; being under ArbCom civility parole, he has a lot more to lose than me. I personally don't like the guy, but I am not seeking his head on a pike. I just don't want to be relentlessly attacked again. I've left articles because of him, and know of at least two noobs who left the Project because of his tendentious behavior.

I am not sure that he will abide by the RfC, as he hasn't been willing to note the prior AfD's. If you folk genuinely feel this will work, I will try it, but I would like to confirm that this is the right approach. - Arcayne () 16:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth my experiences with Arcayne have shown him to be exceedingly difficult to deal with in any reasonable manner whatsoever. It doesn't surprise me that he has so many issues with so many editors. Erikeltic (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why so many people here assume that the person who reports an edit war is in the clear (not necessarily happening this time, but I've seen it in the past). Arcayne has a long history of edit warring and blind reverting -- in fact he has for years now following me to articles he's never looked at before solely to revert whatever I did. Arcayne not only has WP:OWN issues (he has pretty much single handedly blocked ALL edits I ever make to Jack the Ripper, regardless of how noncontroversial they are), he has WP:HOUND issues, and this report is just the latest in a long, long line of attempts to provoke controversy with me in the hopes that he can run off here to make a one-sided, deceptive complaint and get someone to take the bait and act upon it without checking into it first.

Current discussion on the talk page of Dan Schlund shows more people support a redirect that support keeping the article as is. The only reason it is currently an article at all is that some people who refused to accept that edit warred to have their way and happened to end up having that version there when the article was protected. I maintain that if there is no consensus that the version that should stay is the one that has MORE support, not the one that has less. This whole thing seems to be just a crass attempt to game the system to get their own way despite not having consensus and not having sources that meet WP:NOTABILITY standards. I specifically discussed the issue on the talk page and did not revert immediately after protection was lifted, but I wholly reject the article being held hostage by the people who do not even have simple majority, let alone consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. This is sorta what I was talking about. Note that precisely the sorts of comments I said would occur, are occurring. Again, the logic is inescapable: Dan Schlund is not in fact a jetpack. He has a single notation in the article being redirected to. Let me play it out for everyone, as I see the likely tactic here:

1. The editor sets a redirect for Dan Schlund to Jet Pack.
2. The editor would then remove the linking of the name in the Jet Pack article (calling it circular linking), thus removing the existence of the independent (and cited) article.
3. The editor then calls for yet another AfD, citing the fact that the article isn't being read (due to the redirect).

All in all, its a fairly simple and elegant plan, except for the fact that its one or two editors determining that they are smarter than the consensus (as created by two independent AfDs), and last time I checked, we don't work that way..

I have little desire to be drawn into responding to DG's inciting remarks. I've kinda said what I needed to. Unless DG is up to participate in an RfC, I don't really want to talk to him. - Arcayne () 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would note that I did not participate in either AfD; as I said, my involvement if only in regards to what seems a less than genuine tactic. - Arcayne () 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so you invent up this wild scenario in your head, have no evidence anyone plans on doing anything of the sort, no examples of me ever doing such a thing, and use that assumption of bad faith as an excuse to enter into an edit war with someone you have a long history of baiting and filing bogus reports on? Wow, just wow. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The last AFD was a month ago. Nominate it again. Arguing that you think the first admin was wrong on the AFD and that the second no consensus should somehow total into a delete is ridiculous. I don't think it's notable at all but at least list it and get it over with. If the decision was wrong, nominate it again and get a clear consensus. It really shouldn't be that hard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, everyone, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dan Schlund (3rd nomination) is there. Go for it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am hoping it curbs the behavior, but I have my doubts. - Arcayne () 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A redirect is not the same as a delete. A no consensus vote in an AFD in no way means you can't redirect it, especially when more people are in favor of the redirect than opposed. But thanks for the relist if you'd rather participate there than on the talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not but you weren't merging all the information in the redirect, so there is a clear difference. An article on all people who use jet packs or something I'd be more sympathetic to but either way, an AFD should at least help settle things or just move on. It's not the worst article out there that's bizarrely survived AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that DreamGuy's behavior in this matter is disruptive and uncivil. Compared to most of the BLPs I've checked out lately, this one is policy-compliant and no worse than harmless. Raising this big a stink because his view did not achieve consensus is detrimental to Misplaced Pages, and does more damage than allowing borderline-notable articles (if it is that bad) to stand. I find him very rude and uncivil. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're aware of Arcayne and DreamGuy's long running conflicts. Arcayne has a habit of appointing himself law enforcement and neighborhood tattler over a number of editors. He's public asbout his actions in this regard to DG, and to me as well, and we're not the only ones. Arcayne finds things HE thinks are problems, provokes a bit more, gets something he can say was a reaction that concerns him, then runs to report it. Hilarity does not ensue, Drama slightly more so. Looks like the AfD should sort this out, and since it doesn't look like excessive edit reverting or any warring went on, it's just another scene in the drama. ThuranX (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you had taken the chance to read the original post in this thread (canvassed as you likely were), but I had actually pointed this out quote clearly" "Due to my often contentious contact with this editor, I would appreciate some guidance on how to approach this problem and this article, as any contact with this editor often devolves into being called a wiki-hound who "blind-reverts" and "OWNs" the article. I'd really like, just once, to have a conversation with him that doesn't turn into a rant by him." Had you taken the time to read it a smidge closer, you'd have seen that I was asking for help in dealing with an editor with whom I've collided with before. Now, aside from having been blocked for your own actions at my reporting, do you actually have something substantial to add - I mean, aside from your own animosity? Frankly, for someone who's claimed to want to cross the street to avoid me, you seem to keep popping up. Hmmm. - Arcayne () 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

More to directly address this specific complaint, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's actions on this AFD fall way short of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and include some statements that are simply outright false in an attempt to sway other editors' opinions. I don't know if he didn't bother to look into it beyond a quick glance or what exactly the cause is for the inaccurate claims, but he's certainly not in any position to complain about anyone else's behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe start a thread elsewhere about that. This isn't really addressing that. - Arcayne () 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds really familiar. It's comforting somehow to know that others have had to deal with this stuff from Arcayne too. Erikeltic (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? You've been called on something you've done wrong, too? Oh that's right, a sock/meat-puppetry investigation, and your own problems with incivility. Is there a reason you are stalking my edits, Erikeltic? Without a proven (ie, administrative) reason, that's fairly uncivil. You should go away. - Arcayne () 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yamanam consistent vandalism

Yamanam, you've removed six sources and reverted 3+ paragraphs of information. You justify the reverts with "as per talk", but you gave no user a chance to respond. You have a lenghty history in eliminating "POV-pushing" (emphasize on the quotes), such as unnecessary AFDs at Antisemitic incidents during the 2008-2009 Israeli-Gaza conflict, changing the title of reprisal attacks 2+ times to blatantly POV, and I'm pretty sure you've been blocked a couple of times. I honestly don't have the time to repaste every vandalized edit on the article but I plan on posting what you did at Administrator noticeboard. You've been warned before. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Update Yeah this was meant to be on User:Yamanam talk. Anyways, since it's already here I don't really feel like posting a lengthy rationale for my complaint. The evidence speaks for it yourself, these kind of users cannot be changed. Many users have worked hard on the article and he tore it all down in the name of "POV." Is there away you can reverse all of his edits or a quick fix? I really, really, really don't feel like copy/paste for 2 hours. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is soooo obvious that Yamanam is not vandalising. Here are my finding on his edits:

• Yamanam is in the right, he corrected the number to 6 which is what the source says The person who originally placed 19 should be warned for deception.

• Another good faith correction by Yamanam, he corrected the number as per source, one source says more than 60 were shot and the other source says 35 were shot in the leg. The third wasn't working for him as indicated in his next summary so it is still a good faith edit. Yamanam is also right that there is no mention of blindness in any of the sources Again, he removed another sneaky vandalism.

• Another good edit by Yamanam, he removed the source that says 35 were shot, the source is indeed not necessary as it contradicts other sources used for the same line

• This is a content dispute and Yamanam provides his rationale on talk page, I don't see vandalism here.

As much as I would like to take this opportunity to discuss wikifan's editing skills, I am going to refrain for the time being. All I have to say is Wikifan rarely does crosschecking and he is quick to make accusations. I have taken the time to crosscheck yamanam's edits and if I was found to be wrong, then please accept it as a mistake. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, Yam was nearly banned from changing the title of the article 4 times to 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks against traitors, Hamas termination of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict's spies (twice), and Hamas’ termination of spies active during the 2008-2009 Gazan-Israeli conflict. Good faith should have been dismissed by now. His rationale for the vandalism speak for itself: . He points out x problem, reverts it 5 seconds later according to "per talk." I'm looking through his edits and they don't ADD UP. In one example he says a source is POV because it was "describing Hamas to be a "radical Islamist movement." Also, fal, you've been wikihounding me day and night at 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict which I truly couldn't care less about, but please don't stonewall this. Yamanam shat on this article, plain and simple. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Again typical behavior from wikifan12345, doesn't care to crosscheck and argues for the sake of arguing (also places dubious information in articles and restores copyvio text when told not to). I think many people who have watched this board and incidents board are familiar with wikifan12345 , they will be the best judge here.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael93555 (talk · contribs) restored sneaky vandalism by reverting all of Yamamam's edits stating, "I have taken the time to crosscheck yamanam's edits and i think a administrator needs to reverse all of his edits." Very suspicious since he uses my wording, and I doubt he really did any crosschecking. BTW, Michael created his account just 8 days ago and already he is participating on the admin noticeboard. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First, in my defence, I agree on Falastine fee Qalby's responses on my behalf, I don't think I would be able to put in in a better way than he did. So please consider Falastine fee Qalby's responses here to be mine.

Now concerning Wikifan, please note the following:

• • he gave me this bad link to misguide me and if it wasn't for Falastine fee Qalby's remark here I wouldn't know about this thread - So speaking of bad faith, I am afraid this is worse than all wikifan's false allegations against me.
  • here he undid Nabeelzy's revision without taking the time to crossexamine whether the version is correct or not (which wsa my version)
  • here he admitted that the sources are using differnet numbers than the one in the article, and he is claiming that someone has changed the source, nevertheless, he came here and posted his thread against me knowing that he might be mistaken.
  • here he removed this sentence "He was convicted of helping Israel kill four Fatah activists in Rafah" to support his POV that says Hamas is a terrorist organization and he is trying to eliminate any fact that might discredited his POV.
  • here he is claiming that this reprisal attacks resulted in the killing of 400 Fatah activist, which is totally incorrect.
  • I can't understand why did he make this edit twice here and I'll leave to you to know why, I'll keep my opinion to myself.
  • here as you can see the article said 18, and he changed it to 19 and the source says 6!! What would you call that.
  • this edit, I am not sure, where from did he get "encouraged and supported" the attack, I couldn't find it in the source.
  • here this is irrelevant to the subject matter, but I am afraid is relevant to his POV, Hamas is bad that is.
  • why is this considered by wikifan as vandalism? although it reflects the sources, maybe once again because it is against his POV.
  • here he is asserting that 50 were killed, although the source it self says may have been executed.

I am sure the list goes on and on, but I don't want to much of your time. Wikifan, I am afrain it is constant vandalism from your side, and I wish the admin will act upon it. Yamanam (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, this is not the place Yam. You have a dispute make your own section. One of the sources said 400+ were killed, however the language was actually referring the Hamas/Fatah battle a couple of years ago. The article didn't make that explicitly clear and during that time there weren't many sources to verify # casualties. Falastine, you didn't respond to what I said. I don't care about your opinion, really I don't. I'm saying this so you can end the baiting, because you won't get a response. :D Yam, disputes such as these must be made in the talk section. It is clear your reasoning is flawed and based on POV-pushing. You have a lengthy history of removing cited information, claiming to follow the process (i.e, per talk) but instead go your own way according to a partisan agenda. Here, check the history: 2 other editors removed Yam's vandalism. this isn't a POV fued, Yam is a textbook vandal trying to dig his way out of a hole. Please end this before the article becomes yet another Israel/Pal battleground. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This just in: here he is removing a sentence from the lead that all sources agree on it. and here deleted 60-75 (that was added by me), and kept only 75 were injured, please note that 2 of the used sources say 60 and only one says 75. Now who is making vandalised edits, me or him. Yamanam (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan stop making false allegations, if you have diffs to support your false claims against me, then please be my guest and present them, otherwise, stop whatever you are doing. Yamanam (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter

Now that the Abuse Filter is active, we've created a page for new filter requests. Also, it would be helpful is someone would post at Misplaced Pages talk:Abuse filter if there is a major vandal attack affecting many pages, so we can consider if there is something that can be done to stop, limit, and/or prevent similar future attacks. (During yesterday's page move spree the filter stopped 17 bad move requests, and we are working on improving that efficiency.) Dragons flight (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

IP editors on Maltese People

This may be preemptive, but since Maltese people got unprotected there's been IP activity over the same issue that got the article protected. I've suggested things get discussed in the talk page: IP edits are strikingly similar in content and tone. Other than request discussion on the talk page is there anything I should be doing? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading messages its left on talkpages, seems fairly certain this is the same anon. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Say hello to this guy. I used to ask Alison for help when I spotted him but sadly she's gone now. The only effective remedy is semi-protection since the ranges he edits from are too big to block for any significant amount of time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. I thought something odd was going on. I've made a request for semi-protect. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Also, it's useless to argue with him. That's one of the reasons he's banned here and on Simple. The best strategy is to just wait for an admin to semi-protect the article and talk page and then revert his edits. The kid is beyond reach, you can't reason with him. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame he brings that attitude to Misplaced Pages. I've requested semi-protect & told him I wont discuss the issue without admin intervention, but admins seem busy. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month. It should do for now. --Tone 14:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

This is also at WP:BLP/N, but User:Carolmooredc keeps adding the {{BLPdispute}} tag, but refuses to identify any poorly referenced sources that would justify the tag; she is also making statements on the border of legal threats. I have scoured the article of anti-Atzmon WP:PRIMARY materials, and even some reliably sourced material that Moore complained about (shrinking the article by 30% in the process, while adding several sources), but she seems to want the article entirely sanitized of anything that would mention Atzmon's antisemitism. Additional eyes appreciated. THF (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

i dont see the threat. the editor is saying that atzmon is litigious, not herself. not properly attributing a designator that the subject of the article does not self-identify with is in violation of BLP. this article has turned into an attack page, as i have noted in the new section on the talk page. untwirl(talk) 17:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll

The above link leads to a community poll regarding date linking on Misplaced Pages. The poll has not yet opened, but the community is invited to review the format and make suggestions/comments on the talk page. We need as many neutral comments as we can get so the poll runs as smoothly as possible and is able to give a good idea of the communities expectations regarding date linking on the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Persistent "Filibustering" of List of X-American sourcing

I have waited nearly 6 months hoping that the problem would work itself out without a revert war, and instead, it has just worsened. I think a rigid admin intervention is necessary to finally get these lists into shape.

User:Badagnani and User:Hmains persistently prevent the removal of inappropriate, unsourced, or incorrectly-sourced names on List of X Americans... making up their own definition of X Americans which includes anyone with X ancestry, regardless of any reputable source recognition.

Take a look at the recent history of List of Hungarian Americans:

Even when another user spots a problem with listing a British individual as Hungarian American because of a Hungarian relative, he is reverted on the spot:

This means that Joaquin Phoenix is on the same list as Bela Lugosi, because Joaquin's grandma had apparently some Hungarian ancestry. Bulldog 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani continues to use aggressive WP:OWNish tactics on List of X Americans. Some wiki-stalking going on too.

Nearly all of all names on the lists are without source, many of which because THERE IS NO SOURCE calling them Hungarian American. I had attempted to remove all such names with the intention that if a source can be found explicitly saying this, they can, of course, be re-added.

Use:Badagnani filibusters the attempts at cleaning up the lists by constantly asking for consensus or 'discussion' but NEVER participating in consensus-finding or discussion. See Talk:List_of_Hungarian_Americans for example. He merely reverts on the spot with comments such as 'massive blanking' or (in the past) 'vandalism/trolling'. The same can be said of Hmains, though he is less aggressive. Bulldog 20:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to push this off on someone else, but you may get a better response at The Reliable Source Noticeboard which does specialize in analyzing and dealing with referencing and sourcing issues. Users that patrol that noticeboard have a special aptitude and interest in dealing with these issues... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll move it. Should I remove it from here then? Bulldog 21:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing at List of common misconceptions

The entry immediately above this put me in mind of a dispute i'm in, so posting here. I have no problem with "filibustering" or complaints about other editors (there are editors I disagree with, but their behavior is not a problem). The minor dispute at the moment (minor because i'm not deleting anything) has to do with this list. Many/most of the listed items there have no reliable sources establishing that they are in fact "common misconceptions" (or any words that would generally be accepted to equal the same thing). This article is currently at AfD, and I am among those arguing it should be deleted (meta reason: don't believe "common misconception" is definable in the limited, specfic sense true categories would require). But if the article survives, i believe strongly that our standards for reliable sourcing should be enforced. The feelings of one, some or even many editors on wikipedia that something is a "common misconception" are insufficient to over-ride standards of verifiability, sourcing and notability. I'm just asking for more eyes and advice. Were i to unilaterally impose these standards (i know we're not supposed to do anything unilaterally) we would quickly be in an edit war.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If its at AFD, then that discussion probably takes primacy over anything here. There does not appear to be anything here for admins to do. Please let the AFD run its course, trust the admin who closes it to make a well thought-out decision on how to interpret consensus, and continue to discuss the matter at the talk pages of the policy and guideline pages you cite. Again, this may be an important issue, but this noticeboard is limited to issues that need admins to deal with. I don't see where a protection, a block, or a deletion is imperitive here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you advise me to unilaterally removed unsourced material? This would not be well received. I don't want sanctions, or protection, or the whole article to have something done to it. I'm seeking assistance in enforcing standards of inclusion (the AfD i agree will determine whether the article persists or not; but it should be improved in the interim, and after if it survives). Bali ultimate (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• A collection of random badly-sourced trivia spammed with Keeps and tagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron? Blimey, that's never happened before. Black Kite 21:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• This of course is not an admin issue, but more eyes are certainly welcome, both at the AfD and in helping to improve the article itself. I'm all for improving the sourcing of the article, which will benefit from additional scrutiny. The issue of what can accurately be called a "common misconception" can also be solved through improved sourcing. Bali ultimate is thankfully aware that nothing should be deleted simply on the basis that it is unsourced (BLPs being a notable exception).--Father Goose (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• No, don't unilaterally remove entries, move them to the talk page of the article for people to reference. That way nothing is lost but sourcing is still enforced. - Mgm| 22:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a clarification -- I believe almost everything that is unsourced should be deleted (BLP's are simply more urgent). The presence of unsourced content degrades the encyclopedia (by creating the impression wikipedia does not enforce basic standards). However, i'm well aware that edit warring to get that done is inappropriate (if i thought moves to the talk page would also not be reverted, i would do that of course).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This might be better as a category than as a list. --John Nagle (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

SPAs at AfD

Could an uninvolved administrator please look over Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apostolic Johannite Church. The discussion is dominated by new single purpose accounts and previously dormant accounts. There also are signs of off-wiki canvassing here and on a private Gnosticism mailing list. Thank you! --Vassyana (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• If I read the discussion correctly, only the nominator and one other commenter gave solid reasons. That is too little for consensus making and the sockpuppetry may well have scared off other commenters. I'd prefer to see the discussion extended. - Mgm| 21:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Community ban on Fila3466757

NOTICE: I originally made this post at ANI, but I transferred it to here for visibility. ANI also seemed to be the wrong venue. →Dyl@n620 22:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been an unusually large amount of site bans lately (Abbarocks, Bloomfield, TheJazzFan, RMHED, Tigeroo), so while I'm still spending a bit of my time today working with WP:LOBU, I'd like to recommend one myself.
Fila3466757 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in February 2008 (over a year ago) per the findings at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fila3466757 (2nd) and a previous SSP case after incivility, sockpuppetry, and other disruption. Since then, he has amassed some 45 confirmed or suspected sockpuppets, most recently Filper01 (talk · contribs · block log) (as well as a series of related names), Okay15 (talk · contribs · block log), Ciaran1534 (talk · contribs · block log), and 45ODY (talk · contribs · block log); see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/78.144.172.188 for further information. (Yeah, I know this is a LOT of links, but bear with me here. :))

As Tharnton345 (talk • contribs), Fila got sitebanned from the Simple English Misplaced Pages back in early February for absurd levels of immature disruption (discussion here). I saw through one of his contributions that he admitted to being a sock of Fila here on en. Just recently, I looked further into the situation and studied Fila's disruption myself. The links I have provided amass dozens of diffs combined, so you all have plenty of evidence of Fila's long-term abuse.

Yeah, all I'm probably doing is asking for de facto to be changed to de jure, but we need to find a way to tell Fila that he can't just come back and disrupt WP whenever he feels like it. His recent socking is the last straw, IMO. For long-term sock abuse and (cross-wiki) disruption, I wish for a community ban on Fila3466757. Here goes nothing. <butterflies...> →Dyl@n620 21:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why it needs to be underlined and officially stamped; a ban can be de facto if it is an indefinite block that no admin is prepared to overturn. The only outcome of advertising this is for that one (or more) sysop to make it known that they are prepared to do so... However, as it is here Support ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was requesting to turn de facto into de jure. It happened just recently to RMHED (talk · contribs · block log). Oh, and endorse ban as the user proposing it. →Dyl@n620 02:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• I went ahead and added the template to his userpage, and added his name to the list. He's been blocked indef. and is still abusing accounts, so I doubt any administrator is going to unblock anytime in the near future. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• The templating Fila is reasonable, but I don't think "abusing multiple accounts" is exactly a valid reason to add him to the list. Dozens upon dozens of users get blocked for that. Besides, I think it would be best to give the date of the actual ban (perhaps today, March 22, 2009?), rather than the day of the block. Besides, I'd like to see the entry be given more detail. →Dyl@n620 04:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• No point. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and so the distinction between defacto bans and dejure bans is entirely moot. No admin would unblock a recividist, unrepentant, disruptive sockpuppeteer, and as such this discussion is merely flogging the deceased pony. He's gone, and there doesn't need to be a lengthy discussion to confirm that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluedogtn versus Tennis expert!

Tennis expert is trying to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, which I am not because I have tried in good faith to get it out their I have multiple user accounts and s/he keeps on removing them. Tennis expert does take Ip address that are harsh about his edits and attributes them falsly to me, which I am not using them. The only Ip address that I have ever owned is User talk:69.247.19.250, and not these

04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.231.58.8 ‎

04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.103.79 ‎

04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.201.186.107 ‎

04:21, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.58.128.61 ‎

04:21, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.99.162 ‎

04:20, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.99.162 ‎ (Undid revision 275673778 by 76.16.99.162 (talk))

04:20, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.29.32.11 ‎

04:18, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎

04:17, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎

04:17, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎ _BLuE 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Assigning abusefilter-modify to non admins

A discussion is (hopefully) taking place here. Your input is greatly appreciated. — Jake Wartenberg 05:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue with Wikimedia software not reporting image use, so don't delete images without checking

In TV Tokyo, you can clearly see File:Tv-tokyo-logo.png being used (I clicked the image to make sure I was viewing the right image page), but the "File links" section on that image page is blank. So, it appears something weird is happening and we need to be careful about deleting images which are allegedly not being used. ···日本穣 05:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue seems to have cleared itself up now. It was happening for over 10 minutes, even after clearing cache files. ···日本穣 05:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards