Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:28, 26 March 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Disruptions, deliberate

Disruptions at an ongoing mediation by User:B3430715: and . I request a review of this and advice on next step. Several of us are perplexed by the weird disruptions caused by this user. The user has a very short history of disruptive editing. The links will also show my warnings to the editor.—Djathinkimacowboy 21:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really responsive, but there's something disturbing about a Misplaced Pages editor having a huge image saying "Fuck copyright" () on his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I noted that also, Bbb23. My personal wish is that he weren't so (apparently) bad at English. If you notice, his fluency does seem to fluctuate. But he certainly knows what he's doing with his disruptions.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The latest weirdness may be seen here:. Can't say if this is deliberate or if he really does not comprehend. A brilliant strategy, if that's what it is, though.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

He strikes me as a troll. Have you asked the mediator to step in?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this you must see. No, Bbb, the mediator doesn't even seem to reply to MedCab itself regarding vital issues, so ... but I did advise her of this. And I agree imho, I think he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what he's doing when he's not at the mediation cabal. I found this one really weird. He doesn't seem to like the movie as he removed a link to it from another article. Another weird edit related to the movie: . Oh, a heads up to any admins watching this topic, B3 removes warnings from his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For all the world it looks as if he's just whipping about with the intent to troll. There's no other explanation. He's keeping off here - I trust you took a gander at his reply to this ANI on his talk page! I'll try to see how far back he goes ... I am under the impression he's very new. Yet his disruptive edits go back a ways on the Columbo artilce.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What seems recommended, aside from the diffs I have provided so far, is a look at his contribs. If anyone wants it, I'll find all of his disruptive edits as they pertain to my issue. One thing I noticed way back is that he 'does his rounds', and as I said, his disruptions are sometimes weirdly subtle.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with him dates back to around 22 February. All of this from the editor's talk page: personal attack. I warned him about this. Second weird personal attack after deleting my warning. My next warning. His next personal attack. Here he thinks he's deleted the evidence. This was his invitation to sign up to participate in the ongoing MedCab. The following are the diffs from Columbo and from the article's talk page (please note the edit summaries whenever there are any): the first edit to the article, innocent enough. That proves he knows how to edit properly and within rules. But then there's these two edits. Clearly off his rails. Though I am repeating this, I draw to your attention his edit warring here (which also shows a correction I have had to make twice now thanks to him) Note the reversion, for no good reason. I leave you with his blatant edit warring in the removal of the RfC I had there a while back (he removed that tag repeatedly):.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

May I add: here I apprised my fellow editor who's with me at mediation about this trouble as well.—Djathinkimacowboy 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his entire history, but I don't think his "stupid people" ES is any more of a personal attack than you calling his answers schizophrenic, or telling him "... and learn better grammar while you're at it". I can quite understand that you're irritated by the guy, Djathink, but in terms of the shades-of-grey area between attack and not-attack, I don't see that you're actually that far apart from each other. Try toning it down with him a few (several?) notches, and see if setting a better example to him might make him more inclined to communicate more peacefully. Pesky (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation has failed, and the disruption is not clear-cut enough to warrant any immediate admin action here. Hence, you need to request arbitration, in which case the Arbitration Committee will look at the evidence and likely issue admonishments, topic bans, and even complete site bans, depending on the severity of the situation given. --MuZemike 07:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit: hardly an improvement, IMHO. Muddying the water. A slight competence issue, perhaps? 114 total edits. Wow. Hey: this is not a personal attack, folks. This is Columbo we're talking about, here. Can old dogs learn new tricks? We'll be monitoring... Doc talk 08:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to show this as an example of how this editor can edit properly, and knows what he's doing. Of course it is also proof that his English is really much better than he usually pretends. Reply to Pesky: Have you looked at the disruptive editing I showed from the mediation that he's done? And also from his talk page? When I responded angrily to him it was because he was just trolling about and sticking his tongue out - do you see him replying here? He's been responding on his talk page. This was enough trouble. I don't see what arbitration is going to do, except perhaps send me back here.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Here, an extremely recent edit, he is asked why he placed an image of a copyrighted DVD cover in place of an old image. Note his reply in edit summary, and his insistence on using schizophrenic reasoning when he does reply to other editors. So, he adds what is likely a copyvio and says it is because 'People love color photo ... ' This is but a taste of the insanity this editor brings, to disrupt articles. In one or two new edit summaries, he is asking what the Columbo catchphrases have to do with ANI. This user is a troll. I am beginning to expect him to be treated as one; why is it that we're supposed to try to charm him into behaving?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Query: I'd like to know why this issue is being ignored here. The issue as I tried so hard to explain clearly is the following, about the editor in question:

1. After editing normally for a good while at Columbo, he suddenly became a little belligerent.
2. We either worked with him or ignored him until he became a bit offensive.
3. When I approached him politely on his talk, he attacked me.
4. When I warned him about this, he attacked again.
5. Recently in the Columbo mediation, he altered at least one of my posts, and injected disruptive, weird posts in odd places.
6. He was warned about this in about the same way as you see above.
7. He disrupted the mediation again, all the while his English getting 'worse' and 'worse'.
8. He responded to this ANI on his talk page with strange ramblings and began mentioning the ANI in his edit summaries.

I don't understand what more you guys needs to give me a perspective on this. It certainly does not help to say to go to arbitration - so this troll can laugh at us some more?—Djathinkimacowboy 00:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on a reading of Talk:Columbo#Lead image: WP:COPYVIO problem, there could be a compromise about the DVD cover. The above discussion shows that no admin is prepared to issue a block at this time. If the editor is really trying to cause trouble, he will be back here soon. It would be better if Djathink would wait for someone else to make the next report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine - message received loud and clear. What do we do here now? Close and archive this where no one will ever see it, when the editor goes round the bend again? Just wondering.—Djathinkimacowboy 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see and note the post above it, where the editor keeps responding to the ANI there. Yes, let's do drop this for now and let him keep trolling. ANI just makes me so proud at this moment. And of course, no one could at any time have even bothered him, by going to his talk and asking him to respond here. This board is asinine in the extreme. Let's just wait for "the next person" to come and report him.—Djathinkimacowboy 06:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any trolling, and think you should probably stop using that word. I do see an editor with poor English skills, who is perhaps editing beyond his means, but I don't see any bad faith. I find it completely understandable that a new user might suddenly start editing a mediation page, even though they weren't previously involved, and then not "sign-up" since the mediation was basically already over. You've been fairly threatening, and used some pretty strong language yourself. Trolling is a really strong claim: you're implying he is only here to disrupt Misplaced Pages, make false edits, antagonize people, etc. And yet I don't think you've come close to showing that through diffs. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, I did nominate the page he created for deletion per A10 (he essentially took the stuff removed from the List of episodes page and made a new page to keep it under a similar name), but, again, I don't see that as being intentionally disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WOW! OK, let me begin by addressing Qwyrxian that good faith can be assumed unless proven otherwise and let me assure you that B3430715 is desperately doing so. Its not that the user is bad in english, actually he is competent enough to put a very graphic English term on his userpage. Getting down to the point. Have you gone through the revision history? It shows that some really meaningful comments have been removed expertly from the page giving the appearance that the user is a happy-go-lucky type of user. His talk page will show you that he is an expert in feigning ignorance of the language unless it comes to the art of rudely dismissing a person, or acknowledging a compliment. This is certainly not contributing to a harmonious working environment. --Wikishagnik (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a manic and inappropriate obsession with a subject a kind of trolling? W., I truly thank you for showing that there is a problem with him and it needs to be somehow addressed. That is exactly why I came here asking for advice and direction regarding what steps could be taken. That editor has deliberately disrupted several things and has persisted in doing it. It's a shame nobody sees this pattern, especially Qwyrxian. But as I said to Q, I'm prepared to drop this whole issue for my part. Someone else will come here about him if he persists. Does anyone note how sweetly behaved he's been lately? Still playing the troll ... I apologise if that term offends some people. But I still say he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dja... remember this little piece of advice and your reply? - DVdm (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, God, I was just waiting for something like that. I went and put my foot in it, didn't I? Now this is all about me, whilst B3430715 gets justified and protected. This is NOT about me, DVdm. I am trying to stop someone much worse than I ever was! He's doing it deliberately, DVdm! Why don't you read the things before coming at me like this? Please, don't come here again to post stuff like that. Post it at my talk page. Please.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course he is doing it deliberately, that's the whole point. I have read the things, and I'm not coming at you, on the contrary. But if you insist, I will not comment any further. Forget about it. - DVdm (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Those working here are free to review me if they wish. I do not object. As for me, I am withdrawing from this silly thing and will not visit or post here again. In light of the undue attention going toward me, I leave it to the good wisdom of those whom I have seen posting (all too rarely) on this board. After all, the editor in question will get in trouble if he persists in wrongdoing or whatever it is he's doing. I leave you with this warning: keep examining issues in the way you did here, and LOTS of these types will eventually rule WP. I sincerely thank all of you who participated.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2 Wikihounding, harassment

After I opposed Stefan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few of his nominations at possibly unfree files, a couple of which seem to be clearly in bad faith, he's gone through to tag several images I've uploaded. Despite my indication on his talk page that he should stop, he continued to post notices on my talk page and tag files, and nominate several for deletion. As he persists in the hounding, I suggest he be blocked until such a time that he indicates he will stop.--Crossmr (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to make any assumptions about copyright status of images. If the copyright status can't be proven, one has to assume that images are unfree. See Commons:COM:PRP, for example. Your comments in the deletion discussions suggested that you don't know image policies, so I checked your images for errors and proposed some obvious ones for deletion. For example, non-free images must be subject to critical commentary, must not be used in galleries and must not be used excessively, as explained at WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, and photos of South Korean buildings can't be hosted on Commons unless the architect died at least 50 years ago, as explained at Commons:COM:FOP#Korea (South). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to assume that uploaders acted in good faith and properly copied licensing data years ago when images were first uploaded. Which you've failed to do. Not only that you clearly tried to misrepresent an individuals edits in your nominations by indicating they were a serial copyright violator when they were not. When it clearly stated on their talk page they were not. The fact is, you didn't like my opposing you and started going through all my uploads here, and even at commons trying to find a problem. That's clearly wikihounding.-Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As clear evidence of his intent to hound me and not actually do image work: This edit to commons . After claiming pictures of south korean buildings aren't permitted on commons, he only nominates a couple of my images, but goes ahead and cleans up similar images by other users. If he truly believed those pictures weren't permitted on commons he would have nominated it for deletion instead of cleaning it up and adding a category. Yes it's a commons edit, but it's just a very clear demonstration of the harassment that started here because I opposed him here. Most specifically I took issue with 4 of his listings on the 23rd where he described an editors uploads as Not own work? Many copyright issues mentioned on the uploader's talk page, but I can't find the image anywhere else. (bolding mine), when you visit the page. You see exactly 2 complaints and in the first complaint another user clearly points out that he talked to the webmaster of the site in question and it was indeed the user. I've no doubt the second complaint was the same thing. I also noted that he appeared to be assuming bad faith of users who uploaded images years ago because source pages had been deleted/hidden/etc and this is when the deluge of tagging, nominating and clear harassment started. He directly targetted my edits here and on commons because I opposed him (and not just him, I also opposed some other people who listed images as well), so there was no intent on my part to focus on him, when he's clearly come after me in retaliation.--Crossmr (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't clean up the image on Commons, I categorised it so that I would more easily be able to nominate a large number of images in the same report. In the end, it failed because I couldn't find any date of construction, but my plan is to try to find a date later, unless anyone else already has proposed the images for deletion by then.

One can usually not AGF when it comes to copyrights. Many users don't know how copyrights work or what a derivative work is (cf. your own photos of South Korean buildings) and users often get insufficient permissions, so it is necessary to be very careful when it comes to copyright issues. In the case you mentioned, I see 6 copyright-related notices on the user's talk page before my notices, and 5 of them have since been deleted (I haven't checked if the 6th one has been changed). If you check the deletion log, you can see that the webmaster-related text was deleted with the deletion comment "permission claimed but never supplied". That is, no evidence that Misplaced Pages was ever allowed to use that material.

If the source is gone, there is no way to verify a licence. People uploading from Flickr often get the licence wrong so images have to be deleted if they can't be proven to be free. That is exactly why there are licence reviews on Commons so that there is some evidence kept that the images have been on Flickr under a free licence at some point. You might also notice that it was not I but a different user who placed the Flickr images on that request page in the first place. Obviously, there are at least two users who agree that the sourcing is insufficient.

There has been no retaliation from my side. However, your posts to the deletion pages suggested that you didn't understand image policies and copyright rules, so I checked your images and proposed some of them for deletion. You might have noticed that many of the images I proposed for deletion actually weren't uploaded by you; they were images uploaded by other people which I happened to find in an article where one of your images appeared. --Stefan2 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

We always assume good faith, which you've failed to do repeatedly. You even went so far as to imply a user could be editing the exif data on a years old image simply to try and get a google image on here. You went further to accuse an editor of being a serial copyright violator in your rationale to taint the discussion when there was zero evidence that that was the case on the talk page. I found a lot of your deletion rationales to be extremely light on evidence or reasoning, and not just yours and posted my opinion as such. You then proceeded to go after every image I've uploaded to two projects as a result. WP:HOUND, WP:AGF give them good long hard reads.--Crossmr (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One has to be very careful with copyright issues. I have seen many uploads from Flickr and other external sites where users have provided wrong licence information (for example by missing an NC or an ND or by thinking that any image found on the Internet is in the public domain).

There are many reasons for EXIF data to change. Some images have no EXIF data (might be caused by editing the images in a program which deletes the data) and I don't find it too unlikely that some programs might alter the EXIF time so that it shows the modification time in an image editor instead of the time when the photo was taken (although programs really are supposed to store such information in a different field). Editing using Exiftool or the like might be less likely.

Note that I'm going to be away during a large part of the weekend, so I might not be able to write any further comments until tomorrow afternoon. I'm bringing a mobile phone, but it isn't very convenient for writing long messages. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One also has to be careful how they treat other users, and constantly doing so with assumptions of bad faith is not the direction to take. Immediately auditing an editors contributions because they oppose you is also not the direction to take. To be honest you've clearly come across as a bully in this process with your bad faith assumptions of uploader's behaviour and your immediate reaction to my opposing some of your listings. You have no evidence that any of those editors made a mistake adding the licensing data to those images. None at all, and you're asking them to prove the impossible because you know the original pages are gone now.Further more you have zero evidence to suggest that uploader was tampering with the exif data. He didn't even know enough on how to properly rotate his image, and you think he's fudging the exif data?--Crossmr (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I recommend this request is considered resolved. I can see no need for admin action while there is ongoing dialogue and Stefan2 appears to be taking care to explain their actions. Unfortunately Crossmr has confused this request for action by including discussion about Commons images. If a pattern of imagestalking on Misplaced Pages is apparent and persists, then I suggest the complaint is preferably resolved by direct discussion on user pages sticking to the principle of Assume good faith, or taken to Wikiquette assistance if external opinions might help. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  It's not remotely resolved. I used his actions at commons to demonstrate the lengths he's going to to harass me. Immediately after opposing Stefan, he started going through every single file I've uploaded here, and then when he ran out of files, he went to commons to continue. My evidence at commons was to show that he was specifically harassing me by nominating my files for deletion (both here and at commons) while other similar images from other users were simply being cleaned up. As further evidence, some of his deletion reasoning is extremely weak. As an example he nominated File:Anyangjerseyscompare.png for deletion with the rationale: Excessive use of non-free images of clothes. Not an article on clothes; fails both WP:FTCG#3 and WP:FTCG#8. (whatever that means, I don't see any numbers on the pages he's linking to). Yet the image is directly referenced in and talked about in a section on the article. In addition, the image was present and checked during the Good Article process. He further nominates File:Changchunfight.jpg with the rationale: Not subject to critical commentary, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Non-free image not needed; any free image of the same hockey team would work equally well. Which is as far as I can tell an outright lie. Not only does the image contain a full caption detailing it's significance, the event is also referenced in the main prose as a significant event in the team's history. The bench clearing brawl lead to a league leading number of suspensions which is still the record (and likely will be forever, as it's a very high number). So he claims there is no critical commentary, which there is, and then claims an "image of the hockey team would work" but this image isn't being used to illustrate the hockey team it's being used to illustrate a significant event in their history. It seems he simply has no understanding of what it is he's nominating for deletion and the reasons for doing so. His immediate move to start tagging and nominating images with such spurious and honestly nonsensical reasoning clearly appears to be retaliatory hounding and harassment. I should be able to give my opinion on noticeboard discussions without being subjected to that kind of retaliatory behaviour. Yes, he's trying to play nice and justify his actions now, but they don't really stand up to scrutiny when inspected.--Crossmr (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact that for the longest time there were only the 2 parties talking shows that someone failed to try to have that exact same discussion prior to coming here for admin action. Discussion is first step. If you're trying to show a pattern of behaviour, WP:RFC/U is thataway. If I was Stefan, I would back far away from any specific users ... far, far away. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I posted to his talk page, when he continued to hammer away, I brought it here. He was already hounding me, I wasn't going to hound him to stop. That's the point of this noticeboard to deal with disruptive users which is how he's acting.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So just so I have the facts here, we're saying that:

• Flat out lying in nominations
• linking to non-existent policies as deletion rationales
• re-applying tags that had been long since removed from images
• doing all of the above to every image a user has uploaded immediately after having a debate with them and in a very short time frame, and then following them to another project to continue the action is not harassment and totally fine by our community's standards? I just want to be sure when this comes up again.--Crossmr (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am back again. I have added a lots of links at the top of this discussions. To my knowledge, they link to all pages where both Crossmr and I have been discussing things recently, and the links make finding the discussions easier. In particular, I suggest that you take a look at the link to Commons:COM:AN/B where I have recently written a long reply, addressing concerns stated there.

• I am not aware of any nominations in which I have been lying. If you feel that I have been unclear or if I have made an error in a nominations, feel free to comment in that nomination. If users list a confusing source, it may suggest that the image was taken from somewhere. Ideally, the uploaders would comment on the deletion discussions and explain how the images were obtained.
• I'm not sure which non-existent policies you think I'm linking to. Could you clarify?
• I didn't notice that you had already removed {{non-free reduce}} templates from those images. See my long comment on this at Commons:COM:AN/B.
• I don't think that I tagged all of your images. Also note that many of the images I proposed for deletion at that point weren't uploaded by you – many of them were logos uploaded by other people and used in the article China Dragon. I didn't think that I was harassing you and I wasn't angry or anything. As LX wrote in the Commons discussion, "To go through a user's contributions when there is reason to believe that they may be systematically making some mistake (such as adding unsourced facts to Misplaced Pages or uploading non-free images to Commons) is pretty standard practice and is not indicative of an assumption of bad faith." The discussion on a Warhammer 40,000 image suggested to me that Crossmr might have an incomplete understanding of derivative works, so I decided to check his contributions and found some images which I thought weren't in compliance with policy, although not always because of derivative work-related issues.

I don't think that I am more strict than other people in determining whether an image is free or not. See, for example, Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 29#File:Hibiscus brackenridgei flower.jpg, where a different user is very strict when determining the validity of the licence of an image. My nominations don't seem to be more strict than that one. I will now go to the deletion discussions and clarify my statements for some of my nominations. I also suggest that you read my post at Commons:COM:AN/B where I wrote a much longer reply. The two discussions partially deal with the same matter, and I tried to avoid writing the same thing at two places.

I am sorry if you felt uncomfortable with my nominations of some of your images; that was never my intention. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already linked it twice, . While you can certainly come up with an interesting reason for all of your edits, the fundamental sum of the events tells a different story. WP:HOUND is quite clear and non-ambiguous Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. You not only did it here, you took it to another project as well. If there were images that genuinely needed discussing, that's one thing, but you took this well beyond that by:

• Tagging images that had already been tagged, and not just removed by me. There is no legal standard for the size of FUR images, our bot has a threshold for tagging but that's it
• Nominating my images for deletion while editing other user's similar images but not nominating them at commons
• At best we'll say fudging the truth, over the nomination of File:Changchunfight.jpg, claiming there is no critical commentary, but then your nomination also seems to clearly indicate that you have no idea what the image is or how it is being used
• Whatever this is, as indicated you may have meant to link to something else, but that's a pretty strange error to make. Seems to me you may have been in such a hurry to get at my images you weren't really paying attention to what you're doing. Even not withstanding the bad linking, the image was in a GA during the GA process and deemed fine, to nominate it for deletion at that point stinks of sour grapes.
• Continuing to tag and make posts to my talk page, across 2 projects when I clearly indicated that I wanted you to stop and offering no response until I filed an AN/I thread
• Doing all of the above only minutes after we'd engaged in debate over several images.

Yes, you have provided some excuses for a couple of those but I don't really feel they hold up to scrutiny. Had you stopped when I posted to your talk page, I may have viewed it differently. But you were so wrapped up in getting at my uploads, and in the process making several mistakes, that you failed to engage in further discussion. This is why it's clearly a WP:HOUND issue. Was I perfect in my image uploads? Probably not, most people aren't. Nor did I find you perfect in your nominations. I found several incidents of bad faith assumptions on your part that didn't extend simply to the technical question of copyright at best. But what I didn't do after engaging you in debate on those topics was to go out and comb through your contrib history looking for more problems, fill up your talk page with notices and then follow you to other projects to do the same.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to repeat my request to consider this thread resolved. The discussion here appears to duplicate much of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Stefan4_Harassment and as this discussion is primarily about allegations of imagestalking and replies that are mostly about Commons copyright related policies (and even is inappropriately bringing in quotes from the Commons discussion), this seems to have veered well off-topic for WP:AN/I. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors; I cannot see that a remotely likely outcome here, so by definition this is the wrong noticeboard to raise this discussion. Fæ (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  Two different projects. And most of the things in discussion are on en.wiki not commons. Only 3 images at commons, about a dozen here. The question here is clearly abou tWP:HOUND which is an administrator issue. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding why I linked commons here, it was for one reason: To demonstrate the lengths he was going to to hound me, and to show a clear example of how he was specifically targeting my edits.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And he continues to lie . There have been two sentences in the article discussing that event since I added the image to the article. As well as a full caption explaining its significance as a historic event in the team and league's history. Since it's clear he wants to continue to harass me I must renew my request that he be blocked.--Crossmr (talk)

Tsuchiya Hikaru

I believe that it's time for an indefinite block for Tsuchiya Hikaru. This user persistently empties categories and replaces them with new ones, despite lots of warnings and three blocks. I blocked him eight days ago for a week because of continued disruption, and almost immediately upon the block expiring, he restarted it again, forcing me to un-empty multiple categories. He also has a pattern of disruptive changes to redirects (example) and to the babel links (example). All of this is on top of a nearly total lack of edit summary usage. I don't know what else can be done to resolve these issues; he claims to have an en-2 level of English, so he should be able to understand the big warning messages that are covering half his userpage, so I am driven to believe that only an indefinite block will be able to stop this user's continual disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree... Although I haven't been all that involved, I've reverted a few of his edits over the last few months and have monitored many of his disruptions. Nyttend has been patient with this user and I believe it's time to send him a strong message. Perhaps in Korean? -Travis Thurston+ 01:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Only a handful of diff's checked, and fully agreed - I have indef'd (after all, I'm an enabler) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to contact this user in the past, because he kept screwing with the babel links on Ryukyu Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nansei Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a merge of the latter to the former recently took place, and some babel links were retained on the latter as they did not work on the former). He refused actually answer the questions User:Kwamikagami and I posed to him, but insisted on repeating the acts. This is a welcome block.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting block for multiple accounts

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

Requesting a block for PetePorter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have warned them about their edits to Yoshiki (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that change the genres and remove the artist's aliases. Also, because of the similar edits and the fact the the accounts were made at the same time, I believe it is possible that {{Bluerosenumber1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Chuckthecanuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are this same person. Xfansd (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This sort of concern should be brought to WP:SPI. I have gone there for you and filed the notice here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/PetePorter. Feel free to add further evidence that you think will help make the case. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(Sigh, I have to do everything around here.) If they're rapidly revert-warring like that, just block them! That being said, I will take care of all the blocks and that SPI case. --MuZemike 17:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User Abbatai

After the unconsensused deletion of a sourced material with reliable citations, User:Abbatai edited my note at article's talk and attacked me with harming "So stop your nationalist one-sided propaganda." An admin's attention is welcomed. Gazifikator (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Warned. You could have too. Ensure everything is properly sourced and from a neutral point of view (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Western betrayal

I have placed a 7 day block for new users and IP users on article Western betrayal and its talk page, because one or more editors using IP addresses have been stirring up passions, which has led to a lot of comments about editors rather than article development. I have hatted those threads.

However there is a subsidiary problem User:Volunteer Marek has been deleting comments by IP addresses on other user talk pages. This has led to one of the users Malick78 repeatedly reverting an edit made by Malick78 back onto user talk:Volunteer Marek which Volunteer Marek has repeatedly deleted. I have warned both of the to stop.

As I intend to be involved in the development of Western betrayal it would be useful if another administrator was to review my actions and amend them if they are so minded. -- PBS (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the IP comments I removed where made by 98.92.207.190 and 72.145.253.232 I believe (this person has by now used so many different IPs that I might have confused them). These two addresses, in addition to these , are the same person as this IP who was blocked for one year by User:SarekOfVulcan on March 8th for disruptive editing, and whose previous comments had to be oversighted. Hence this is a person who is evading a block in order to post personal attacks and harassment against myself, as well as to WP:CANVASS. As result removing these comments is perfectly justified per WP:BAN, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, not to mention WP:TALK which states that Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. is fine.

I was planning on filing a formal WP:SPI but I'm pretty busy atm and those take some time to write up (this is also why I haven't reported Malick78 yet) in regard to these IPs (they're all socks of User:Leidseplein though that part is not obvious unless you're familiar with the user - hence an SPI).

I don't have time to fully explain the Malick78 part of the story here. Basically it's someone who I asked as far back (maybe even earlier, can't remember) as August 2010 not to post to my talk page (notice the rude message I am removing). Because of a dispute we had on one article Malick78 though has taken upon himself to follow me to various articles and try to come up with reasons, all of them essentially spurious, to criticize my editing (one example out of many). Along the way he figured out my nationality and began making disparaging remarks about Poles as a group (, as well as making numerous personal attacks (one out of many). I told him not to post to my talk page again on October 2010 and of course more recently , after which he, like Philip says, began edit warring to force his comments on to my talk page. As far as I know Malick78 is not connected to the person behind the IP addresses but is merely enjoying the harassment campaign they're subjecting me to, so he is trying to enable that person to the best of his ability.VolunteerMarek 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sysop impersonation by a member of a known troll organization.

I've gotten a fake notice by a user named User:LEETCHAN. This is owned by one of the members of the troll organization leetchan.org. He issued the noticed as a sysop, but when I checked the page he has no sysop privileges.

They have been stalking me for almost a year. This user needs to be dealt with.

As evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jkid4&redirect=no#March_25.2C_2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkid4 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That's one of our standard warning templates. Whether the warning was appropriate or not - and I haven't looked into that - there was no claim that he was a sysop in what he put on your talk. It just says that blocks may result from continued disruption, using standardized text in common use. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I did was transferring content from a wiki I own to Misplaced Pages, the article in question was Futaba Channel Jkid4 (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The diff between Jkid4's first edit and the intervention of an admin says it all. The warning was valid, albeit over the top - a level one should have been issued. GiantSnowman 19:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the warning was OTT. Different wiki projects, different rules. I've left an explanation at Jkid4's talkpage. Incidentally, Jkid4, I don't think you own the Japanese Misplaced Pages :) Did you mean that you wrote the article there? If so, where did you source the info. If you can add those sources to the English article, it would be fine. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Our Japanese sister project's article lacks sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

PS I've also notified the editor in question. GiantSnowman 19:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hate speech and harassment

(A follow-up to the above report, #Death threat from an IP.)

A couple of days ago I blocked a number of IPs editing 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings‎, and protected the article. The user has then gone to attack other pages (Acid throwing and its talk page as well as my talk page, possibly more). The user seems to be Czech - perhaps the "vandal with a grudge". (Or perhaps it's a coordinated attack by multiple users?)

In any case, I think it's a fair guess that any IP used for this purpose can be assumed to be an open proxy, and should be blocked for an extended amount of time. (Any objections?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Did Elockid have any evidence besides quacking for blocking the most recent one on the French article? BTW, "WE, NATION OF EUROPE, HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN PEACE !!!" Right. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

I recently requested User:Banana Fingers to remove the offensive content on his/her userpage. However this request was deleted without being actioned. I feel this user is being unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational per the aforementioned userpage as well as various comments on other users' talk pages . I hope this post results in an improvement in the situation. Cloudz679 20:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So don't click on their user page. I do see that they have been warned by GiantSnowman, but they seem to be civil in their discussion on your user page. It appears to be under control. Let's see what others may say. Tiderolls 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an unacceptable personal attack by BF here. That is almost half a year ago, but the diffs given by Cloudz679 show this user doesn't need much to get frustrated and then has difficulty remaining civil.  --Lambiam 22:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• 99,9999999% of his sentences end with "!" (one or more) - and he did that as well in Cloudz's page - i have been told several times that constitutes shouting. With me, after suggesting something about the display of player positions, his reply was this . Subsequently, i used a bit of sarcasm in my summaries in Juan Luis Guirado, his reply was this .

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If I could just chime in regarding this user, Banana Fingers is honestly a child who throws tantrums when he doesn't get his way, it's really that simple. Ever since I made this realization, which took all of about 5 seconds, I just try to avoid him. If something can be done to correct his aggressive and confrontational behavior then I am all for it. Thank you for your time. --Spartan008 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Low-traffic article

New Testament Christian Churches of America, a low traffic article about a small church, has a new SPA user who refuses to discuss in a substantive way on the talk page, but instead edit wars. I tried for help at FRINGE and NPOV noticeboards, but no one cares. I don't want to edit war myself, and all attempts at discussion and explanation by myself and Orangemike have been in vain. He just posts tirades "(what!! USER:Becritical, hasn't gone over there and deleted it) interesting... interesting. Is any body feeling me out there?? Does any body hear me??? Wake up virtual world!!! Its time to calibrate those scales of judgment!!". For example I asked him to give some information and support his edit with a quote, then reminded him... but he ignored me. The user needs to be reached by explanation from an admin with a threat of block, or else just blocked. At this point, it does not appear he is capable of functioning under our rules. B——C_ritical 21:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I challenge and encourage all admins to check out New Testament Christian Churches of America talk page, and take note that all changes and updates were all constructive in manner and discussed and reasoning stated on talk page to justify changes. USER:Becritical thinks WiKi is owned by them. USER:BeCritical remedy for anything is delete now ask questions later. --ER 22:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

After attempting -and succeeding in- edit warring his changes into the article, he has posted a Edit-warring warning on my talk page B——C_ritical 23:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And also Dominus Vobisdu's talk page Apparently he got the idea because Dominus gave him a warning which he removed. B——C_ritical 23:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for Edwinramos2:

• Edwinramos2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The pagelinks for the article are here:

• New Testament Christian Churches of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edwinramos2 has reverted at least nine times since 21 March. If he reverts again (before consensus is reached) he should be blocked for edit warring. He seems to be aware that he should use the talk page but does not acknowledge that he should wait for consensus in case of a dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Um, I don't know about anyone else, but to me, the content dispute on the article is screaming RfC. An RfC on the article should get the necessary eyeballs to "tip the scales" in favor of reasonable editing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Disruption by single purpose accounts, which looks like the case here is a cause for an block not an RFC. Secret 01:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit reverting, only due to lack of citing?

I have been in a heated debate for a while with another editor User:Doniago who has a habit of doing wholesale reverts of good-faith article edits, only because the edits are not cited, and NOT because Doniago is challenging the material content of the edits.

The intro to WP:V says:

It must be possible to attribute all information in Misplaced Pages to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.

As I understand it, reverting/deleting whole sections of edits not because they are inaccurate or wrong, but only because it lacked citations, is not a good enough reason to be removing them. Doniago is not challenging any of the text they removed.

This very aggressive editing style of Doniago has been going on for several years, as shown in the player piano edit history. I have not intensively examined Doniago's other edits but this style of editing probably extends to other articles.

Player piano - article does have sources listed and cited at the bottom

• 10:04, August 31, 2009‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced - wikilinked article has the sourcing
• 07:55, October 30, 2009‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced
• 14:29, November 29, 2011‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced
• 08:00, December 12, 2011‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced
• 09:26, March 19, 2012 - deleted section on mechanism, after my most recent edit, unsourced but not challenged.

I've also had to deal with this editor on the Uninterruptible power supply article, with Doniago reverting only because the edits were unsourced, not because the edits were challenged as factually incorrect.

There is talk of WMF trying to find ways to attract and keep good editors. Well I am of the opinion that really aggressive deletionary editors like Doniago are part of the problem, driving off people trying to make good faith contributions which just aren't provided with the full citations that Doniago is demanding RIGHT NOW.

So what if there is an old tag in the article that says "not cited in the last 7 years"? That doesn't impose an urgency to cite, that rises to the level of deleting large swaths of high quality, but uncited and unchallenged material.

I tend to believe that if you aren't an expert on an article you shouldn't be editing it. Doniago's reversions of the player piano article suggests to me that this editor is clueless about the article's technical subject matter but is editing anyway, and only by removing uncontested high-quality content for the sole reason that it is not cited.

DMahalko (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

How does one know it is high quality if it isn't even cited? WilliamH (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know enough about an article subject matter to contribute, then don't. Your own lack of knowledge should indicate to you to not edit it.

Also, citing something doesn't actually prove anything unless people actually go try reading the source and fact-checking. If you haven't done that, you still won't know if an article which you don't know anything about is high quality or not. DMahalko (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." (WP:BURDEN). Whilst another editor may use a tag instead, or something else, they do not have to. Unsourced material may be removed on sight. "If you don't know enough about an article subject matter to contribute, then don't." ~ This is not how Misplaced Pages operates, but I've certainly heard it before. WilliamH is right to question; moreover, it is an integral part of what WIkipedia is is that things are referenced to another source (consider WP:OR, for example). It's just what we do. You can ask Doniago to grant more time, but he or she hasn't done anything disruptive unless the reverts were aimed at proviving a point or something vindictive, which you don't mention. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the player piano article is already cited with large general sources at the bottom.

If unsourced material should be removed that isn't in-line cited, then why hasn't Doniago stripped the article down to a stub containing only the few in-line cites it currently has?

The only unsourced content that Doniago is removing is "new" unsourced content, but not any old unsourced content. That to me seems to suggest an agenda for why they are editing the way they are, basically harassing editors adding new material that isn't immediately in-line sourced. I've asked Doniago about it before but hir won't explain it.

DMahalko (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the general view on this is that we don't pull out vast chunks of content from an article if it's been there a while, simply on the grounds it is uncited. Prohibiting the addition of unsourced material is another issue altogether. If you are trying to add material and another editor is asking you to provide a source then provide a source. If it's easy to source then it's not a problem, if it's difficult to source then Donagio is even more justified in requesting one. Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The difference to me is the reason for why another editor is asking for a source. Are they requesting a source because they think the newly added material is actually wrong in some manner, or are they just being a nitpicky rule-quoter with no interest or knowledge of the article and they aren't contesting the new material in its actual factual accuracy?

If there's an actual disagreement, then the extra legwork of immediately finding the exact source to an edit is justified.

If there is no disagreement or factual dispute, then to me the removal of content being added to an article that is already cited with other general cites is basically harassment.

Doniago appears to have a history of doing removals only because of a lack of citations and not because the edits are factually disputed, so to me that is following a pattern of overly-aggressive article editing that should be reigned in.

DMahalko (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you don't give me a source, how do I know you're not just making it up. After all, I might not know that much about the subject. But I want to know where you got your information from. That is sufficient challenge. If you want to add the material - say what the source for it is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea of the context of this discussion regarding the specific editor or articles, but just for the record I do quite regularly remove statements that have been unsourced for a fair length of time, usually when they have also been tagged as such. We cannot just keep things here on the basis that a source may turn up. If it does, then the information can always be reinserted. This may perhaps reflect my particular area of interest but since that (India related content) is one of the primary areas where WMF are seeking new input, it does have relevance. If my real opinion had consensus then I would be deleting anything that is unsourced. As it is, I respect a common-sense consensus that people should be given some time to source existing material but that any current edits should be sourced pretty much immediately. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Elen of the Roads, as I say, even if I provide a source, that doesn't prove anything until you actually go check the source yourself against the article and actually learn about the content of the article to verify its factual accuracy.

Providing a source does not in fact tell you anything other than I provided a link to something or other. In effect I have checked off a box on some "you will do X" guidelines which does not automatically lead to "therefore all work is done here".

In general, if you're really going to nitpick over sourcing then it falls upon you as the fact checker and cite-demander to actually verify the source and become an expert on the subject matter, which you aren't going to do because you don't really care beyond having that checkbox checked off, and because actually learning about the disputed subject matter is more effort than you care to expand.

If on the other hand you already know about the subject material, you'd already know whether or not the unsourced content is valid or not even without a citation.

Basically if all I provide to people like Doniago as a know-nothing checkmark-noting wiki-elf is that I'm citing some obscure print-only text, the fact that a cite was made does nothing to prove the new article text is correct, and Doniago requiring the presence of said cite without actual verification of the cite doesn't actually prove or improve anything. He has to actually KNOW something about the subject matter, to say if the edit is correct or not. DMahalko (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• An understanding of what he's writing about obviously helps, but most importantly, he has to demonstrate where he got it from. If I am told that Edwin Albert Link's pneumatic player piano technology was used as the basis for aircraft simulators, I want to be able to verify that information for myself. After all, this is supposed to be a reflection of material that has already been published. I want, for example, "Smith, R. (2010) A history of player pianos. Oxford University Press", and which page that can be found on. "It's-verifiable-because-some-guy-on-the-internet-knows-it-to-be-true is not good enough and the burden is on him to better that. WilliamH (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• DMahalko, this isn't a particularly difficult concept to grasp here. WP:V holds that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." In order to make such a challenge, Doniago - no more than any other editor (or, for that matter, you yourself) - is neither required to demonstrate his expertise in the subject matter or to submit a rationale for any challenge. If you can source the information, do so. If you cannot, then the information cannot be included. Whether you approve of his motivations, edit history or skill set is irrelevant. Ravenswing 04:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

UsernameHardBlock review request and also eyes needed

I just gave a UsernameHardBlock to User:UGNazi. The comments on that user page seem somewhat threatening. I'd like both a block review and eyes to be aware of any possible threat from this purported group. Thanks, LadyofShalott 00:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good block, looks like a WP:NOTHERE issue with a pinch of WP:WEBHOST. I'm going to blank the user page as well. Saedon (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, as for building an encyclopedia, they did create an article, UGNazi, but that is also problematic. LadyofShalott 00:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a ripe candidate for speedy deletion. Any reason we'd keep it? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I deleted as CSD A7 -- Samir 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter Barnes (minister) (2nd nomination)

this AfD has gone over 7 days, without contacting a specific admin, I am seeking someone to close it. thanks. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Done; that was easier than I expected. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

User:EagleEye edit warring and WP:IDHT

User blocked for 24 hours by TParis Saedon (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

EagleEye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been attempting to add content sourced to a blogspot blog to the article mundane astrology. I have spent way, way too much time trying to explain to this person that blogs are not considered an RS except in very certain circumstances but the user refuses to acknowledge the policy. I created a report at WP:3RRN but it's gone unanswered and and this point the user is on his 6th revert after AndytheGrump reverted his addition as well and reexplained the policy that I have explained. Going over his talk page, you can see the WP:IDHT attitude as well as some strange interpretations of policy (e.g. I can't revert him since I haven't added sourced content to the page...what?)

Full disclosure: I accidentally violated 3RR as well, and mentioned it in my report, but when I noticed I stopped reverting and will not do so again. This user doesn't appear to believe that the rules apply to him and appears to be an astrology POV pusher, so can someone please block him for the 3RR and once again explain that blogs are not RS? Thanks. Will notify user in a moment. Saedon (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to give an idea of what this user is trying to add: "Mundane Astrology in the early 21st century saw the successful prediction by the American mundane astrologer Theodore White of Japan's Fukushima Earthquake which occurred March 11, 2011. Amazingly enough, and to the astonishment of worldwide seismotologists, Theodore White also accurately predicted the exact magnitude of Japan's historic earthquake before it happened." Of course I'm the POV pusher :). Saedon (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good block, TParis beat me too it. EagleEye would do well to use this time to review various content policies. It is not POV to use words like pseudoscience or fringe - neutrality does not mean giving undue weight to scientifically incorrect or minority positions. WilliamH (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the ongoing case of WP:IDHT that is evident on User talk:EagleEye, even after the block, I suspect we will be getting more problems when the block is lifted - perhaps a previously-uninvolved admin could try to get the point across, and save us future hassle? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just tried it. WilliamH (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, well I think I've exhausted my efforts. Doesn't look like they are any nearer to understanding it, and I simply think they're going to walk right back into it when the block expires. WilliamH (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks to be the case so why not indef until they can demonstrate they understand policy and that they will follow it? They're making it quite clear they intend to continue the same so it's the very definition of a preventative block. SÆdon 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand Misplaced Pages policy well and will adhere to it. But I will not participate with POV bad editors. They are very bad for Misplaced Pages. I am learning more about the process but am not happy with the particular POV editors who break Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies while threatening an editor with an "indefinite block" but have not shown any civility, or teamwork with another Misplaced Pages editor unless they are part of their gang. There should be no gangs on Misplaced Pages. I donate money to Misplaced Pages as well, but this experience today has made me doubt whether to give any more money to Misplaced Pages and I have plenty to give. I would prefer help from a qualified Misplaced Pages editor who is honest, not-POV and is a good and balanced editor; however, at this time I am rethinking if to support Misplaced Pages at all considering the lack of help from the POV editors who participate in no discussion on the Talk page, but name-call, personally attack and insults with violations of Misplaced Pages policies I have endured today. It has left a sour taste in my mouth so I will just gather up all the violations of Misplaced Pages policies by means of the users and their comments in the meantime. But thank you for letting me know. Eagle Eye 06:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

possible ongoing sockpuppetry

On March 17th User:The undertow attempted to delete an image from the article on Gang signals. In the preceding hours three IP addresses had made nine attempts to delete this image. This was discussed at Commons:Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:OC.jpg

At around the same time commons:User:The undertow left a comment on Commons:Commons:VP, requesting deletion of the image. In that request they asserted they were a former administrator.

I looked to see what kind of record they had as an administrator, and saw they exercised administrator authority for only 291 days prior to raising so many concerns that ARBCom suggested they voluntarily surrender their administrator bits. I saw they earned a 6 month block. I saw they were found to have been entrusted with administrator authority as the sockpuppet User:Law.

Today, March 25, in a comment at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:OC.jpg they claimed I was an admin for many years.

This comment concerns me. The two wiki-IDs we know this individual controlled exercised administrator authority not for "many years" -- rather they only exercised that authority for a combined total of 433 days -- about one and a quarter years. Maybe they were simply exagerrating. But I am concerned that this comment may have been an acknowledgment that they succeeded in being entrusted with administrator authority under more that these two sockpuppets. I am concerned they might be exercising administrator authority today, under other sockpuppets. Geo Swan (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the statements on Commons are remarkably weak evidence to go fishing for other socks aside from the IP ducks you mentioned at WP:SPI. Use of sock IPs to take down an image strikes me as something that someone with a hypothetical sleeper en.wp admin account wouldn't need to do. You can see if a Checkuser other than the one that responded to your WP:SPI request is willing to look through it more. But if I were you, I would focus on discussing the systemic issue of whether unused PD Commons images can be deleted on request post hoc, on Commons, as opposed to spilling your dispute onto this project with rather flimsy concerns based on this fellow just exaggerating the amount of time during which he had admin rights here. -- Samir 06:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

indefinite protection of userpage over userbox

Hi, I don't know where else to take this so I assumed here would be the best place to allow the community to discuss the matter.

Admin Salvio giuliano recently decided to indefinitely protect my userpage due to a userbox he didn't like. I, and several other users, have attempted to explain that

• A. The userbox was a joke, and is protected by WP:Userbox
• B. It could be a legitimate belief and thus the trolling accusation could fall under WP:NPA

without any response back.

I'm not trying to point fingers, I just feel as though the protection was ridiculous and wanted to know how the community felt about the matter. I will gladly remove the userbox if there is an issue with it, I just want to be able to edit my own userpage again. Thank you :) -badmachine 03:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. I see on Salvio giuliano's that he's open not only to trout slapping, but to recall. He's eligible for being whacked by the biggest goddamn rainbow trout that can be pulled out of the drink for this one, if not some serious review of his admin record and what other user pages he's felt free to censor and lock. I'd be very interested to hear what possible justification he has to proffer for this. Ravenswing 04:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Salvio is a good egg. Never would Salvio try to do anything out of order to anyone. I am an interested editor because Salvio protected my page for me after some horrid attacks were made against me there. Please try and work out the issue with Salvio, and remember Salvio may not always be immediately available to reply ... but I do not dare to presume to speak for Salvio.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Yes, well, whether you are a fan or not of Salvio's does not excuse his actions. I would be livid to the point of obscenity were any admin, whatever his putative good-guyness, to unilaterally censor out a viewpoint for which he didn't care from my user page, and then to protect that page to prevent me from any further edits to it. Short of a "I Heart Child Molesters" userbox, I can't possibly imagine a justification for it. Ravenswing 06:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're requesting community input on whether to keep the giant GNAA banner on your page after the page protection is lifted, my input would be "please don't." I've never understood the appeal of an organization that tosses around a racial slur for the lulz. If Salvio made a habit of going around removing Satanism userboxes from people's user pages, I would be concerned, but here he appeared to remove a number of things (including the Satanism box, the GNAA banner, and a 666-pixel wide image of somebody's cock) from your userpage with the not-that-implausible edit summary of "rm. trolling". Regardless, my recommendation to Salvio would be to unprotect the page, and my recommendation to you would be to not put things on there that a reasonable person could mistake for trolling. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the humor behind GNAA nonsense either...but oh well. The image is blocked by the bad image filter so wouldn't show up for anyone (...unless admins see through filters.) I see absolutely nothing wrong with the userbox, joke or not. I see no attempt at discussion before action was taken...only a message with a heading of 'Satanism' saying that userspace was being misused. Remove and discuss? Prefer discuss first, but oh well. Remove, protect, notify and then stop discussing? Not the way it should be done. --Onorem♠Dil 05:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK...so there was some discussion first that I'd missed. I still don't agree that adding a image that nobody sees, a GNAA image and a satanism userbox are grounds for removal and protection. It may not be useful stuff, but I don't see how it's disruptive. --Onorem♠Dil 05:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio issued this warning to Badmachine on the 19th. Shorty after, Badmachine was blocked for one week by User:Guerillero for "trolling and baiting". Reading machine's talk page, it seems his user page has stirred up a variety of trouble. I am also curious to hear Salvio's explanation, because it's probably a pretty good one.--RacerX Talk to me 06:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Bruno Bouchet

Hi, it appears that Bruno Bouchet has been editing his own article. User:Brewhahaha uploaded a photo of himself at File:BrunoBouchet.JPG, also appears to be shamelessly self-promoting himself and 2DayFM's Kyle and Jackie O Show. Thoughts on the issue? - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards