Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 27 December 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 admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Talk:Jay Westerveld

Can some other editors take a look at Talk:Jay Westerveld#profession after snowboarding career (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs).

The article was protected due to a content dispute. I started a talk page discussion and attempted to keep the talk page discussion on track, but it appears to have devolved into a mess of personal attacks, BLP violations, and accusations of sockpuppetry. I would rather not take action myself, as I was involved in the content dispute that lead up to the page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh. OK. I laid out some rules of engagement on the talk page. I may have used a conjugation of the verb "dictate". With the article on full protection nothing will change, so I have modified this to Pending changes, and will place a note on WP:BLPN to invite uninvolved editors. Barek, as far as I'm concerned you're not so involved that you can't act; basically, I've threatened anyone who makes another personal attack with a block. I hope I don't have to police that page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Snarky reply from User:Alan Stenberg. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Irony, it seems, is alive and well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Diff of Talk:Jay Westerveld: Good thing this is a wiki; there's some great material here I am gonna save for later use -- Dianna (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as you give proper attribution. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hold on. This article is now on Level 2 pending changes protection, which is something the community agreed would not be used. More importantly, it is being used to prevent a single editor from editing the article. When that is the case, the appropriate step is to address the issue with that editor directly, not put the article on protection. This is even more important in the face of BLP violations, which are apparently endemic in this article; even now, half the "facts" about this editor are unsourced, and there continues to be a coatrack about Glenmere mansion in the article, and other references don't even mention the article subject. Here's an alternative: block the BLP-violating account or take the time to actually explain to them why their behaviour is unacceptable, and if recurrent socking is a concern, semi-protect the article. Risker (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Risker, it was not being used to prevent one user from editing the article--maybe I need to read up on the ins and outs, or maybe I should have checked the status of those editors, but I thought that both sides (and their possible socks) would be prevented from editing it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am), but pending changes and semi-protection would have the same effect given that neither Semperfly (talk · contribs) nor Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs) have reviewer status. And I thought (again, I might be wrong) that both sides would be aware of how their edits are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here, the first being the use of PC-2, which did not receive community consensus for its use. The second is that neither of the two editors you've pointed out have actually been educated in any way about what they're doing wrong. We're protecting a poor quality BLP instead of educating the editors or removing them from the project. The two editors involved are editing only on this subject and, given the fact that they've both shown up at the same time, are likely to be bringing an external battle to our project. PC is not intended to be the shortcut to dealing with problem editors, or with massive BLP violations or edit wars. It's intended to deal with articles that have frequent vandalism or insertion of nonsense. This article does not meet the criteria. Risker (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to change to semi-protection. As for education, I think Barek has left enough material on the talk page, but OK, I'll repeat the salient points there. Another editor with BLP experience has stepped in as well. I'll start an SPI. I was unaware of those PC restrictions, but no longer. I think that covers it. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On a relevant note, edits by Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs) have been remarkably uncivil, ranging from WP:PA to WP:OUTING and good old fashion WP:HARASS. See one user talkpage and earlier series of contribs on another user talkpage in addition to this gem. One of his already-blocked socks, Bog Turtle (talk · contribs) also levied this legal threat; Checkuser hasn't confirmed a connection yet, so SPI results aren't yet in. User talk:Alan Stenberg indicates he was previously blocked for abusive editing, and I've warned him regarding civility and his real-life conflict of interest surrounding Westerveld. Think a longer block is in order? JFHJr (㊟) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As all parties were previously warned, I'll be re-blocking him given his current behavior. As this is his second block, I've extended the block to 72 hours this time. My internet access is sporadic at best at the moment, so if others want to change the duration there's no need to discuss with the blocking admin (ie: me). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Jay Westerveld still pending-changes level 2 protected

The article about Jay Westerveld is still pending-changes level 2 protected, despite Risker pointing out on the 23rd that there is no consensus for use of that form of protection. Can a reviewer please remove this protection from the article? Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that request. (We actually are reviewers, and we need an admin to do it.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Does it need to be semiprotected instead or is just the move protection alright? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The troublesome editors have all been asked to play nicely. It should be fine with just the move protection. Yaris678 (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing SPI result

Is the SPI result at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Enverbius really saying that both parties in the dispute are socks of each other? --71.231.75.104 (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I also found it confusing. Asked DQ for some clarification. I'm under the impression it's two sets of socks. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what DeltaQuad said. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the subsets are groups of confirmed, and they likely among each other. JFHJr (㊟) 01:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone seems blocked. This can probably close for now. JFHJr (㊟) 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

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

This discussion has been courtesy blanked. Please do not restore it.--v/r - TP 16:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Phishing on Silk Road (marketplace)

I just removed a phishing link from Silk Road (marketplace). This has happened several times before, and it has gotten to the point where they are gaming autoconfirmed. The subject of the article is site that uses cutting-edge peer-to-peer and cryptographic techniques to openly run a mail-order store for recreational drugs. The link in question allows readers to access Silk Road by means of a technology called Tor. It is not technically feasible to use the SBL, and before we evaluate other technical options, such as the abuse filter, I think we should discuss whether it is appropriate for us to link to the site at all. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 12:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to go with no, per NOT. Misplaced Pages is not a recreational drug site, nor should we work as advertising for such a site. I can't see any reason for such a link; if used as sourcing, I doubt its reliability; no other use occurs to me to argue for it's inclusion. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 13:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

And the buggers who add the link are persistent, and lie in their edit-summaries. I've upped protection to full, removed a spam link, and blocked a persistent re-adder. Misplaced Pages's role is not to enable people to obtain black market items (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Technically speaking, it's WP:ELOFFICIAL and isn't in WP:ELNEVER. Sometimes, though, it's better for the project to ignore the rules, and I think this is one of those times. T. Canens (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I thoroughly agree with refusing to include an official website that engages in phishing. We're not out to do things that actively hurt unsuspecting editors. Perhaps it's time to change WP:ELNEVER to include phishing and malware sites, even when they're official. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, the official site doesn't engage in phishing (it's essentially, as Jake put it, "a mail-order store for recreational drugs", although the people running the site is apparently different from the people selling the drugs). The problem here is that the nature of the technology used makes it very hard to distinguish the real site from the phishing site at a glance. There are potential technical solutions to this problem, but the question is whether we should even bother solving it or simply not link to the real site in the first place. It may not be a bad idea to expand ELNEVER to cover sites engaging in illegal activity, but there could be some line-drawing problems there (e.g., Wikileaks). T. Canens (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think we would link to a site whose main purpose was providing copyvios, even if we had an article about it; the situation is exactly analogous. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• cf. WP:AVIASTAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have no objection to those who care to do such things, but given the ease by which the address may be ascertained, I do not think we should maintain a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've proposed that ELNEVER be expanded; please offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a post there, but for the purposes of the ANI in response to the link, how is this any different from linking to Demonoid or The Pirate Bay? Though I see the Silk Road and its darker cousin the Armory to be one in the same. Knowledge is power and this genie will not go back in the bottle if we take a role in generating more awareness for something that is already public. I'd go to the foundation about this one, as this one is quasi-legal, same as Wikileaks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If WMF's OK with it, then I am. My concern is more on the legal/publicity side, and that's their responsibility. It is not a objection on moral grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why can't this be dealt with using the spam blacklist? The SBL uses regular expressions, so couldn't we just add something like:

\bsilkroad.*\.onion\b

which would not allow any url that contains "silkroad" followed by ".onion", with anything else in between. I'm not sure if they use any other domains besides .onion, but if so they could be added to the regex as well. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked into all of the socks, and it seems to always be "silkroad" followed by random characters, and then ".onion". So, I've added it to the spam blacklist, which should prevent it from being added in the future. ‑Scottywong| express _ 23:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Boomage

Dear AN/I. I come to you today to raise my concerns about User:Boomage who has been attacking myself, other users and generally being uncivil across different pages. Also seems to be canvassing for a so called petition. I would like to see administrator intervention on this matter.
Examples:
User talk: methecooldude -- Many uncivil and attacking comments.
User talk: Cobi -- As above
User talk:Crispy1989 -- As above
User talk: Yngvadottir -- As above
User talk: ClueBot Commons -- General uncivilly
The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement and relative talk page -- Attack page
Special:Contributions/Boomage -- "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO UPLOAD IMAGES AND HELP YOU LOT OUT BUT YOU LOT ARE HAVING NONE OF IT!!!"

Many thanks

Rich(MTCD) 14:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest Boomage is really struggling to understand how things work here, and a strongly worded final warning from an uninvolved administrator might help them see sense. Then again, it might not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree this looks like someone who simply doesn't understand the way things work - give me a short time and I'll try to explain things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks - Rich(MTCD) 14:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a word - feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if the disruptive behaviour continues. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Boing, that looks perfect. Incidentally, the use of the word "git" as a (mild?) insult suggests that the editor may be British, so I would hope that we extend the same forbearance that is traditional for British editors who make personal attacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's definitely a fellow Brit, and yes it is quite mild. But it's more the attitude than the word itself - in my view, for example, it's entirely possible to say "fuck" in a way that is not a personal attack, but "git" in a way that is, and it is the attack rather than the word that is not acceptable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite - there seems to be a lot of confusion over this, in both directions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - I understand what you're saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh what fun :-) Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee. I had earlier tried to give him some unsolicited advice and he had indeed not realised he needed references. I've now seconded what you said and pointed to the welcome template with which Bwilkins started his talkpage; I closed the box around it for clarity. For what it's worth, a couple of his edits that triggered Cluebot were false positives ("He is known as a hard worker" or something like that), but he hasn't taken my advice to simply report that and I'm aware of the limits of advice. At least the deleted page shows he is willing to do research. I concur about "git" - hardly worth getting in a tizzy about, but he got himself in a bit of a rut here. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments too - I hadn't realised that ClueBot revert had been labeled "vandalism" (though I thought all the reverts were appropriate, for various reasons). I'm hoping that a reading of the riot act might get through - and hopefully help turn Boomage into a productive editor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot actually says "possible" vandalism, so as to assume good faith. Bots jobs are very thankless :). --Malerooster (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, both Boing! and Demiurge, for your assistance in this matter - Rich(MTCD) 19:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

Firstly, I would like to accept full responsibility for my use of language and the tone in which I used the word 'git', and I offer my sincere apologies. Although I will add that 'Methecooldude' is not the saint he makes himself out to be, as I was called 'sad' by him, in an equally as offensive tone. Please don't think I'm being rude - indeed, I am going to take all your advice on board with regards to my future edits, but just bear in mind that 'Methecooldude' was not exactly what one would call 'polite' either.

My second point relates to my campaign against ClueBot NG, a bot I am quite frankly all too familiar with now. I am well within my rights to continue with my petition against ClueBot NG, standing up for what I (and many others) believe in. To block me solely for my Anti-ClueBot NG beliefs would be grossly violating my human rights, and I will be pursuing the campaign. Additionally, I feel I am well within my rights to have documented my petition against ClueBot NG in an objective and factual manner, which I feel I achieved in my Misplaced Pages page entitled 'The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement', complete with references, as I see user Yngvadottir so observantly notes above. In light of this, I have requested full feedback from user JohnCD, who outright rejected my contest to Speedy Deletion, with no explanation whatsoever, leaving me feeling confused and quite frankly oppressed by the system itself.

Many thanks, Boomage (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage

Hey, Boomage, I think you have a few misunderstandings on a few points. First, you don't have any rights on Misplaced Pages; it is a website that is privately-owned (by a non-profit, but privately-owned nonetheless), and as such, you have only the rights that are allowed to you but the owners. So, it's better not to talk about things like human rights being violated; it carries no weight, and may in fact be offensive to those people in the world whose real human rights have been, or are being, violated.

JohnCD was correct to delete your page, as it was an article on a non-notable subject. See the notability page, and some others, for more information on this. In a nutshell, though, your "Anti-ClueBot" crusade would need to have been specifically reported on in multiple, independent, reliable sources for it to have a Misplaced Pages article. Though you cite sources in your article, none talk about your movement, and in fact were all published long before your movement was started. So they don't help to establish notability. You should really drop this issue altogether, as you will get exactly nowhere with it, but if you really want to, it would be acceptable for you to create a page compiling evidence for your complaints within your userspace, like your sandbox, for example. Don't make it in the regular article space. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Borderline legal threat?

?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The seem to have already removed that content . Not sure what the outburst was for.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps next time you might find it more helpful to the user to direct them to OTRS rather then seeking tarring and feathering. There is clearly nothing more to do here so we can close this. I'll leave a note on the users page. Spartaz 05:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. But you still have not addressed the post made after the deletion. Was that, or was it not a borderline legal threat?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I just removed the line entirely; unless we're talking about Drew Rosenhaus or Scott Boras getting them a high three-figure contract, sports agents usually aren't mentioned in articles of their represented athletes, and golf agents are never usually famous, nor are college golfers who don't go further than that. A totally doable request for sure. And no it wasn't a legal threat, just a simple request (probably just of the 'I'll send an email to the general WMF address to see what else I can do' variety). Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nate...although that is not at all what I have been told by other admin. I'll take your word for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite its pointy title, WP:DOLT is applicable.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I actually agree this was not a borderline legal threat. A threat to take action could mean an intention to contact WMF. No mention of "Legal action" or mention of slander etc. I feel satisfied that it was I that was mistaken.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Buck Winston

About a week ago, Buck Winston (talk · contribs) was blocked after edit warring on several pages to add the category Category:American LGBT-related television programs to articles that aren't really relevant. Several were to seasons of reality shows that happened to have gay cast members/contestants, and he was particularly selective in the application. For example, he added the category to The Amazing Race 4 and The Amazing Race 21, presumably just because the winners of those seasons were gay life partners, while ignoring the fact that pretty much every season has had at least one gay or lesbian contestant (in two separate cases there were 4). Today, after presumably having taken the week off to gather himself, his first article edit was to reinsert this category despite a vast consensus against it. Further removals of this category have been termed by Buck Winston as homophobic as he reinserts it (examples 2 and 3).

It seems that he will not abide by the consensus laid out (at least on one page where the regular editors believe it is unnecessary), that he went to canvass for support and the fact that his first edits upon resuming editing after the Wikibreak were to edit war again and combine that edit warring with vaguely directed attacks means we have a problem a-brewing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As I just pointed out on that SPI report, when you take the articles that Buck Winston has edited and look at the overlap with Otto4711 and his 8 most prolific socks, you come up with 108 articles:

• 2 of those are overlaps between 7 editors
• 1 is between 6 editors
• 7 are between 5 editors
• 17 are between 4 editors.

It is totally beyond the possibility of random happenstance that any editor would have that amount of overlapping without being connected. Since he's back to being disruptive can we please have this person indef blocked on the obvious behavioral evidence?? Why are we rewarding Otto4711 for waiting long enough to create a new sock that his old socks are all stale and can't be connected to him by CU? Anyone who's dealt with one of Otto's socks in the past will tell you that the behavior outlined above is typical for him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, for those wondering if they've ever dealt with an Otto sock before, here's my list, which is probably not complete, in order of number of edits:

• Otto4711
• Are You The Cow Of Pain?
• Harley Hudson
• Buck Winston
• I Want My GayTV
• Iridescentlavender
• Greatsouthbay
• Lafe Smith
• Eddie's Teddy
• Jetblack500
• Calvin Grant
• Brig Anderson
• Screaminsista
• Orrin Knox
• William Bradshaw
• Pranking Member
• A Radish for Boris
• Liihaas
• Jed Stryker
• Sapphire Steel
• Herr Issyvoo
• RFA Guy
• Gaysoul
• War Rocket Ajax
• Lee Haas
• Lihaaas
• Difficult Situations
• Lihaass
• Sousa Blaine
• Derek Tenley
• Seventh Thief
• Heaven hear my heart
• Lea Has
• Archibald Noaccount
• Seab Cooley
• Dalek Trixie
• A-List Arrangement
• Eddie Tenley
• Cosmo Donovan

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Kereći svatovi and Special:Contributions/79.175.75.179 at Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja

G'day all, User:Kereći svatovi is a relatively new account (started editing under this name on 19 November 2012 and till now has only 24 edits) that is essentially an WP:SPA on Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja. He/she (referred to as "he" from this point on) has only edited four articles on WP, and they all relate to the region of Vojvodina in Serbia (formerly in Yugoslavia). Thus, they all fall under WP:ARBMAC. When he began editing Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja I attempted to WP:AGF but his attitude quickly got out of hand. He dropped off the face of the earth on 23 November after a number of acrimonious edits, including one edit summary that said "wrong! there was recognized yugoslav government in exile. hungarian occupation was unrecognized and illegal. there is no need for illegal fascist names here" . I had previously warned him and another user about edit-warring on the article and about ARBMAC here . On 23 December he re-appeared to make significant edits to Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja that I had made significant improvements to, got through MILHIST B class and nominated for GAN. Here is his edit and after his deletion was reverted by User:Antidiskriminator and Antidiskriminator and I began discussing the details of what should be in the infobox, he again deleted the infobox he did not like here , and replaced it with an infobox that suited him here . After I reverted him, he once again reverted me here .

I had warned Kereći svatovi here and again here . Immediately after the most recent revert on the article, I received a series of messages on my talkpage from IP 79.175.75.179 Special:Contributions/79.175.75.179 essentially carrying on with the same stuff (WP:DUCK)? I consider this really disruptive, and while I am very happy to discuss the pro's and con's of the infobox (and have already made amendments and responded amicably to comments by constructive editors like Tomobe03 Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#GA_Review and even Antidiskriminator (who I have had significant disagreements with before) Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#Infobox, this is getting ridiculous. Could I get an admin to have a look? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed this right after you posted it, but dealing with POV pushers is not my strong talent. Since no one else has said anything, though, and I don't want you to feel ignored and unsupported, I'll offer my thoughts. I see why you are concerned about this user and the chance of sockpuppetry is a real one, but I think the actions of this user are just scratching at disruptive behavior. He's participated in discussions, at one point even agreeing with you personally, and has had decent arguments and ideas. He appears willing to compromise on the naming issue, for example. I know you've put a ton of work into this article to get it to the GA review, but I'm just not sure this editor needs to be blocked yet. Certainly they need to stop with the infobox and you were right to come here instead of warring over it. They also need to cut down the nationalist POV language and stick with the purpose of Misplaced Pages. But I think that can be solved with a mentor. What are your thoughts about my outside perspective?--v/r - TP 16:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I was thinking about an ARBMAC warning from an admin per {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=b}}. Which would set the scene for a discretionary block if the behaviour continues? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's right about the area I was thinking, so I've gone ahead and done it.--v/r - TP 23:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, hopefully that will get the message through. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately their ears must be painted on. Despite the fact that three separate editors have reverted the removal of the infobox from the article , and , and it is under discussion on talk, we now have a brand new IP 94.127.0.191 Special:Contributions/94.127.0.191 (WP:MEAT)? doing the same thing, with a very similar edit summary . I think some action against all three might be appropriate? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Article „Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja“ speaks about two geographical regions of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which were under occupation of Hungary. Both regions (Bačka and Baranja) were only geographical areas and had no any official administrative status either in Yugoslavia or in Hungary. User:Peacemaker67 wants to include infobox „fomer country“ in this article, and from his infobox, one can conclude that this geographical area was former country with its flag, capital, currency, etc, etc. It is not only that User:Peacemaker67 included this wrong infobox, but when other users told him that infobox is wrong, Peacemaker67 started revert war and continued to move his infobox back to article. It is obvious case of user which knowingly add false info to article trying, for some reason, to make that these two geographical areas look like a former country. Bačka and Baranja had no any kind of official administrative status, were not former country, had no flag, coat of arms, capital, leaders, currency, etc. Infobox that was introduced by Peacemaker67 is simply unacceptable for an encyclopaedia that aims to be accurate. If administrators iam to perform some action here, they should perform it against person that inventing non-existing former country and that tries to create infobox of that non-existing country in Misplaced Pages. If administrators are not familiar with this period of history of Bačka and Baranja, they should research by themselves what were administrative divisions of Yugoslavia and of Hungary. In Yugoslavia, both regions were part of province Danube Banovina. During Hungarian occupation, Bačka was part of Bacs-Bodrog county and Baranja was part of Baranya county. So, is infobox „former country“ proper infobox for two geographical regions with no administrative status? I think not, and several more users agree with that. User:Peacemaker67 is the only one who thinks that these geographical regions were some fictional former country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.146.192 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

so I leave an ANI message for 94.127.0.191 and another new Serbian IP turns up here to defend the actions of 94.127.0.191 and friends? Classic off-wiki travelling circus and meatpuppeteering. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Continued Block Evasion by User:Dannyboy1209

Hello, this is a Confirmed IP sock User:92.0.110.196 (see Special:Contributions/92.0.110.196) of User:Dannyboy1209 who has been evading their indefinite block and editing via multiple IP addresses after a recently put block by User:Bbb23 expired. An Admin review over this will be helpful. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended block for another 2 weeks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Tailsman67 problem

Hello everyone! Tailsman67, who is defacto community banned, has been using two IPs (98.71.62.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 74.178.177.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) to engage in disruptive editing at Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_for_Nintendo_3DS_(North_America) and wikihounding on the contribution page of administrator Sergecross73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as well as disrupting the AFD on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style phenomenon. He was issued a final warning, but he has continued to post on one of the articles in Sergecross73's contribution page despite the warnings (). Can someone please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Yes, thank you Sjones, you beat me to this. For a little bit of background, see User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67, where this person, who only uses IP address, but constantly calls himself "Tailsman67". (We looked it up once. It's his username he used at a Sonic Wikia - he started editing Misplaced Pages around the time where he had been blocked for a month for incivility.) Since around Q4 2011, he has managed to be blocked here on Misplaced Pages at least 7 times we've tracked, and as Sjones pointed out, eventually community banned by User:AniMate. Once all his numerous blocks ran out, I wondered if it would be easier to try to help him edit rather than continually warn him and advocate for his block. However, it's degraded into the same ol' problems. See his latest IP's collection of warnings, where I've had to warn him of personal attacks, giving absolutely terrible advice out to others, not adhering to WP:BRD, etc.
• Additionally, I'm getting very tired of the IP constantly hounding me. If he's not crying to me about how he's changed on my talk page (something he never backs up with any action or proof), he's following my contribution list around, making non-constructive or pointless comments. (See here or this terrible AFD comment or this one. These topics are pretty all over the place, and he clearly has no conception of a good AFD argument, so it's pretty easy to see he's just going around hounding me.
• Anyways, I'm more than tired of dealing with this disruptive IP editor. He's gotten far more chances than most, and is still stuck in his disruptive ways. I'm WP:INVOLVED, so I didn't want to block him for this, but I'd like a longer-term block put on his recent IPs. (If he continues to block evade like he has in the past, I feel like that would go into the "any admin would do the same" clause of INVOLVED, so at that point I'd probably block him for block evasion. I think that would be best, I'm always the first to spot him since he's always following my edits around.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I told you I have no interest in followin Sergecross73 nor what he does aslong as it doesn't effect me,also I can't stop my Ip from changing.About the "disrupting" on the AFD on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style,yeah I'm sorry about that.Right now I'm moving on.And it was suggested I get a defacto community banned,but they held it(I think)and bet it all on the last ban I had,seeing if I could hold out that long,and I did.I continued to post on one of the articles in Sergecross73's contribution page despite the warnings because I felt the need to reply so it doesn't seem I chicken on the subject,but if you read I have posted my last comment.98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this is pretty much the same thing he says every time, and yet he never leaves and never stops. Also, I'd like to point out that, for someone who has no interest in me or following me around, just today, he started up a conversation with a disruptive user that I had been warning the last few days, that he had never interacted with before. See http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Speedy_X_77 Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

NO Serge the last time I was THAT I ever said anything I just edited,If you be humble I can show you all that I can help,I did stop but it's hard to edit what has been fixed,maybe if people recommend pages for me then you will be surprise.I have made positive edits don't believe what you want to see.98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have seen him around on Sonic articles.98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

But what you said on his talk page was related to what he and I had been discussing. (Comparisons between Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog games.) Are you really suggesting it was just one big coincidence that despite your history of following my edits around, you just happened to run into the same person I had been talking to, and just happened to discuss a similar topic, within a roughly 24 hour timeframe? Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a very long-term issue and I could rant at great length about it, but I've grown tired and disinterested. I have, in the past, engaged the editor negatively and been pro-active in seeking blocks and sanctions (the previous AN/I threads, the SPI, the multiple range-blocks, as seen on the summary page, which you'll notice is in my userspace). During the last rangeblock the editor has engaged in discussion with me and I've since then been very passive and taciturn in my communications with him. He staged a return despite AniMate's proclamation of his de facto community ban, and since his initial contributions weren't immediately negative, I passively gave him some rope, see if he had really changed; after all, assuming good faith's one of the basic of Misplaced Pages interaction. However since we had discussed it and I did not voice strong opposition to his return, he paraded around proclaiming I was supporting him as justification for his actions, which is at best a horrendous lie and at worst the sign of a deep delusion. I do not believe the editor will change his behaviour (despite his repeated claims) in anywhere under at least a year and I do not believe it is relevant or pertinent to have other constructive editors wasting time and effort dealing with this. Plenty of diffs of his behaviour can be found through the contributions of the IPs in the list on the summary page, should you be interested. Salvidrim! 21:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Might be time to reinstate those range blocks. If anything, that de facto ban may need to be brought back up onto AN and converted into a proper community ban this time. Blackmane (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, absent evidence of collateral damage. He has more than worn out his welcome. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for the input. Everything that has been said sounds right; Tailsman is wasting constructive editors time and energy, and he never changes no matter how much he pleads that he has (I think you said it best Salvidrim, when you mentioned his Recurrent claims of "I have changed", which is a common, well-documented behaviour of people who haven't changed.) I would fully support getting a formal community ban on him, though in all honesty, if I can just get an "uninvolved" Admin to block/range block him again, chances are he will probably get blocked into oblivion again due to continually getting caught block evading. (The editor seriously lacks any sort of subtlety or ability to mask the sloppy way he writes, not to mention during one of his blocks, he signed his name on a message he left on Jimmy Wales's talk page. Why would you go to such a high-visibility location while block evading? He's just wasting everyone's time.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think formalizing the ban at WP:AN is a good idea. I also think WP:SPI is going to be your best bet for getting him blocked. The biggest problem here is that you guys have been giving him exactly what he wants, which is attention. You guys have consistently handled this poorly. You get mad. You respond. You interact. You make pages in userspace detailing everything he's ever done, inflating him from an annoying kid who wants attention to one of the worst and most dangerous Misplaced Pages has ever known. But he's not. He's just a kid with too much free time who has decided negative attention is better than no attention at all. Read WP:RBI. Get the ban formalized. Start reporting him to WP:SPI. Revert him. Ignore him. If he's persistent and keeps changing IPs, ask for semi-protection on the articles he's targeting. There are all sorts of mechanisms built into the system to help deal with these kinds of users. Above Sergecross states that "The editor seriously lacks any sort of subtlety". That goes for everyone involved in this. Grow up, handle this like adults, and stop playing his games. Sheesh. AniMate 02:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't need a lecture on RBI, we already "revert" him, I just wanted an uninvolved admin to do the "block" part so we can get the "ignore" part. I'm here mainly to cover my tracks because every time he gets blocked, he always asks for unblock requests until he loses talk page access, and with likely multiple Admin hypothetically looking into his block, I didn't want any unneeded scrutiny for being too involved to block him. The page isn't to immortalize him, it's to speed the process up here, so we don't have to go hunting for difs all the time. Additionally, going to SPI seems silly - He almost always admits who he is - no "investigation" is needed. I want this to be done with as well, I'm just trying to cover my bases here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons I've refrained from engaging him too much is to avoid feeding his ego. However I think the swiftest and cleanest solution, considering the IP-hopping and the wide range of articles, would be to confirm a social ban of the editor, and then automatically and without further question revert & indef-block any IP he might resurface under. However, I am unsure as to what would be the best procedure to achieve this and am hoping you will be able to prove yourself a guide on that path. I do not believe criticizing the actions of exasperated constructive editors and insulting them is very helpful in any way to resolve this case, and I hope you will be able to guide us with your experience to the best possible solution. Salvidrim! 02:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Taking this to SPI isn't silly. You don't have to request a checkuser if he's admitted who he is, and it's a great place to gather info so we can see what ranges he's operating on. You also don't have to wait for a block to ignore him, and you really, really need to start ignoring him. Stop being part of the problem.

@Salvidrim To formalize a ban you need to go and lay out evidence at WP:AN, but we won't indefinitely blocking any IPs, especially considering he appears to be on a dynamic IP. If you guys are exasperated, it's your own fault. Stop playing his game and use the mechanisms in place to deal with the problems. AniMate 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't agree with, or appreciate, your personal views regarding our end of things, but you do still want the same end result that we do, so thanks for that part of your input at least. Sergecross73 msg me 03:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the growing consensus, I have raised the discuss on AN Blackmane (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

2012–13 Premier League

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

Can someone sort out the edits on this. In the last 40 minutes it's been the subject of vandalism from 2 new accounts but I can't rollback without losing some valid edits by other editors. The two jokers are User:RaymondHolianBers and User:MattMarleyBers both of whom I have reported to AIV. The last clean version prior to their activity is this one. NtheP (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved – Page has been protected and both users blocked, no need to report this type of problem to both AIV and ANI. The report at AIV sufficed. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Could someone handle this please

I have unavoidable commitments that prevent me following this through, and am involved too. We need to check out edits by User:Sk8terguy27 (whose RfA was removed as unsuccessful last week). I took him to task re a copyvio here. Also, see this which is one of his earlier contributions, a cut and paste copyvio from this. I'm guessing there is more, but simply haven't the time to investigate further. User being notified. Moriori (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finding and highlighting this! Looking at his contribs, it looks like you've already identified nearly half the articles on which he introduced copyright violations; this does need cleanup, but probably (hopefully?) doesn't need a CCI. Shall we move this to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems?

(Incidentally, it's a bit unfortunate because Sk8terguy27 has obviously made attempts to re-write what he's taken, not just copy and paste it, so he might just not understand what is allowed.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:119.73.11.43

Serious sounding threat of violence here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Page deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Propagandising titles unwanted in Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012)

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

2/3rds of 9 involved editors want these out but have been frustrated by extreme efforts of what looks like one editor. WP:NPOV, WP:TRIVIA, WP:RS (for LCC as a source), and WP:UNDUE apply. Requesting help to enforce this.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. In October 5 editors (including 2 ips) opposed and 3 wanted to keep. However there was no elaborate discussion among 3 of those 5 editors. The Discussion ended when Django passively conceded to I7laseral's points.

Now 2 months later MalesAlwaysBest tried to reignite the discussion, and claims that the 5 editors prior are still part of the discussion. Perhaps they are, but wikipedia is not a vote. No consensus is reached. Right now there is only a discussion between me and him.

The Friday names are long-standing, they have been used on the wiki articles since the conflict began. They are widely noted, as hundreds of reliable sources such as AP, BBC, CNN< Reuters, ect had made note of their use throughout the conflict. During the Egyptian and Yemeni Arab Spring events they were used on their wikitimelines. I don't see whats the problem here. Sopher99 (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Try WP:DR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/92.40.254.14, Special:Contributions/86.42.8.86: Edit warring?

I can't make heads or tails of the contributions history here, but this is definitely not productive for the encyclopedia. 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello71 (talk • contribs)

• 86.42.8.86 has been blocked by Kuru following a report at WP:ARV. Perhaps sanctions against 92.40.254.14 for edit warring are also in order, although I haven't analyzed the history enough to see if there was also a clear 3RR violation; although in theory WP:ANEW might be a better venue. Salvidrim! 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• This issue is down to the user 86.42.8.86 removing information of wikipedia pages. To be more precise, they were removing timestamps o last update on professional footballers wiki pages and in some circumstances removing the date of last update entirely. I have noticed that there have been a few other members that have also reverted this edits made by this member, not just 92.40.254.14. I hope this will help you with this issue. Regards Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

RightGot

RightGot (talk · contribs) has a history of problematic AfD proposals, see now Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2012 phenomenon which he thinks should be deleted because the world didn't end. Time for an indefinite block? Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is the first edit for them in 4.5 years. Maybe a good talking to would suffice for now? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Just ban them from AFD's Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• I closed the AfD, but since it's been so long since the last edits, someone should definitely talk to them before blocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a chat would work, but it didn't work before. Still... thanks to the editor who notified them, I got a phone call and forgot. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• • I left them a message and gave them a notice of this ANI, as that must have slipped Doug's mind when filing here. I don't have much hope looking at his archives, but we should still try to solve the problem on the talk page first, if only for ourselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Where was the attempt to discuss it with the editor before escalating to ANI? GiantSnowman 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Turning myself for deleting someone's account

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

I received a message from some IP user saying that I had deleted his entire account. I'm not sure how I did it, seeing as the admins cannot even do that, but I'm turning myself in for it anyway. Obviously, he is not a block evading disruptive editor, but a new user who cannot seem to find his account information. I've asked him for information regarding his account, and he's remained tight lipped. He said that he was going to report me, but has not, so I assume he must be too busy with real life or trying to figure out what his old account was to do so, and am filing the report on his behalf.

I mean, clearly, I somehow deleted his account, and he's the victim, and not a block evading troll. I trust y'all will know how to handle this. :) Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Done - Ian indef blocked for deleting user account and other admin abuse even though he isn't an admin On a more serious note, I left him a message and so have others trying to help him remember his account. Nothing else to do here at ANI since he is being assisted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yer a wizard, Ian! GiantSnowman 16:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a CU could help locate his account? I'd do it, but I'm indeffed and not an admin. Because going through my emails, I know its none of the few users who have emailed me (all rather amicable discussions), so I don't know what he's forwarded. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Ian should have his account deleted. :) --Rschen7754 16:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Stop deleting accounts -- it's witchcraft and bad for business. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards