Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Durova (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 6 April 2007 (→Destroy Misplaced Pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Disruptive behaviour -- misuse of reference desk

I am concerned that Bowlhover (talk · contribs) is causing unnecessary alarmism by posting, on the Humanities reference desk, that media are reporting a toxic spill in Toronto . --Mathew5000 04:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comments there. This user 'just' discovered it is was April Fool's day. Want to check their other 'contributions', at science and elsewhere? Shenme 06:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, Mathew. How does anyone believe such a thing could happen in Toronto (how do you get access to the water system)? Also, what date did I post the warning on? Check what the other users said and see whether I'm alarming anyone. --Bowlhover

You posted it on April 2. A message like that is bound to be alarming to anyone in Toronto with small children. --Mathew5000 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Check again, and remember not everyone is living in the UTC time zone. Do you also realize that you're the only one complaining? Why do you assume "anyone in Toronto with small children" is bound to be stupid? --Bowlhover 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit in question was made at 04:07, 2 April UTC, corresponding to a few minutes past midnight on April 2 in the North American Eastern Time Zone. In another edit, 29 minutes later, you stated “By the way, it’s April 2 right now in Toronto.” Your initial post did not have the appearance of a “joke”; you did not acknowledge it was a joke when asked, and creating panic about contaminated tap water is not an appropriate April Fool’s joke in any event. Moreover, it was not even on-topic for the Humanities RefDesk. --Mathew5000 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For the last time Mathew, did you notice that no administrator has taken action against me even though this notice was posted almost a day ago? No complaints either at the reference desk, except for yours. I have no interest in debating this any further. If you don't enjoy April Fools day, fine. If you always wish to assume bad faith, fine. Just keep your opinions to yourself and don't try to hurt any other users. --Bowlhover 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you really feel that you need to be punished in order to know that you've done something wrong, I'll be more than happy to give you a 24-hour block. --Carnildo 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Block me for 24 hours. Wait, make that 24 days. Let me make it very clear that I will not apologize for my actions on April 1, and I will not refrain from them on April 1, 2008. Judging from the responses on the reference desk, almost everybody got my joke; it doesn't matter whether it was funny or whether I only managed to submit it 7 minutes after April 1. (I'm very curious as to why you intervened just now, by the way.) So please block me indefinitely if you really feel a joke/prank isn't appropriate even on April Fool's day, and realize that any shorther block will be completely useless. --Bowlhover 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As requested, I've blocked you for 24 hours. --Carnildo 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"If you really feel that you need to be punished in order to know that you've done something wrong, I'll be more than happy to give you a 24-hour block" is the perfect example of what not to say to a user who is already upset. A productive, and as far as I can see loyal, Misplaced Pages editor does not deserve to be baited by admins. And guess what, Bowlhover ended up indefinitely blocked for talking back to an administrator. (By Yamla, who apparently didn't think the matter deserved a note here.) I hate to see this. I'm going to start a new thread at the bottom of the page. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Problem regarding the article OmegaT

On April 1st 00.22 Tokyo time I send a mail to info-en-c@wikipedia.org regarding registered trademark infringement by a Misplaced Pages author.

The ticket number is .

I was first replied to by Mr. Benn Newman who suggested that I follow the procedures proposed on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. I read the page and considered that most of its contents was not relevant and replied with a request for more information since our case seemed to not be addressed there.

I received then a reply by Mr. Guy Chapman who told me he had considered my request and 1) removed the conflicting article and 2) banned the user "laseray".

Following that, the user laseray used an unregistered IP resolving to vandalize the OmegaT page and to remove references to OmegaT in other related pages.

see 216.252.81.89 on: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Computer-assisted_translation&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=OmegaT&action=history

We know that it is highly probable that it is him since the IP resolves to a domain he advertises as using on other sites: http://www.proz.com/post/543150 (Proz is a site for professional translators). His profile page is at: http://www.proz.com/profile/649046

where he indicates he uses the colba.net server, the same name than the one to which the IP 216.252.81.89 resolves.

For a little background information, OmegaT is one of the few existing free (GPL) software to help translators. It is developped by a team of volunteers of which the Misplaced Pages user "laseray" (Raymond Martin) was a member from the automn of 2004 to the spring of 2005 when he left after upsetting pretty much everybody in the team. He went on to create his fork and since then never ceased to arrass us. We were forced to register the "OmegaT" trademark and started to request that our right to that name be enforced in various places on the web of which Misplaced Pages is one.

Currently, all the IP that resolve to colva.net that do edits on computer aided translation related pages (translation memory etc) are used by people to falsify information concerning OmegaT, althought it is highly probable that all the edits are made by one and the same person: Mr. Raymond Martin. It is starting to take a significant amount of time to maintain the pages, where, out of honesty, we even added information related to Mr. Martin's fork.

We are currently at loss and would like to know what is possible to do. We do not want to have the page locked because there are a number of contributors to that page who would be harmed by that process but we would like to know how to deal with such savage vandalism.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Jean-Christophe Helary (Jc_helary)

User:Riva72 's personal attacks and spam messages

User:Riva72 posted a message to a user talk page which include an unacceptable statement I dont know, you are a man, a woman or an animal..., he posted many messages to many users (including the phrase above) see here.Must. 15:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• 1. DO NOT alter my comments. Provide the whole phrase, if you please:

• Do not use me as a tool. - Cat chi? 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• You are all tools, the sysops, of someone who holds all the Commons and the Misplaced Pages. Besides, you are tools of the users; you are for the users and not vice versa. Besides, I see you are only a Cool Cat. I even do not know if you are a man, a woman or an animal. The user called Ejdzej evidently broke the licence rules and you are a coward to admit this. This is all from my part. Bye, bye C.C! - Riva72 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• 2. These were not spam messages but requests for assistance (or help) to the three Commons administrators: Jastrow, Gmaxwell and Yonatan. You can read all the messages and get accustomed with the affair at their discussion pages and mine (Riva72) as well.
• 3. To the user Makalp: Cheers!

--Riva72 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• 4. I was brave enough to introduce myself. Cool Cat was not.. --Riva72 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a personal attack, but simply a humorous comment in regards to Cool cat's username. As for the background of the messages, Riva72 returned to Misplaced Pages and contacted numerous users solely due to his block on Wikimedia Commons. If he wishes to request unblocking, he may always contact the users through email. I've reverted his messages for now. Michaelas10 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear personal attack. Calling someone who has specifically stated, and provided photographic evidence that they are a cat either a man or a woman is blatantly specieist. Recommend indefinite block for everyone participating in this thread... :-) --AnonEMouse 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry for the words which may have appeared rude to some people. --Riva72 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User blanking their talk page to hide vandalism warnings

I don't want to bust 3RR on her talk page. Lizzie Harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) refuses to leave vandalism warnings up on her talk page. I already warned with {{uw-tpv3}} (I thought there was a more specific one of "don't remove warnings" but couldn't find it), but continues to blank anyway. Somebody else's problem now. — RevRagnarok 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason there isn't a specific don't remove warnings template is because it isn't actually against the rules to remove warnings from your talk page. The Kinslayer 15:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If he blanks them it means he's read them. Users are entitled to manage their talk the way they see fit. So just act as if the warnings were there and block if it's warranted. Don't fight over talk page blanking. -- drini 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A 3rr is not appropriate here. Users are not required to leave warnings on their talk page. If they remove them then they obviously have seen them. Admins and experienced editors know to look at the history before giving another warning or block. FloNight 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll add this to WP:PEREN, it comes up often enough. >Radiant< 11:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm noticing that Lizzie Harrison is now blocked for "vandalism", but I'm not seeing where she vandalized. Anyone know what's going on? Bladestorm 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Vandalism to a now-deleted page, perhaps? >Radiant< 08:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

VERY SPEEDY deletion of Mark Britten

I created this article with content moved from Chinaman (disambiguation). It was almost immediately tagged for speedy deletion. No problem there, as it helped me go to Talk:Chinaman (disambiguation)#Mark Britten and warn of what was bound to happen. Problem is, an admin was too hasty in deleting the article - it took less than 5 minutes from creation to deletion. As it happens, a user that was intent in putting a hangon on the article in order to expand it couldn't do it and the content, as little as it was, was lost. All because he was a couple of minutes "late". (The admin response: User talk:Skookum1#Mark Britten.)

This is not the first time I see admins being very hasty in speedy deleting and this is not my first reporting on this matter. I have previously seen suggestions that there should be a minimum period between tagging and deletion. Please, admins, discuss and enforce that. I have no desire in becoming an admin but I also have no desire in being treated like this by hsty admins. In the meanwhile, this particular admin should reflect on the kindness of his acts which are at the very least wasting the time of everyone involved. Thank you. --maf 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: The article in question consisted of one sentence ("Mark Britten is an American comedian whose stage name is "The Chinaman"."). That falls under speedy delete categories a1 (empty) and a7 (no assertion of notability). I've advised User:Mafmafmaf that there is no bar on reposting and that all he/she has to do is create an article with content. Anyone who works on WP:CSD knows that people put hangon tags on speediable articles all the time. If we were bound to honor every hangon tag, CSD would be even more backlogged than it usually is. NawlinWiki 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I support NawlinWiki's actions here. The article had no meaningful content, so was clearly speediable. maf, you were clearly told that you could recreate the article once you had enough material to show notability, so why are you posting here? What action do you expect? NawlinWiki did the right thing and told you how to correctly create an worthwhile article. That's what you should do. Gwernol 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was speediable.. but 5 minutes is still a very quick deletion, and not everyone uses the "preview" feature like they should, which is why I think even admins on newpage patrol should probably just tag for speedy deletion rather than deleting outright. But there's no point complaining about individual examples like this: Maf, you have the text you wrote, so if you want to write the article go ahead; use the preview feature until the article is in a state good enough to be a good stub. Mangojuice 20:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is not about the content, my point is that "speediable" should not be "instantiable". User:Mangojuice is right in that aspect. As a "dab police" myself, I don't write articles, I move content away from dab pages and warn others to expand on the articles. When the articles instantly vanish, there is the risk that the content will move back in the dab page, and my work becomes a waste of time. Please consider that.--maf 20:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Maf -- I see your point, but if something you're taking out of a dab page is insufficient for an article (like a mention of a person with no assertion of notability), you could just delete it from the dab page rather than creating a new article. NawlinWiki 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted articles that clearly deserved it that were several hours old before; I don't see why we should wait some arbitrary time before deleting something that clearly doesn't deserve to be here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean other than the fact that the speedy deletion policy tells us to? I quote: "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." I don't believe that this is a valid application of A1; it was a stub, for sure, and, 5 minutes after creation, didn't assert notability. It absolutely should have been given a chance to assert it before deleting it... We've been over this before, and I thought it was fairly clear what the proper procedure is. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It always depends on what it is... If it's 'Joe James is teh kewl' I always delete it on sight, but if it sounds like it might be notable, I often leave it for a while or use a different deletion process. Grandmasterka 06:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems a bit CREEPy to me. If it meets a speedy criterion, it can be speedily deleted. In this case, it did, and it was. If it so happens that the subject of the article can assert notability, recreate it and do that. Seraphimblade 07:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate?

Are this , and the page it links to, acceptable? Andy Mabbett 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't appropriate. The linked page has been deleted. Attack pages aren't acceptable, even as a user sub page. IrishGuy 20:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, this seems to be escalating. Andy Mabbett 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the note on your talk page was left after that post at Talk:St Paul's tram stop. Both have been removed, so let's hope things calm down, from there. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"ownership"

User apparently refusing to allow changes to Template talk:Derbyshire tramways, on the basis that he created it. (If there is a better page to raise such issues, please point me at it) Andy Mabbett 20:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Does not appear to be a matter of ownership. Pigsonthewing edit adds nothing useful to the page, and makes editing the template harder. I would be on your side if you were adding something useful but Pigsonthewing is just changing a bar to a star and making the template harder to edit, as it is not 1 entry per line. In my opinion the edit is clear downgrade and should be reverted, as it was.--Dacium 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue of ownership relates to the attitude of the user concerned; not the content of the individual edits. That said, my edit did add more - like many articles it include a horizontal lists, separated by bullets (•). These characters may be spoken, intrusively, by assistive software ("bullet cat bullet dog bullet..."), and the content is not marked up, in the HTML source code, as a list, which reduces functionality on some devices and reduces semantic meaning. There is now CSS available for horizontal lists, which my edit, using {{flatlist}}, applied. That uses a CSS border, not a bar, which is not read by assistive software. From your description, it seems that you may have been viewing the new page with old, cached, CSS. Try refreshing your browser. Please explain why you think my edit "makes editing the template harder". Andy Mabbett 13:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry I did have a cache problem :-) Anyway has anything happened with this?--Dacium 09:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There appears to be a similar issue, with the same editor, on Talk:Sheffield Midland station. Andy Mabbett 13:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And, I suspect, a 3RR-avoiding sock puppet. Andy Mabbett 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipediareview.com an acceptable site to link to?

I contend this is an attack site and should never be linked to from en.wikipedia.org. They have active threads on their forum to out the IRL secret identities of various administrators such as JayJG, SlimVirgin, and others, stalk them, and harass them. On Daniel Brandt, various editors are saying there is concensus to keep the link to the site active. I think it should not be as an attack site, and ArbCom has said... that links to attack sites can be removed immediately.

Is this an acceptable link to remove as an attack site on Wikipedians? - Denny 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like they have removed the hot link, but still give the URL. Is this what is meant by not linking? Or do they mean full removall of the URL and its use as a REF?--Dacium 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I made a non-clickable link. I don't think that even is a valid source as a forum but I didn't want to throw a hand grenade, just take an active link to an attack site down. - Denny 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WR is an attack site. I've been harassed and attacked there like many other users. FloNight 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe it as an attack site. It's merely a Misplaced Pages meta forum. Yes, some people there do (or did) have serious issues, but it's actually gotten better over time as it's been subverted by active Wikipedians who comment there. Cyde Weys 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, if that's not an attack site, I don't know what is. There are serious libels on it, plus hundreds of childish insults, purported photographs of editors added without anyone's permission, sexual insults about women editors. I've been called a "c**t" by it more times than I care to remember, and a whore; people have posted comments like I better find a place to hide, which sounds like a physical threat; and have obliquely speculated about whether I was able to get jobs in real life because I had sex with people. The speculation about the sex lives of other women editors has been more explicit. It should never be linked to on Misplaced Pages. SlimVirgin 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutey not. Why are we even considering the possibility? ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

They have active threads trying to 'out' peoples' real identities that most of the 'regulars' there all take part in. - Denny 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

They generally keep criticism constructive from what I've seen - no attacks. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you can't have seen much. SlimVirgin 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not link to it here, but they have active threads to stalk and expose the real-life identities of editors such as JayJG and SlimVirgin. That is an attack site. Do we support 'outing' editors here? - Denny 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Stalking is wrong, yes, but it isn't attacking. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we link to sites that are trying to endanger Wikipedian's identities and privacy by trying to find out their real names/who they are? - Denny 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many times you ask, I doubt your going to get the answer you want. -- Nick 22:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to think the silence then can be taken as endorsement of harassment of Wikipedians, and wanted to give the editor a chance to... affirm that they do not support stalking/harassment. - Denny 22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Whilst the motives and activities of users of that site are wide and varied, and some of their criticism has a certain validity. I'd say on aggregate that the site is regularly used to harass individuals and actively promote privacy violations (which is ironic, given Brandt's criticism of wikipedia - which I actually do find somewhat valid). Until/unless the moderators of that site are willing to counter the worst abuses, we should regard it as an unacceptable site and remove all links to it. Stalking is worse than simple verbal attacking - although they do that too.--Doc 22:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I think it just gives em more ammo when you try to ban this kinda stuff. The Review site is fairly tame, but the other site linked from Brandt's page, Misplaced Pages Watch, is pretty savage. If anything, links to such places should be allowed so more people here can go see just how absurd they all are. Tarc 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What is tame about the bulk of their editors trying to actively fish for and uncover the true IRL identities of multiple administrators and editors on Misplaced Pages? - Denny 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't need to aid in promoting such things. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. WR fails NPOV and is not a RS, and remove it whenever found. SirFozzie 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

None of that is applicable, as it isn't being used as a source for anything; it is just listed in a "see also" kind of section. Tarc 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not true, it was being used AS a source in the article. - Denny 22:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually think it can be pretty informative ... I do however think that Misplaced Pages Review should only be allowed as a link in articles related to wikipedia, where the review linked to provides a constructive and educating contrast to views expressed here. --I'm so special 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You can post issues with editors here with supporting diffs... or to the ArbCom. Lets also not be reposting nonsense from trolls here. We shouldn't link to stalking/harassment sites like Misplaced Pages review. They offer nothing to the encyclopedia beyond harassment of editors. - Denny 22:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to I'm so special)Sounds to me like an argument based in "but I agree with them". The views expressed on Misplaced Pages are intended to be neutral, and if we fail in that then the solution is to amend the article based on reliable sources until it becomes neutral, not to link to attack sites. --tjstrf talk 22:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And THAT seems to me like an arguement based in "but I disagree with them". It's a viscous cycle here. I think the problem users like Jayjg have with the review is that they are not immune to criticism there. I'll probably be blocked for saying that.. someone will find an excuse. E.g by fishing up an old edit where I corrected someone's spelling and call it a Personal Attack! lol! --I'm so special 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Alas, the image is copyrighted, but a viscous cycle looks more like this. Durova 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No... it'll probably be a 48hour block for trolling. (just my guess) While although I think it's laughable to prohibit linking to sites, simply because they may be against wikipedia (if they're worth sourcing at all, it should be done right. Singling out anti-wikipedia sources specifically screams censorship), using this discussion as an excuse to air your beefs with a specific user is grossly inappropriate, and entirely unhelpful. Bladestorm 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Per previous ArbCom ruling, we may not link to sites which out the real identities of Misplaced Pages editors, or which host offsite personal attacks. End of story, really. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto, and fails WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• That seems pretty conclusive. If WR was limited to merely "reviewing" Misplaced Pages it wouldn't be a problem, but plainly it goes way beyond that. -- ChrisO 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an NSA agent now , I learn! Damn right deviationist tendencies! El_C 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm very critical of that site, but I'm also against banning links to it (or any other non-spammy site). If it's worth mentioning at all, it's worth a real hyperlink to it; turning the link into a non-link that still gives the address is a silly cop-out. *Dan T.* 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the non-link that gives that address should also be removed. ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As forums are not RS anyway I'm going to remove it completely. - Denny 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of anything that makes it a little less easy to stalk and harass editors in real life. In other words, I'm in favour of removing links any site that publishes real names (or speculation about real names) of editors. That includes Brandt's site and WR. ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

NO we should not link to wikipedia review. The website does little about those that post personal information. It had the potential, and still does, of becoming a forum where a realistic outside analysis of the "problems" of Misplaced Pages could be addressed, but instead is more generally geared towards posts trying to identify wiki editors on a personal level or for banned editors stating how big an injustice they have suffered at the hands of the :admin cabal".--MONGO 04:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Misplaced Pages Review is an attack site! Their latest thread is titled: "Who is Jayjig?"; they continually try to out eminent Wikipedians in this manner. To be fair, there are one or two decent people who post there who try to avoid a complete free-or-fall, but they're outnumbered by the nutcases, of whom there are plenty. Dangerous radges, that gang. Plenty of banned users with a grudge. We should not link to them at any cost, nor use them as a source. Moreschi 09:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Images in Signature

Hello. I have a problem with images in user signatures. Especially S V G images. For some accessibility software (screen readers etc.) S V G images are read as text because their file is not recognised as binary, and vector graphisc slow computers considerably, and when they are removed from display the formatting is not always kept, this creates great problems in user signatures, but then I see policy WP:SIG forbids images. I asked one user if he could remove image from signature as per WP:SIG#Images. I received no response and the comment was archived in less than 24 hours. The user continues to sign with an image.

The user (User:AKMask) also had another request to remove image from signature which had this response. I can understand that the user has had the image before the policy was created, but I disagree the policy does not apply because the flag image is small. “I dont(sic) have any issues with people refactoring(sic) talk and discussion pages to eliminate it if they so desire” I think this is very backwards. By the time I see the flag it has already caused a problem, then the user is asking me to edit it out? Even on this A N I page I am posting this user is posting with his flag. I think the rules should apply to everyone evenly. Many people had images (even small ones) and removed them. I do not think it is fair that there has to be a "significant outcry" (Who judges this?) before an accepted policy should be followed by a particular user. I post here to hope an administrator could ask him again please to remove the image from his signatures.--Dacium 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, he's soon going to have to be blocked until he removes the images from his signature. It's a simple rule that we all have to follow, and there is no grandfather clause. --Cyde Weys 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious: aren't SVG images usually rendered to png by MediaWiki? I'm uncertain as to why they're specifically creating a problem. But yes, Cyde Weys' warning seems pretty reasonable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I used a flag before the policy came in, I removed it when the policy came in. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain once and for all why images in signatures are not allowed. Even the most obnoxious, ornamented, 1KB signature you can think of is still nothing more than HTML, and it is sent inline with the rest of the discussion page. Now this may inflate bandwidth by a little bit, but that's not a huge problem. Images, however, are handled totally differently. Each image needs to come across through a separate HTTP connection. People are saying, "Oh, but this or that image is only 300B" — that's not the point. The point is that it puts a lot more load on the server by requiring another HTTP request, not through bandwidth. If images in signatures were allowed and a lot of people were using them, rather than the typical discussion page generating a few HTTP requests, it could potentially generate dozens of them. That would be putting an utterly unnecessary increased load on servers, and to prevent this from happening, images are banned in signatures, period. I have spoken with AKMask on IRC and explained this with him, and he is removing the image voluntarily. The draconian block threat is unnecessary. --Cyde Weys 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Images are banned, but the other restrictions on sigs don't seem to be so clear. Is there a client-side solution (eg, user CSS sheets or GreaseMonkey extensions) that re-factor a user's local page? That would allow users to post with ugly sigs, and other users to avoid those sigs. Dan Beale 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the script is called TonySidaway.js ;-) Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• HAH! El_C 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the use of images in signatures is not forbidden at all. WP:SIG#Images is a wiki Guideline and is not policy and therefor not enforceable. Any admin who blocked a user because of an image in their signature would themselves be violating wiki policy. There are two options for this issue. 1. Change the guideline into actual policy. 2. Automate the system to prevent the use of images in signatures. You can see from this entry that people are already working on this: bugzilla:6379. In the meantime, while you may request a user remove an image from a signature, there is no wiki policy at present to enforce this. Z Ha Dum 01:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As you can read here, guidelines are actionable. Saying that because community consensus is expressed on a page marked as a "guideline" instead of a "policy" equates to "not forbidden at all" is ludicrous and not an accurate reading of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:I'm so special

I've gone ahead and blocked this user indefinitely, just to bring on what I see as the inevitable a little sooner... This account has been nothing but disruptive and trollish since he got here, and seems like he may be someone's sock. (He also removed some criticism as a "personal attack" and then links to a similar comment he made that was considered as such and laughs about it.) I realize that this will probably be controversial, so it's here for review. Grandmasterka 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Certainly appears that the user had past grievences and was channeling them in a disruptive & provocational manner. El_C 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the indefblock, but yes, he was doing an irish jig on WP:Point SirFozzie 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. This was obviously a reincarnation of some blocked troll. ElinorD (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Seen, seen, seen, sick, ... thank you! Shenme 00:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. This user has been hitting everybody else with the WP:POINT stick too much. Natalie 01:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. I'd looked at the contribution history the other day and it's an obvious disruptive sock. Don't think we really need to wait it out until we figure whose. Durova 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Little but disruption...not here to write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 05:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Disruption only, wikilawyering, wasting time. Not needed. No interest in writing the encyclopedia. Moreschi 10:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Lake Scutari

I'm edit warring at Lake Scutari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with Rarelibra (talk · contribs) on whether or not to include the name "Scutari" for the city after which the lake is named.

To be honest, only the 3RR stopped me from continuing :-) In any case, if an administrator wants to take a look at the issue it would be much appreciated. I think it's quite simple: you won't need to read much to get the idea.

The relevant discussion: On mentioning the city as Scutari.

Thanks already. - Best regards, Ev 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In simple terms, this diff. resumes the dispute, which revolves around this two basic versions:

• Rarelibra's version:
  " is named after the city of Shkodra (Skadar, Shkodër) in northern Albania."
  Thus forcing the reader to check the article on Shkodër to discover that the city is also known as Scutari.
• Ev's version:
  " is named after the city of Shkodra (Skadar, Shkodër) in northern Albania, also known by the Italian name Scutari."
  Thus making the relation between the names of the lake and city immediately comprehensible.

• The article currently states:
  " is named after the city of Shkodra (also known as Skadar or Shkodër) in northern Albania."
  Thus forcing the reader to check the article on Shkodër to discover that the city is also known as Scutari.

Best regards, Ev 05:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that Rarelibra's edits are intended to emphasize his personal opinion on the article's name, i.e. that it should be named "Lake Skadar" or "Lake Shkodër". - Best regards, Ev 14:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The text before Rarelibra's campaign listed Scutari as one of the names of Shkodra, as it is (see it:Scutari). This would also be acceptable to me; but Ev's version may be clearer in explaining why this is the (usual) English name of the lake. In any case, I have reverted Rarelibra's last exact reversion - to Ev's version, as it happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This edit war apparently got both Rarelibra and Pmanderson|Septentrionalis blocked for 3RR. Under discussion, below, here. #Unblock request needs review. I weighed in on the article talk page (in favor of mentioning the town name). --AnonEMouse 18:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dutch declension, Archaic Dutch declension

There are a few problems to address here.

1. I was being attacked as "foreigners", "don't understand Dutch" and need to "fuck off", etc in the discussion page about merging the two articles. I don't know a lot of Dutch, but I'm certainly know much enough to edit things I know which is true and which is not. And I asked someone who does know Dutch to do the rewrite.

2. I did not attack, nor erase anything. I simply revert the page to something believable.

3. I suspect Govert Miereveld, Bombshell and Scavenger are of the same user.

4. The above user, plus some users with a very similar IP, never responded to replies, nor discuss anything when there has been a very clear POV fork which needs to be addressed till lately when Rigadoun suggesting the merge of 2 pages.

5. The abovementioned users keep brining the Archaic Dutch declension page to Dutch declension page, making redirects, moving links from Dutch declension to Archaic Dutch declesion on Dutch grammar page on several occasions.

I feel violated. Although the comment was removed by another user for good enough reason, I think it is not at all civilised. Thanks in advance for the help because this has been going on for quite a while and I can not stand this anymore. Excuse my language in the beginning. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not admin, but diffs please. --Samuel Curtis-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The three accounts are indeed clearly sockpuppets, I have accordingly blocked two of them and given the third a warning. As for the rest of his behaviour, I consider myself more-or-less involved in the content dispute, so I'd appreciate if somebody else could take over. I can confirm that Bombshell has been disruptively editing against consensus, blatantly failed to understand WP:ATT, and has been making some rather nasty personal attacks (mostly in Dutch ). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• And also in French and German. Judging by the verbiage, the user is Belgian. Not that that matters. It's basically a rant like "I'm pissed and you can all go to hell". Not very nice, to say the least. >Radiant< 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree

Could someone investigate a series of odd incidents, mainly concerning Category:User templates, and the following pages: User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Category Cleanup and User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Source to Short.

PatPeter (talk · contribs) has been using this page to replace what's been accepted as userpage format, and as far as I can tell, there's been no one but him working on the category 'rule' changes (see below).

Cat page changes:

• Category:User templates:
• Category:Book fan user templates:
• Category:Dance user templates:
• Category:Fandom user templates:
• Category:Grammar user templates:
• Category:Interest user templates:
• Category:Language user templates:
• Category:Mathematics user templates:
• Category:Scouting user templates:
• Category:Misplaced Pages related user templates:

Also refer to , , and . Blast 05.04.07 0424 (UTC)

• I've already questioned the use of WP:StS on WP:AN earlier. Note that the CFD has now been closed as "speedy keep" due to orphaning of the category by the nom, PatPeter (talk · contribs), amongst other irregularities. See here. Also, as a result of this comment, my first encounter with this user, I received this reply. - Alison 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just found out there's apparently some history to all this on ANI - Alison 05:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It appears that this is not the first time PatPeter's conduct has been raised on this board (see this archived thread). I have recently become aware of a range of questionable edits by this editor:

1. The bringing of an TfD for the user category Category:Cub Wikipedians on the basis of it containing only one member when he had orphaned it himself (, ). Given this, I have speedy closed the discussion and suggested a new debate at Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion with proper nomination (the category is a little problematic, especially given the difference in meaning ascribed to the word "Cub" between the gay community and the Scouting community).
2. The user created userbox User:PatPeter/User antigay which stated an opposition to gay rights in general (not just same sex marriage etc). It has been speedy deleted by Grandmasterka as divisive and inflammatory per CSD T1.
3. At present his userpage contains a flashing alert declaring that he is about to commit suicide. It appears highly distasteful and likely to distress users with personal experience of suicide.

I don't know enough about the templates listed above to assess PatPeter's edits to them (though the "rules" do seem expressed unnecessarily strongly) but would ask they be investigated by someone who does. WjBscribe 05:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he's trying to be distasteful or offensive with this suicide message. I think he's suffering from some serious depression. One of his userboxes says as much. I wouldn't treat this as a joke or an attempt to be rude; actually I think someone completely uninvolved might want to leave a nice note recommending that he make an appointment to talk to someone. He's on a university campus, and most have free and confidential counselling available at the drop of a hat. — coelacan — 05:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed re. the "suicide" comment. These things, even if made in jest, often run deeper, in my experience - Alison 05:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My only interaction with him so far was this, which I found to be in rather bad taste. Potential socks? ^demon 06:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I might be overlooking something. What's the sock potential you're seeing? — coelacan — 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I guess you were talking about this.... That is really weird. I don't know if it yells "sock" so much as "weird random stuff". — coelacan — 07:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It was presumably done to make the templates appear more used than they really were... WjBscribe 07:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Some of them were done after the Tfd closed. — coelacan — 07:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What's troubling me right now is the title overrides on User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Category Cleanup and User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Source to Short. Over at User talk:Mallanox one can see how he directed someone to these pages as though they were Wikiprojects making guidelines that should be followed, or at least that's my reading of it. Anybody else troubled by the title overrides, or should I just drop it? — coelacan — 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable, especially given the use of the redirect WP:StS and WP:CGC so the user has little to tell them that it is NOT a Misplaced Pages page... WjBscribe 06:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried. But I wasn't going to keep reverting as my own one-person inquisition. — coelacan — 07:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As redirects to userspace for WP: shortcuts are expressly excluded from CSD R2, I have listed the shortcuts at Redirects for discussion. WjBscribe 07:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

watch out for category emptying

PatPeter has now admitted that he was emptying a category prior to speedying it, to "fight fire with fire". So if anyone is doing speedy deletions, and you see a category tagged by User:PatPeter or an Oregon State Univeristy IP, consider that it may have just been emptied. — coelacan — 21:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:POINT, by User:Steve Dufour

• Steve Dufour (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), has previously been blocked for violation of WP:POINT. For more recent comments by other editors on this user's inappropriate disruption of the project, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#Violation_of_WP:POINT.. More recently, the User continues to violate WP:POINT: DIFF 1. The User had previously tried this: DIFF 2, and was correctly reverted by User:Antaeus Feldspar, DIFF 3. Incidentally, this disruption was inserted again by later banned User:BabyDweezil, and was reverted again, and stayed removed until now. This repeated pattern of disruption of the project is clearly unacceptable. Smee 04:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

How many times is that now? - Denny 13:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeking block of User:Merbabu from further supply of comment to User:DavidYork71 talk page

This is motivated by the firstnamed user's supply of incivilities here:], and by it's manner and degree of unsolicited attention directed at the secondnamed user in general. Please effect this, or inform me how to do so. Thanks and Easter Regards, DavidYork71 05:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And while folks are at it they might want to remove the soapboxing image found at the top of User talk:DavidYork71 (do note that User:DavidYork71 never requested that User:Merbabu not post to his talk page). (→Netscott) 05:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubt anyone interested in the issue will read the full discussion where I’ve ask David to explain the meaning of the pic. As I pointed out in the discussion, an admin has already asked for the image’s removal. It’s apparently a graph purporting to map average IQ’s across various racial groupings, however, David—apparently a self-avowed fan of Hitler , ,—will not explain this – when prodded he suggests it is an ‘Arabic-Hindu’ chart, hence my suggestion of ‘rubbish’ I believe is quite apt. Merbabu 05:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a graph of racial groupings and IQ differences among said groups. —physicq (c) 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what it is. I'd invited him some time ago to remove it, to no avail.Proabivouac 09:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is misuse of the incident noticeboard - a careful examination of blocks, warnings and comments about the complainant will show that the reverse is in actual fact true relative to bheaviour on wikipedia. SatuSuro 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image of the racial grouping IQ graph. I then reviewed Mr York's contribution to the project, particularly since his last block and I've given him another one. Sarah 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the removal of this graph, the alleged factual accuracy of which is completely beside the point.

Diffs such as these, are disturbing. I am not clear that this block was earned as a matter of policy, but at the same time it is very difficult to muster sympathy for a user who has declared Adolf Hitler a "great man" and a "great statesman."Proabivouac 09:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kmarinas86 (talk · contribs) - requesting immediate block review

I just blocked Kmarinas86 (talk · contribs) indefinitely for disruption at WP:GAN, among other things: possibly running an unauthorized bot, misusing Misplaced Pages as if it were a webhost, uploading various unused PDFs such as this one, blanking various articles - and warnings from his user talk page, and using talk pages to post off-topic discussions. I initially blocked for 24 hours, but upgraded it to indef after seeing the extent of his behavior. I'd like to have this block reviewed, preferably soon. --Coredesat 05:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He has also used his user page as some sort of... spam? And uploaded a couple of Excel files. We're not a webhost, and his recent disruption was unacceptable. – Chacor 05:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This editor and myself worked on Template:TOChidden productively. I notice that the WP:GAN editing he/she was doing relied upon a javascript program apparently created by User:AndyZ. If this user's editing corresponds to that script's intended usage then I'm not entirely sure I see any sort of bad faith here. Possibly misguided though. This user's editing has focused on Raël and Raëlism and much of the content that he/she has in his/her user space appears related to that. I don't agree with this indefinite blocking given that this user has no prior history of disruption and given that they appeared to be making good faith (although seemingly disruptive) script based edits. (→Netscott) 07:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he just sent me an apology e-mail. I will go ahead and unblock him if he promises to knock off the heavy script use, as users in the #wikipedia IRC channel were finding it extremely disruptive. He can be reblocked if this happens again. --Coredesat 07:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It was highly disruptive; the script is not meant for good articles (it's meant for WP:PR), and the user also put all these articles on hold, and at the speed he was doing them, presumably wwithout reading them at all. This is highly disruptive. Also, an explanation for the pdfs, oprhaned unencyclopedic images and the Excel files is warranted. We're not a webhost. – Chacor 07:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kmarinas86 has promised not to overuse the scripts and put all articles on GAN on hold again. Given that and Netscott's statement, I am going to unblock him. This may not sit well with some users who were upset by Kmarinas86 placing all articles on hold, but a weird edit history isn't quite enough to not assume good faith. Any problematic and unused items can be IFDed/MFDed, or speedied if he so requests it. --Coredesat 08:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking a 3RR violator prematurely

This may or may not be a big deal, but I wanted to bring it up here. User:John Smith's was recently blocked due to a 3RR violation, and then he was unblocked just a few minutes later by another admin. The admin that did the unblock statedly made no comment on the validity of the block, but his rationale was that the article that the reverts happened was now protected and blocking John Smith's would slow discussion. While that rationale would seem to make sense, on the other hand, what's essentially happened is that a 3RR violation was treated with an article protection instead of a block. I was not aware that this is appropriate action for 3RR violations. Admins' comments would be appreciated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Smith for 72 hours for 3RR (I defend my interpretation of the reverts), but didn't notice Deskana has already attended to the case (he left the Result section header blank). I find it somewhat problematic that not only does he not get blocked, he gets the page protected on his last version (discussion on the talk page seem fairly heated at this stage, as well). I do not, however, take issue with the unblock (although I prefer being asked before blocks of this nature are undone). In short, I disagree but the action itself is well within his discretion. El_C 09:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask for a third-party admin opinion on this. It's a little alarming to me, because theoretically, what if another editor violates 3RR on the same article? Should he or she expect a block or just an article protection? I would think this actually encourages revert-warring instead of discouraging it. Please consider re-instating the block. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fear that you misunderstand the point of 3RR blocks. They are not punitive. They are to stop edit wars so that consensus editing can occur. If the edit war was stopped another way then a 3RR block is not needed. FloNight 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but realistically, the punitive nature of 3RR blocks goes a long way to discouraging revert warring, as evidenced by the fact that the blocking admin may choose to block for more than 24 hours on repeated offense. What I'm wondering is, what if the same editor violates 3RR again? If he reverts enough times, surely another admin will come in and protect the article to his version again. Then would he not get blocked again? And to be honest, what is the point of 3RR blocks if article protection is a preferred method of stopping a revert war? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a valid point: another admin would not see it reflected in the blocklog. El_C 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Honestly, I actually agree that an article should be protected if there's an edit war. That's not really the issue I have. I only think that 3RR violators should also be blocked. I know that we all should stay away from revert-warring, but the reality is that there are numerous 3RR violations everday, and the violators are blocked. What that has achieved is a mechanism that discourages experienced editors from revert-warring. Not blocking a 3RR violation would break this mechanism and encourage 3RR violations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually e-mailed El C to say that I did not believe I had broken 3RR anyway - El C, why did you not respond?

If I had been blocked and he hadn't lifted it, I would have certainly appealed it. But Hong the admins are right. Really I question why you raised an "incident report" on this - were you trying to get me re-banned? John Smith's 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. You violated 3RR and ought to be blocked. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For a bit of context, here are the four reverts that John Smith's did - . He repeatedly removed the section that begins with "In the session titled..." to add in his own version of the section. Yes, I know it takes more than one party to revert-war. But a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation and a block is warranted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree that I violated 3RR or that a block is necessary. Really it would be best if you just dropped this. John Smith's 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both HongQiGong and the admin El_C. The point is that John Smith was edit waring and violated 3RR. He was the ONLY editor who insisted to edit war about this. Everyone else, including those who are on "the other side" disagreed with him. Yet, he persisted, and pledged to edit war. So, instead of getting blocked (he was, correctly initiallly), he gets the page protected, again. Protection is better than edit waring, but if its one person that insists on edit waring to get his way--and violates the 3RR rules in doing so-- a block is highly instructive, preceded by a strong warning that such conduct is not acceptable editing behavior. As soon as he got unblocked he went back to edit war on other articles such as this one: Cultural Revolution.Giovanni33 20:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're edit warring too Giovanni. --Deskana (ya rly) 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Realistically, revert wars will happen. That's precisely why there's a 3RR policy, and it needs to be applied in this case. None of the other editors involved violated 3RR, and the revert war would have naturally stopped when editors exhaust their three reverts - unless of course, an editor willingly violates 3RR. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR is not punitive. It's merely an electric fence. If people were "exhausting their 3 reverts" (that is to say Edit waring in general), then either blocking _all_ of them or protecting the page (or both), would be the correct actions. --Kim Bruning 21:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. First off, his first "revert" was not a revert at all. It was actually a rather lengthy, multi-part contribution to the article, which you can more accurately see if viewed as a whole. I don't see how that's a revert.

Second, at least some of the reverts by other editors were very inappropriate. For example, an IP editor made this very valid change. (Note that it is more concise, and doesn't contain the same POV aspect to it.) It was summarily reverted. Yes, the material could've been mostly kept had "concerning the distortions of history and representation of Mao" been simply changed to, "concerning the alleged distortions of history and representation of Mao", but the point is, the shorter version was more neutral. And simply reverting to a less neutral phrasing is hardly a way to resolve the issue. The fact that HongQiGong, Giovanni, and John Smith all intentionally used precisely 3 reverts is the real problem, as all three are trying to get around the spirit of 3RR.

As it stands, there's no war going on. People have to discuss (and support) the changes now. And that means everyone on both sides. To me, this seems entirely valid. Bladestorm 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bladestorm, actually, that is not the correct diff. This is John Smith's first revert, taking out the addition that another editor inserted here without even an edit summary. The issue I'm raising here is not a content dispute, but the premature unblocking of a 3RR violator. Maybe you disagree with the content yourself - you're more than welcome to join the ongoing discussion. Yes, I fully admit that I also participated in the revert war. So now what I'm wondering is this - if John Smith's break 3RR again, or others also break 3RR, will they be blocked, or will the article get protected again? If John Smith's is the only one that gets an exception to the 3RR block, is this not a case of an admin showing preference in an edit war, even if done so unintentionally? My point is that if future 3RR violations will be treated with blocks, then John Smith's should have been blocked now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hong, you need to stop implying I am/will be receiving special treatment. I am sure one policy will be applied to the article. John Smith's 22:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to make this brief (I tend to talk too much). Hong, I'm not trying to take sides here; merely present things more objectively. I do have the correct diff, as he made 8 or so edits all together in a batch, not just removing content, but changing, rewriting, and even adding a bit (at least, that's how it seemed to me). Taking one eighth of the collective edit isn't really very fair. What's more, technically speaking, you all violated 3RR. So if you're saying he got special treatment, then so did you. Seriously, stop worrying so much about policy. Focus on content. Bladestorm 23:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, I'm fully aware that admins are not required to block on 3RR violations. What I'm asking is for a reconsideration of the choice to unblock. Here are the four reverts he made - . And here's the actual addition of text he took out. Note the timestamp is before his first edit that I listed here, making it a revert. It's a pretty clear cut case here. Yeah, ideally we should avoid revert wars on our own, but realistically, 3RR blocks and the threat of 3RR blocks is what stops most revert wars from getting out of hand. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Malber

After being caught sock-puppeting the other day, Malber (talk · contribs) has gone on a WP:POINT spree trying to get all his own contributions deleted before leaving the project (, ). Apparently he was successful in applying CSD G7 to a number of articles and images, even items that were clearly useful encyclopedic contributions and had existed for a long time; he is now bragging about how he misled admins into following his bad-faith nominations. I've speedy-closed the latest AfD he had created in this context, and I'm going to restore the speedy deletions. I'd also recommend a good long block, but I'd prefer it if somebody else applied it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for a month (although he should be unblocked if he wants to come back and be constructive) and deleted some choice comments on his talk page. This reminds me a lot of the actions of someone I knew in real life who I've come to strongly dislike, and it's a shame, 'cause Malber was a good contributor. Grandmasterka 09:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I dropped the user a note. El_C 09:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Lygophile (talk · contribs)

This user wanted to insert some totally biased claims on Americans in the Dutch (Ethnic group) article. (Arrogant, propaganda machine etc) which are not supported by sources. In the following discussion he first called me "full of shit". I gave him a standard No Personal attacks warning, though he denied making one, calling me a liar instead. He subsequently claimed: "if you think "your full of shit" as a respons to spreading lies about me is a personal attack your just a whiny little bitch (now thats a personal attack)". I doubt this needs any further explanation.Rex 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Another personal attack, after 3 warnings (an Admin included)

He once again calls me "full of shit" and asks me to "shut up". Rex 10:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

One more

This time he made a personal attack on my talkpage, in Dutch. "hou op met je spelletke. je bent gewoon het kleine broertje dat zn oudere broer blijft irriteren tot ie kwaad wordt en dan naar ze mammie loopt zielig te doen. je provoceerd het zelf met je onzin, dus dan moet je ook niet gaan janken" :Translation:

"Stop your little game. You 're just the little brother who keeps provoking his older brother until he gets angry and then runns home to his mummie to act pathetically. You provoke these things yourself so quit being a cry baby."

I'm not quite enjoying these things, so if an admin could finally undertake some action? Thanks Rex 10:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both users stepping back sounds like the best thing to do at this moment. El_C 10:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

24hr block. However, you appear to have been goading him, which can't help matters. Disengagement when things get heated is a good idea for both sides.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Things getting heated is no problem for me. Making personal attacks when you can't "winn" a discussion which requires references is. Rex 10:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking was needed; I already dropped a note on the talk page, so that should have been given a chance. El_C 10:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to unblock if you wish; however, Lygophile needs a tap with the cluestick about acceptable ways of communicating (even when being goaded) and 24 hours presents a good opportunity for him to cool off.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block. This user had clearly developed a disruptive pattern that had to be stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thats some vile stuff. - Denny 13:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block, of course. _InBC 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack blocks are, generally, a bad idea; especially any that can be seen as punitive. El_C 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And a no personal attacks policy that is not enforced has no power to prevent abusive behaviour. Why even have a policy if we don't enforce it? We can't just warn people forever. I think this block is preventative in nature, as the behaviour seems likely to continue in the lack of any intervention. _InBC 16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a world outside of warning templates and it's this. El_C 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Breach of privacy policy

194.73.163.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has breached privacy policy in these three edits , and . I would like these versions oversighted and the user given a final warning to cease or be blocked. DavidBoothroyd 10:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ip blocked for one year, edits deleted. El_C 10:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

221.126.134.0

This ip seriously needs the attention of an admin. Violation of copyright, repeated NPOV and defamation despite warnings and page blanking. The ip also demands deletion of the article on the talk page, despite obvious assertion of notability. . I need help in this, as I might violate 3RR if I keep on reverting... --KZ 11:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting garbage doesn't count for 3RR. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was only trying to make sure... --KZ 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review

I declined an unblock request at User talk:I'm so special. I would normally never do this in a case I had previously been involved with (the user's first block was for "trolling", in attempting to advocate on my behalf on this very noticeboard!), but in this case the user asked for me by name and I agreed with the indefinite block; the user's contributions have largely been restricted to the above-noted advocacy attempt, some talk page edits, and starting Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/MONGO. Feel free to disagree with my action. --Guinnog 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, people seemed to be in agreement with the block up above, I'm not sure why upholding the same block needs further discussion, but I guess he'd only believe the same old crap we keep telling him if it came from you. :-) If you'd unblocked him unilaterally, different story of course. Grandmasterka 13:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

--MONGO 13:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't see that discussion. My post was really designed to be transparent, as declining an unblock in a case I've been involved with seemed like it might attract criticism. I should have made it under the existing discussion if I had seen it. --Guinnog 13:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy to miss, there are 60 headings on this page as I write this.--MONGO 13:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate user page

Please see User talk:Captain scarlet/Trollbox. Andy Mabbett 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it inappropriate? It looks like an archive of trolling against him to me. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to lump concerns made by other users into a "trolling" category. It promotes assuming bad faith when we should be assuming good faith. It only serves to aggravate any conflict that may have stemmed from the alleged trolling. If you believe someone is sincerely trolling you, it's acceptable to simply remove their comment from your page -- there's no need to put it on a "trolling" shelf to display your displeasure with those users. Leebo /C 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how unappropriate me putting comments I view as trolling onto a seperate page. All contributors I feel trolled on my page are well aware of the regard I have for their comments. I prefer to keep them archived than to delete them. It's simply an archive. Captain scarlet (talk · contribs) 14:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be incivility on both sides in this "trollbox". A less loaded name for it might be "Archive of disputes" without any references to trolling. I stand by my assertion that it's not appropriate to relegate certain users' comments to the side as trolls. Leebo /C 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Request - I'd like to see Andy/Pigsonthewing's thoughts on the matter, specifically why he felt it was inappropriate when he reported it, it doesn't seem right to leave Leebo alone on this, and there may be another concern we're not yet aware of. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Chairboy's request, but I will say that I agree with Leebo and don't like calling the page anything close to "trolling"; especially since, in the first section at least (which is the only one I read), there wasn't any trolling (at least not by the other party...). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF; WP:NPA and, further up this page "Attack pages aren't acceptable, even as a user sub page.". Andy Mabbett 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while although some of the incidents are hard to track down, neither Hardouin nor Adambro were trolling. In Adambro's case, asking a person what they meant when they made a very cryptic statement about you isn't trolling. (If you don't want people asking such questions, then be less confusing when you talk about them) And, as far as the sock puppetry case is concerned, I don't know whether it's true or false. However, I do know that you should give a person notification of a case you've made against them. (That is, if he hadn't informed Captain scarlet of the case, then that would've been a lot worse) It certainly looks like an attack page. Bladestorm 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Leebo and Bbatsell. Trolling is a loaded word and nothing in this "archive" is actual trolling. This is a series of user disputes apparently based off of content disputes. Archiving them is fine. Calling them "trollboxes" is not. I'm going to suggest that Captain scarlet (talk · contribs) voluntarily moves them to a more WP:NPOV name like "dispute archives".--Isotope23 15:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note Image:Sheffield Town Hall 04-10-04.jpg and many more like it. Andy Mabbett 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be highlighted that the user in question, Captain scarlet, is currently blocked from editing Misplaced Pages and this is probably a retaliation about that. It does of course however mean that he is unable to take part in this discussion to clear up any misunderstandings. I'd suggest this issue should also be raised over at commons. Adambro 19:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. I count 64 images replaced with that, see . Adambro 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've raised this as a new issue, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Captain scarlet's photographs. Adambro 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SPSF luvr

SPSF luvr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can someone check him? He's gone nuts on User talk:Feydey‎ with rampant attacks. - Denny 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Feydey has it, he just responded. Wasn't sure if he was online. - Denny 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got some reason in his/her mind. feydey 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Willy on Wheels

I'm uncertain how much concern this warrants, but User:64.251.49.194, a Connecticut school IP in the midst of a month-long block, is redirecting the IP's talk page to User:Willy on Wheels. Figma 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted, redirects like that shouldn't happen: someone ought to protect that IP's talk page for the duration of the block. Moreschi 14:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Page is sprotected for duration of the block. _InBC 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

VoA Bot II

Relatively minor in the scheme of things, but User:VoABot II seems to have some minor coding errors. Twice now, in the span of about two hours, it's shit itself in much the same way - a user creates a page, I come in and speedy-tag, the user removes the speedy-tag, VoABot sees this, tries to revert, but somehow gets my username in both fields ("Reverted edits by Action Jackson IV {information} to revision #120485586 by "Action Jackson IV". )"), then leaves me a message in my talk page informing me of this revert, and that my username has been tagged as adding inappropriate MySpace links/etc. Just figured I'd throw a heads-up. Examples can be seen here and here, if the articles have not yet been deleted. Methinks a further beta-testing period is in order. --Action Jackson IV 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly personal attacks on user talk:Asucena

Are what seems as personal attacks such as these allowed on user talk pages? -- Avi 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you don't mind a non-admin's opinions (just delete this if you only want admin-opinion):

is obviously not allowed. Blockable offense. (which is why it's good that you blocked them)

However, this is also nearly as bad. (unless, of course, he can prove it; which is entirely possible)

This is unhelpful, but not an attack. Expressing a "I hope this isn't true" sentiment isn't an attack. There isn't anything wrong with addressing possible concerns that are presented to you. Nobody is obligated to dismiss things automatically. However, it's of questionable value, since a user talk page isn't really the best place to address it, but it's probably best to simply ask them to remove it, and then go from there.

This is also terribly inappropriate. Wanting to reinstate someone else's opinion is debateable... (on the one hand, it's reinstating an unsourced allegation. On the other hand, they might've thought they were upholding free speech) However, labelling you as a "Vandal" was, absolutely, an unwarranted accusation, which really does deserve a CIVIL and NPA reminder, at the very very least. Bladestorm 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bladestorm, I don't know if Jayjg needs to "prove" it. It's on her own user page. "I am an official of the Palestinian authority and a member of Hamas' political public relations division; I am an official representative of the authority in the online field." Of course, that doesn't mean it's true, but you can't blame people for taking her at her word. IronDuke 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

However, she doesn't say that she was paid to edit wikipedia. There's a very clear implied accusation that she's being paid by hamas to edit wikipedia articles in hamas' favour. She denies that she is paid by Hamas at all (she claims to be an employee of the palestinian government, and a volunteer for hamas, but not "employed" by the latter at all, let alone for so specific a duty). It isn't that I think jay was intentionally making anything up. I just don't think it's appropriate to take the information asucena's provided and expand it into more than it is. (BTW, I tend to get genders wrong lately; anybody know if asucena's male or female?) Bladestorm 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(addendum) Just so people don't think I'm missing something obvious: I know there's still a conflict of interest. :) Bladestorm 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where Jay has said she's being paid (maybe he has elsewhere; not an unreasoanble guess from her own statements). What I'm saying is, Jay's remarks are nothing like as bad as what she has been saying; they are not, in fact, at all bad, but consistent with his COI concerns, which is where we should be focusing our attention. To your last point: Again, if you go to her user page, you will see she self-identifies as female. IronDuke 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Not only is Asucena employed by Hamas, but she is employed as part of her PR duties to edit Misplaced Pages." The part that stands out is, "she is employed as part of her PR duties to edit Misplaced Pages". Not only does she deny being directly employed by Hamas at all, but she also hasn't directly stated (at least, I don't think she has) that her duties specifically include editing articles. Again, I'm not saying he was trying to make anything up. Just saying that it was an unnecessary assumption. BTW, just remember that it was the IP editor who actually accused jay. Anyways, I think avi's handled it rather admirably. If she still has concerns, she can take it up with Dispute Resolution or something similar. (And thanks. I thought she was a she, but then had a hard time finding exactly where I'd picked that up) Bladestorm 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

She said "I am an official of the Palestinian authority and a member of Hamas' political public relations division; I am an official representative of the authority in the online field." Hamas is the largest part of the P.A. authority, she says she's their official online representative and is in Hamas' political public relations division. Which part have I misunderstood? Jayjg 17:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the links and left what I hope is a reasonable explanation on the user's talk page. Let's hope this ends here. -- Avi 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this quote on her page "ayjg, I'm not employed by hamas - hamas doesn't employ anyone! I'm a member of Hamas and a volunteer. I am employed by the Palestinian government. --Asucena". Considering Palestine is not a country, therefore he/she cannot be a representative of a recognized government. More accurately, the user is an avowed member of an activist, partisan group, admittedly acting on behalf of that group for "public relations" on wikipedia. This seems to me in direct violation of WP:COI. I cannot see why this user is allowed to edit middle eastern related articles any more than Ariel Sharon would be allowed to edit Israel or Palestine articles. ⇒ SWATJester 23:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be questioned whether he/she is really what is claimed. I may be ignorant but I didn't know Hamas had a special PR interest in Move America Forward. The POV edits made there seem more like an angry liberal's views (e.g. emphasis of 'neo-' conservative) than what I'd expect Hamas to care about, but perhaps the two descriptions can overlap (both angry liberal and Hamas PR). In any case there it is still reason to believe a COI problem so that user may have to be topically banned. The Behnam 02:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Input request

I discovered that Dwanyewest (talk · contribs) has posted many copyright violations. I don't have time right now but will search his contributions for more later. Examples are Radio Roo, Pocket Dragon Adventures and Space Vets which I deleted and he recreated after being warned. (and I will delete again right after I finish this message). What to do with this user? For now I blocked for 48 hours for repeated copyright violations. Garion96 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait and see. If the block drives the point home, there's no need to do anything. If he comes back in two days and continues posting copyvios, make the second block longer. I'll take a look through his contributions too and see whether I turn up any more. Shimeru 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite range block on Verizon ISP?

An indefinite range block of Verizon? Is this a good precedent to be setting?--VectorPotential 16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to assume Bastique knows what he's doing. Certainly the reason for blocking looks adequate: possibly there have been complaints concerning the behaviour of those using this IP of which we do not know. You can ask him, though. Moreschi 17:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The only other instance where an ISP was indefinitely blocked, was AOL, and that was only under the open proxy exception.--VectorPotential 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that there's a good reason for this. It was a hard block, but we'll just have to trust him with this one. PTO 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's easier to say that when you don't use Verizon :)VectorPotential 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Username question

This is a strange situation that I'm not quite sure how to handle. I used to have the username SuperMachine (talk · contribs) until it was renamed to ChazBeckett (talk · contribs). My SuperMachine user page and talk page were redirected to ChazBeckett. Now someone has created User:SuperMachine and removed the redirects. My former signature (SuperMachine) is all over the place and now points to this new user. I'm not quote sure how to approach this. Do I ask the user to please stop using the name SuperMachine? Should I find all my old signatures and update them to point directly to ChazBeckett? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, ChazBeckett 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it should have shown up as a "taken" name and therefore ineligible for a new user to acquire. The short version thereof is that he can't have it, and the software should have let him know that. Since it didn't, it's up to one of the admins to do so. Utgard Loki 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that would be great if an admin could handle it. The user has only made four edits, so it shouldn't be a big deal to choose another user name. Thanks! ChazBeckett 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

While I surely empathize, there really isn't much to do about it. When you changed names, you left the old handle behind and all of your contribution attributions were changed accordingly. The only thing that changing your name doesn't do is adjust timestamps; that's up for you to do by hand. As the changing usernames pages says, the old account isn't blocked as it has been left empty and abandoned. I suggest you approach the user nicely and explain the situation, and ask if they could change names out of courtesy. If they don't, well... you gave up that old account. Sorry that I couldn't be of assistance. Maybe someone else can. Teke 01:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Fortyfeet

I'm not too sure where else to put this or if it's against any sort of policy or what could even be done, but I figured I'd at least try to bring it to someone's attention. Yesterday, User:Fortyfeet, redirected his talk page to his user page and edited his user page to say he no longer wishes to edit, if someone wanted his account they could have it so long as they changed the user email, and gave the password for it. I undid the redirect because, as far as I know, that's not allowed, but I'm not going to touch the user page unless I know 100% whether or not it is against policy. Thanks. --pIrish 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account in accordance with WP:U. Sharing accounts or passwords is not allowed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of banned user User:JJonathan

He's back as User:JJive. Aside from the identifying comments on his talk page, the editing pattern and writing style is identical. Also note the edit summary here, when removing the AFD notice (article was created by User:JJonathan) Took this to AIV but no action was taken... --Kurt Shaped Box 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Only because AIV is for obvious vandalism, which this isn't. For someone unacquainted with the case - i.e me - it's tricky to see the disruption. Moreschi 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

JJonathan's MO is basically introducing subtle factual errors into articles (e.g. date-changing, adding inappropriate categories/list additions, addition of uncited info about the vocal range of singers), sandwiched between legitimate style/spelling/wikify edits. It's been going on for months (I've only just discovered it myself) - you really need to look through the edits of his long list of socks before you notice the pattern. Ban one and another pops up and carries on. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request needs review

User:Pmanderson (signs as "Septentrionalis") is currently blocked for 52 hours for a 3RR violation. He has requested an unblock, disputes the 3RR violation but offers to undo the last edit, and the subject page is now protected. The user has a series of prior 3RR blocks which of course is an aggravating factor. He has posted an unblock request which should be reviewed in a timely manner. I am not going to do the review myself because I unblocked this same user in a prior 3RR situation I found borderline. Please note that the blocking admin, User:El C, has asked to be consulted before any unblock. No position from me on the merits of the request. Newyorkbrad 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How does unblocking him in a prior 3RR demands recusal on your part, I'm so not following that. El_C 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't "demand" it, but with 1000 admins, I figured it wasn't necessary for the same person to (potentially) unblock the same user twice in a row. For what it's worth, though, I would probably commute this block to time served, as I think the user has pretty clearly gotten the message. (On the other hand, I'm pretty useless as a 3RR enforcer. The one night I took a shift at AN3, I wound up giving everyone warnings, filling my talkpage with complaints from people who were disappointed their opponents hadn't been blocked, and I said to myself that if the community wants rigorous and unflinching 3RR enforcement, they're going to have to ask someone else.) Newyorkbrad 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, there are always complainst with 3RR enforcement, regardless of what you do. Which is why so few admins bother with it. El_C 18:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the user has "gotten the message", at least from my interpretation of his/her talk page. It seems that he/she thinks it's okay to revert as long as they're reverting someone else's revert (if that made sense). The fact that the user you are edit warring with broke WP:3RR does not give you the right to break WP:3RR yourself. It was the exact same edit he/she had been edit warring over. Valid block in my view. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user has certainly broken the spirit of 3RR and probably the letter as well. Septentrionalis is a fine, fine editor but he does seem to have a problem when it comes to revert warring and doesn't seem to have gotten the message over multiple blocks. Hate to say this, but a valid block. Hopefully the user will take some time off and rethink their attitude to reverting: I say this regretfully, but it is needed. Moreschi 18:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deepest sympathies with NYB. I looked, wanting to help, and the only decision I could make was a strong intention to add this edit war to WP:LAME. Several experienced editors blocked for 3RR over (1) a fraction of a sentence giving (2) an alternate language name of a city in (3) an article not even about that city but about a lake? What in the name of Zeus (alternate name Jove, Jupiter...) is going on here? This is incredibly trivial. It's under discussion earlier on this very page, #Edit war at Lake Scutari, and that discussion is longer than the entire article in question. On the one hand, no, I don't think anyone should be blocked for something as silly as this, but on the other, there is a strong argument to block everyone involved just for the inherent disruption for making such a mountain out such a molehill. --AnonEMouse 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It does appear that PManderson thought he was not over the 3RR limit, as evidenced by the fact that he specifically pointed out the fourth edit to El_C. I would be in favor of shortening the block. I agree with bbatsel that 3RR applies to all editors, not only to the first person blocked for it, but this appears to have been a misunderstanding of that point. CMummert · talk 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Posting others' personal contact info

129.120.44.17 is an obnoxious WikiTroll who has repeatedly vandalized the Euphonium article (replacing every instance of the word "euphonium" with "baritone" repeatedly) and has left flame-bait messages on the talk page. I've gotten the article fully protected, but this afternoon, he crossed the line (in my opinion) when he posted my cell phone number on the talk page. Whoever it is goes to school with me (I go to UNT and 129.120.xxx.xx are UNT campus computers) and obviously knows me, but I do not know who it is and certainly am not okay with him posting my personal contact info on Misplaced Pages. Please block this IP address for 24 hours. --NetherlandishYankee 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I should probably note that whoever 129.120.244.17 not only knows me, but is posing as me (saying things like, "I'm Rob McDaniel" (when that is really my name) or "Here is my cell phone number" (and then gives mine).

How can I verify that this happned? El_C 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(removed) seems to be relevant. DES 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked and requested oversight for the edit in question. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --NetherlandishYankee 18:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed diff - let's not spread it around until oversight kicks in. x42bn6 Talk 18:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how should I have providede the info requested without posting the diff? At least one other recent edit by that IP seems to violate WP:CIVIL while others sound like a moderately civil attempt to convince others of the merits of his contention. I have no opnion on the underlying merits, but several editors seem to disagree with the IP editor, who does seem to be a single consistant individual, at least in recent edits. DES 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No one's saying you did anything wrong, he just removed it so the personal information wouldn't attract more attention than it had to begin with. I found it by just looking at the history of the page mentioned in the OP. At any rate, it's already been oversighted and the user blocked, so not much more to see here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the diff after User:Bbatsell said he reported it for oversighting, so I thought that there was no need to show the diff any longer. I didn't imply you did anything wrong. x42bn6 Talk 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Not feeling defensive, just asking for advice if such a think comes up again. Thanks. Incident over, i guess. DES 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bowlhover: talking back to admins is not a permablock offense

Higher up on this page, this chickenrace with Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Yamla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just got an editor indefinitely blocked. A real, productive, editor, not a vandal, sock, or adder of unconstructive material, except for one April Fool's joke (not a very funny one IMO, but that's sort of not the point). I consider it disgraceful for admins to throw their weight around in this way, and bait users. "If you really feel that you need to be punished in order to know that you've done something wrong, I'll be more than happy to give you a 24-hour block" might stand as the perfect, canonical example of what not to say to a user who is already upset. It's certainly the perfect way of backing the user into a corner where all alternatives are humiliating. I have asked Carnildo, who blocked for 24 hours, and Yamla, who followed up by blocking indefinitely, to unblock. . I hope one of them does, and soon.. By the way, deleting Bowlhover's user talk was a mistake. We're not supposed to do that, only blank it. The history should remain accessible. Since it only is visible to admins, I will quote from Yamla's block message, which was also his "unblock denied message". (Are these two really supposed to be telescoped? Well, never mind, that's a minor detail.) Bowlhover had written (among other things) this in his unblock request:

• "This 24-hour block is useless. I will repeat what I said two times before: I will not apologize for my actions, nor will I refrain from them on April 1, 2008. I guarantee that extending the block will be also useless."
• Yamla declined the request, with the comment: "I have reverted somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 instances of this sort of thing. That's no exaggeration. You may think it is funny but we don't, not after that many "pranks". As you have promised to continue these actions, I have extended your block to an indefinite one. If you later promise to refrain from vandalism in the future, please request an unblock and someone will be happy to unblock you. In the meanwhile, please note that if you create any new accounts to continue editing while this one is blocked, this may be grounds for a permanent ban."

Was Bowlhover perhaps being punished for all the 10,000—20,000 April's Fools' pranks that Yamla had reverted..? It was hardly Bowlhover's fault that Yamla was burned out on April's Fools. It seems to me that both these admins have thrown their wieight around in an inappropriate way. The admin is supposed to be the bigger person, not use his/her powers to back a user into a corner.
Look at ! No previous blocks on this established long-time user. Weren't we supposed to have been promised more care with the block button from Carnildo? In his latest RFA, he made the undertaking that "I'll discuss any blocks that I feel need to be made on the Administrators' Noticeboard beforehand." Yeah? Bishonen | talk 17:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Surely a preventative block would have to be issued on March 31, 2008? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, all let's calm down and review this. Bishonen, don't make this a 'get Carnildo' vendetta-crusade. I'm gong to investigate it, so should others. But lets hear all sides of this story without any sarcastic animosity.--Doc 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply 10,000 to 20,000 April Fools jokes, I meant vandalism generally. Bowlhover promised to continue these pranks and that is simply inappropriate. I made it quite clear that if he promised not to vandalise any further, he should be unblocked immediately. But someone who promises to continue vandalising in the future should not be permitted to edit. That the user implied, at least, that he would use sockpuppets to vandalise also weighed in on my decision to extend the block. --Yamla 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also hope that we all learned from a recent arbitration case that calm consideration can prevent a mistake from becoming a disaster. I second Doc's plea, and will investigate further myself. Mackensen (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I should note that I am quite happy for any other admin to unblock this user if they have reason to believe this user will no longer vandalise the Misplaced Pages, or if they are willing to take responsibility for that vandalism if they believe he will continue vandalising. --Yamla 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have looked into the history and also have serious concerns about this indefinite block, although I am also unimpressed with the user's complete indifference to the possibility that his April Fool's prank about a toxic spill in a major city might cause genuine alarm, and his complete unwillingness to consider moderating his comments regarding future actions. I find no basis for the suggestion that Bishonen's raising this matter was primarily based on the fact that the first blocking admin was Carnildo rather than anyone else (she frequently posts with concern about blocks she considers unjustified). Newyorkbrad 18:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

His talk page was tagged db-author, so the unability thereof is his own fault and not the outcome of malicious machinations. I'll note that this kind of post is singularly unhelpful, if distressingly common. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the appreciation, Mackensen, it was nothing. User talk pages are not supposed to be deleted according to the guideline Misplaced Pages:User page. How would you have liked me to put it? "I assume good faith and by no means malicious machinations and apologize for opening my mouth, but deleting user talk pages is a mistake"? I actually thought it might be minorly helpful to point it out. And I thought it it would be majorly helpful to take issue with this pushing-out of an established contributor, which had roused no interest until I did. Doc, if I had wanted to make it a "get Carnildo vendetta-crusade" it would have sounded quite different. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

It looks like overkill to me. Serious problem editors are often not treated this harshly, though I too am unmoved by the "humor" of the edit in question. I think this user should be unblocked, but I would have no problem with a remedy that blocks the user every April 1 until they agree to stop. IronDuke 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right... unblock him now and someone put him on the docket for a preventative 48 hour block starting March 31st, 2008. I'll actually be impressed if anyone remembers to do that...--Isotope23 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. The activity was highly immature and I've every sympathy with Carnildo's initial 24 hour block. I'd have done the same. However, despite his bravado, I doubt he'd do it again. If he did, we'd simply block him then. Feel free to replace the block if the consensus here is that he should remain blocked.--Doc 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't support an indefinite block (note that indefinite and infinite aren't the same thing), but at the same time this isn't a message that would move me to unblock somebody. In effect, it promises continued disruption and sockpuppetry if admins don't do his bidding. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose we leave him unblocked but consider him on community parole. Forget/ignore his foolish words, the first sign of actual intentional disruption, we block him for good.--Doc 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. You said you wanted to hear all sides of this incident before making judgements, so why did you call me "foolish" before I had a chance to defend myself? And forgive my bragging, but do you really think I'll intentionally disrupt Misplaced Pages if I haven't done so for the past year and a half? --Bowlhover 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. WP:AGF, it was a lot of bluster in response to his block.--Isotope23 18:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) Note that he specifically stated that if unblocked he would not promise not to do somethign simialr next April first, which could be taken as an implied promise not to do anything of the sort on any other date. This is surely not the most explict or graceful way of handling the matter, but is not quite the same thing as proclaiming himself a committed and unrepentant vandal. I agree that this block should be lifted. DES 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What is going on with these charges of vandalism and sockpuppetry? Yamla's reason for his block was "User claims he will continue vandalising, unblock only on a promise from user to never again vandalise any article.)" Well, I never vandalized Misplaced Pages and never will. Vandalism is always done in bad faith, by definition; the prank I posted, no matter how awful a joke, was done in good faith. I wasn't thinking "Let's make these stupid editors have heart attacks". I was thinking "Hmmm, let's pull a prank on somebody like millions of other people are doing right now".

The reason for my outbursts at Mathew, Cardillo, and Yamla was anger. Cardillo and Yamla never discussed my reasons for the prank () before blocking me. Tell me, fellow Wikipedians: if an admin is trying to block you while ignoring your defense, what would you do? Wouldn't you get angry? If the admins don't want to cooperate, negotiate, or be flexible, fine. I will not either.

Will I do something similar on April 1, 2008? Well, I do like pranks, but hopefully by then I will have become better at it. I will definitely not post any hoaxes until 362 days later. By the way, I've never posted anything that could be interpreted as a "disruption" prior to this incident.

Now for the prank itself. Please discuss the reasons I linked to above before making judgements about it. About sockpuppetry: I don't know how you twisted my words to make it seem I threatened to create sockpuppets. I wanted to leave Misplaced Pages forever instead of "vandalizing" using another account.

I challenge Yamla to find a single vandalism, i.e. obviously bad faith, edit made by me. --Bowlhover 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be saying that perceived hostility from admins or editors justifies reciprocal behaviour on your part. That's not a particularly helpful attitude. It seems that some people were angered themselves by your initial actions, and I have seen any sign that you apologized them (if you did, please point it out so I'm not making false statements). Regardless of intent people thought you were disrupting the reference desk. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not. Let's not do the pissing contest. The indef block was a poor call - but so was you getting angry and engaging in bravado. Let each reflect on their own actions; forget recriminations; and go back to doing whatever we do round here. Pride has been injured here - but if you insist on defending yourself, the admins will too, and the temperature will rise. It seems that what the events of 2nd April show is that not one comes our well of that confrontational path. Cool it one and all.--Doc 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, if we are going to have April Fools' pranks, I would rather see meta-pranks, such as Shii's announcement that he was going to unblock and mentor a certain banned user, or nominating WP:RFAR for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was an attack page. Pranks that directly affect article content and hence interact directly with the real world are dangerous, and ought to be treated like vandalism. It would be nice if Bowlhover would acknowledge this. Thatcher131 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Nothing too scary on April Fools day, especially not for a major city. Maybe I'll nominate a vandal for adminship? --Bowlhover 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Prank was uncalled for April Fools or not in the particular place it was done. But the indefinite block was also uncalled for since it obviously was a good faith attempt to make some people smile and construing it as "vandalism" was borderline violation of WP:AGF. The user in question isn't some noob out to cause trouble and even a cursory look at his history and block log bears that out. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Let's not. Let's not do the pissing contest" God, I do hate that expression! Please do show some use of vocabulary! - or else shut up. Giano 23:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doc 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Doc, despite your previous criticism of me, should I assume your call for peace was made in good faith? O.K. I forgive Carnildo and Yamla for blocking me, but please be more lenient next time with blocking users. Thanks a ton to Bishonen for bringing this incident up on the administrator's noticeboard at a time when I felt very alienated; I highly appreciate it, and you've made a gloomy day much better for me. And thanks, Doc, for the unblock. I very much appreciate that too.

To everyone reading this: I wish you a happy Good Friday and Easter if you're Christian, and an enjoyable ultra-long weekend if you're not. I'm eager to finally close this case. --Bowlhover 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Range IP Vandalism?

Earlier in the day I reverted two vandalism in Swanson, one from 169.232.229.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the other from 169.232.229.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Now another IP from the range, 169.232.226.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has vandalized my userpage and making personal attacks. I wonder how that should be done?--Samuel Curtis-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 18:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• They all seem to be registered to UCLA, and Universities usually have large blocks of computers all running through a single proxy, so I imagine that a range block would probably cause massive collateral, certinaly possible though--VectorPotential 19:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Since those resolve to "University of California, Office of the President", an abuse report to UCLA with those IP's might not be a bad idea... Vector is right though, an outright range block would be big collateral damage. Unis abuse are typically a bit more likely to actually address a problem when compared to commercial IPs from my experience.--Isotope23 19:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is: Are there anything I need to do? --Samuel Curtis-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 02:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested update to blocking policy posted

See here on blocking policy talk page:

Per previous precedent and commonly accepted practice, linking to attack sites, or linking to sites that attempt to "out" the identities of Misplaced Pages editors for any purpose is a blockable offense. This includes re-inserting such content that was already removed, and its initial insertion. Users who post such information or links, or that re-insert them after their removal, may be blocked for the safety and protection of other editors.

thanks, - Denny 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's just a special case of posting personal information, really. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I very much support anything to make the policy clearer that linking to sites that give personal information is a complete no-no. And nowiki'd URLs are just a way of getting round that. Incidentally, people keep referring to "attack sites". They're quite right, of course, but the problem is that it implies that the main objection to the sites is that they attack users. That's not the main problem. If someone posts to a website that says I'm a fat swine, it's not a big deal. If someone posts to a website that says I live at 17 Cherry Tree Lane, that is a big deal. (Actually, I don't. I took that address from Mary Poppins, but I think it makes the point clear.) ElinorD (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. It's not hard to find out who I am in real life, and probably where I live, but that's no reason to shout about it. If I want people to know then I'll post my address. And if we can stop the Readers Digest along with the abusers that will be a plus :-) Guy (Help!) 23:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited WP:HARASS (the section which says that posting another editor's personal details is harassment, regardless of whether or not those details are correct) to show that posting links to a site which publishes these details is also harassment, per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites. ElinorD (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Another user:Serafin sockpuppet

blocked user:Serafin has created another sockpuppet and is using it on numerous articles.

• Momo111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

he has had over 40 sockpuppets now, can we semi-protect recovered territories as that is the article he commonly vandalizes.

--Jadger 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. --Yamla 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please move for a community ban against this user. Alternatively, if I have not done so within 24 hours, please prod me and I'll do it. This vandal has no place on the Misplaced Pages. --Yamla 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet's photographs

This issue is noted as part of another issue but I've posted it separately here to ensure it gets attention. I've also left a message on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems.

Following a recent block, Captain scarlet has changed about 64 of his uploaded photographs to appear as shown here .

These are images which are used on Misplaced Pages that he has previously released into the public domain. See his user log for the full list of images replaced. Is there anything that can be done about this? This is an urgent matter as there are many articles on Misplaced Pages now displaying these images. If this isn't resolved promptly many are likely to be removed from articles by editors unaware of the context of this issue. Adambro 19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Any commons user can revert the images but it may be necessary for a commons admin to protect them. AFAIK, the GFDL is not revocable. Thatcher131 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this is resolved. It will of course be necessary to monitor the users actions though. Adambro 20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Moral: think long and hard about indef-blocking anyone who has meaningful contributions. Single-purpose vandal accounts are ten a penny, editors like this, rather less so. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Department of Justice vandalizing

An IP registered to the United States Department of Justice just showed up on WP:AIV and needs blocking. Now what? PTO 19:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• There's nothing that says you can't block the Department of Justice--VectorPotential 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you do block them though you need to inform ComCom directly. Mackensen (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Which IP was it? I just reported a bunch. - Denny 19:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed from WP:AIV, since it seems to be a content dispute. — Malcolm 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3) Yes, it has been removed. It was part of the range 149.101.0.0/16. It'll be back eventually, though. PTO 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Casey Serin - article in question

I would go into it heavily, but am short on time today. BLP issues galore here possibly. - Denny 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

212.201.56.x IP range

This IP range has been causing trouble on the several Nazi Germany military pages and user talk pages. Could someone set up a range block? Main three I've found:

• 212.201.56.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.201.56.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.201.56.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Wafulz 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh it also looks like they're socks of User:Nadia Kittel --Wafulz 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, it appears the relevant range is 212.201.56.0/24 -- I'm not sure if I see the sort of high-level abuse I usually associate with a rangeblock, though. On the other hand, I'm not familiar with this issue. Could take a "wait and see" approach for a bit. Your call. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A question of perceived incivility?

This is granted that I have been a bit involved in the discussion, and probably should not have gotten involved at the level I have - but I feel it prudent nonetheless to bring this to here. On the AFD for English language names for Chinese people, while there is a seeming lack of concensus for deletion, one user - User:Skookum1 - almost seems content to basically point blame at User:Uncle G for what seems to be, by Skookum's explanation, a fork. There's clear dissent as to whether the article should be deleted, but...well, I'll let the conversation speak for itself. --Dennisthe2 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to be a garden-variety AfD-gone-off-the-rails, and that Misplaced Pages is being disrupted in service of a point. The point itself seems to have something to do with an article being created to "prove" that a prior merge consensus was incorrect. Which seems to violate "State your point; don't prove it experimentally." What kind of action were you hoping for from AN/I? MastCell 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, little more than an answer to a question, maybe some insight if anything. I felt compelled to bring it to outside attention, and while it's not the first time I've seen an AfD discussion get heated, it's getting more than I've seen, and by my perception, Skookum1 has pretty much slapped NPA or CIVIL in the face. I could be wrong, though.... --Dennisthe2 23:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

IP harassment on numerous talk pages

In case some of you haven't seen this yet it is really getting out of hand. IrishGuy 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP and other admin help needed

This may not belong here, but it's getting to be over my head, and I think I need a lot of admin help. Michael Wolff has Tourette syndrome, and is married to Polly Draper of thirtysomething. Their two very young children, Alex Wolff and Nat Wolff have a newly-launched Nickelodeon show, The Naked Brothers Band (TV series), which is causing their articles to get increased attention. Because their father has TS, some of the vandalism I've been reverting on all of the articles is concerning me. One gave a date of death for one of the children; another said the children had "mental disorders" like their father. I'm worried about BLP issues. The talk pages also tend towards getting out of control, because it's a kid's show. Now there is a Natwolff56 posting to Alex Wolff, so there are username issues to be dealt with. In fact, I don't know what is supposed to be done with the username, or how we verify if it's him, not to mention that if it is him, he's a child. I left a message, but I really don't know what to do next, and I'm afraid following all of these articles is going to get away from me. Can admins help out? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted all the affected pages and others should do the same. Regarding User:Natwolff56, your warning to him was appropriate, except that if he really is Nat Wolff, I think it may be a slight overstatement to say he's forbidden from editing pages about his family (as opposed to that it is discouraged and he should be careful of NPOV and COI if he does). Newyorkbrad 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also blocked the account that falsely inserted a date of death (albeit "2008") for one of the children. All of its other contributions were also vandalism, and there was a username (Asdfpoop) violation as well. Newyorkbrad 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, can you direct me to a page that I can refer to, or can you correct what I said there? I guess I'm not sure on our policy or where to find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also watch The Naked Brothers Band (there's a lot going on at the talk page there) and The Naked Brothers Band (film). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The basic guidelines are at WP:COI, although they pretty much say what one would expect them to. Newyorkbrad 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would ask Natwolff56 to change his username of verify his identity through OTRS. Thatcher131 21:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not up on that; can someone do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You just need to ask the user to e-mail with some sort of evidence they are who they say they are (the e-mail is info-en@wikimedia.org ) and we'll keep an eye out for the e-mail coming through. -- Nick 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, here's another weird thing. Michael Wolff's article used to have the text,

Wolff serves on the Board of Directors of the Tourette Syndrome Association (TSA), and is involved with mentoring children with Tourette's through the chapters of the TSA.

That text has been deleted, recently. Maybe someone wants to keep that lower key now, because of the boys' show. I've been traveling a lot lately, and I'm not sure who deleted it or when. But Wolff is very prominent in the Tourette Syndrome Association, and his TS is well verified to reliable sources. Because of the situation with the children now, I'm tempted not to re-add, until the interest in the kids dies down, but I didn't want people to think I was saying he had TS with no references. Not sure what to do; advice needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I added it back in. It was lost with this vandalism. The next edit restored one paragraph but for some reason didn't add back that sentence. As it doesn't look like there was a valid reason for removal, I put it back. IrishGuy 23:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much; and I juggled the text, because what was once a serious article about a jazz musician has been impacted (I think) by Nick kid edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing

What about this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I think you dealt with the matter appropriately by telling both people to calm down. It's not serious enough to be a personal attack just yet. --Bowlhover 04:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Credit to another wiki?

I'd like a few sets of eyes on an issue at Harvey Bialy. An editor is claiming that we need to include a "credit" template acknowledging the use of text from The AIDS dissident wiki, a wiki dedicated to the idea that HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS. As best I can tell, the AIDSWiki article was mostly copied from Misplaced Pages, not vice versa; I've asked for specifics about which text is being used.

The second issue is that the editor insisting on the credit template happens to be the founder and (nearly) sole contributor to AIDSwiki, which raises the question of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. He appears to be User:Revolver editing under one of the IP's he uses since "retiring" (see User Talk:Revolver for a list of others). The incivility and CAPS LOCK action are characteristic.

I'd like comments from people more versed in GFDL than I. This thread from the mailing list suggests that in the past such "vanity" credits have been frowned upon. I'd prefer to rewrite any parts of the article that are copied (assuming there such parts can be specified) and remove the credit, because AIDSWiki is not a good source for Misplaced Pages - aside from being a wiki, it's dedicated to presenting a minoritarian/fringe POV as correct. Thoughts? MastCell 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Since that is not a reliable source, any material taken form there should be removed unless attributed to a known authority. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's a little complex because the subject himself edits the article occasionally and inserts information, asserting that he is the only source necessary. It's a little tricky from a WP:BLP standpoint. I'm inclined to tag everything unsourced and remove it, since there really are few or no independent reliable sources there, but would appreciate more eyes on the article since a few editors get quite ornery about it (as you can see from the diff above). MastCell 23:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personnal attack and threat received

I have received a threat from User:67.10.203.37, which includes a violation of my privacy.

Please see wikipedia article including the threat.

What are my options ? Hektor 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks are extremely serious in Misplaced Pages. If the ip makes attacks again, report it at WP:AIV. --KZ 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a block on the IP address that made those edits. Durova 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Xanucia

Could an admin take a look at this user's recent participation in AfD discussions? It is not as helpful as one might hope.-FisherQueen (Talk) 22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the there is much that can be done - there is no requirement that comments on AFD be based in reason or in policy. CMummert · talk 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy against voicing a keep bias. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous personal attack

User:Jill Teed has referred to myself and several other editors as a "cadre of pro-PIRA supporters and/or former volunteers". The term volunteer is a reference to a member of the Provisional IRA, and I take great offence at being referred to as a former member of a terrorist organisation, as I'm sure do the other editors concerned. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider giving the user a warning. Apparently was blocked before for sockpuppetry... --KZ 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a direct result of my investigation, it should be stated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Suggesting someone is a "former volunteer", as in "Óglaigh" is just not on. Offensive in the extreme - Alison 00:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that basically calling a group of users terrorists would clasify as a personal attack. I will give her a warning if she hasn't received one already. IrishGuy 00:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior, good block. _InBC 00:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No block has been issued. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I mis-read. _InBC 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've issued the block. I'm familiar with the checkuser and SSP report on this case. Durova 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Long history of vandalism

Yesterday, IP address 72.10.125.195 vandalized a page I've been working on (El Escorial), and on checking his contribution log found that his edits for the past month have basically consisted of nothing more than vandalism. I think a block would be in order. --NetherlandishYankee 03:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

{{schoolblock}}ed. Probably not all the same person, but the persistent abuses are a drain on resources which could just as well be spent elsewhere. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul venter levying accusations following recent block

On his talk page: , Paul venter (talk · contribs) has been blocked for incivility. He has since leveled a charge against the blocking admin that says, and I quote, "have chosen instead to abuse your powers of blocking, that your lack of evenhandedness is not appropriate to your office". It should be noted (see Paul's contrib list) that he has been involved in edit wars with several other editors over what amounts to minor stylistic differences (Paul's version of the articles in question is frequently the one in violation of the MoS, though the differences are largely moot). Also, Paul has left incivil comments in his edit summaries (again, see his contribs list) which is the specific reason he was blocked by the admin in question. I am not taking any formal stand on the issue, only to post this here per a request at Paul's talk page and seek further comment from admins.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the contribs before the block, but accusations of that nature towards the blocking admin should simply be ignored. People get upset by a block. I'm sure Tyrenius doesn't take it personally. If I had a penny for every blocked user who's told me I'm not fit to be an admin, I'd be, I don't know, driving an Italian car or something. Bishonen | talk 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Agreed with Bishonen. I've gotten comments and emails a lot worse than that. Seraphimblade 04:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted, in the interest of full disclosure, that Paul has done a quite a bit of good work here. He has created or substancially expanded a number of articles, his silly editwars over picture size and placement notwithstanding. If everyone involved could simply cool their heads and let things settle down, the stylistic problems can be hammered out later. However, none of that excuses the incivility and editwarring. I only say that if we can get the editwars to stop, on the balance Paul as an editor can be an asset to Misplaced Pages.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Crossed in the mail: Something I find disturbing in this recent block. If you look at the following chronology, both personal attacks by Paul venter (talk · contribs) took place before the first warning by Tyrenius (talk · contribs).

Therefore, Paul venter was not ignoring Tyrenius' warning. He hadn't received it yet! --Kevinkor2 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing deletion log concern

I was looking at the deletion log for the highly inappropriate redirect Kill the sandniggers!!!, which for some reason was on my watchlist, and was disturbed. According to this deletion log, the racist redirect was to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel.

The disturbing part is that the only contributor was User:Ryulong, according to the deletion log. From what I can tell this user is an admin, and it just disgusting that an admin, of all people, would create such an inappropriate and racist page. It should not be tolerated.

I am not imagining this, am I? The Behnam 05:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This happens when people fix pagemove vandalism. The person who fixes it is left as the creator of the redirect; this happens all the time. Here is the actual vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Phew, thanks for clearing that up. It didn't seem like Ryulong was that type of user either, so I even more surprised. I have now learned something new. The Behnam 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, in the future, before making a public spectacle of this, you could ask him privately what was going on, thus alleviating your concerns? --Golbez 05:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that next time. Sorry if I don't understand that technical stuff, but the text of the deletion log was rather misleading. I apologize for the misunderstanding. The Behnam 05:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Change or remove edit summary?

diff of summary in question I'm not looking for any intervention regarding the editor who said this, but because it's wrong I'm wondering if it can be changed so that my name doesn't appear or if not that deleted. Thank you Article as it was before I even edited here I didn't include it as a diff because a lot has changed between december and now. The quote is in the first or second paragraph under the section Military Career. Anynobody 06:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You need a editor with oversight permission for that. A full list of people with oversight is here --KZ 06:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I'll do that. You can mark this resolved. Anynobody 06:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Civil

Can someone please warn the editors here . Comments from Atabek, I agree that "Armenian Genocide" made a big hype in media and "it's clear that Armenians did massacre Azeris, it's clear that genocide and massacre are not defined by number of victims but by intention of the crime. So, I don't see why "Armenian Genocide" remains on this page", This user is bringing in irrelevant things and bashing on the Armenian Genocide for no reason its very uncivil and offensive. Artaxiad 06:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note suggesting dispute resolution. — coelacan — 06:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, there is an open arbitration case already, so disregard my previous comment. I may be missing something important since I'm unfamiliar with the material, but it's not obvious to me how comparing the Armenian genocide to the March Days massacre is inherently incivil. Perhaps you can let this slide? — coelacan — 07:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

S.U.H.E.L. (talk · contribs)

• Because I reverted his additions to Mazzy Star that were directly ripped off from this webpage, he's left me this odd message. It's rather clearly a personal attack, but with all the "don't run up on me, homeboy", it seems kind of threatening to boot. JuJube 08:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to have handled it pretty well. It sounds like a empty threat to me. --KZ 10:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Destroy Misplaced Pages

FYI- a prominent neo-nazi blogger/publicist (and past Misplaced Pages editor) has announced on his blog a plan to "Destroy Misplaced Pages". However he's also known as a provocateur and self-promoter (just last year he posted a blog, ""How To Pull A Media Stunt", based on plenty of experience. We should be vigilant without overreacting. -Will Beback · † · 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• His evil plan will not work. we have previously blocked anon edits from wireless hotspots, it's no big deal. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty funny though... all his research for nothing... I'm more afraid of people who add vanity than this "threat". --KZ 12:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/The dark side. Durova 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple sockpuppetery and no ban?

Artaxerex (talk · contribs) is a confirmed puppet master of: User:Faranbazu, User:Arteban1, User:Napht and User:Torsh.

There are good enough reasons to believe that he has also edited under various IPs. I would like to know why this user was only blocked for 3 days, which was not extended when he created yet more sock puppets, and also considering that he has been doing this for some time and there is no stopping him from creating more.

As you can appreciate, it's very difficult to improve articles when a user keeps creating problems like this, and it is discouraging for this voluntary project. I would like to know some admin's opinions regarding what solution is the most appropriate in a case like this --Rayis 12:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Helpful IP address here....

This IP will only make constructive and helpful edits! Don't block us.... okay! --74.53.88.50 13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So they helpfully went straight to place !votes in several RfAs... this one might be worth watching.--Guinnog 13:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No promises on that one. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 13:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page is very suspicious when it says "this is not an open proxy". A quick Google search shows that this IP has been used for spam. – Chacor 13:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Arigato1 blocked for a week

AfterArigato1 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) continues to contribute in non constructive ways. In view of multiple prior warnings (, et al) and incidents (, , and the next several revisions, , , in which he reverted an edit by a likely sock or meatpuppet and tryed to smear Valentinian with it, but a CU showed "not related" to that sock for Valentinian and "related" for other socks that consistently support Arigato1, , et al.)I have blocked for a week and explained my actions here. It is suspected that Arigato1 is just the latest sock of a persistent troublesome user, believed first seen as Comanche cph (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) who has a somewhat slanted POV regarding Denmark and Sweden, and who seems to have a grudge with long time valued contributor Valentinian (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email). Some CU checks have been performed, and there is a pattern of sockery and meatpuppetry associated with these accounts and other ones that are intertwined (see for example ). Many of the single (vandal or PA) edit accounts have already been blocked indefinitely. The next occurance of this sort of activity will likely result in me blocking Arigato and his IP (which should shut him down, as Danish IPs stay with the same user for a very long time if not indefinitely) indefinitely. As always, I invite review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Tourette Syndrome Association. Finances and Leadership. Accessed 4 January 2007.
2. Tourette Syndrome Association. Jazz Musician Michael Wolff (PDF). Retrieved 4 January 2007.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot