Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Digwuren (talk | contribs) at 08:30, 12 May 2009 (→Possible return of Anonimu or Jacob Peters). 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 admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

Crazy block by Connolley

Why was Peter Damian blocked for reverting the insane edits of an anon IP on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article? Why has the article been locked down ostensibly to protect against the IP edits, but the IP not been blocked? Why was Damain (myself) blocked? Madness. See my remarks on Jimbo's page (he is protecting these lunatics, it seems). 86.132.248.254 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you pre-announced your intention to get yourself blocked, it isn't all that surprising. I think you're one of those people for whom drama is like cocaine, and you started feeling withdrawal symptoms. Looie496 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, protection and blocking is overkill. Only one of them, please, when dealing with edit warring. Sceptre 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it normal for a blocked editor's block to get extended for blatant block evasion? In addition to posting here, this IP posted twice to the article talk page and then to a user page within the space of less than ten minutes. Even if the block is wrong, there's no excuse for complicating matters by evading it. Surely this experienced user knows how to use the unblock template. Durova 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Although I believe Peter has done this before... I think. Sceptre 01:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for block evasion, and anybody is free to extend Peter Damian's original block. --auburnpilot talk 01:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is only semiprotected, for the benefit of the highly-persistent IP who will not discuss. This action was unrelated to Peter Damian's editing, and his recent use of a sock to evade his block. Damian went to great lengths to violate 3RR, apparently trying to prove a point, and was blocked by WMC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"…and his recent use of a sock to evade his block."

What sockpuppet?

More generally, is it our job to run Misplaced Pages without reference to, interest in, or opinions about content?24.18.142.245 (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that only one party to an edit war is blocked, especially as the unblocked party has previously been blocked for their editing of the same article and is apparently a pov warrior, and specifically it is WMC who actioned the sanction. WMC is now responsible for 3 of the 5 blocks on the Peter Damian account. I note that WMC took no other action, leaving it for another to sprotect the article nor - as noted - sanctioning the other edit warrior. I feel that this gives the impression that WMC acted disproportionately in sanctioning an editor with whom they have a history regarding blocking. I shall ask WMC if they wish to comment here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I do. Your impressions are incorrect. PD broke 3RR, so I blocked him. As far as I'm aware, no-one else did. I'm fairly sure that PD intended to merely tweak our noses by using his "quota" of 3R/24h (in which case I would probably have blocked him for edit warring), but mistakenly went over the line. As you'll have seen from PD's subsequent contributions, he did all this to make a point and appears to have succeeded, so is presumably happy with the outcome William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You noted edit warring in the block log, but took no action other than to block PD - subsequently the ip with whom PD was warring has been blocked for a week for their general pov warring behaviour and the article the two were involved was sprotected; if you are going to refer to edit warring (rather than disruption, also available from the same menu) it behoves an administrator to review the culpability of all involved, or to address the edit war otherwise. If you are going to be inattentive as regards the block reason placed in the log, then you will have to accept that people are going to get the wrong impression. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to note that you've realised you got the wrong impression; sadly you are still making mistakes; there was no inattention on my part. PD, as far as I know (and no-one has challenged this) was the only one to break 3RR (and did so in a deliberately provocative manner - a point that I don't think you have acknowledged). Your apparent belief that if one person needs to be blocked for edit warring, then so should someone else, is completely wrong. I suggest you review the history of WP:AN3 if you're unclear about that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? The other party to the edit war (not disruption or another reason, but edit war) was subsequently blocked for a week for their practice of reverting other peoples contributions without seeking consensus or even discussing the matter back to their previous edited versions after a discussion between me and another sysop. You have been around longer than I have, but it seemed like an edit war - over several Ayn Rand articles - to us. We didn't need to look very hard, either, since the ip already had a 24 hour block a few days previously for that same behaviour. I cannot believe you could have missed it had you looked, so I therefore conclude that you didn't. Also, the page being warred over was sprotected a couple of hours after the PD block to stop the continuing edit war. As I said, possible inattention to matters outside of blocking PD (which I have noted was appropriate on this page) gives rise to these unfortunate impressions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian edit warred with summaries like "about the 6th revert" and then flaunted this on an administrator's talk page, twice. Further he turned the question of whether the administrator would block him or not into a way to make a WP:Point confirming that "I don't have to 'discuss' with lunatics." which constitutes both a personal attack and a stated intention to edit war more in the future, with the assertion that not-blocking would be taken to be implicit permission to do so. How is anyone surprised that this resulted in a block? He begged for it. The semi-protect was done by a different admin for a different reason. Mishlai (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have commented in an ongoing discussion on my talkpage, there are no problems with the block of Peter Damian for the policy violations but I have a concern that there was no other action taken in regard to an edit war (plus the fact is was GMC again who blocked PD). If the block was for disruption, one from the drop down menu I use where other policy violations do not suffice, then there would be less concern; edit warring does require other parties, and resolving edit wars usually entails either sanctioning more than one party or protecting the article involved. GMC's action has, as I said, the appearance of being disproportionate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WMC, you seriously don't see the other edit warrior at Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? I just popped in, and noted it off the bat. If you need your hand held to see that, and you refute comments by others in that regard, then why perform the block? You should be asking for review and for assistance. seicer | talk | contribs 21:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

Peter Damian has continued to evade his block using 81.151.180.208 (talk · contribs) and Peter Damian (temporary) (talk · contribs). Both are blocked, but if this continues, the original block will have to be reset. --auburnpilot talk 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps resetting it now would be appropriate. PD is well aware that block evasion is not permitted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just added 72 hours. This kind of stuff is tiresome. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This guy is just yanking our chain. He went to Misplaced Pages Review admitting to being a previously blocked user (by Jimbo, no less) and claiming that he would sockpuppet but adding good content (which he did, up to a point), and use that to attempt to persuade financial contributors to desist from doing so. However, no admin, including myself, was prepared to give him that satisfaction; we do not dance to the tune of blocked users. However, knowing something of this guy IRL (a minor academic, but no more than that), I suggest it's about time to bring this to an end as far as we can, and I propose a formal ban of User:Peter Damian and all his sockpuppets. A plague on all their houses. Rodhullandemu 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• When his siteban was lifted it was against my better judgment: per Misplaced Pages:Standard offer I prefer to see banned editors demonstrate a fundamental respect for our standards by refraining from evasions of their ban; after several months of that most of them can earn another chance. This one tried to earn his way back through persistent ban evasion, and the block history since his return is not encouraging. Nonetheless, let's give him a fair shake if he's willing to give us one. If he posts a statement acknowledging that site policies apply to everyone (including himself) and pledging to abide by this and any future blocks (or appeal them by normal means)--then I would support a good faith reduction of 24 hours from his current block. Durova 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if linking off-wiki discussions is appropriate, but since you seem to be trying to evaluate intention/attitude Mishlai (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A post at his user talk would be adequate. We've all had days when we saw red for a while and then thought better of it. A clear demonstration of that is all that's needed here. Durova 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't simply a user who is having a bad day and seeing red, but a user who has been blocked repeatedly under numerous different accounts (Peter Damian (talk · contribs), Peter Damian II (talk · contribs), Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs), Peter Damian (temporary) (talk · contribs), Renamed user 4 (talk · contribs), and several IPs). This is a user who seems to believe he is entitled to act a certain way and do certain things without accountability, simply because he's been here longer than others. This is a user who just today refered to me as an entirely useless person and a prick; he also referred to William M. Connolley as an arsehole. Frankly, he has earned his current block and should be happy it isn't longer. --auburnpilot talk 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And he referred to me as a member of The Cabal. Nonetheless I am willing to let bygones be bygones if he is. What could be fairer? After all the dry cleaners returned my black velvet cabal robes three days late. I was forced to attend last week's Cabal Cocktail Party in a black silken dress--so 2006--so I'm not in a mood to toe the party line today. Durova 01:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅I'd suggest a slightly less holier than thou attitude than evidenced above. Peter does hard graft on articles, and is prepared to take on many articles that attract high levels of POV editing. he also does rigourous research and references his material. The complete absence of admin intervention on the IP editor involved in this and the failure to deal with editors who play to the limit of WIki rules while refusing to deal with questions was a contributory factor here. Peter has a short fuse but that tends to go with the territory. If you check the edits he made :evading" they were to talk pages only not the articles. We need to spend a bit more time understanding the context in which these actions take place. Peter is easy to provoke, and doing it is a "game" for some. Verdana comes closest to a mature attitude above, what would be nice would someone with admin powers spending some time looking at the content debates and then checking the behaviour of editors who keep to the letter of the law while driving others to frustrated excess. --Snowded (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Peter needs to learn to keep his temper under control, but he makes tremendous contributions to the project. The talk of banning is absurd. Seriously, if we perma-banned every snarky user the place would be a ghost-town. Those of you who think Peter should be banned need to ask yourself if it's worth losing his contributions. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, we have plenty of great article contributors who don't feel the need to either get in trouble or wear the fact that they are article contributors on their sleeve when they get in trouble. I don't understand the mentality that if you rack up enough article edits, block evasion isn't block evasion anymore. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Then point a few of them at highly troublesome articles like the Ayn Rand ones, NLP and others which have fan clubs of editors, it takes a stubborn personality to stand up to that and a bit more attention to the context should (in my opinion) have resulted in at best a token block, but with a linked block/admonishment to the other two editors. extending the ban when no edits were made to any articles, just a few talk pages was petty. --Snowded (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold the phone. I can't for the life of me understand how extending a block for block evasion is petty. Maybe I'm still nursing this grudge that Peter has imagined, but I am having some trouble. PD gets blocked for edit warring. As is his MO, he makes obvious attempts to evade the block and either post on talk pages or make article edits presumably so that this exact conversation can be repeated each time. People can come here and complain that "ignorant admins have blocked a hardworking content contributor, see look at how ludicrous blocking someone for good content edits is!" and ignore (pretty blithely if you ask me) the basis for the original block or the block extension. Blocks, as a technical measure, only block the account, but we are interested in preventing the human behind the account from editing during the block duration. So we do two things to prevent technical blocks from being gamed, one which is unambigously preventative and one which might be seen as punitive. The first is that we block the accounts used to evade a block. I don't see that being called petty here, though I don't imagine it is too far fetched for an accusation like that to be thrown about. The second is that we occasionally, but not always, extend the block for the main account. I'm fully prepared to discuss the validity of the block extension but I refuse to do so if we are just going to toss off words like "petty" and pretend that a discourse is in progress. Do you want to tell me under what conditions block evasion is ok? Maybe that can start us off. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only answer for my own comments not those of others. The only edits Peter made were to talk pages (some of which namely his own he could have made any way), no edits were made to articles. The issue I am raising is that the block was on Peter in isolation and no action was taken against the other two editors (not even a mild warning) (now corrected in the case of the IP). Peter was not the only one frustrated by that. Extending the block TWICE was I think petty, its a legitimate point and you are of course free to disagree with it. It is related to the block extension (your second point). I'll happily change "petty" to "an over reaction" if you want. --Snowded (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel compelled to change the wording to assuage my concerns. It appears we aren't going to come to agreement. I didn't block PD for edit warring and I don't much care whether or not the IP should be blocked (the article is semi'd so I don't know what a block would do). All I did was see if PD had evaded the block, noted that he did rather obviously, and extend the block. You remark above that the only edits he made were to talk pages, but that is the point. PD doesn't have a history of evading blocks to do nefarious things. He has a history of evading legitimate blocks (no comment on the legitimacy of this precise one) to perform innocuous edits in order to somehow show that the block itself is ludicrous. That's fine if you like civil disobedience and all but civil disobedience still lands you in jail. Letter from Birmingham Jail was not written at the Hilton. Protonk (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an offer as you didn't like the "petty" word. As you say we are not going to agree on this and (if its any comfort or if you are concerned) I think its no an issue with you per se. I think its a significant issue with the tendency in WIkipedia to ignore context on contentious pages. Its too easy just to play to the letter of the law, and that is exploited by editors more experienced in playing the game to the letter of law. Editors who really care (and Peter for all his faults is one of those and i have been on the receiving end an attack or two from him in my time) are punished. The net effect is that it all gets too hard and we end up with corralled articles where attempting to deal with cultists and POV pushers just gets too hard and good editors go elsewhere. --Snowded (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, dealing with POV pushers is a goal we all share. The distinction you're trying to draw about block evasion is not the way it's usually defined. If Peter was blocked wrongly in the first place then the unblock template usually straightens out the error, or if someone else should've been blocked too then a separate thread on the other individual's behavior would be more likely to resolve that. A good way to get attention for priorities is to minimize side issues. Durova 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree per se Durova, however I think we have a wider problem here on articles which attract cultists etc. Its too easy for either numbers, or intelligent gaming of the rules, or simple noise creation to try and get a plague on both your houses response (a good example below of re-spinning, to use a british political phrase can be found below). Its not just Rand pages, we have seen similar things on a range such as NLP (to take another where Peter did good work). Where you get a lot of admins involved (Intelligent design for example) the system just about works, but on the edges its more difficult. We won't get anywhere with it here today, but I'm working off line on some ideas and will post when I have worked something out. Misplaced Pages is a great example of a complex adaptive system, but the constraints used may in some cases have reached their limits. --Snowded (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter has posted in reply to the offer above. Apologies aren't needed, btw--just a commitment to avoid the same problems in future. Also agreeing in principle with Protonk: good content work doesn't generate an exemption from policy (think how many policies I'd be breaking if each featured credit earned a get-out-of block free card). So in good faith let's take a day off the block; Peter's met us halfway. Durova 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter's conduct on the discussion page is evidence of being disruptive, not being productive. If this process is sensitive to character assesment, lets toss out character witnesses in favor of the facts. Recent "discussion" activity follows for Objectivism (Ayn Rand) --Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Another user asks PD to support his edit

Despite his edit persisting in the article:, he campaigns against WP:SYN

He then abandons the existing thread , without any answer to the request to support his edit.

He carries on ignoring the request to support his edit .

I try, for the second time to point him back to the open discussion but he continues to evade the call to support his edit .

I call for a resumption of peaceful discussion and complain about the branching into multiple threads

He creates another thread . I therefore bring a summary of the original thread down to the new one .

He puts it to me to treat the paragraph piece-meal instead of as a whole and I respond that its the paragraph being contested

Now he gives his support broken down sentence by sentence. But this doesn't follow the structure of the actual paragraph . Further, it does nothing to answer my often repeated original complaint .

And now he flaunts the need for discussion and civil discourse

Another user summarizes all this quite clearly here.

Now I'm further denegrated by user Peter Damian . It seems that accroding to user Peter Damian only he has standing for what passes or fails as good content .

I essentially repeat myself about how the paragraph in question is OR, and express some frustration over user Peter Damians behavior so far .

PD now thanks me for being specific about objecting to 'it follows' (recall this oft repeated comment ), and tells me how I failed to identify even more OR in his paragraph! - did you catch the small personal attack?

Now user PD invites an analysis of Rand in favor of discussing the article followed by more campaigning against WP:SYN and admonishing me for not doing likewise

I attempt once again to bring the discussion back on track, and try to ensure my objection is clear

The IP 160 user then steps into the fray

An outside perspective is given on the issue here --Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As for being nothing more than a POV pusher of an editor we have this as an opening section for the article --Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Other blocks by Connolley

If we're allowed to even question this admin's actions without risking further blocks, I'd appreciate comment as to whether this or this is considered appropriate admin behaviour, (background is here). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Imho it is not because WP:BLOCK says that blocks can only be issued "to protect Misplaced Pages and its editors from harm" and I see nothing of that in this block. While the section about self-requested blocks was removed, I think any admin should be very careful not to take remarks on any other talk page as a request for a block. Especially not when the user they are blocking just criticized their admin actions, because then it's unlikely they are impartial enough to judge this situation correctly and should not perform further admin actions on users involved. Regards SoWhy 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That block strikes me as a bad decision. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that blocking someone because they asked you to is about as bad as a decision as asking to be blocked. Chillum 01:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's far worse, because the blocking admin ought to have known better. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask to be blocked, I certainly didn't intend for this to be read as a request to be blocked - Why?! and had I (maybe I could use an enforced wikibreak), I would have written "Could some admin please block me, thankyou". However the whole PD saga seems to have too many admins over-reacting because they can, not because they should. Making any sort of comment on this is the behaviour that attracts blocks for the wikicrime of lese majeste to admins, I posted a tongue-in-cheek recognition that I knew this was likely to happen (and felt the point about PD was worth making anyway) and then this admin was foolish enough to think that such a mis-use of a block, even when the target had already raised its likelihood, was still a valid action.

I'm required to WP:AGF, so my bock must have been for one of four reasons.

1. Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages.

2 Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit.

4 Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms

Now please, if I have damaged WP, please point out my error. If I was critical of an admin's actions over PD or their right to act in that way, beyond reasonable and fairly tactful discussion of whether we couldn't find a more productive way to act in the future, then please point it out.

Now I can't see any such thing in my recent actions, which leaves only:

3 Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated.

So admin Connelly's block is only explicable by either assuming his bad faith (which is impermissible), or a new interpretation of blocking policy such that any discussion of admin's actions, no matter how measured, is reason for an immediate block.

That is not, I believe, how an open system of governance is meant to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we credit Andy by assuming he is somehow less capable of knowing better than an admin. Admins are just people not infallible gods, they don't always get things right. While the block was not the brightest move, requesting it to make a point was about on the same level. Chillum 01:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So your defence of a bad block is that the blocking administrator is more or less dim than the editor who (s)he blocks? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't see a defense for this one. Permit me to be crude. Andy was either fucking around or spoiling for a fight. In either case, WMC shouldn't have taken the bait. It's his responsibility to refrain from doing so. Period. I don't like "requested blocks" one bit, but this plainly wasn't one. However, on the grand scale of things we ought to be caring about, this ranks relatively low. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo but state more strongly what a couple of other editors have already mentioned—this was just a horrendous block, and while it's over and done with now I'm astounded that William M. Connolley seriously thought it was a good idea (but then again maybe he wasn't taking it that seriously). It's pretty difficult if not impossible to read Andy Dingley's comment as a serious request for a block, and even if Connolley thought that's what was going on he should have at least clarified it first. I have no idea what the backstory to this is and don't particularly care, but whatever it is it does not excuse or justify a block of this nature. I don't think there's anything further to do with this right now, but unfortunately William M. Connolley has made some poor decisions about his use of the bit in the past and now we have another example. At a minimum I would ask William to please stop and think for about 30 seconds before doing something like this again. There is no universe in which that block would have ended up as a good thing for the project. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley, for many more "horrendous blocks" (section written by me, my old user name)Ikip (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Likely image copyvios—hundreds of files

MRDU08 (talk · contribs) has uploaded hundreds of images that appear to me to be clear copyright violations. There is a history of notice messages on his/her talk page (all of which MRDU08 has ignored), but he/she is now tagging images with "I created this work entirely by myself" and licensed with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}, which will make the bots stop. But it seems terribly unlikely that this user took original photos of all those beauty pageant contestants, and also drew hundreds of flag images. I have previously tried to engage this user on a related issue, but MRDU08 has never replied to any message left on his/her talkpage. I'd like another set of eyes to look at those image contributions before going ahead with deleting the images and perhaps blocking the user. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to guess that with just this image that the maps are taken probably from Misplaced Pages and the colors added in with MS Paint. They just look like they are made on VERY quickly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good faith user who's just uploading images of his own work. Although there's some suspicion as some images look extremely professional, such as File:MRD 1991 Melissa Vargas.jpg.jpg, there could be a chance that he's a proffesional photographer. -download ׀ sign! 04:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I'm not worried so much about that kind of image; it's the claim that images like File:Mía Taveras.jpg and File:Flag of Paris.PNG are self-created. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Mía Taveras.jpg seems to be pulled off a blog or imageshack. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Download: I'm more inclined to believe WP:DUCK than WP:AGF here... But that's why I wanted more opinions. My guess is that the user has good-faith intentions to add pictures to his/her favorite Misplaced Pages topic, but isn't concerned about copyright. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment entirely. The image file size and ratios are indicative of being grabbed from web-pages. If he were a professional or amareur photographer it is more likely that some much larger file sizes and much more consistent aspect ratios are being used. My guess is that he is a good content contributor who doesn't understand the copyvio policy. I'm going to look more at the images to see which ones are really obvious. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'd characterize the user as "a good content contributor." He's already created a number of hoax articles dealing with beauty pageants and Dominican Republic provinces that have been deleted at AfD. It's a wonder that he hasn't been indefinitely blocked before this. Deor (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No metadata, claims images from a 2005 beauty pageant were created by himself this month. Nuke. Durova 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Given User_talk:MRDU08#Your_moves, it's clear this is not a user who pay much attention to what others are requesting of him. This many months of violations should be enough for most people. I suggest a strong warning that the next copyright violation he has uploaded will result in a block. At the very least, given the ones we clearly know about, he needs to explain to use whether images like File:City Hall in Moca.jpg, more difficult to determine, are really his or he's just been lying the whole time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the fact that he has zero talkspace edits (all page moves) and minimal user talkspace edits (majority actually in Spanish) should clarify. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I randomly fed some images into Tineye and got:

• File:MRD 2005 Renata Soñé.jpg <= - might find a few more here as well
• File:Municipalities of the province of San Pedro de Macorís.jpg <= - is this a Wiki mirror? What is the license? MER-C 07:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  First one deleted, second one sent to PUI. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

contributions is a pretty obvious role account for the Miss República Dominicana Universo, likely created for the 2008 pageant. It's likely they own the copyrights to the images being uploaded, but they're giving no evidence of permission. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, judging from MRDU08's user talk page, he/she likely does not speak English (or at least does not speak it as a primary language). It might be worth asking someone to translate a necessary request for confirmation of permissions. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree w/ that conclusion too. I think it is obvious that the account was named in the fashion you describe, but it is not obvious at all that this means the account owner is the pageant operator. Furthermore, there is no indication that the pageant owns the copyright for the bulk of these picture (rather than the photographer at the shoot). And again, if they were the pageant operator and did own the photos, why would they upload compressed jpgs in sizes and ratios common to websites or promos? Protonk (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen similar behavior before in role accounts. I've got a couple thoughts as to why this is. First, organizations have press kits and promo materials made to standardize their appearance in the media, and to make it substantially easier for media people to write about their organization. Second, it's likely that the agent or agents responsible for editing Misplaced Pages on behalf of this organization do not have access to full-resolution images, and likely wouldn't seek access because of the extra time and trouble involved for their superiors/clients and themselves. But, I agree, it's not blatantly obvious that the account is related to the pageant.

But... if the account isn't a role account, then the username itself is inappropriate per WP:IU, as it is deceptive (leads outsiders to believe that the account is being operated by the pageant operators). Yet, if it is a role account, it's in violation of m:ROLE. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Uploaders have a proactive responsibility to demonstrate that the images they contribute are legal. AGF doesn't mean assume competence; it only means we assume the intention to comply. There is no evidence at all that this person has a right to upload this material, which is presumptively under full copyright. Durova 16:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for a fluent spanish speaker to leave a message on his talk page. I don't hold too much hope, but we should exhaust that option before moving to the next step (blocking and working backward through the uploads to remove likely copyvios). Protonk (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jmabel has been kind enough to translate the warning. I'm going to give things a day or so for a response. If the warning is ignored then I plan to block the account and start tagging images. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the above, the image File:Miss France 2009.jpg would appear to have been taken from Reuters. While I can't confirm it, it appears as a Reuter's image in a (now inaccessible) database that Reuters had been supporting in the past. It may be significant that this is from the Miss France 2009 competition, rather than the Dominican Republic. - Bilby (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The user has received two warnings in Spanish and has failed to reply. Has continued to edit without responding. Although the new edits aren't uploads, WP:COPYVIO authorizes blocking until the user acknowledges the existing problem and helps to remedy it by disclosing which sources were used. Durova 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a third request in Spanish for this user to begin a dialog. Durova 15:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll block him tonight if there isn't some pressing reason to do it earlier. I welcome anyone else doing it earlier should they feel that the situation merits more urgency. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked a little deeper into this, and I think we may have some more cleanup work to do. Basically, this user has two types of questionable image uploads, around two topics of interest: beauty pageants and flags. I believe that a few different accounts were used along the way:

• from April 7 to August 14 2007, Cmm 394 (talk · contribs) uploaded several images purported to be flags of provinces of the Dominican Republic, and created List of Dominican flags to display them. There is a note on user talk:Cmm 394 claiming it is a sockpuppet of "DominicanBoy", although I can't find any links to that username.
• edited as 24.190.179.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on similar articles from March 22 to June 3, 2007
• edited as 24.190.187.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from December 9, 2007 to February 12, 2008
• On January 28, 2008 (only), Las Provincias Dominicanas (talk · contribs) was created and uploaded 32 flag images, all with the source and author fields of the image summary template set to nothing more than "Carlos". Several of these images were later modified by the MRDU08 account.
• uploaded some flags as Aaassssss11113 (talk · contribs) from January 25–27, 2008
• edited as 24.190.188.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from June 5–8, 2008 and from November 13–26, 2008
• MRDU08 (talk · contribs) created June 19, 2008 and still in use.

Based on the long list of unanswered comments at Talk:List of Dominican flags and the various user talk pages, I believe that the Dominican province flags are original research. None appear to have any reliable sources. In addition to the rather apparent copyvios of the pageant contestant photograph images, I believe most if not all of these flag images also have reason for deletion. I also note that MRDU08 has been editing after the talkpage requests (in both English and Spanish) were posted, but did not reply. I think a block is in order until we get explanation for both types of his/her image uploads. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh... the flag stuff had sort of set off a little alarm in the back of my head but I didn't think much of it at the time. But looking at how it's presented here... yeah, looks like a block might be the right thing to do. It would also be a good idea, considering this possible past of sockpuppetry, to keep an eye on the images in question and have a CU run if new accounts show up. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I deleted some pageant images and listed some others for deletion. I'll work on this tomorrow. I don't even know what to do about the flags. There are hundreds of them. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But wait, there's more! Check out commons:Special:Contributions/MRDU08 for a hundred or so more flags and the occasional beauty pageant photo upload. In those instances, it is crystal clear that the flags were lifted directly from the "Flags of the World" (FOTW) website, and are certainly subject to speedy deletion from Commons for that reason. I have requested help there. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious

My quacking chum, User:Nimbley6 has a new sock: Noyougirls55 (talk · contribs). Could a considerate admin aim their WP:DUCK-shooting shotgun and dispatch Noyougirls55 to the great duck pond in the sky?

Background material for the novice hunter may be found here.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 12:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a punt.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(Groan!) Well, thanks for sending the sock down the river. Hopefully the sock master will go south for the winter. Thanks again! Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 12:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nimbley6 is now socking as 78.144.121.179 (talk · contribs) - could someone zap? Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• If anyone is interested, if it edits Leon Jackson it usually is. Anyhoo, I've blocked this one too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks! Though I am extremely disappointed at the lack of puns... ;-) This flag once was red_deeds 09:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh how I hate weekends and school holidays. It's back, editing as 78.144.83.232 (talk · contribs). Could a WP:DUCK-hunting, WP:BLOCK-wielding, WP:SOCK-cleaning admin stomp please? Nimbley6 appears to be unsure what "indefinitely blocked" means. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 11:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now if I could only find where I put my light gun . . . TNXMan 12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Alas, no light-gun puns from me, I'm all out of photonic puns. Thanks again, This flag once was red_deeds 12:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, at least tomorrow is Monday, right?! The little troll will be back at school (and, apparently, the school are wise enough to forbid access to computers. Anyhoo... a fresh IP has popped up: 78.144.95.111 (talk · contribs). Could some kindly school-master or school-marm educate my school-chum? 1000 lines - "I must not sock when indefintely blocked..." Thank you! This flag once was red_deeds 18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I keep on having to do this - to whom do I send my bill? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your bill? Are you a duck too?  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• You mean you've not got the cheque from Student Awards Agency for Scotland? It should be in the post, I'll chase them in the morning. Meantime, many thanks. Unfortunately a rangeblock is probably out of the question, because the ISP uses several ranges. My hope is that with enough blocks, and enough reverts, the silly little troll will get bored and go off and find a more suitable activity for a Scottish youth. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 18:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Betcha all thought I'd forgotten about you, eh?! It's Friday Monday, it's five to five, it's time for socking! Yes, sock fans, Nimbley6 is back - and today's contestant IP is 78.150.231.233 (talk · contribs). Could someone dole out the cabbages? Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Quiet for hours, I suspect the sock's run away for the night. Marking as resolved (again). This flag once was red_deeds 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

72.199.110.160: topic specific ban request

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

The Ayn Rand article has been viewed over 136,000 times in the last 30 days alone . It is viewed more than articles of far greater importance to the Western canon of philosophy such as Rene Descartes , Immanuel Kant , or Jean-Paul Sartre and is curiously viewed almost as much as the articles on Plato and Aristotle .

To be sure, the article attracts its fair share of partisan traffic, tendentious editors and single-purpose accounts. (NB: almost 30% of the article’s edits come from anon IPs.)

The original intention of the ArbCom ruling for the curious case of Ayn Rand and related articles was to stop all of the bickering and disruption. ArbCom issued the following relevant enforcement points:

1. “Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and ensure a productive editing environment.”
2. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to respond to further disruption with escalating (in scope and duration) topic bans.”
3. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use escalating blocks, as necessary, to enforce topic bans and prevent disruption.”

Now consider the case of 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The anon IP has been editing Misplaced Pages since 7 October 2008. The user has roughly 1,300 edits under its belt, dispelling any notion of being ignorant of Misplaced Pages’s policies and guidelines.

An analysis of the user’s edits reveals that it is largely a single-purpose account used for the editing of Ayn Rand-related articles . Indeed, 160 has edited the Ayn Rand article more than any other editor . By themselves these facts would not be problematic were it not for the following:

1. The “abuse filter log” indicates the new user has removed verifiable content over 30 times in the past few months alone.
2. The user has been blocked for edit warring and disruption. The first time on 26 April 2009 by MBisanz for a period of 31 hours. The measure was ineffective.
3. The user does *not* discuss its edits on Talk pages. Rather, it chooses to edit unilaterally forgoing discussions leading up to WP:CONSENSUS.
4. The user persistently and aggressively reverts edits it dislikes. example, example, another example . (Note: there are many more examples).
5. The user has been asked multiple times by multiple editors to take its contentious edits to the talk page for the purpose of discussion and consultation.
6. The editor is known to be uncivil, rude, and disruptive.
7. If it disagrees (which is often), the anon IP loves to shout at other editors in BOLD CAPS. One of too many examples to cite here:
8. The user assumes bad-faith of others who edit collegially.
9. Now there is talk on the Misplaced Pages Review that anon IP 160 is none other than James S. Valliant himself, the author of a minor partisan work, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, which received absolutely no attention in either the media or academe according to JSTOR, LexisNexis, Google News and Google Scholar. Should this IP verification prove correct, anon IP 160 might be in breach of a conflict of interest.
10. Indeed, should this IP trace prove correct, anon IP 160’s repeated re-insertion of Valliant’s work throughout the Ayn Rand-related articles makes a great deal of sense. The conflict of interest alone should garner serious consideration as the user is unable to edit neutrally.

Overall, my recommendation is to enact ArbCom’s ruling and ban anon IP 160 from Ayn Rand-related articles. Currently, the user is blocked for a period of 1 week . The block is insufficient. The history of this user suggests that further disruption to Ayn Rand-related articles is inevitable. Thank you for your time. J Readings (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that a ban is a social mechanism. If he breaks it, it needs to be immediately and strongly enforced. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This ip is currently blocked for a week, following a discussion on my talkpage. It should be noted that the article is already semi-protected, so the block on the account is in respect of the civility, WP:OWN, and other issues. The tariff of one week was agreed since the previous block was for one day and the suggested 1 month block was felt to be too large an escalation. The ip has been notified by the blocking admin EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that the block may be lifted if they agree to use the talkpages and obtain consensus for their preferred changes. Any discussion here that may vary these actions should be promptly notified to the ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP won't engage with anyone. That's the problem. Maybe the threat of dropping the block-hammer on him every time he tries to edit a Rand-related page will fix that. I don't know... but I doubt it. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's the way things work. First, talk to the editor, then second, enforce our editing norms with escalating blocks. An eventual topic ban would be difficult to enforce (since it would largely rely on the WP:DUCK test and similarity of IPs) but not impossible. Thatcher 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case, though, we do already have the ArbCom ruling which prescribes topic bans, enforced by blocks, for the conduct of the IP editor.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Other editors have expressed some opinions on this issue at User talk:EdJohnston#Lock down of Objectivism article. It's worthwhile to keep enforcing the rules against disruption, since this is something that admins can correctly do, and it is likely to be beneficial in this case. Since this editor is a fixed IP with 1,300 edits, a topic ban could have some effect. The ban could be lifted if he will agree to change his behavior. The 'talk to the editor' option doesn't work for this guy, since he never responds. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How about a six-month topic ban on all Ayn Rand and Objectivist-related articles? The anon IP cannot edit the mainspace articles, but would be free to participate in talk page discussions to express concerns and suggestions about content improvement. This way, the restrictions can lead to an evaluation of whether the desired behavioral changes take place. Of course, should it be proven that anon IP 160 is in fact James Valliant, I would seriously recommend that he be banned outright from Ayn Rand-related articles. The conflict of interest would pretty much guarantee the user cannot edit neutrally. Thoughts? J Readings (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would also, as I have asked before, greatly appreciate it if an admin or two would take it upon themselves to watch Rand-related articles. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mengistu Haile Mariam

I am writing with regard to the biographical information titled Mengistu Haile Mariam. Dears sir/madam, you posted completely falacious information regarding Mengistu's early life. I guess that information was provided to you by a member of ruling junta clans of the current ethiopian governemnt. You have to balance the information you get, and you must be hold accountable for any abuse of information under data protection and privacy policies. In this particular case, you have breached the legal threshold by posting an information which is compeletly fabricated, racist, and offessive of the individual in question. The only thing I couls say is I fee shame on you for acquiring someone's information from third party and posting false data with out cross check. Shame!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.254.184 (talk) 09:30, May 10, 2009

I moved this to the correct noticeboard, I think--Unionhawk 16:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where this belongs... it was initially on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, but, I truly have no idea where this belongs or if this belongs on any noticeboard.--Unionhawk 16:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article talkpage? I had a look, and there seems to be citations for much of what is written - although I have not checked the references themselves - so there isn't a BLP issue as far as I can see. As this has been transposed from the original place it was posted I doubt there would be much point in asking the ip what specific concerns they have. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a legal threat to me, so it should be deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat; IP did not mention taking any action, and "you have breached the legal threshold" is a mere statement of opinion. Rodhullandemu 17:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)IP 89 has a point. The article has plenty of good sourcing (BBC, Associated Press, Times of India) for Mengistu as a perpetrator of mass murder, but the complaint focuses on the "Early life" section of the article and has nothing to do with that. The first two paragraphs there focus on two relatives of Mengistu and have no sourcing. Some of the information in those paragraphs could be embarassing or even libelous regarding those relatives, and in any case, that information isn't crucial to the article or even important to it. So if someone hasn't removed that passage by now, I'm going to do it. (Done: here and here.) So, yes, shame on us for having those paragraphs in the article. -- Noroton (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, IP 89 seems to be referring to the remaining part of the "Early Life" section, which is footnoted to the Paul B. Henze and Bahru Zewde sources. It's worth a note on the article talk page, and maybe a WikiProject page that someone has disputed this. I'll do it. (done at talk page; at WikiProject:Ethiopia; at WikiProject:Africa) -- Noroton (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This is the first time that anyone has complained about this article being too hard on this guy, who is probably the most hated individual of Ethiopian history -- perhaps even more than Ahmad Gragn. Even the most objective take on Mengistu must admit that he is quite the piece of work. (If anyone wants to discuss this, please bring it up on my talk page.) And it's doubtful Mengistu would raise an objection about this article (unless our anon is him); he probably hasn't heard of the Internet in his part of Africa, let alone Misplaced Pages. But because he's the most visible symbol of the Derg, the article has turned into an extended argument whether the Derg did anything right -- not about Mengistu.

I've been slowly trying to clean this article up -- add sources, provide details, remove the extensive argument whether the Derg was a good or bad thing. Sadly, I don't have the time to do the research needed, so it might be a while before anyone cleans it up. And maybe longer before someone who is willing to rewrite it to conform with NPOV. -- llywrch (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I took another look at the article yesterday since my last post here, and I see Mengistu is so old (72) that his grandmother is either dead or one of the oldest people in the world by now, and his father is likely deceased as well, so information on them is unlikely to be a BLP issue, at least regarding the relatives, although there might be a WP:COATRACK reason not to include that information, and therefore, maybe, a BLP reason regarding Mengistu. (BLP concerns extend beyond whether or not Mengistu knows or can be hurt much by one of our articles -- WP's credibility and accuracy are two other reasons for BLP policy.) I struck one of my comments above, and I have no wish to criticize Llywrch, even by implication. Any more about this is really best discussed on the Talk:Mengistu Haile Mariam page or potentially the BLP noticeboard. There doesn't seem to be anything about this that can be addressed at this noticeboard, especially since the focus of the original complaint is on sourced material. -- Noroton (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't feel criticized Noroton, so no problem there. This is an example of what I feel is a category of difficult articles: BLPs on dictators & other not-very-nice people. When I commented above about critical input above, I was attempting to allude to the fact that one of the dynamics of Misplaced Pages is that we find mistakes in articles through our readers pointing them out. So when a biography is about a murderous third-world dictator -- a person with few if any supporters -- it's far easier for errors to slip in. Nobody cares about defamation of these kinds of people because (1) they are public figures, & (2) already have blackened reputations, so who will complain if one or more zeros are added in error to the total of people killed (or public funds stolen)? Besides, no one really relishes the idea of defending someone like Than Shwe or any of the others on this list of worst dictators, so the mistakes persist. Someone needs to keep an eye on these biographies to keep them as NPOV as possible, although it doesn't require the Admin bit to do this. -- llywrch (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A Case of wiki-Hounding

Editor FyzixFighter (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a prolonged campaign of wiki-hounding. Since I opened my account last April, FyzixFighter has only ever come to physics pages to undermine my edits. There are no exceptions to this rule. This wiki-hounding has taken place on a number of pages including centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference), Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction. His style is to claim not to have any opinions on the topic and then to proceed to undo the coherence and contents of my edits by purporting to quote from reliable sources. Recently he has been distorting the facts. At centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference), he attempted to turn the centrifugal force into a centripetal force. He has now followed me to the combined centrifugal force page and yesterday he undid a sourced edit of mine and replaced it with false information. On having this false information pointed out, he admitted it but nevertheless continued to undo my edits.

I can give a list of dates that will help to confirm this allegation,

25th April 2008

28th April, he went to the administrator's noticeboard and accused me of disruptive editing. Arguments continued into May and June.

23rd July 2008, he reverted an edit of mine on centrifugal force which has now finally been accepted in the light of sources provided.

23rd October 2008

31st January 2009, "Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction".

16th February 2009, "Kepler's laws of planetary motion".

22nd March 2009, "Kepler's laws of planetary motion".

23rd March 2009,

24th March 2009 "Faraday's law of induction".

A few days ago, he returned to centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference). When I deserted that page and went to 'centrifugal force', FyzixFighter also deserted that page and followed over to 'centrifugal force' were he has continued to undermine my edits. David Tombe (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, not just lists of dates--it's highly time-consuming for everyone to try and hunt down the specific edits you're talking about. //roux   19:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing evidence of hounding here. But perhaps if you provide some diffs things will look different. Disagreeing with you isn't the same as undermining you. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is my take, based on looking at talk pages and contribs. David Tombe (talk · contribs) has been blocked repeatedly for edit-warring, disruptive OR, and sock puppetry; he received a "last chance" unblock in October 2008. He is once again trying to insert his opinions into articles with no support from other editors, and is frustrated by the opposition. I don't see Wikihounding -- what I do see is an editor who is being kept on a very tight leash because of past misbehavior. I also see that David Tombe is an SPA who has very few edits outside the topic of centrifugal force. Ironically, some of these few edits were stalking of editors he disagreed with, notably of edits by FyzixFighter relating to Mormonism, but this has not happened since May 2008. Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, you obviously didn't look at the whole picture surrounding that incident with FyzixFighter last May 2008. It began when FyzixFighter reported me for disruptive editing in relation to subject matter which has now been accepted into the article. FyzixFighter began at that time to revert all the edits which I was making in an attempt to suppress a perfectly legitimate viewpoint on centrifugal force. That's how that incident began. And you have obviously failed to note that I have edited on many topics other than centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe also raised this on Jimbo's talk page . Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, and as a question to the responding editors, what should be my appropriate action with regard to this thread? That is, should I provide rebuttals or any other types of responses to the accusations in the thread? I really don't want to turn this into a accusation/counter-accusation mess. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not start by looking at the edits which FyzixFighter made yesterday to the centrifugal force page? You'll find the evidence if you want to find it. David Tombe (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• We will probably start by examining any evidence you present, in the form of diffs. Asking admins and uninvolved editors to wade through hotly contested physics articles to substantiate allegations of hounding will not avail you. If you don't provide evidence the most likely outcome is that your complaints will go unanswered and this thread will be archived. If you feel you have a long term problem with this user, please pursue dispute resolution. If you have an incident that requires immediate admin attention, please detail it here with diffs and we will try to sort things out. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Do you mean the ones where xe thanked you on the talk page for catching a mistake and then proceeded to fix that mistake with a corrected version of xyr previous edit, or the one where xe corrected a clear grammatical error? Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good one to start with . He had no reason to alter the edit which I had just made and his alteration introduced an error. This has to be considered in light of the fact that he regulary arrives on physics articles which I edit and often reverts them without discussing the matter. You would have a hard job finding a physics edit that he has made that hasn't been for the purpose of undermining my physics edits. You've only got to look back over the last week. He came to one centrifugal force page (rotating frames of reference) and when I deserted it for the other page, he followed over. David Tombe (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's another example. He arrived out of the blue at 'Kepler's laws' and did this . He had not been previously editing on the page. David Tombe (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And here's another, . He arrived out of the blue for that regarding a fact which was being denied then but is now accepted. David Tombe (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction he removed this sourced edit {http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Faraday%27s_law_of_induction&diff=267702399&oldid=267607403]. He had not been previously editing on that page. David Tombe (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at two of your examples -- one is from 2008, and in the other the passage that FysixFighter reverted doesn't make sense. You're not going to get anywhere fighting this out on your own. Unless you can persuade other editors that you are right, it's a losing cause. Looie496 (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, could you elaborate on the passage which you say that I wrote which doesn't make sense. Can you explain exactly why you think that it doesn't make sense? David Tombe (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem to fall under WP:HOUND, which says "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." A lot of editors track problematic users, this can be to the benefit of Misplaced Pages. I certainly do at times. If David Tombe can provide evidence of "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" as being the reason, we can examine them, but if not, I suggest he drops this. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said that this would be an easy problem to solve, and I didn't come to this page eagerly to report it. What finally prompted me to report this issue was the fact that the basis of a settlement had been reached on the centrifugal force page with the assistance of a neutral arbitrator (Wilhelm-meis). The situation looked promising, but then FyzixFighter came in again and trampled over all my edits and essentially removed them. The edits in question were actually my contribution to the alternative point of view which I am actually opposed to, and I was supplying interesting information regarding its development. FyzixFighter's alterations were factually incorrect and he did later admit that and thank me from bringing the matter to his attention. But the overall effect has been that, as on the Faraday's law page and the Kepler's law page, it became clear that I wasn't going to be allowed to edit without FyzixFighter unnecessarily trampling over those edits. I can list alot more cases. But I think that the most recent case is sufficient evidence in its own right, as it exposes the sheer emptiness of FyzixFighter's intervention. If the whole matter were to be fully investigated, I think that you'd all find that FyzixFighter played a major role in getting me brought to the attention of the administrators in a bad light, this time last year. And it was in relation to my attempts to insert the planetary orbital approach into the centrifugal force page. That approach has now been accepted, but the arguments continue on a more subtle level due to certain editors trying to play it down by subsuming it into their own point of view, or by relegating it to the history section.

At any rate, the important thing is that the matter has been brought to your attention. I will continue trying to improve that article, and other physics articles, and indeed other articles generally. I hope that the situation will be monitored with impartial eyes.

I would however like to say one thing in FyzixFighter's favour. I can see from the arguments on the talk page that he has clearly learned alot about these topics as a result of his interventions. Often he was forced to research the issues subsequent to his reversions. There was a time (see his talk page) when I thought that maybe he had realized that he had been prematurely intervening. I thought that some kind of understanding had been reached over the issue of the Stratton reference (Faraday's law page) (see his talk page). FyzixFighter clearly does have the ability to comprehend complex physics subjects. But unfortunately the last straw came when he trampled over my edits on Saturday. His intervention was totally pointless and he does not appear to be willing to discuss the wider aspects of the subject with an open mind even though I'm sure that he is fully capable of understanding the issues. For some reason, he wants to bury Leibniz's approach to planetary orbits. David Tombe (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit reveals that David Tombe has some fairly non-standard ideas about physics, and seems to show that he is attempting to use Misplaced Pages to promote them without quite breaking the letter of the rules. Cardamon (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible autoblock

A few minutes ago I received an e-mail that seems to be asking about an autoblock (the e-mail shouldn't have come to me, but for some reason arbitrators seem to get a lot of misdirected traffic, especially if you are first on the list). As I don't know how to deal with autoblocks, could someone else find time to deal with it?

• E-mail: "Hi, I am blocked from editing wikipedia and I really don't know why. The appeal process seems very confusing so I am trying this email. My ISP provider recently changed my IP address so it's probably why there's a a block I suspect. How can I log back in as Tisey again. BTW, I needed to reset my password. Thanks."
• My reply: "You are not actually blocked. It is probably something called an autoblock. I will post a notice to ANI, asking an administrator to go to your talk page and deal with things there. Please go to this link and hopefully there should be someone there soon to help you: User talk:Tisey. I also notice there are some image issues. I will ask for someone to help you with those, as well as leave you a welcome template."

I'm rushing slightly here, so I may have missed something. I've also just realised that the quickest way to deal with it would have been to direct him to his talk page, and tell him to put an unblock message there, or do it for him. Or maybe just learn how autoblocks work. You have to ask them to provide something don't you? I suppose I could have just sent him to Misplaced Pages:Autoblock. Anyway:

• Deal with {{autoblock}}
• Explain image stuff
• Add {{welcome}} template
• Anything else that needs checking (especially if I've missed something obvious here)

Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one clear idea would be to tell them post an auto-block unblock request on their talk page. Nobody knows what address to unblock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done that. They don't edit very often, so whoever watches that page might be waiting a long time. I'll update if I hear anything by e-mail. The user does have e-mail enabled as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they just use Template:Unblock-auto, it'll show up in Category:Requests for unblock which plenty of people watch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Concern over young editor

I just read WP:CHILD and it has me kind of concerned over User:Keri Marie Davis. User hasn't been disruptive but considering the fact that she self-identified as being in 10th grade, should we be concerned with the fact that she's putting up pretty much her whole life story on her talk page? -- OlEnglish 00:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

10th grade would make her over 13, which seems to be the de-facto cutoff for applying WP:CHILD.—Kww(talk) 00:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A more interesting question is what exactly are they doing here, but I think they're still learning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would caution any young woman from putting too much personal detail on such a public, and mirrored, site as Misplaced Pages. I would speak to them on an adult to adult basis, which will likely be more effective with a teenager, than the WP:CHILD approach. I will do this if asked, but the I consider the above editors more than capable of getting the tone right. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Yamh91

Not quite AIV material, but I don't know what to do next. Yamh91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a habit of edit-warring redirects of Raven-Symone singles. I eventually took them to AFD, where they have since all been deleted. Unfortunately, in the case of Backflip (Raven-Symoné song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there's a problem. WP:Articles for deletion/Backflip (song) resulted in a delete, but I hadn't noticed this redirect to it. Of course, Yamh91 undid the redirect there, effectively recreating the article. I CSDed it as a g6, and, of course Yamh91 reverted me, calling my placement of the speedy tag "vandalism". That seems to be his only edit summary. Putting on an AFD notice? Vandalism. Redirect an article? Vandalism.

Anyway, can someone please speedy Backflip (Raven-Symoné song) before he removes the tag again. As for Yamh91, he's already been blocked once for removing AFD notices. It wouldn't bother me to see spuriously removing CSD tags and making false accusations of vandalism result in a renewed block.—Kww(talk) 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedied the article as WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted content). It might do well to leave a final, strongly worded warning that if s/he continues to recreate deleted content or remove deletion notices s/he will be indef blocked. Or maybe the last block was warnings enough...don't know. --auburnpilot talk 01:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He did this after the last block, so the last block obviously wasn't warning enough. It also seems apparent that warnings from me are useless.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He's back to removing AFD notices. I filed a report at AIV, but I bet it will get bounced as "not being obvious vandalism".—Kww(talk) 22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's been warned. I'd block him since it's clear he's not paying attention, but let's see if he continues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Lordvader2009

• Lordvader2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps ignoring warnings. He removes them by blanking the page, which I have been informed it OK (that was my mistake earlier by restoring them. Nevertheless, this user keeps getting himself warned and I am under the impression that he would receive a final warning/type of block at this point.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, CK! Do you think you might be able to point us in the direction of what he's doing wrong? Specifically, WP:DIFFs would be really helpful. When you can post back here and we'll have a look see. Thanks!! Basket of Puppies 01:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Here is where it looks like he keeps re-adding content that he has been asked not to, Some Edit Warring, Some Un-constructive Edits, Adding Unreliable Info, I'm sure there is a bit more of this.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Those diffs are of him blanking his talk page, any diffs of his actual wrongdoings?-- Darth Mike  01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I know nothing about the underlying issues here, but I thought that I should add that this section was blanked by Lordvader2009 . Apparition /Mistakes 02:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is quite concerning. Perhaps we can ask him to comment here on why he made such an edit? Basket of Puppies 04:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully, AGF and all, about the only edits I've seen him do are mass upload untagged unfree images (which I've brought up before and he got warned and then blocked for) and blanking his talk page (ignoring all comments automated, handwritten, helpful and/or informative). Just seems to take WP:IAR a bit too seriously. Q 04:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of his recent contributions seem to be, well, not so wonderful in language: 1 and 2. It seems he's not keen on communicating about these issues and at the same time he's making some poorly worded statements. On the other hand his content contributions are generally constructive. I am not so sure how to handle this other than to monitor his contributions and handle the issues as they come up. Thoughts? Basket of Puppies 06:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Warn him that if he continues he will be indefinitely blocked until he is responds and then do it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we getting just a teensy bit carried away? The original complaint raised here was a total non-issue. Blanking the section wasn't great, but could easily be justified. Now we're switching to a completely different issue and talking about indef blocks? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but a year of warnings and requests to use edit summaries? How many warnings does a guy need? (a number of probably duplicates and some are minor), all from a guy with ZERO talkspace and pretty bad user talkspace edits. I don't know how great his editing is but there's a real civility issue with him and a tendency to edit war. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll toss in my two cents on this item since I am one of the folks who is often keeping an eye on User:Lordvader2009. I realize that the complaint that spurred this discussion was not valid (it is okay to blank one's own talk page). However, working with User:Lordvader2009 is a frustrating experience. I'll preface what I'm about to say with, User:Lordvader2009 for the most part stops, at least temporarily, the activities we warm him of. They are very good about not continuing activities often enough to be blocked by a strict interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies (as I understand them). With that in mind, here's a list of recent things I've seen this person do that are.... frustrating:

• User never uses an edit summary to explain edits though they've been asked to: and
• User has removed maintenance templates (deletion tags in particular) with no reason: , also occurred with File:Avera.jpg
• Edit warring: and
• Creating of articles of questionable worth and/or with little content: Edgar Garcia, Levi Avera
• Rarely responds to talk page comments, and when they do it is not the most helpful:

With the exception of the edit war on Levi Avera, nothing that is really blockable, but all of it is very frustrating. Okay, I've had my vent. Thank you. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My experience with him is similar to the above. The main problem is edit warring when he apparantly doesn't agree with something, creating a very difficult situation since he's unwilling to discuss or even explain. --aktsu  17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My experiences are in line with what has been posted above. I'm not sure how positive his contributions are overall, since my main focus on Misplaced Pages are UFC related articles, but I can say that of the edits he makes that I see a very low percentage are constructive. Some edits make no difference either way like random reordering of bouts due to personal opinion without reference: . Or reordering bouts despite there being a reference to bout order: , then being warned: , and then having an apathetic reply: . I have referenced WP:SPECULATION and WP:CRYSTAL to him with little effect as well. It seems to me that he is playing a game. He's being less than constructive, collecting warning after warning and backing off just before he gets himself banned/blocked. He then behaves until he thinks things have cooled down and starts all over again. It is a repeated pattern of abuse. While he may have not done any single thing to warrant harsh measures, there has to be some sort of judgment made on him cumulative record. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I should add that most of his contributions are in fact constructive, though they consist mostly of repetitive tasks like updating fight records and adding posters to upcoming fight cards. --aktsu  19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who's suggested the harshest measures, I think I'll explain. In my view, not discussing things at all is very disruptive and I have been willing to put indefinite (emphasis strongly to the user on indefinite, not infinite) blocks with a statement that "we simply want an acknowledgment that you are paying attention to us." It's been somewhat effective in my mind, some people respond quickly, others walk away and never return. Users are not allowed to create more work for others and just go do whatever they want. With him, I say you don't get the right to go right up until the edge of getting blocked, stop a few days, and do it again. That's just aggravating for others. If some of the users who work with him could inform him that he should look here and see that there is a serious discussion about him, maybe he'll stop. However, it looks like I'm in the minority and he's not that disruptive, so I'll leave it alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There has already been a notice on this person's talk page about this discussion. Their "response" was to blank this discussion out . --TreyGeek (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well he certainly creates unnecesary work for me and other when he does things like creating new articles without any categories even though he was just notified about it (Jared Hamman and Edgar Garcia in the last two days after being notified about it after creating Levi Avera)... --aktsu  21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I really do not know what to do at this point. I have been informed (and understand) that I was incorrect to revert his talkpage. What I really was trying to point out is that if he has been warned MANY times, he may (I guess you would say) 'Qualify' for a block at this point.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive though - so he'll have to continue doing something wrong to get blocked. It was right to bring it here though (I was thinking about it also) so we get more eye on him. --aktsu  21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

I've indefinitely blocked him here for his behavior at Levi Avera. He doesn't get to remove AFD notices, say the "page is staying up no matter what" and otherwise annoy other people anymore. The moment he shows an interest in working with the rest of us, he's free to edit again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Force with you is. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 04:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rogue bot?

Recently I have spent something like a dozen hours reverting well intentioned contributors who have been adding "listas" parameters to articles -- based on misconceptions.

Many of the individuals in this big old world have personal names that do not follow the European paradigm where the last component in their name is an surname inherited from father to child. For those individuals I think it is a huge mistake to try to shoehorn their name into the European naming style.

Nevertheless it seems these good faith contributors were relying on the advice of robots programmed to assist in the performance of repetitive tasks.

Recently there seems to have been a bot started that guesses at surnames, without any human sanity checking. I suggest this is a clear example. Is this individual named "Jan Baz" or "Jan Baz Khan"? We don't know. And even if we did know Pashtun names are like Arabic names. These individual use their father's first name as their last name. So each generation will have a different last name.

Unless your bot can be made smart enough to reliably figure out who uses the European style of names I suggest it simply should not run -- ever.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot's edit summary suggests that you contact the operator on its talk page if you have any questions. Nakon 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the name is "European style" or not, we still need a way to sort it with other names. Are you suggesting these should be sorted by their first name, when others are not? That seems much less useful than sorting by what appears to be the surname. The issue here is not about inheritance, it's about sorting. We should verify and then follow the pattern established by professional publishers of English texts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. here is the advice of the Chicago Manual of Style on this point (section 18.74): "Himsi, Ahmad Hamid", "Sadat, Anwar", "Hakim, Tawfiq al-", "Jamal, Muhammad Hamid al-", "Abu Zafar Nadvi, Syed, "Ibn Saud, Aziz'. Note that they do move part of the name to the beginning in order to set the sort order. Is there any style guide that recommends alphabetizing by the first name? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern practice differs from traditional practice in some countries, having become more Westernised. On Arabic names see Arabic names#Westernization of Arabic naming practices and names, for examples. Similar issues will occur with different styles of naming. Unless the bot can work out the subject's nationality and the time in which they lived, and apply rules accordingly, it should stop operating. But yes, this is something to bring up with the bot's operator. --bainer (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat from 216.254.x.x

IP-hopper has a long history of incivility and rambling, finally came to this . User has several times claimed to be Archimedes Plutonium, one of the subjects of the List of Usenet personalities articles, and apparently objects to how he is included in that article. See edit-history of the List page and its talk-page and its recently-concluded AfD for his long pattern of disruptive and incivil edits. His IP changes within hours within and among several different /24, not sure collateral of several rangeblocks. DMacks (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely support some sort of a block of the IP range for making (legal) threats. The IP ruined it for everyone else. MuZemike 07:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

However, (the above was a tad hasty) there has to be some other way of making a block without blocking a wide range of other IP users on the side. MuZemike 07:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

They all link to PrairieWave Dialup DHCP, according to the Geolocate information. It's likely that the specific ISP is providing all those addresses. However, a couple of them (according to the edit history of List of Usenet personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), clearly link to Freeman, South Dakota. MuZemike 07:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There is little doubt that this is Archimedes Plutonium, as he occasionally mentions his dial-up ISP in his newsgroup posts. The location for the IP range coincides with his geographic location in South Dakota. He has cross-posted his recent writing on WP to sci.math and other newgroups (e.g., this post on sci.math, cf. this WP edit on the same day), apparently so that there is a second public record of his exchanges with WP editors. Lastly, the style and tone of writing and the grammar employed make it very clear that it's the same person. It seems that he really does not like being labeled an "eccentric" Usenet poster, and does not like being placed in the same category as other Usenet personalities of comparable fame/infamy. I recognize his desire to be taken seriously as a misunderstood genius (his own words), but attacking WP editors for documenting from reliable sources how the Usenet community views him is a dubious way to achieve this. His claims against WP and its editors are baseless. — Loadmaster (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Do Usenet kooks not enjoy the same protection as other living people? Most of the assertions in that article are unsourced or improperly sourced. Does BLP not apply here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The entry for AP cites two published sources, and nothing in the entry violates WP policy. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking of the article as a whole, not the entry on Archimedes Plutonium specifically. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but I was replying in regards to the one entry that applies to the specific legal threat being discussed here. While the other entries (or at least those that do not link to existing articles having citations) could indeed be improved, the threat is being made with respect to one, and only one, particular entry within the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, BLP policy applies to all content about people. You're welcome to help improve the article, either sourcing or noting what material needs it. DMacks (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre advocacy of violence and BLP issue

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. 58.10.68.142 (talk · contribs) went on a strange editing spree adding several edits, all looking like this. I've blocked the IP for 6 months which is probably too long, but this is about as strange an edit as I've seen. I'm not sure what else to do here. If someone is inclined to shorten the block, be my guest. Toddst1 (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It geolocates to Taiwan. Suggest someone local contact authorities to see if he needs some help? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this either, but if you take a look at the /24, you'll find a number of IPs which this "Erik Young" has edited from before, including 58.10.68.122 (talk · contribs), 58.10.68.230 (talk · contribs) and 58.10.68.77 (talk · contribs), from March and July 2008. I'm also seeing that he's been moderately proliferate spreading some kind of similar story around comment sections and message boards on various websites. Very bizarre, but IMO the block and length is entirely appropriate. Probably a low risk to range-block the whole /24, and I didn't check any wider ranges. Given the outlandish claims, either he needs heavy military support, or this is delusional. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He's advocating running people down with cars. Someone should absolutely notify the Taiwan authorities. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RBI. This is WP:LTA#Erik Young. -- zzuuzz 10:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible return of Anonimu or Jacob Peters

request for a correction

I would like to request a correction on the Boron page. In section "Characteristics" there is a phase diagram reproduced from our paper (Oganov et al., Nature 2009), but this is not reflected in the caption. Unfortunately, the editor NIMSOffice has personal interests not to give us credit. I am investigating possibilities to block NIMSOffice from editing Boron page due to conflict of interest (any suggestions welcome). In any case, if a figure is reproduced from our paper, we hope that proper credit can be given.

Furthermore, NIMSOffice made another sentence (also against us): "It is not clear yet whether the atomic bonding in this phase is partially ionic or covalent. " In fact, it has been shown by us that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. I suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component . "

Thanks a lot!

Artem R. Oganov Aoganov (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, the phase diagram that appears in that section does cite your 2009 Nature paper as one of the sources (#11 in the references section) (at least from the current revision of the page, I haven't checked further back). It is also not an exact copy of the one in your paper, which is a subset in a larger diagram and in color.

  In general, the second part of your complaint appears to be a content dispute. Syrthiss (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • On the phase diagram - our paper is the ONLY place where this diagram was published. NIMSOffice gives lots of references, none of which contain this diagram. Yes, he also cut our diagram, presenting only the lower-pressure part of it. Even that part appeared only in our Nature paper.Aoganov (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, thats what I get for quick checks... I've removed the other sources. I was able to view all of the other papers save one, and none had even anything close to your diagram. Syrthiss (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot! I find it quite hard on Misplaced Pages, being a new user. NIMSOffice consistently edits the page on Boron in a way unfavorable to us. The example with the phase diagram illustrates it very clearly.

        Being a new user I cannot edit the semi-protected Boron page and NIMSOffice just ignores my corrections. Is there a way also to correct the wrong statement "It is not clear yet whether the chemical bonding in this phase is partially ionic or covalent"? The controversy alleged by NIMSOffice is non-existent: it has been shown by us that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. I would suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component , which explains rather strong infrared absorption and splitting of the longitudinal and transverse optical modes." Artem R. OganovAoganov (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

        • (Tangentially related) You'll be able to edit the article soon, once you're autoconfirmed - this happens when your account is 4 days old, and you've made at least 10 edits (including edits to this page!) Hope that helps, This flag once was red_deeds 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
          • It might very well not. The situation is not quite as it would seem from the above.

            It's a fair bet, for example, that Aoganov and the several IP addresses (24.186.165.248, 129.49.95.70, 129.132.208.225, and 194.254.166.46) and single-purpose accounts (ESRFBeam, GFZLab, and Dian john1) that have been edit warring on the article are one and the same. The edits and talk page accusations are the same. Two of those IP addresses have outright self-identified as M. Oganov on the article's talk page (here and here).

            Similarly, whilst M. Oganov asserts above that "The controversy alleged is non-existent", xe is at the same time busily editing away at Gamma boron discovery controversy (example, example, example).

            And finally, whilst M. Oganov states that xe is a "new guy here" since "8 May 2009" who writes "under my real name", 129.132.208.225 made this edit and this edit back in March, and on Talk:Boron the self-identified IP address talks of editing on the 6th of May. (The … confusion as to when xe actually started editing may be caused by the typing difficulties that are frequently incurred when one is wearing socks on one's hands.)

            It's probable that all that auto-confirmation will do is allow the edit war to resume. This edit and this edit don't bode well for the future, moreover.

            I sense another Bogdanov affair brewing if we let it. I recommend that we take the same line here as was taken then, and ban people involved in this external dispute from carrying it into Misplaced Pages. Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

            • Uncle G, what I wrote is true. I edit always under my own, real name. I believe that editing under fake names is not only cowardly, but ineffective as well. Indeed, I am a new guy. I don't really know how to properly edit pages. You can see how many formatting mistakes I make... and more experienced users give me useful tips, so that I get better with each day. I also learn, little by little, about WP-policies.
            • In any case, I can guarantee to you that if I edit Wiki-pages, there will be no puppet accounts, no incorrect information etc. If one edits under real name, there is a great sense of responsibility. On the other hand, I suggest we look closer into the identity of NIMSOffice. This anonymous user clearly has interest in the boron story and misuses his anonymity and editorial privileges. In one recent case it was all too obvious - he reproduced a graph from our paper without giving the source. I contacted NIMSOffice, requesting a change - but to no avail. Another editor made the correction, after a careful investigation concluding that I was right. Aoganov (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Artem R. Oganov

JBsupreme edit summaries again

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

JBsupreme was the subject of a recent AN/I thread (found here) of which the result was a message being left on his talk page, advising him to stop his “problematic edit summaries” or stop using edit summaries altogether, and to report problems to administrators directly rather then in his edit summaries. Anyway, since then I've kept half an eye on him, and for a while he seemed to improve. But recently he's managed to stack up quite a few (some more serious then others):

(dunno what this one is) (see below)

I attempted to leave him a message regarding this, which he promptly deleted and left me this message. So basically, continuing from the last thread which obviously had little to no effect, this is a shame because he does do good work. Also, could someone notify him of this please? (although he can't stop me from posting at his talk page, he has asked me not to) - Kingpin (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

the last one is internet speak for 'die in a fire please' Syrthiss (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, couldn't find any google hits - Kingpin (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification given to the user, by Jauerback (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The last warning User_talk:JBsupreme#Edit_summaries_again from admin Chaser (talk · contribs) was pretty clear. Further admin action could be in order here. Cirt (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary example: this goddamn article is getting semi-protected RIGHT FFING NOW. Out of step with the appropriate tone: imagine if everyone wrote that way? Durova 14:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me most out of the above, is this. I believe a block may be appropriate? - Kingpin (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of punctuation is a horrendous offense against good taste. ;) Seriously, that's no way to write a warning. The reason behind the warning may have been correct, but it's much better to go with a simple template. If the vandal was a troll that only encourages more trouble. Durova 15:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Durova. However JBsupreme's only left one ALL CAPS edit summary today. A block would seem a little punitive to me. I agree this is incredibly disruptive behaviour and if it happens again then it'll be time to block, but the diffs look a little on the stale side. I suggest we give a last and final warning and monitor his use of edit summaries and if they are in any way problematic in the future go ahead and block starting with a week's duration--Cailil 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that he's been given plenty of warnings, and still doesn't seem to be about to stop. However, I'm happy with a final warning, on the basis that it is a final warning and this is made clear to him. Naturally, the best result would be for him to keep up his good work but stop with the uncivil behaviour - Kingpin (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that a final warning accompanied by a 20 minute block would drive home the point. He probably won't smarten up until he sees that the warning is clear.--Iner22 (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

His tone sucks (allcaps is usually perceived as shouting). But with the exception of DIAFPLZ ("die in a fire", whose tone I don't really know; is this meant in jest?), I'm not so bothered by any of this that I'd block him for it. It doesn't seem to affect the people it is directed at, but rather offends our sensitive sensibilities. Somewhat unrelated, this guy is doing BLP patrolling and he's frustrated. So while his edit summaries may be inappropriate, let's please keep in mind that he is a valuable contributor that we should be trying to keep around. I'd be inclined to warn again, more sternly.--chaser (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I do and have said that his edits helpful and welcome, and certainly we want to "keep him around", but preferable without his uncivil edit summaries. If you could warn again, that would seem to be the best track. A 20 minute block seems inappropriate, and I doubt it would help. - Kingpin (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that if applied at the right moment, the block could be useful, but that's me. I guess we could do with a final warning, and hopefully someone will be watching his contributions carefully.--Iner22 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-free Images and Inappropriate Cartoon placement

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

• A user has been uploading tons of non-free images to politicians and placing them in articles and messing with previously existing pictures. A quick look at their talk page reveals tons of warnings . What caught my eye was the addition of a viscous cartoon on Sarah Palin, see . This is more complex than your run-of-the-mill vandal and something should be done to stop them from causing more disruption. TharsHammar and 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a block is in order, as it's clearly disruptive. On the other hand, I was hoping to see a viscous cartoon and was disappointed. It couldn't even be considered all that vicious either, just inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained revisions and edits on Fantasy Ride

User:Ldt88 07 keeps reverting edits to the article without explaining their reasons for doing so. I added a reference to the track listing on Fantasy Ride so that he/she could not continue to add further producers and/or writers. I also attempted to engage in discussion with said user on their discussion page but there has been no response. Yesterday i offered mediation but the user went ahead with thier persistant revisions. Their additions to the article are unsourced and continue to occur without any explainations or edit summary given. I am at my whitt's end because the revisions/edits are identified as WP:disruption and the user is participating in a Wp:edit war. I don't know what else i can do. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

Might I suggest filing a report at WP:AN3? -Jeremy 16:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He has, and was asked for diffs to back his assertions. He seems to have chosen to come here, instead. It's a shame, because I think he has a point. I'll try dropping a personal message on Lil-unique1's page to see what the logjam is.—Kww(talk) 19:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Facebook advertisement

We've got some suspicious POV-looking edits in Department of Defense Serum Repository that may take some time to verify and or untangle. The interesting bit is that I stumbled across this article via a direct link from an advertisement placed in Facebook. It looks like the anon IP is attempting to stir up conspiracy theorists using an allegedly leaked document and a lot of innuendo. I don't have time to sort out fact from fiction or paranoia. Whoever takes this on will have some fun tracing the IP, too. Cheers, Rklawton (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Vorarephilia

there is several archives of talk pages already some persons (or person) struggle to push a speculative website http://aryion.com/ as a reference to the vorarephilia article. When they failed to add it to a rather weird content, they try it to add it as an external link. This is a fringe article, with little attention from respectable editors. Please intervene. I even have a suspicion that

Historical Jesus: religion class accused of sockpuppetry

Sorry, if this should go to some sock-puppetry project page, I'm not very familiar with proper procedure, but could someone clear up the situation at Talk:Historical Jesus#Latest edits; I asked the blocking admin to comment, but haven't heard from him. If a mistake was made, they should be unblocked. I didn't look at all their edits, but this one looks very good to me, although maybe be better suited at Quest for the historical Jesus. What is needed is simply someone to comment on that talk page to explain whether it was a case of genuine abuse or apologize and unblock if it wasn't. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just adding a link for reference, with no opinion on it at this time myself. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CollinsShelby/Archive for the relevant sockpuppet report which resulted in the blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been resolved though mailing lists, probably shouldn't have brought it up here. Still, people with experience from WP:SUP who are interested in the topic might want to assist in suggesting ways forward, although it's a fairly small class. In any case, no further admin intervention is required, so this can be checked off. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm resolution - two of the students emailed us at unblock-en-l, the first one without mentioning the class project, the second one did. We asked him to have the professor contact us. The professor did - from his school email address, which is clearly visible on the college website, along with the course information.

After verifying that this was a class project, it's clear that this was a moderate case of WP:BITE and inadequate out of band communications all around. Nobody left good talk page warnings for the class accounts, and they didn't use talk pages at all.

All of that said, now we know what happened, the class members have been unblocked, and given pointers to the various policies which seem to apply (from SOCK to EDITWAR and RS and V). The latter two seem to already be class focuses, trying to get better sources and better citations into the article, which was good to hear. Hopefully everyone can communicate better going forwards.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and Disruptive editing by user Luis Napoles

This user has been edit warring on Chile for quite sometime, and has previously been blocked for it. I have added some information on the history section of Chile and he keeps deleting it. I used the talk page to discuss the relevance of this information and how the neutrality of previously added sources was compromised but instead of discussing, he just reverts. He also reverts my edits because according to him I should do edits one by one, like everyone else. I don't want fall in his game of edit warring but someone needs to do something about it. He's reverting and deleting sourced information.

Likeminas (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and this is not a place for dispute resolution. I would comment that Likeminas has also been blocked for edit warring (upon review) removing sourced information, and it was against the same editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not it's not. And it's very interesting that you happen to answer this. It's also very interesting that now you're using different standards to measure content dispute and disruptive editing, because when user Luis Napoles reported me for deleting his Youtube source (which you wrongly called Vandalism) you said it was not content dispute but instead disruptive editing and proceed to block me right away. It's also interesting that despite that user being reported before me, by another administrator, followed by complaints by another two users you decided to ignore it and quickly answer his petition.

I wonder why.

Likeminas (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The diff you gave is not removal of sourced content, if is difference in emphasis (pov) of the sources given = content dispute. You have failed to show your allegation. You, in the instance where I blocked you, simply removed sourced content without discussion or comment. (I recall another admin reviewed Luis Napoles at that time and decided it was edit warring and blocked them, too.) It is now apparent that the two of you are minded to have admins resolve your content dispute by attempting to have the other blocked.

Ummmm, cos I am brilliant? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well when you blocked me you did a very poor job at investigating, that's why another administrator had to step in apply the rule.

In fact, you even refused to block him saying it was only content dispute despite clear evidence to the contrary.

What's funny is that you didn't even look at what my removal of "sources" (aka Youtube) were.

You have also failed to even look at the link I posted showing how Luis Napoles deletes sourced material.

Having said that, and experienced on my own your lack judgment, I would like to request for a neutral administrator to look into this.

In any case, I don't think you're brilliant at all. Somewhat biased maybe...But, thinking it over, You did fooled the people that named you an administrator, so I'll give you that much.

Likeminas (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Even people who might be sympathetic to your arguments won't feel much urge to help you if you write in that tone. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This thread caught my eye since Luis Napoles' edits have also raised concerns at the Fidel Castro article. This editor may be bringing a little too much one-sidedness into the fray. That said, looking at the Chile article history, I'd pretty much just call edit-war on the whole thing. Neither of the protagonists here, Luis and Likeminas, are showing a whole lot of inclination to actually discuss things on the article talk page. Nor do they show much inclination to ask others for opinions.

I'd say maybe some warnings are warranted, a few more eyeballs, and some prompting to start talking rather than reverting. Franamax (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry's Place

User:HugoZHackenbusch is making many massive POV edits to this article, and reverting without explanation any other edits. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Warn him and then go to WP:AIV. You'll get a faster response that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Landon1980 Incivility/Personal Attacks

User:Landon1980 has been attacking me recently. The issue began with an editor who wanted to change a lead sentence for Thousand Foot Crutch to say they are Christian rock instead of just rock. Landon responded claiming that "When a band is listed as being many genres you put the most general one in the lead sentence, not pick on of the many and place it there." Seen toward bottom of this thread. I responded that "I'm certainly not opposed to keeping it as just "rock" if it is indeed policy to list the most general one in the lead sentence." I went on to say that I did agree with the other editor, but I would side with policy. Here's where Landon gets offensive.

Landon stated: "I'm not having another brick-wall discussion with you, nor am I taking the time the educate you regarding the common practice of genres on wikipedia. Use some common sense, Christian rock is one of three genres that are listed for the band, all which are some type of rock. I will not sit here and beat a dead horse, engaging in some pointless discussion with you. If you have problem with the current version request a third opinion, or seek some other type of dispute resolution. Now I think I'll go pound on my foot with a hammer."

1. Describes my point of view in discussions as being consistent with a brick-wall.
2. Insults my knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy/practices when I simply/politely asked for the policy he was claiming.
3. Said I don't use common sense.
4. Compares our discussion as beating a dead horse and pointless.
5. Ends by implying he'd rather bang his foot with a hammer than have a valid conversation about article content with me.

I responded and told him that the comment was disrespectful and told him not to insult me again. I also left a comment on his talk page stating: "I would appreciate it if you would not insult me by categorizing my input and consensus in discussion about an article (which was entirely appropriate and polite). I honestly have NO PROBLEM at all adhering to any policy (whether it by spirit or letter of policy) that specifies to word the lead sentence a particular way. I do, however, object to you just blurting out that this is how we do it without any justification or grounds. Have a great day."

He then removed the comment from his user page, which I understand is allowed although not preferred. However, in the edit summary he insulted me again by writing "I would appreciate if you would learn how to read, and how to use a talk page."

1. He implied that I do not know how to read (although I'm not sure what it is he was expecting me to have read).
2. He also implied that I was incorrectly using the talk page, by warning him of his incivility. However, he has in the past used my talk page to warn me and falsely accuse me of incivility. (This was quite some time ago, and this complaint is not related to or in response to that event).

Also, he went on to respond to my comment on the Thousand Foot Crutch talk page by stating: "Seriously though, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot as talk to you."

There have been other, recent personal attack incidents involving Landon's hostility. They were filed in the wrong place and may or may not have been correct, but it might be beneficial to look at. This can be seen here.

None of this is helpful in fostering a hospitable environment for editors. It should be noted that Landon did go on to revert my edit without gaining consensus (the only two opinions other than his were mine and the editor who originally suggested changing the lead-in sentence). Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The archived ANI thread was dismissed as being eseentially not serious enough to merit admin intervention (the exact phrase used was "WP:TROUT for all") and to be honest I'm not seeing anything dreadfully serious here either. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be avoiding this thread, the one at editor review, and at WQA if at all possible because I admittedly have a hard time keeping my cool when dealing with this particular editor. I'll monitor the thread(s) and will be around if needed. Landon1980 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Which one should we keep open for the forum-shopper...this one? The WQA?? Neither??? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not a "forum-shopper." I initially posted in one location. I was directed to 2 other locations. I am not sho

Ok, so I closed the WQA thread, since there had at least been a couple of replies here, and I gave the OP my brand new User:Bwilkins/forumshopping template (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, the editor admits that he can't keep his cool with me. I'm honestly not sure why. We've disagreed on some articles before, but we've also agreed on others. Also, Sheffield, I did concede that the previous attack accusations may or may not be correct. However, it bears credence that he is having issues with multiple editors. As for my personal problems with him, I am not claiming that it is "dreadfully serious." However, a user doesn't need to be subjected to "dreadfully serious" harassment to have a valid complaint. Wikiwikikid (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI, incivility, &c.

Post was recently archived, but it appears THD3 posted on it today, and the subject of the complaint hasn't had a chance to respond. Moved it to the following subpage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Fanoftheworld

Alexrexpvt (talk)

Difficult user. Near edit-war...

I edit and keep track of all the WNBA related pages here on wikipedia. I do a good job and I spend lots of time doing it. If you would, please look at pages like Connecticut Sun, Detroit Shock, Los Angeles Sparks, Phoenix Mercury, etc. Look on the "season-by-season records" section. I recently changed all the WNBA team pages to have tables similar to NBA tables. I know consistency is important on wiki. Recently, I changed the Utah Starzz season records table over to this new version. A certain member changed it back saying he "liked it better the other way." Another veteran wiki member came in and explained that consistency is important and that the tables should all be the same on similar pages. This prevents confusion. The difficult member changed it back saying something to the effect of "I can do what I want, and I like it my way." I wrote on this user's talk page saying that consistency is important and that on wiki, it really does not matter what an individual member prefers. He wrote back on mine saying not to tell him what to do.

This may seem like a trivial problem, but as I said, consistency in an encyclopedia like wiki is very important and I was hoping I could have your help in this issue. If you cannot help me, can you direct me to someone who can? Thank you. The difficult user's name is Infonerd2216 (talk · contribs)

Look at my contribs. PAGES AND PAGES of WNBA edits. I care about this league. I care about wiki. Together, I make the WNBA archive on wiki amazingly better than it was before.

Three times now he has changed back my edits to the newer, cleaner tables. What should I do? I have tried talking with him.

Thanks for your help, Nickv1025 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point it's a content dispute. If other editors actively support you, the difficult editor won't be able to keep his version in place without edit-warring, which is blockable, assuming you have made every effort to discuss the issue and given plenty of warnings. If you don't have the support of other editors, though, it's a one-versus-one dispute and you'll just have to find a way to work it out. Don't canvass for support, but if there is a related WikiProject, it's legitimate to post a message on its talk page asking neutrally for other editors to take a look. (Disclaimer: I'm not an admin. This method works for me but your mileage may vary.) Looie496 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to support your versions Nickv. I have very little knowledge about the subject but I could immediately understand your versions of the table as opposed to the other version which was virtually incomprehensible to someone without knowledge of basketball. Exxolon (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Infonerd is escalating the situation. They responded to with and have left a nasty personal attack on Nickv's talk at . Exxolon (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Phew, that's a rather impolite thing to say. But... I think that's a WQA situation at the worst; frustration leads to aggression and cool-down blocks aren't a good idea, so I don't see the need for admin intervention at this point. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Exxolon! Infonerd2216 (talk · contribs) just posted this on my talk page: (at the bottom). I think this requires moderator action now. Thank you again for your support! Nickv1025 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Child oversight needed?

I'm wondering if this young chap Noahisnice (talk · contribs) is perhaps giving away too much personal info on his user-page. If he was my nipper I think I'd prefer those details being oversighted, or is that just me? --WebHamster 22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally identifying details of a minor - requires at least deletion. Exxolon (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:CHILD. I'll send this to oversight as well. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Swimmerfreak94

This is not a policy issue as far as I can tell, but I'm bringing it here just because...well, it's a bloody mess. Swimmerfreak94 (talk · contribs) is an admitted thirteen-year-old editor, but is rather outspoken about his religious beliefs. From some of his comments on someone else's talk page, he's now attracted a string of IPs attacking him on his user page, and a whole lot of religious arguments filling up his talk page. None of this seems like it'll be constructive to the encyclopedia, especially if the editor is actually thirteen. It might be time for an admin to step in with a word or a semi-protection before things get too ugly. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

While we don't have a rule about contributions to articles vs talk pages etc this editor has only contributed 3 minor article edits out of 41 edits - all the others are to talk pages etc. I'm not convinced this user is here to help build an encyclopedia. Exxolon (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the user's contributions shows that they are not here to contribute constructively. I'll issue a final warning. Nakon 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I think that some of these arguments against me are not factually based...well...most but not all. this encyclopedia is for all ages. I do try to make good additions and/or contributions without inserting POV or bias. I don't mind any attacks on my page, and I never ever call anyone any bad names, cuss words etc. on theirs. I merely argue against them. I even get my totally UNBIASED contributions deleted...I think that I should be a little upset too, but am I? no. I'll tryy to stop...I've also been told that rules on talk pages are more lax and I have more freedom. MY BAD. Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. Among the many things Misplaced Pages is not, it is not a web forum. If you're here to primarily argue religion on talk pages then you've come to the wrong place. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded - specifically Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Exxolon (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and removed the bait from the user page, and the soapbox discussion on the user talk page. I've left the most helpful note I know how to as well. Continued soapboxing should yield a block or topic ban. Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I disagree with the way that this young man is being treated it isn't his fault that other users are harassing him on his talkpage and he is free to feel however he wants about religion.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

TO: (User talk:194x144x90x118) actually, 194x144x90x118, I'm a girl...haha. but no biggie. Thanks alot for your kindness. Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He's free to argue about religion, sure. Just not on Misplaced Pages. Thats not what we're for. Matty (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell the only thing approaching a mainspace contribution is this little doozy and this pov-pushing. That doesn't read as neutral editing to me. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, but his talkpage shows this user may hold a different view. If he does, Misplaced Pages is not for him. Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Action needed on anon 70.44.153.18

70.44.153.18 has been building up a record of inserting personal opinion and unsourced editorials/reviews into articles. These edits mostly seem to be about illegal immigration in the USA, vulgarity in media, or making insinuations of draft-dodging against living people. User has been repeatedly warned and has deleted warnings and has been blocked twice before for disruptive editing/vandalism. Latest edits come after three more warnings from myself and another editor. --GenericBob (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found a total of only one constructive edit -- properly restoring NPOV to a controversial article. . I see that the only effort to explain to him has been by the formal templated notices. I think he deserves something more in the way of personal explanation. I have made a final effort to explain, and I have notified him about this thread. DGG (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried to explain, but another admin simply when in and blocked, with the same formal notice that failed before, probably not seeing this discussion. I will add the advice and the notice anyway. DGG (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the collision. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Agre22

Agre22 (talk · contribs) has been warned numerous times about making useless edits to talk pages, as can be seen on the editor's talk page. The last warning, by Beeblebrox on May 10, said, "This is the fifth time you have been warned about using talk pages as a forum. Consider it your last warning, do it again and you will be blocked". Now today we have these edits. I will notify the editor of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say block away. This user has been doing it over the past several days on dozens and dozens of talk pages and one GA nomination page. Clear disruption and unwillingness to change, especially after several warnings given. MuZemike 03:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I warned Agre22 earlier this year He must know it is wrong by now, so I suspect he is attempting to troll. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anon 71.17.72.143

71.17.72.143 (talk · contribs) has been trying to use the talk page of Supernatural (TV series) as a forum, constantly making the posts asking which character users would rather have sex with, and in the most recent edit also added a list of spoilers. The anon was previously at a different IP address, and had been warned multiple times, and the final warning was issued recently for the anon's newest IP. Ophois (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Block away. See same reason as in the above section. MuZemike 03:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Do I have the ability to block an anon? I thought only admins could do that. Ophois (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Only admins can block anyone, including IPs. -- Darth Mike  03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, can an admin please settle the situation with the anon? Thanks. Ophois (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Poptartpete, The Revenge of

Popartpete (talk · contribs)

Could I get a neutral admin to try and calm this user down so that he actually talks calmly instead of accusing everyone within reach of conspiring to ban him? -Jeremy 04:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

libelous material posted to talk page after explicit warning

Over at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision a debate had been on-going regarding a Norman Finklestein. An editor made the claim that no seriously literate person holds the position that Finkelstein is a Holocaust minimizer. It was pointed out to that editor that that claim is false, and examples of a couple of intellectuals and academics who hold that position were provided. Knowing that editor's editing history and her numerous blocks for incivility, personal attacks and harassment I cautioned her that WP:BLP applies on every project page and that she should refrain from making potentially libelous claims against living people. The response was this, in which a living person, who is a professor at a notable university was called "a convicted libeler and an intellectual incompetent". NoCal100 (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is the person in question convicted of libel? Because referring to someone as intellectually incompetent in a talk page is bad but not bad enough that I'm going to stifle debate because of it. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

yes. untwirl(talk) 04:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I don't think we should seek to block this editor for that comment. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Will to Power (band)

On the page for the musical group Will to Power and its talk page, a few editors who may be one and the same have been vigorously trying to discredit a former member of the group, Suzi Carr. I've been watching the page for a while and keep seeing this editor and this one removing or rewording edits, some of which I've made. The talk page is a bit creepy with the level of anger directed towards her, and one of them uploaded an image a while back (since gone, license request ignored) that attempted to show what she looks like without being airbrushed. My hunch is that these editors are affiliated with the group, which I'm not, and it's a COI, but I have no way of knowing. I posted about an edit reversal on the Editor Assistance board, and it was suggested I post it here. My most recent edit to the article was undone earlier tonight by Global and un-undone by another user. Some of the edits are , , , for the first editor and and for the second. Thanks for looking into this, and I hope I posted this in the right place. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, ownership issues, disruption

Regarding an image at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 May 7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg (an image twice now nommed for deletion by this user), Damiens.rf (talk · contribs) seems to be having some serious issues regarding the image and articles it's being used in. Edit warring at Violence against LGBT people to remove the image, removing required Fair Use Rationales from File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg, removing the image from 2008 in LGBT rights, apparent agenda issue here with editing of articles about gay people killed because of their sexual orientation. All the while claiming some big gay conspiracy on my talk page. I filed a 3RR report much earlier today but nothing came of it, except him accusing me of being a sockpuppet. His editing is disruptive and needs to be addressed. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of disruption on the Violence against LGBT people article:

1. 08:43, May 11, 2009
2. 13:37, May 11, 2009
3. 16:23, May 11, 2009
4. May 8, 19:14
5. May 8, 14:48
6. May 7, 16:35

All of the other tendentious editing is in his contributions log. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And now edit warring at File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg, removing Fair Use Rationales again, which are required for non-free images used in articles. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 06:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Are admins sleeping? Hello? Knock knock? :P - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 07:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd talk to SoWhy if you want article protection. Try settling things with him (the other user, not the admin) first. As for sleeping, actually most likely. :) It's 1 am -4 am (depending on your time zone) in USA, roughly noon - 1 pm in Europe, so most admins are working/school. And those aussies are somewhere.. :D As for me, I'm an insomniac. jk. Icestorm815 • Talk 08:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tried directing him to the talk page but he refuses. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've reverted his actions at the image and gave him a note about it. I'll leave the disruption be and watch him for a little while before I head to sleep. Allstar, feel free to notify me if he continues on his rampage and I'll start protecting the pages and hard warnings, if not blocks, if he doesn't stop. At least from the FfD discussion, he isn't alone which is good or bad. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad-faith AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Furcadia (2nd nomination) is a bad-faith AfD nomination by an SPA (Aa45955 (talk · contribs)); could we speedy-close it? -Jeremy 06:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at (Aa45955 (talk · contribs)} contributions summary. When I checked about a minute ago, they had only made about fourteen edits. I agree with whoever sensed an act of sockpuppetry on the articles for deletion page.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD just closed with OTRS involvement. -Jeremy 07:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion tagging by Jay32183

Jay32183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - edit warring against other editors to add image deletion tags, and (among others), including deleting use rationales and source statements in support of deletion efforts, accuses editors who remove tags of "vandalism" (see edit summaries). I've given multiple warnings to the editor to tone it down, stop edit warring, don't accuse good faith editors of vandalism, etc. to which the editor responded by filing a retaliatory / pre-emptive WP:AIV report against me (which I removed as process gaming). That's obviously not working. I'm not the uploader of these old images, and in one of the two cases I'm not 100% sure the image is okay (the other is pretty obvious). But that's why we have process, right? I'm not going to engage with or revert this editor further. Please clarify the procedure and behavioral expectations for us and encourage the editor to be civil, avoid edit warring, etc. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, from the reversion summaries it looks like the editor is improperly using rollback to accuse other editors of vandalism. They ought to be cautioned against that too. Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Stricken in light of below - thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay32183 does not have access to the rollback feature, h/she is using Twinkle. Landon1980 (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor with long history of personal attacks

We have here an editor who up until the end of last year edited as Tcob44 (talk · contribs) but since then has been using 2 IP addresses (at least) - and never signing with tildes but to give them some credit puting Tcob44 at the end of their posts. The pattern of personal attacks from last year has continued this year from both IPs - 67.34.225.133 (talk · contribs) and 68.217.45.11 (talk · contribs) and various warnings have been given. The problems this year have been at Talk:Triple Goddess and I also raised earlier this user's addition of an internal comment about me in article space. As I am very involved I'm not going to take any action, but I would like some uninvolved eyes on this editor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards