Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:29, 20 April 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User:Dream Focus

User:Farhanbavealan

So, there's this user. He was trying to correct what he perceived as anti-Kurdish bias in Al Qamishli. He was not in violation of WP:3RR, but could be interpreted as edit-warring, at that article. He was then blocked with very little warning by Khoikhoi. Since then, he's been sockpuppeting to avoid the block. I don't know enough about the subject to know whether the article was indeed biased as he claims, and these ethnic conflicts give me hives, but there was something that struck me as odd. Could someone who knows something about the Syrians and Kurds and their conflict take a look at the contribs and the block and have an opinion? Thanks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the veracity of his claims, if he's socking to get around the block, he's going to be blocked until he stops that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been 'infinitely' semi-protected by Khoikoi. I'm a bit dubious about infinite being necessary. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a little strange. For the sake of appearances, I'd prefer a block notice at User talk:Farhanbavealan of some sort. Notified Khoikoi about this discussion anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a notice on the talk page would have been a good idea. I blocked Farhanbavealan (talk · contribs) and Kurdish land (talk · contribs) because the former was a WP:SPA used only for edit warring while the latter was an obvious sockpuppet. However, I am willing to assume good faith and unblock on the condition that he initiate a discussion about his edits on the talk page as opposed to sterile reverting. I will also assume that he simply wanted to change his username as opposed to create a second account. The article was also protected because the banned user Am6212 was being disruptive. The Suryoyo Sat article was protected for the same reason. The reason it was indef. as opposed to a time limit was because of two reasons. One is that I am simply used to using indef. whenever I protect a page. The second is that since we are dealing with a banned user (Am6212), I wanted to avoid giving him an opportunity to revert immediately after the protection expires. If he had seen the date that protection were to expire on, there is a likelihood that he would have done exactly that. Khoikhoi 02:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, IPSock!

These are not my IP Addresses, and someone is inaccurately attributing them to me!_BLuE 03:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC) User talk:69.247.19.250 ‎
User talk:76.29.32.11 ‎
User talk:76.16.99.162 ‎
User talk:76.16.97.218 ‎
User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎
User talk:76.16.103.79 ‎
User talk:71.58.128.61 ‎
User talk:71.231.58.8 ‎
User talk:71.201.186.107 ‎
User talk:71.199.159.41 ‎
User talk:69.247.19.250

What is it that you request from admins?  Sandstein  05:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever. I geolocated three of them at random and they're all to different cities in the US. I'm sure some of them are in the same region, but I got Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Illinois from those selections. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would request all these to be deleted on here execpt for the last IP Address because before my internet provider comcast switched it was the 69.250 one now it is different one which is 98.240.44.215! By the way, I am from Knoxville, TN!_BLuE 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by a user

I wish to bring your attention to the actions of Brisbanelionsfan1 and edits made from his (or a partner in crime's) IP address.

Earlier today, the IP posted this message on the talk page of Ben W Bell, linked to a blog which ridicules Ben. Two hours later, Brisbanelionsfan1 (BLF1) posted a message/troll on Ben's talk page, feigning support.

To put this in perspective, Ben was involved in the reverting and discussion of BLF1's disruptive edits earlier in the week where the 3RR rules was broken. Almost all of BLF1's edits since signing up for an account have been to the Brisbane Lions article and it's talk page where he tries to stir up trouble. His first scheme was to add a detailed list of controversies that the club's players have been involved in off-field. Numerous users objected to this and explained so on the talk page but the edits continued. At the same time he and the IP have added to the 'membership base and sponsorship' table, the average crowd sizes for the 2009 season, as they happened to be low (the league is only a couple of games into the season). His agenda to editing on wikipedia is to denigrate the Brisbane Lions and judging by his edits to this date and his 'ironic' username that seems to be all he is interested in. After discussing the issue of crowd averages on the talk page, where users again explained that they shouldn't yet be added, he defended his case. However, after a decent crowd in last night's home game which has driven the average up, BLF1 has removed it from the table with this summary - "because the season is yet to be complete. do not enter a crowd average yet" Jevansen (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

*Update* - The blogger is a Queenslander who likes to blog about how AFL is failing is his state. Notice a theme? He loves his record low crowd numbers and even who talks about a 'Brisbane Lions player glassing a woman in a Gold Coast bar'.

This person also brags about doing 'Facebook trolling' so I suspect this is another of his trolls. Jevansen (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I just followed those links. One of those links regards rugby, which I have no interest in. I am obviously a Queenslander, hence my name. The only relevant link regards the Lions player who got into trouble. That is the extent of the overlap. Calling somebody a troll, and then saying here's a link that proves it is pretty tenuous. --Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 09:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)

The facebook link isn't evidence of you being the blogger, the other links already prove it is you. I added the third link to show what type of character you are and that this is just another 'troll' for you. Your blog is filled with rants about crowd figures and about sportsmen getting a free ride from the media after bad off-field behaviour. The exact same stuff that you troll about here. Here's another. I've leave it there for now, the administrators have enough evidence to work on and I'm sure they will make the right decision. Jevansen (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you are happy to make judgements of character. I hate to disappoint you but that blog doesn't belong to me, but it should hardly surprise you that I have linked to it. I am indeed interested in some of its content. What you fail to address is the issue that I have added sourced, relevant material to an article that has been removed because what appears to be a group of fanboys do not want negative information to appear on the page. It is linked to here so that my bona fides can be shown. This is not a troll. Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 10:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)

You're digging yourself into an even deeper whole now. It is one thing to happen to 'find' the blog entry (eg googled Ben's name) and then it can be argued, as implausible as it is, that it's merely a coincidence that the blogger shares your views. But now you're saying that you were already a fan of the blog? So ... out of the blue, in the same week that you and Ben are involved in a dispute on wikipedia, this blogger decides to make a post about this user? Now that really is some coincidence!

Addressing your second point, the group of 'fanboys' that have reverted your material consist only of one Brisbane Lions supporter, Shaggy9872004. In over two years on this encyclopaedia, I don't believe I have ever edited the article, other than to remove vandalism and disambiguate links etc (same as I do for all other 15 clubs). If I'm a Brisbane Lions fan as claimed then I don't seem to have much interest in them. Ben I believe, going by his userpage seems to be from the UK so he clearly isn't a 'fanboy'. The only other user to have reverted your edits and or discuss this on the talk page is User:The-Pope, who going by his userpage and edit history is clearly a Fremantle supporter. That's quite some group!

Ok, now that truly is my final comment before admin address this issue. Jevansen (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's some convoluted logic. As you can see from my edit history I was putting in links to off-field incidents. That is how I have got there in the first place. All of which is avoiding the point that I have had valid edits continually removed. You are playing the man and not the ball here, not to mention getting bogged down in tangential issues. The link to my edits is above. I note that you are incapable of addressing the single question of why it is only overwhelmingly positive history that can get onto the Brisbane Lions page. My editting was not disruptive. And that is what we are here to discuss. --Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 12:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)

I am the person in question. No I didn't write the blog entry, but was amused to find it. The edits that I have made to the Brisbane Lions page have been to get some balance into the page. However, whenever I post something that is not considered positive about the Lions, it is deleted. I put up a NPOV tag, but it was deleted by other members who do not want scrutiny on the page. I strongly believe that the page should not be a press release. As to the link, I thought it was amusing as much as anything. I wasn't logged in when I first linked to it, and the second comment I left for clearly humourous. There is no harmful intention here, and I apologise if it has been m

On the crowds issue. I posted crowds that were removed. After a single good crowd the very same person who was removing them was the one who updated, reinforcing the notion that only good news will be accepted on this page. The comment that I left "because the season is yet to be complete. do not enter a crowd average yet" was exactly the same one that was given as a reason by the other user for not putting an average in. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I would've thought.--Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 03:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)istakenly construed that way.Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)

Mate, I only updated the crowd average because I was going to trust your notion so as YOU said, what good for the goose is good for the gander. Besides that fact, not ONLY good stuff is allowed on this page. I wouldn't say that including a list of stats and pointing out we lost many games by large margins is very positive...You are just being somewhat immature because at Misplaced Pages, you don't always get your way. I've learnt that from the past and I guess you should too.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio report assistance

We got an OTRS complaint ( # 2009041810003627 ) that alleges that images were taken from The North Spin website images page for photographer Dan Stijovich and uploaded to Misplaced Pages apparently by User:ANigg. Specific example reported was File:MH-47G_Flight.jpg taken from here.

I have emailed the photographer (Dan Stijovich) to try and confirm that they aren't that WP account, which is possible (please do not block the account until we can confirm that). In the meantime, I was reviewing contributions by ANigg. Another image pair popped up: File:AH-1Z_NAWCWD.jpg and source here. In that case, there's a veeeery slight modification - the Misplaced Pages image has a 2-digit nose ID number (05 vs 005) and there's a yellow reflection on the windscreen missing on the WP image. I think the WP image is the modified one, but haven't pulled them into photoshop or a similar tool yet to try and validate that.

I'm going to be busy for the next 12 hours. Can I get some assistance reviewing ANigg's image contributions ? In particular, if these appear similar to images on The North Spin website.

Thanks in advance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, tail number's also been altered in that second comparison pair. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • … and there's a "veeeery slight modification" in the first pair, also. It's a small red triangle beneath the forward rotor. Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Just for information: There is a slight difference between "our" File:MH-47G_Flight.jpg and the image on http://www.thenorthspin.com/photos_people_dan_s/31.jpg. The latter has a bright red spot behind-above the cockpit.--Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another match File:UH-72A_Lakota.jpg Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• … which duplicated File:USA Lakota.jpg (which itself lists a different source). Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And another: matches File:UH-1Y China.jpg. The original is copyright Kevin Whitehead, and in this diff ANigg describes it as self made and provides a name that is neither Kevin Whitehead nor Dan Stijovich. - Bilby (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry - correct that. Superficially the same, (same angle, location and time), but not identical photos. - Bilby (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I really should run all the tests before commenting. I layered the photo ANigg claimed over the one by Kevin Whitehead, and they are identical in angle, distance, location and time of day. The very minor differences are removals from the Whitehead photo, presumably in Photoshop. So I'd call it as a definite copyvio - ANigg can't really be both photographers. - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • There seem to be artifacts in File:UH-1Y China.jpg where you can see the manipulations, where the red streamer from the tail rotor has been morphed to the background shade, and the cables above the horizon exiting the laft of the frame. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, the streamers threw me off for a bit, but then once they were combined in photoshop it was easy to see what was going on. - Bilby (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• (Photographer Tony Silva) looks to be File:USCG 1.jpg. I think that is all of ANigg's photo contributions identified... Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Is a block appropriate, then? He's been around since March 07, he should know better. Ironholds (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I note that nobody informed him that there was a discussion at ANI; I've now done so. Ironholds (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. No responses to emails yet, leading me to presume this is not the photographer (as the issues above indicate). Final request for clarification left on the users' talk page, will take up admin actions in reasonable time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

i feel jayron32 needs 2 be reined in

I am writing bc I asked 173 to help me & now Ive brought 173 trouble.
I feel j32(http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jayron32) needs 2 be reined in. See comments here : http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:173.79.58.33 .

I deleted your page history as an extension of good faith that you would stop being a disruption by repeatedly removing the WHOIS data from this page. You immediately returned to continue the same disruption, despite the fact that I, as a gesture of peace, asceded to your deletion request ~j32

...Good faith? Peace gesture. WTF? Y does jayron think that he did 173 a favor? 173 has the right to request the deletion. No 1 was holding a gun 2 j32's head making him answer the deletion request. Look @ j32's edit summary :o yea? What is j32 getting excited from blocking others? That isnt what wiki is 4. Now j32 has blocked 173 4 1 month, incorrectly saying 173 is editing war. What edit war? After the deletion 173 blanked the page, which 173 is allowed 2 do. The page was blanked only 1 time so where/when was the edit war? Per this http://en.wikipedia.org/User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space. It says quote :

Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption; removal of template warnings is rarely an urgent or important matter, and it is often best to simply let the matter rest if other disruption stops.

that even ips r allowed to edit/delete/revert/blank their page. It also says that repeatedly re adding that which has been deleted is antagonistic. 173 was helping me out & I dont want this bs on 173. Thanks. 70.108.88.137 (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

{{whois}} tags are not supposed to be removed from IP talk pages. Your friend was told this, and continued to remove them from other IP addresses as well. Additionally, this IP appears to be a sock account of previous users who have done this. Please learn to use proper grammar in the future. Matty (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Whois templates are there to signify to whom the IP is registered should abuse reports need to be filed against repeat vandals who abuse them. -Jeremy 06:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that you're being treated poorly because you're using an IP address to edit, OR if you don't like the fact that you ISP is visible when you edit as an IP address, how about signing up for a userid and be far more anonymous?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

matty, jeremy : 1)173 says: Ask them for a link to where it says that. On http://en.wikipedia.org/User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space it says that ips may remove it & that continually re adding it is antagonistic. It also says here : http://en.wikipedia.org/User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings that Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages. Furthermore @ the bottom of everypage is this : · , thus all any person has to do is click and they get the info they seek on the ip's ISP.
2)I didnt remove any info from anyone else's pages. After the abuse I received when attempting to help I told my friend I tried but you're right they're are being unfair assholes, so I'm stepping back. Since Mar30 I have only edited my user and discussion pages. I am not a sock. I was attempting to help a friend.
3)What about http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:CIVIL? Noone will call him on his rudeness and delusions of grandeur? He acts as if the deletion as something so fantastic that he did, when in truth has he not someone else would have.

bwilikns: No thanks. Isnt 1 of wiki's basic tenets anonymmous editing. Registration isnt required. & even if I was registered it wouldnt stop j32's inappropriate actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.88.137 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, the WHOIS template is not a comment. The spirit of "allowed to remove comments" refers to the ability of users to remove comments they don't want to see (although removal can be implied to "I've read it"). The WHOIS template allows users to quickly find out information about the IP address which could be necessary. There's also the argument that that page technically doesn't "belong" to the person behind it - what if that user changes IP address or ISP? While users are given a broad range of leeway with regards to their userspace, some things still are frowned upon - and here, I believe you've seen that there's enough agreement that IPs should not be removing the template. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In the majority of cases, you are correct. Any registered user may delete items from their personal talkpage. Of course, as an IP editor, the talkpage for your IP address is shared by anyone who eventually uses that IP address, which means it truly is not your personal talkpage. In many cases, a specific IP address (or range of IP addresses) has been "problematic" in the past. In that case, the WHOIS data has been added as a necessary tool. It may not have been you, merely someone who used that IP address (just like the police might have concerns about a certain rental car - it was used by many people!) As such, it becomes improper to remove the WHOIS data from the page, just like it would be improper to remove a block notice while a user is, indeed, blocked. It in no way violates your privacy, or is problematic as long as you remain an IP editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The rule allowing the removal of comments from talk pages should not be extended to IPs. They don't own their IP, they are just using it. What is more they need X warnings and a final warning before they can normally blocked. We can't have anonymous editors removing warning templates. They can always create an account if they want a userpage of their very own, but IP user pages are not assigned to a specific user. Chillum 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. IP addresses do not own the IP address talk page. If they set up a user account, they don't "own" that talk page either, but they have much more flexibility. They don't have to set up a user account, as noted, but by not doing so that also restricts their privileges. It's their choice. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have always been in favor of NOT allowing anon IPs to edit wikipedia. More often than not, the result is usually vandalism. Yet since there is no rule against an IP editing, we cannot stifle anyones ability to edit any talk page (or removal of content).--Jojhutton (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, the large percentage of IP address edits are either junk or sockpuppetry. There's also a fair number of useful edits. But it means that anything on my watch list edited by an IP gets my "special" at tention. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it make a difference that this appears to be User:Lilkunta, logging out and using multiple ips to avoid his block? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It might. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 15:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Either way, that IP he was using is blocked and properly labeled {{IPSockCheckuser|Lilkunta}} as such. Momusufan (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For anyone looking for more information on this situation, a similar thread at WP:AN has been started to discuss usage of the abuse filter on this set of IPs as a rangeblock would cause too much collateral damage. Also see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lilkunta/Archive. MuZemike 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

New IP sock of Lilkunta, 70.108.94.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) making comment on one of his IP pages, see HERE. I know that the /16 may be busy, but I propose that the range block be reinstated. Momusufan (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ban proposal

I think this is time to propose a community ban on Lilkunta (talk · contribs) due to the excessive abuse coming from this set of IPs and tremendous disruption made on the mainspace as well as ANI. Thoughts? MuZemike 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BAN, and I quote "If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has blocked the user long term or even indefinitely, and where no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user is considered to be community-banned" the ban appears to be already in effect. Additionally, there is a discussion over at WP:AN which are discussing ways to use the Abuse Filter to curtail this users particular pattern of disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. The AN post seems to focus more on the technical means of stopping the disruptive editing, while this ANI post, well, focuses on more of the social aspect. That's why it seemed to make more sense placing this here than over at AN. We can wait and see what the abuse filter accomplishes, but I'm skeptical however. MuZemike 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Full Support: User is clearly disruptive, shows no willingness to cooperate and give excuses for his actions. Removing WHOIS templates is wrong and he should know this. Also I think that part of policy at WP:BLANKING where IP's can remove warnings should be amended because an IP does NOT belong to anybody whereas a user account talk page belongs to that user. An IP goes to someone else eventually. Momusufan (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring in POV sections

2009 Tea Party protests‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) started out admittedly as a POV slanted article. Various editors had been slowly working the POV slant out of it and addressing many issues within the article. Editor JCDenton2052‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pushing the variety of POV into the article, labeling the movement as a Conservative moment, while labeling anyone who disagreed as a Liberal. One editor Showtime2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) boldly removed a couple egregious sections and helped cleaned up the article. Later on after other editors had continued to work the article, JCDenton2052 reverted all the changes back to a version that he/she agreed with and accused Showtime2009 of blanking the article.

Could an admin take a look at this when they get a chance? Thanks, Brothejr (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In past days, one group of editors was labeling only conservatives and another was labeling only liberals. I felt that labeling only one side was a violation of WP:NPOV, so I decided to label everyone who could reasonably described as a conservative or liberal (e.g. Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann). I created a section on the talk page to try to reach consensus on whether labels should be used or not.

The other issue is that one editor blanked 8k of content without first sharing his concerns on the talk page. I restored some of the good faith additions that he removed. I am of course willing to discuss shortening the article on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked JCDenton2052 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 24 hours. On the edit history, he's blown far past 3RR and is dueling all comers on that Tea Party page. Article history here, user main space history here. Feel free to unblock if required with demonstrated consensus on this page here. rootology (C)(T) 19:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

JC is asking for an unblock, a listing of just a handful of reverts, that alone put him past 3RR are listed here on his talk. More eyes, please. rootology (C)(T) 20:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate that I violated WP:3RR and your claim that I am "dueling all comers" is baseless and a borderline violation of WP:NPA. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there was clear edit warring going on, but I think the article could use some attention from editors who are more capable of leaving their politics at the door. For someone to try to claim that Bill O'Reilly, for example, is not a conservative or that to say he is somehow pushes POV is ridiculous, and certainly there are plenty of sources to show that teabagging protests were led by right wing groups. JCDenton2052 may have been going about it the wrong way, but I think as far as the content of the article goes his edits conform more to Misplaced Pages standards than those of many others contributing there. A quick look at the edits on the talk page show tremendously slanted political opinions being expressed and used a justifications for editing the article. We've got someone claiming that the mainstream view that the protests were organized by conservative groups is somehow a FRINGE view and that the whole section discussing it as something debated in the media should be removed. We've got politician bashing. We've got all sorts of nasty stuff going on. More eyes are needed there. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

His edits were better, but blasting up to the 10RR range is not a good idea... rootology (C)(T) 20:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to substantiate your claim. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to revert people who removed labels from conservatives or liberals (but not both) without reaching consensus on the talk page. I was also reverting people who were removing content that was encyclopedic, but not favorable to their side (for or against the Tea Parties). JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that his block not be lifted. JCDenton2052 did the same to me, and I reported him only a couple of days ago for accusing me of blanking material without ever going to talk. JCDenton2052 does not understand what Blanking is. earlier report JCDenton2052 then retaliated for my ANI report with a vandalism report against me here. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he needs to be educated about the definition of the term "Blanking" and how to resolve disputes. It looks like you and others need to be educated about WP:NPOV, WP:RS and other content-related policies. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You were repeatedly removing crowd estimates from a liberal (while leaving those in by conservatives) without establishing consensus on the talk page. I would personally prefer to include estimates from conservative and liberal sources (and clearly note the possible bias of the sources). An equally valid alternative would be to leave out all partisan estimates. However, consensus must be achieved on the article's talk page for some solution that does not violate WP:NPOV. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requested

Declined once, asked again. Please review here. rootology (C)(T) 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it's been granted as he indicates a desire to now use DR not edit warring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hereafter I'll only make edits to that article once. If they are reverted, I will try to establish consensus on the talk page and failing that, seek dispute resolution. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with a difficult user unwilling to disengage

User:TomCat4680 seems unable to stay away from my talk page despite having been asked three times by me and once by an admin. The editor seems to have taken an extreme dislike to me because I nominated an article he created for deletion. Based on his contributions and behaviour, I believe that this editor is actually a minor, despite the claim on his userpage that he is 28.

The editor has made personal attacks against me here and here, which he later retracted at my request. This and this probably qualify as personal attacks as well. So far, I've been accused of by TomCat4680 of incivility, assuming bad faith, disrupting wikipedia to make a point, accusing people of being sockpuppets, 3RR violations, and probably other things, none of which have any merit. Please see the discussions at Talk:Fuel_TV#Trimmed or User talk:Delicious_carbuncle#Fuel TV.

I'm trying to keep away from the user, but that's impossible if they won't stay away from my talk page. Can an admin please use their magical persuasive powers? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that while I was writing this up, TomCat4680 again visited my talk page to deliver more nastygrams. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

::This has nothing to do with the afd. You violated WP:HEY by nominating it because you didn't even give me a chance to expand it like I was planning after I woke up that morning, and are losing; absolutely no one has agreed with you on it. You never put any tags like: expand, refimprove, or put anthing on its talk page as to why you object to it. etc etc. per policy. You just speedy afded it, thinking you are the know all say all master when it comes to determining notability. Just like no one but your sock puppet accounts have agreed with you on Talk:Fuel TV. Admit it. It has everything to do with your unwillingness to reach a consensus as requested multiple times and instead engaged in a 3RR war and got the page sysoped. You are clearly disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point by doing this and in turn proving once again how much of a lone wolf you are, instead of a team player. I offered you several an olive branches but you threw them in my face. Why don't you read WP:5P again before accusing me of things. And the admin didn't agree with either of us either by the way, he was just stuck in the middle of it. Tour sarcastic edit summaries don't help either. Why don't you just stop assuming bad faith and realize this petty bickering isn't helping. Oh and by the way I'm 29, not 28. Learn some math. Today is April 18, 2009. My birthday is April 6, 1980. I almost failed algebra and even I can figure that out. If you don't believe me I can send you a copy of my driver's license. The only immature one here is you. I think you're probably in middle school, at least you act like it. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat...as I just said on the AfD, you need to WP:AGF that the editor was doing what he believed was best for Misplaced Pages. A nomination at AfD is not a personal insult to you. Indeed, an article I worked on for 3 years (which means it actually lasted for 3 years) was recently deleted - I have yet to even ask to have it userfied yet. Don't rush process. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding this: did I honestly just see you accuse a longstanding editor of having socks? Ouch... cardinal rule, either file your WP:SSP or stop throwing out accusations,as it certainly lowers your believability! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

::::Read his talk page before you determine who's assuming bad faith and who isn't. I sent him a kitten and a cookie to show WP:WIKILOVE and he threw them in my face. Anyways, his afd is failing miserably per WP:SNOW, and the more pressing issue here is the content dispute at Talk:Fuel TV. I have filed an RfC, which has yet to be responded too, clearly showing that I'm open to a neutral third party arbitration. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

::::::Seniority means nothing if you don't follow the rules. He's obviously nothing but a vigilante. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal Tomcat: Stay off the other guy's talk page. Carubuncle + Tomcat: Try really hard not to say mean things about each other. Since it sounds as if you don't have much editing overlap, this shouldn't be hard. I'm not an admin, but i believe that if either of you calls the other a "vigilante" or similar loaded terms (i.e. "vandal" "petty" etc...) again soon, short civility blocks might be in order. Agreed? Alrighty then.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

:All I really care about here is resolving the dispute and sysop block at Fuel TV. He's the one being uncivil, NOT me. He's also making unsubstantiated SPA claims against another editor at Talk:Fuel TV and in turn the editor (probably THE most helpful editors in the article's history) was blocked without a fair trail. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy watching someone dig themselves a hole, Tomcat, why don't you do what Bali suggests, back off and stick a cork in the orifice of your choice and we call it a day, mmkay? It's Saturday. Saturday is not a good day for drama. HalfShadow 20:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bali ultimate, feel free to read through the discussion on my talk page. I don't think I've been incivil or even overly impolite in defending myself against all manner of increasingly bizarre accusations (see new sockpuppetry accusation above). I was as patient as I could be, since I'm of the genuine belief that this is a minor we're dealing with, but it became disruptive. I don't intend to respond to TomCat4680 here, but it should be plain from their comments that this is a one-sided argument (which I don't want any part of). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the last time the other fellow edited that talk page was 16 hours ago, and their edit was to clarify in the face of your umbrage that they had meant to call someone other than you an SPA. . Do yourself a favor. Step away.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

:I'll never post on his page again after the carriage dispute and sysop block at Fuel TV gets resolved by a neutral third party editor. Why is everyone here ignoring the issue and instead attacking the person and not the problem? DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER! TomCat4680 (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop calling me a minor. Its only further proving how uncivil you are. Everything you do and say proves it. Put you stick away for God's sake. I'm twenty nine years old. What do you think 4680 means?. You clearly have a lot of issues. Go see a therapist. I swear to God if you give me your email address I'll send you a copy of my driver's license right now. Whatever you do, don't ever go to law school, you'd be the worst lawyer in the history of the profession. You probably belong in a mental institution for your paranoid schizophrenia. No one's out to get you. I just want to get the content dispute resolved at Fuel TV. All you want to do is discredit other editors, CLEARLY disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by this immature name calling and refusal to resolve the issue. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're an adult, act like one. Please. HalfShadow 20:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• TomCat4680 blocked for 24 hours - violation of WP:NPA just a few lines above. I would not have acted if I believed that any progress was likely, since the accusations are exactly the same as made in the first post to this thread (with a few more choice comments thrown in). However, if anyone thinks that unblocking will facilitate a quicker resolution of the underlying issues then please do not refer to me; you hereby have my agreement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Beat me to it. Hopefully the break will do him good.  GARDEN  21:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a couple of things - I've already stated in a couple of places that I've walked away from Fuel TV because I have no interest in edit warring over whether a list of red links are included or not. The article is currently protected and the way TomCat4680 prefers it, so I'm not sure what the issue is there. And just to be completely clear, I may be wrong about TomCat4680 being a minor, but that is my genuine belief. I don't say it to be insulting to him (or to other editors who are minors). In my experience 29 year olds don't usually make statements like "I think you're probably in middle school, at least you act like it". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologized to him and promised to never bother him again, and I'll stay away from Fuel TV for a while. Case Closed. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note; I unblocked TomCat4680 upon review of an unblock request, acknowledging the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, the benefits of a good night's sleep. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat

An IP has threatened suicide here due to some breakup with some person named Heather. Someone needs to contact the local police. Geolocate states the person is in Goose Bay, Newfoundland. ISP is Aliant. єmarsee  • Speak up! 19:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we typically just WP:RBI for this. I've done the B this time. –xeno 19:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not policy, but we usually follow WP:SUICIDE. I'll try calling the ISP.--chaser - t 23:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in contact with the provincial police.--chaser - t 23:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, someone should call the police and warn them. If it's serious, that's good. If he's being an idiot, fine, he'll enjoying explaining that one. Anyone local? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

All we have is an IP address, no name, no address, no nothing. What exactly do you want to tell the police? Also what explaining would they have to do anyways? It's not illegal to threaten suicide is it? Revert block ignore. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it is illegal in some states (not sure about Canada) to attempt suicide. In North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma it is illegal to attempt suicide. So, if they theaten it, more than likely they are going to try. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 18, 2009 @ 22:55

The IP resolves to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador. Could someone confirm that local police have been contacted? If not, I will. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got them on the phone now.--chaser - t 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, they apparently have another admin (site admin?) on the phone, so this is resolved as well as it can be from our end.--chaser - t 23:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you were calling the RCMP, it was me. They were grateful for the info. Thanks Chaser and sorry for the collision. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The RCMP just called me back and they wanted to see the diff (hope nobody deleted it) and they are going to try to contact the person on their talk page while they track it down, so please, let's not jump all over the likely Misplaced Pages newbie RCMP on that IP's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. This is a good use of a Misplaced Pages talk page is it? Encouraging police to feed a troll using Wikimedia resources. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked, Theresa, at your lack of compassion for a fellow human being in obvious distress. My heart goes out to them, yours should too. Giano (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) How do we know if it is a troll or not? Because of the uncertainty whether the threat is real or not, this seems like a situation to IAR. After all, a human life is valuable than feeding all the trolls in Misplaced Pages isn't it? Anyway, there has been no comments regarding this on the IP's talk page. And IMO it's very unlikely the police will use a Misplaced Pages talk page viewable by anyone to talk someone out of committing suicide. Chamal 09:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My heart goes out to the actual victim of the incident. Someone we only know as Heather who no one here seems to even think about. Why should she have to read such aggression against her? I have deleted it. Theresa Knott | token threats

Jza84 abusing his admin position and engaging in Wikihounding

There is a content dispute at Association of British Counties between User:Jza84 and myself. Jza84 has used his admin privileges to block the page with his preferred version. Additionally, this user is hounding me. I have made a small number of edits recently and he has engaged in a mass reversal of them, even including clearly non-controversial components. Here are some diffs: , , ,. Blacklans (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually do see a little bit of merit here. Jza is certainly protecting his preferred version (I'd prefer "The City of X" as that's good grammar) Sceptre 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Freely admit this. But guys, I'm slightly bored of this, respectfully, and in a terrible mood. I've the support of several users (just look on my talk page). This user is also breaking fundamental and simple rules on standard English and citing sources.

Am I protecting my preferred version - absolutely - in the interests of our project and our readers though, not in the interests of an editor who's misunderstanding what this is all about and damaging our standing. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Assume I have no idea about the subject of the article or why the edit was problematic(it is safe to assume that) and explain it to me please. Is this about content or grammar? Chillum 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There are towns called Lancaster, Bradford etc, within larger areas called "City of Lancaster" etc. These articles are on the smaller (town size) unit but Blacklans doesn't understand that, and thinks that because he can find references to a "City of Lancaster" in the sources, that the towns covered by the articles are cities themselves. From an American perspective, think of it as confusing New York City with New York State; one is within the other, but they have different statuses. As per Malleus, Jza, Nev1, Majorly, myself on the talkpage – all of whom are very experienced in UK geographic articles - Blacklans is just plain wrong. – iridescent 22:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(conflict)See also his intimidating remarks at User talk:Blacklans#Disruptive editing. Blacklans (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have explained to Blacklans that his edits to articles such as Lancaster, Lancashire, are not based in fact and provided sources to support my assertion. His response was "The sources are irrelevant". I think he is now being deliberately disruptive. Nev1 (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here is my full quote "The sources are irrelevant. You simply haven't grasped what I'm getting at, even though I've spelled it out elsewhere. Yes, I know about the local government status of these cities, and I agree with you to a certain extent, but there is no reason why we shouldn't refer to these cities as "cities". Try driving into Durham. You are greeted by "Welcome to the City of Durham". Now we can probably accommodate your local-government-centric view, and my pragmatic view, by an agreed set of words. It worked at Durham so we should use that model elsewhere. What do you think? " Blacklans (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK. It's a little confused here though.

Blacklans believes Carlisle is a city. It's not. The (wider) City of Carlisle is a city (of course). Blacklans seems to be an advocate of the Association of British Counties, i.e. he probably feels aggrieved at the sweeping changes to centuries of geographic tradition in England that occured by way of the Local Government Act 1972.

The LGA1972 abolished Carlisle's city status in 1974. ABC people still think of it as a city (different) article by way of tradition, and that the City of Carlise is only a title used for local governance - it isn't. It's law, and it's verifiable.

It's like saying Oldham is a metropolitan borough in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham - its bad practice. And Blacklans keeps inserting this without diligence. He probably wants Carlisle to say its a City because it has honorific value for his settlement - but it's not the reality of the situation and its effectively a scaled down version of nationalism and WP:SYNTH.

Further info on my talk page. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's like confusing Quebec with Quebec City(Canadian version)? Chillum 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably closer to the various meanings of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in that they all describe the same city but at different scales. – iridescent 22:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(adding) In fact, exactly the same situation as with the no-longer-formally-existing City of Halifax compared to the current Halifax Regional Municipality. – iridescent 22:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Almost, but imagine Quebec was originally called Quebec City, but was abolished, and a new, larger, more buerocratic Quebec City was created, and the original Quebec lost it's honorific title. Then we're almost there. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I filed this complaint to draw attention to the aggressive actions of User:Jza84 and not particularly to debate the content of the disputed articles. Jza84 has his opinion, given above, supported by some like-minded editors who follow him around. We can take up all the above discussions at the Talk pages concerned, but over the last few weeks Jza84 has popped into Misplaced Pages, reverted my edits, and popped off again, without bothering to discuss the edits - not even in edit summaries. I agree with some of what he says, but there are ways and words we can use to accommodate all views, and the reality of the various situations, but Jza and his followers are not interested; they force their POV with, in the case of Jza especially, an unnecessary hostility. As an admin, should he be protecting articles in the way he does? Blacklans (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Blacklans has made statements that appear to be examples of an association fallacy combined with personal comments directed at some perceived (yet false) quality of Jza84, Nev1, and myself (i.e., that we and possibly others in different places could be the same editor solely on the basis of us sharing the same considered opinion about the matter referred to here because we pay careful attention to the reliable authoritative sources.) I find it sad that he thus starts to complain here, since it necessarily means this poor behaviour on his part must now be raised to more public scrutiny than myself and others probably intended it to be. The relevant diffs are here. If any action were to be taken against Jza84, I feel it would be unfair to do this without taking some action against Blacklans, and I feel there are issues of what might appear to be the more serious breach of wikipedia principles here. (I note he is beginning to make similar suggestions in the above comment now.)  DDStretch  (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've spent the better part of the past half hour looking over a bunch of this, and near as I can tell Blacklans is the sole editor supporting a particular position. Rather than a conspiracy to edit war, what I see is a fairly broad consensus supporting a particular version of the articles in question, the version that JZA protected. Perhaps, at the outside, JZA should have asked for another admin to do the actual protection, but I don't necessarily disagree with the end result, so I don't think there is any real issue here. What I do see is that Blacklans appears to be throwing lots of shit against the walls, and hoping some of it sticks. What I find somewhat disturbing is the rediculous sockpuppet accusations leveled against JZA and Nev1 etc. When it became clear that wasn't going to work, it looks like he came here to try something else. I don't see anything more to it than this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that's a fair summary. Had I been in Jza84's position I probably wouldn't have protected the page for the reasons you say, but there's no doubt in my mind that the real fault here is not with Jza84 but with Blacklans, for persistently going against a hard-fought consensus about city status in the UK. City status isn't given to towns, it's given to local authorities. Rochester, for instance, was once a city, but its local authority neglected to renew its status during its last local government reorganisation, so it's not a city any longer. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Lucky for us nobody got into the London, UK situation; at one stage the City of London was a component of London Town, which was absorbed into the city that is known as London - or Greater London, which was largely contained within the now defunct County of Middlesex, with some areas within Surrey, Berkshire, Essex, Kent - and incorporated previously distinct towns and villages... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Or Southern Railway subsidiary Carolina and Northwestern Railway, which absorbed the Norfolk Southern Railway in 1974 and changed its name to Norfolk Southern Railway, only to be renamed back to Carolina and Northwestern Railway in 1982 when the Norfolk Southern Corporation took control of the Southern Railway and Norfolk and Western Railway in the first step of the merger that produced today's Norfolk Southern Railway... every field has these --NE2 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The situation (geographically) reminds me of 3 specific instances in Ontario: the City of Toronto, the City of Ottawa, and the city of Fort Erie. The first 2 are 2000's-era forced amalgamations. In Ottawa for example, you can drive from one end to the other and while you're officially passing through the City of Ottawa, you will go through Orleans, Gloucester, the City of Nepean, the City of Kanata, etc. The mayors and councils of those communities no longer exist, but you can still have your mail addressed to "Kanata, Ontario'. The amalgamation is still a sore spot, but people continue to identify with their local community, so the pre-2000 structure continues to exist. Effectively, "City of Ottawa" functions like a county or region, although the subordinate communities contain no official political structures anymore. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've obviously come to the wrong place because for the most part the comments here have been about article content and not about the disruptive behaviour of User:Jza84. The content issues are now, to a certain extent, being addressed on the Talk pages. However, let me hold up my hands to an error of judgement - Jza84, Nev1 and DDstretch are probably not sockpuppets and it was wrong of me to suggest that they might be. Nevertheless, they work together to push their POV and often tag-team to further their agenda. Jza84 has a history of aggressive behaviour, sometimes against newcomers. There was a particularly egregious example last October of which this diff is part. Examination of Jza84's Talk page and archive throws up numerous examples of his bullying, intimidation and general nastiness towards editors who dare to question his assertions. Jza84 does, however, contribute some good material; I have spent some time today looking through his history. However, useful as he is to Misplaced Pages, in the long run I suggest he's a liability because his attitude does not lend itself to co-operative editing; good editors will leave as a result. Furthermore, he definitely abuses his position of trust as an Admin; this episode is a clear example. Finally, and because most of the contributors here seem only to be concerned with the content dispute, take a look at my edits to Association of British Counties and Jza84's reversions. Then have a look a the ABC website and read the first line of the home page (the website is referenced in the article). Did my edits deserve a "revert without comment" and subsequent claims about infringement of policy at the hands of Jza84: I think not! Why did he not engage in discussion at the Talk page? Maybe because I've crossed swords with him before - here . Blacklans (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no disruptive behaviour. What I do see is an established and respected editor (certainly by me) correcting mistakes you have deliberately introduced into articles, mistakes on issues that have been argued and agreed over by consensus. I've never had the slightest issue with Jza84, and frankly your complaint about the ABC article is ridiculous. You'll probably accuse me of being married to Jza84 now. There isn't a tag-team, or a claque, or anything like that. There's right, and there's wrong - and I'm sorry but you appear to be in the latter category. Find some WP:reliable sources that support your position, and perhaps you'll move across to the former category. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jza84 is an editor I have the greatest respect for, administrator or not. I am certainly not anyone's sockpuppet, and I haven't always agreed with Jza84, but I am in no doubt whatsoever that in this case he was right. Although as I said earlier, in his position I would have requested another admin to impose the protection, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that his action had a positive effect on the encyclopedia, in limiting the propagation of clearly misleading and incorrect information. WP:IAR seems to apply in such cases, at least in my mind. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So, having now withdrawn the previous attempt at mud-slinging, we see new allegations being made here. The first one Blacklans supplied involved an editor (Mister Flash) who was encouraging a newly-registered user to include clearly incorrect information into an article, against article guidelines and in a similar area (UK geographical and administrative areas) as the one Blacklans is concerned with (see here, here, for the edits Mister Flash were encouraging, and which were incorrect, and here for the later corrections. Note that the new editor makes statements that seem inconsistent with respect to whether Woolston is in (ceremonial) Cheshire or Lancashire and has been since 1974: if he or she were a local parish councillor, they would know the referenced details that were subsequently added, which they took exception to, as their content would be part of what a parish council would be dealing with routinely.) In a particularly uninspiring exchange by other administrators who did not take enough time to understand the nature of the problem to understand why Jza84 took the action he did, the action Jza84's action was reversed, and, it could be argued, the reversal has encouraged further disruptive editing in this style to continue. The editor concerned (Mister Flash whose contributions are here) has since taken the opportunity to pop up to make disparaging comments about myself and Jza84 on previous occasions when he or she deems it possibly advantageous to do so (see here for example.) Both he/she and Blacklans seem to wish to go against consensus by refusing to accept that administrative boundaries in the UK have changed. In the case of Mister Flash, as I said, this led to his/her encouragement of the new editor to change the content of an article so that it then contained incorrect information. Experienced editors on UK geographical subjects experience periodic actions of editors, some of whom are single-purpose accounts, and some of whom support the pressure group: Association of British Counties (who have engaged in vandalism of road signs around the UK) who mount attempts to alter articles as if the administrative changes that happened as long ago as 1974 did not happen.Of course Association of British Counties is one of the articles Blacklans is complaining about, above. This latest attempt to smear Jza84 should be resisted strongly in my opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that in this edit on Jza84's talk page, Blacklans is once more overstepping the mark in making unforunded allegations about editors who, having examined the reliable sources, have a consensus with Jza84 about this matter. He or she would seem to now be becoming disruptive in continuing to make such allegations and almost bait Jza84 on his talk page. I would like to suggest that some uninvolved administrator take appropriate action.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Blacklans' attack here should be noted.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As should his attack given in the link I have now corrected in my previous message.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is probably the end of that particular discussion. – iridescent 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So, what, if anything, is being done to prevent further disruption by Blacklans?  DDStretch  (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well first I have to say that I agree with Malleus Fatuorums comment, Jza84 is a highly respected and trusted editor here; but I think that everyone agrees that Jza may have been hasty in protecting the page himself, though it is clear that consensus was with him. I would say this discussion should be over (on the Admin Board) and should continue on the articles talk page. As to Blacklans, he may have disagreed with the protection but I don't think there was any harm in bringing this to the admin board. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked anon back with new IP

Anon user

• 81.158.54.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

recently blocked for vandalism and personal attacks, is back with

• 86.143.154.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

doing the same thing. Orpheus (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

blocked Theresa Knott | token threats

COI editors(s) edit-warring on BLP Julie Bindel

On the surface this seems like it's only a content issue however at least two editors are tag-team edit-warring and the duck test suggests offsite campaigning is also taking place with at least one SPA and possibly a sock or two. I will try to be brief:

• Julie Bindel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a UK feminist activist and regular columnist of the Guardian. In 2004 one of her columns was rather disparaging toward transsexuals and an activist organization, London Transfeminist Group has seemingly opposed her ever since with arguably little sucess but one big protest at an awards ceremony in 2008.
• Zoeoconnell (talk · contribs) is certainly a part of this activist group and even wrote the press release for the protest and served as the media contact. This editor and ZoeL (talk · contribs) have been edit-warring to preserve some rather, IMHO, negative POV material on the BLP article primarily sourced to blogs and Indymedia. Zoeoconnell has also installed themselves as the goto editor on the talkpage despite COI and disregard for policies. All attempts to remove and reword the material have been met with, reverting. To thier credit every other change I've made except to this one section have stuck.

As it was certainly a stalmate and they were tag-team reverting me I started a RfC on the talkpage showing what I saw as using only reliable sources and doing so in accordance with NPOV and BLP policies. This unearthed a third Zoe, Zoe.R (talk · contribs) and spa georgiagrrl (talk · contribs). They all prefer the previous version which they assert was approved by admin user:CIreland who I've invited to participate. Zoeoconnellhas since started removing a {{fact}}; harassing/threatening/imtimidating (whatever you wish to call it) myself and another editor. They have also stated that an admin approved using the prior version and they weren't willing to concede much of these issues unless an admin ruled they must.

Here's what the article looked like prior to my editing there with the POV section encompassing more than half the short article. Every change I've made outside that section has been left alone. I've posted on the BLP board but it seems to be quite backlogged and was about to take this to the RSN board but really this is been a farce and I need some suggestion how to get the negative POV material that is poorly sourced off, get the blogs and Indymedia off and try to keep it from being re-added. -- Banjeboi 23:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The rest of the problem should be worked out on talk pages as needed. If the new accounts are indeed different people, they can use the talk page like everyone else. Is there any other admin action you think is needed here? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A warning regarding removing the fact tags would be nice and, unbelievably, a stern note regarding negative content has to be well-sourced and blogs/Indymedia are unacceptable. Otherwise it seems I've have to take each one to RSN which seems a waste of community energy. As is, it looks like every phrase will be have to be picked apart to ensure it conforms to policy. If there is an more efficient way I'd sure love to know it. -- Banjeboi 23:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi has repeatedly failed to back up claims about source (E.g. claiming Indymedia is not a suitable source without saying why) despite having numerous changes. Suggestions that the matter should be referred to the appropriate noticeboard have been ignored - instead, they've come here and we've ended up with a page block. I believe I've demonstrated a willingness to engage in discussion on the talk page but this has been ignored. I don't believe a page block is in anyones interest at this point - it's just going to restart in a months time unless the reliable sourcing claims are actually backed up. There are plenty of alternate sources, but without knowing why this editor believes these ones are inappropriate, we can't select other ones. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The relavant policies were linked repeatedly and another editor even pasted why blogs are not reliable. Indymedia is certainly not reliable to our standards - it is an open publishing site while WP:RS requires an established mechanism for fact-checking and accuracy, which these sites do not have. Completely innappropriate for a BLP. -- Banjeboi 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Then the appropriate place to make those assertions is on the relevant talk page with escalation to the relevant noticeboard if you feel there's been a problem. This isn't the place to produce new evidence/statements regarding sources - this is the first time you've made the "open publishing" statement. There is an earlier discussion about the selection of sources Talk:Julie_Bindel/Archive_1#Proposed_rewrite_-_part_1 in the talk page archives that you've been pointed at - we can find others but at the moment all we're getting is counterclaims with no backup, allegations of sockpuppetry, attempts to reframe good-faith attempts to resolve problems and prevent edit-warring as "harassment" etc which makes me very reluctant to engage further with you at all. Do you feel that a one month block on this page is really going to achieve anything at this point? ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd note that I'm actually in favour of removing the Livejournal link because I don't believe it's appropriate - so I'm actually with the other editor you mention on this score. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is not the appropriate place to carry on discussions about the content of articles. Please carry on that discussion on the article talk pages. As far as any further official action, the only request I see is that Benjiboi has asked for a warning. There seems to be no need for that, since the party he wants warned is participating in this thread, and as such, is fully aware of the issue. Now, is there anything else you want the admins to do here, or can I mark this one resolved???--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that Benjiboi, as they are in a minority, ceases to revert from the consensus version of the article and refer any problems to RSN or similar. Is there any way this can be enforced? ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Zoeoconnell has continually blocked removal of controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately and even insisted they wouldn't remove any of it until an admin intervened - so here we are. Please explain on this admin board why on this - or any - BLP we should violate our policies on BLPs, RS and NPOV. I invite any admin to review the content that is currently protected in place to see if my concerns are unfounded and indeed much or most of it should be trimmed away. I have been met with resistance on these issues and Zoeoconnell's conduct and staements of unwilling to follow policy unless intervened by admins is the only reason I was compelled to seek assistance here. -- Banjeboi 00:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Violation of policy is disputed. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Local consensus can't overrule policy. In order to settle the dispute about policy, try the WP:BLPN. If new iterations of the same policy dispute keeps arising, head to dispute resolution. Come back here if that doesn't work. Durova 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus isn't that what's there is OK - it's that there has not been the level of policy violation that Benjiboi is claiming, which is trying to remove all critical material whatsoever about the article's subject and replace it with the subjects own words. This happened when Benjiboi attempted to unilaterally replace with their own version a section on the article that had been extensively discussed and a consensus reached. Where there are possible cases of violation this is under discussion on the talk page with the other editors. Benjiboi is even evasive about how policy is allegedly being violated and in a couple of cases which sources are violating, which makes referral by anyone else to RSN or BLPN troublesome because we're not even certain what we're referring. There are now sockpuppet and harassment allegations being made by this user to boot. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I should have been more clear. The dozens of times when I mention that the blogs should be removed, I should have said the blogs that you keep reinserting should be removed. The bullying tactics violate civility policies but I'm immune to those as you can see. The sock algations should more rightfully be meatpuppet allegations as it's painfully obvious off-site canvassing is at play. It's good though as it helps identify eveyone involved and perhaps how that consensus evolved post-protest that you helped on. I've rewritten dozens of articles in this exact fashion to bring them in line with sourcing and neutrality policies and this is a first for me to have someone boldly declaring they wouldn't comply with BLP unless an admin made them. Stunning really. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You have repeatedly failed do explain why sources like indymedia are not acceptable though. ZoeL (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You are again mistaken, above I wrote - but I'll paste it here just to again be clear - it is an open publishing site while WP:RS requires an established mechanism for fact-checking and accuracy, which these sites do not have. Completely innappropriate for a BLP. Hopefully that will put that one to rest. -- Banjeboi 12:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to edit protected page per WP:BLP

Banjeboi has provided a list of BLP problems here. Since BLP issues are a legitimate exception to m:The Wrong Version, would an administrator please review the list and edit the page accordingly? I have checked out the article's sources and agree the list has merit, and David Shankbone has also posted to article talk in full agreement with Banjeboi. This negative information should remain off the page until/unless better sourcing is forthcoming and/or a consensus of uninvolved editors agrees to reinstate it. Thanks, Durova 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please hold off until other parties have had a chance to respond in detail and check your facts more thoroughly - David Shankbone has not posted to talk at all since this was put up and some of the claims made there are random at best, such as casting doubt on the credibility of documents published on the official site of an organisation they refer to. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon checking, there is actually already an admin, Rd232, who has recently come in and is actively (In the last 24 hours) involved and who doesn't seem to see the issues that have been presented by Benjiboi as quite so problematic and is trying to facilitate discussion which Benjiboi seems not to want to be involved in. They've started up a new talk section on outstanding issues as they see it (Which is a much shorter list and up for discussion and editing of the article where necessary) but Benjiboi has also not contributed to that section. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Rd232 pointed out WP:SYNTH violation and (possibly unintentional) misrepresentation of sources. His/her sole contribution to the page is here. Durova 05:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes - this is somewhat narrower in scope than Benjiboi's claims and appropriate adjustments to the wording of the article have already been proposed. We can't do this with Benjiboi - they do not want discussion. (See talk page archives, but there's a lot of it) ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP really isn't a subject where please hold off until... carries weight. If and when uninvolved consensus agrees that adequate sourcing has been supplied, the statements may be reinstated. Durova 04:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

However, one editor making repeated claims of POV/BLP/RS issues that they will not enter into discussion, not take to RSN/BLPN and that have not had any agreement from successive rounds of new editors being involved should not be grounds for immediately removing all negative material about the subject from the article without first carefully examining the evidence. This is just being used to push one particular editors view on the subject. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my mistake, it did end up on BLPN - I'd thought that discussion had taken place elsewhere. My mistake. Nothing came of it though - I guess some of the new editors we got were from there but none seems to support Benjiboi's view to any extent. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Which I have already done so, and agreed with. Zoe, I've read both the talk page and the article in full and there are basically two policy-compliant solutions: seek an administrator's edit to the protected page, or file a request for arbitration. This has already been through formal dispute resolution, and we take our BLP policy very seriously at this site. This is, as I have already assured you, not an attempt to keep everything negative off the page forever. Please be reasonable. Durova 05:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussing changes on the talk page and then seeking an edit based on consensus - be that an admit edit to a protected page or otherwise - is basically exactly what I'm after and what most of the editors involved have been after since the start of this whole thing. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, withdrawing the request in good faith. Durova 07:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I'm on the fence about the National Student Union stuff but the rest has got to go. And this is all accompanied again with claims that I'm not willing to discuss yet here I am again, discussing. And Zoe O'Connell et al will simply argue more about how an admin last year sided with their consensus and really blogs are fine, etc. ugh. So the negative material stays until we get enough people who are willing to engage however many Zoe's appear? This is the same odd behaviours in effect on the article. I'm not bothered if we report Bindel kicks puppies if it's true but we have to stick with reliable sourcing and all our other policies. < boggles > this is an uphill issue here. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Zoeoconnnell's earlier statement of intent to reinsert the material as soon as the protection is lifted does not seem promising. But at this point there will certainly be people watching the page. Using material from blogs for the edits being discussed is such a clear BLP violation that any repeat of it should lead to blocking. DGG (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

benshoemen at Susan Boyle

A new account called benshoemen (talk · contribs) is adding nonsensical spamcruft to Susan Boyle. The account hasn't been warned enough to take it to AIV, but the edits mention something called "s c h u m i n w e b" (spaces inserted to get around an automated filter), which I remember just enough about to think that somebody will probably recognize this as a quacker, so I bring it here. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly an IP who's been stalking SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) ? -- Banjeboi 02:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned.--chaser - t 02:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Well, that warning will probably serve to give the editor a good laugh, if nothing else. Looie496 (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen Benjiboi's posting when I posted below him or understood the full nature of the situation. I've now blocked indef. Cheers.--chaser - t 02:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Support block. Cirt (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nawlinwiki and Abuse Filter

For those who didn't find themselves blocked from editing just now, NawlinWiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has once again messed up an Abuse Filter and inadvertently caused widespread damage to innocent users. Fortunately this time nobody was de-autoconfirmed, but every editor for a period of three minutes just now found themselves temporarily unable to make any edits. This is the third time since the filter was activated NawlinWiki has caused this sort of damage; the first on March 19, where a filter de-autoconfirmed somewhere around 200 users; the second on March 27, whereupon User:Werdna issued NawlinWiki a stern warning to be more careful in the future.

AbuseFilter is a highly dangerous tool that (obviously) has the capacity to stop all edits to the project. NawlinWiki has been asked to test filters using the components provided in the software before making them live, and has either failed to do so or done a poor job of it. This is the third such instance of that mistake that has led to severe problems. If NawlinWiki is going to continue to make problems like this with the filter, his access to the tool needs to be removed. I am more than ready to remove that access myself right now. The only reason I haven't is because such a removal would undoubtedly end up here anyway, so let's get the drama out of the way now so we can get things done. Hersfold 02:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How can we not have a vetting process for new abuse filters? RxS (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I caught the mistake myself (after a minute or less, not 3 minutes). I thought I had tested it. I'm willing to self-impose a month-long ban on myself from editing the abuse filter and will promise not to do *anything* there without testing in the future. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly did you do to test it? Hersfold 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Werdna's prescription at the end of the above-cited warning was "requiring your filters be reviewed by other users or discussing your write access to the abuse filter." Can we pursue the former with an eye toward avoiding the latter? I'm assuming testing didn't include review by other users, but I'd like to hear from NawlinWiki about what they did first.--chaser - t 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You probably have a unique perspective on this, do you think we could use some sort of approval or vetting process? RxS (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I tested this change against the edits from the General Tojo sock User:Sea Reen, and it picked up the offending edits but not the two dummy edits Sea Reen made to his user and user talk pages. That indicated to me that it wasn't catching all edits -- but obviously, I now realize, I should have tested it without a username specified (to check it against all recent edits). That, and the fact that I was adding an entry to an existing filter rather than creating a new one. What I wanted to do is now in the separate filter 146 in log only mode and seems to be OK so far. All that said, I do understand the need for a consequence, and I'm certainly willing to have my filter edits reviewed before making them. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

NawlinWiki, do you understand why that failed? I am disturbed that you made essentially the same logical error as you made on the 19th. In either case using the batch testing interface against normal edits — which should be a routine step in filter editing/testing — would have shown that you were matching way too many edits (approximately 40% of all edits in the current case). Dragons flight (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the OR operator | improperly left one side of the entry as universal. And yes, as I said above, I do understand that any future change (even to an existing filter that's been working properly) must be batchtested against recent edits by all users. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• You should never be testing a filter on Disallow/Warn, or any other setting. Change the filter and set it to log only. Check for bad hits. If all is well, then turn back on warnings, or disallow, or whatever. Werdna mentioned this as well. There is really no excuse not to test filters before turning them on. Prodego 04:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why should it take three times for you to realize that? Three times is enough. I support removal of the tools. Frankly, we should demand that everybody go through Misplaced Pages:Abuse filter/Requested and give it a period of time for review. I doubt there's anything so urgent that having another pair of eyes won't help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should make that like a BRFA process, where even members of BAG need to get approval of their bots by others. Seeing that we have some pretty experienced AF editors already, that would probably allow to reduce such mistakes by all editors, not only NawlinWiki. SoWhy 10:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So, can we consider this an official, last warning for NawlinWiki? --Conti|✉ 13:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes, in addition to the voluntary 30 day self-imposed ban. --–xeno 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, this is the third time? And this is the same person who repeatedly broke the title blacklist, stopping all page creation and moving? NawlinWiki, your personal vendetta against Grawp is not as important as everyone else's ability to actually edit the fricking encyclopedia. Please stop messing with things. Gurch (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Personal vendetta against Grawp??? Every admin should have a 'personal vendetta' against blatant vandals, for pity's sake! Does anyone propose that Grawp is a good-faith editor? I applaud the constant hard work that Nawlinwiki does to protect and improve the encyclopedia, and I see more than adequate contrition and intent to avoid any future mistakes. Enough of this. My heartfelt congratulations to those who have never, ever made a mistake in using ill-documented software. Edison (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is that NawlinWiki takes any bout of page-move vandalism personally, which results in him doing things to stop it without considering how they would impact non-vandal editors. --Carnildo (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• More generally, we do need a vetting process. Are the people working on these more or less the same people who work on bots? DGG (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• The ability to edit and create abuse filters is one that administrators can give to themselves. Nawlinwiki is a very clear example of why that's a bad idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

RedRose333 (Part III)

RedRose333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (also see Part I and Part II!)

In the light of and I renew this case and hope my third attempt will lead to something constructive, after the the first one was marked as resolved without doing anything and the second one was largely ignored. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 05:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No attempt at talk page discussion in six months is enough for me. Clearly this user is avoiding discussions and listening to others. If nothing happens following Rivertorch's advice, I would suggest an indefinite block (indefinite, not infinite, being the key term) until the user acknowledges that this is a collaborative project and they cannot just ignore other people and do what they want. This isn't the first user like that and it won't be the last. Harsh but if they will not even put forth the effort to request to be unblocked, I say we move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a real wonder that it lasted that long. The drama began right after they began editing in April 2008 and they got blocked twice in July 2008. As mentioned before, we had a somewhat similiar case with Zonly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), that got resolved when they were contacted in their own language. I don't know CU policy too well, but if possible just have a look where they're from. Maybe it's really an issue of language. You don't need to speak fluent English to edit genre fields in musical infoboxes... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 08:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The user seemed fine when they last communicated. The last comment, though, seems to be of the passive-aggressive sort we are seeing right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Presence

User:Stevertigo has moved Presence to Presence (Led Zeppelin album) despite there being a clear cut consensus on the Talk page to let the Led Zeppelin album stay as Presence. MegX (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just from a look at the disambig page,there are a lot of things that use the term presence. Under the circumstances, it makes sense to change the title to something more specific. HalfShadow 05:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus vote was to keep it the Led Zeppelin album. On wikipedia we work by consenssus. MegX (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This needs fixing ASAP. Presence is currently BLANK and neither Presence or Presence (Led Zeppelin album) has a link to Presence (disambiguation) - what a complete mess. Exxolon (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a clear cut consensus to keep Presence the Led Zeppelin album, see . User:Stevertigo moved it without taking it either through Requested Moves or leaving a message on the Talk page for discussion. MegX (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A consensus of LZ fans? It's not that this album is that important with its less than 1,000 views a day - even in LZ terms it's at the bottom line, only short above Coda (yeah, it has the better cover). Re-open the vote and let's see what happens. I'd say move the DAB page there. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 05:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The vote was held for 7 days and legitimately done and open. I hardly would believe this was c losed for only for LZ fans. There seems an effort by some editors such as the recent Queen and Pink Floyd tour AfDs, to attack classic rock bands. MegX (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether the album is kept at the original page or not is secondary at this point. We currently have a blank page and no links to disambiguation anywhere. Fix that FIRST, then worry about which page will eventually go where. Exxolon (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a consensus vote legitimately held isn't good enough for some editors. I really fear for the future of wikipedia. It seems a minority are trying to bully the majority into their line of thinking. MegX (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is: Who knew of this vote? Only the people that have the page on their watchlist, plus some organised at WP:LZ? Sorry, but if I think of "presence" the LZ album is not the first thing that comes to mind - and I have this album. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 05:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It was listed on the Requested Moves page and the Presence article and Talk page and advertised as such for 7 days. What did you want, the move advertised on your perosnal Talk page? Let's be reasonable here. It followed correct procedure. MegX (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved the original page back into its place. Having a blank page was silly, and having a redirect was also silly - either have an article there, or have the dab page there. Viridae 05:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. MegX (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion started

See Talk:Presence#Move_Discussion. Exxolon (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I will comment there. -Stevertigo 06:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Someone should have a look at this edit and edit summary. Deal with as needed. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ 06:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a new WP:SPA created by an editor claiming to be Charlie Pierce for purposes of expanding his own article, which he did by copying text (he claims) from his own website. But it is without copyright license grant or sourcing, and in vita / byline form rather than encyclopedic. When reverted he got belligerent and stubbified the article. He's hostile and clearly upset, but I don't see the reaction as a legal threat despite using the words "defamatory and libelous". Anyone at his level (experienced columnist in New York Times, Boston Globe, etc.) is most likely a solid person who would work in good faith if only we explained what good faith is. Perhaps someone patient can engage him and explain how Misplaced Pages works regarding sourcing and COI, encourage him to point out any inaccuracies or other problems on the talk page, and maybe even work through how the article could be improved and expanded. I'll be happy to help out if we can get things calm and on track. Wikidemon (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I left the user a note about WP:COI. Apparently it wasn't big enough since someone else has since left half a page on the issue. lol - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, he sent me an off-wiki email demanding the article be deleted. OTRS? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ 08:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Allstarecho (talk · contribs) if you are in contact with this individual already you could suggest the person contact OTRS with their concerns. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm in contact with someone.. he emailed me.. but there's no proof that he is the actual subject of the article. I replied to his off-wiki email about our policies on blanking pages, verifiable 3rd party sources, BLP, etc. and informed him that I have removed the line about him being Roman Catholic (since that seems to be the cruxt of his anger) as it was unsourced. I also encouraged him to use the article's talk page. And of course the final option, I pointed him to WP:OTRS. So consider this closed. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ 09:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's really Charlie Pierce, then I'm the mayor of Bangor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Above, the impression is given that Mainsouth used something like the expression "defamatory or (potentially) libellous". However, (s)he was only quoting the entry by Barry m in the very first entry at User talk:Mainsouth, so based on that it is very silly to suggest a "possible legal threat"! - Hordaland (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Stlunatic071 is going repeatedly against WP:proper names

Hi, I don't know if this ist the right place to ask, but User:Stlunatic071 insists on changing the country of birth of the football players Edin Džeko and Vedad Ibišević to Bosnia and Herzegovina (which didn't exist at the time their birth) instead of SFR Yugoslavia. This is against WP:Proper names and consensus of WP:FOOTY (for example here). Nobody denies that they are Bosnian now, but even after explaining this to him (by me and other editors) he insists on his point of view , . Can anyone tell me what to do in this case? --Jaellee (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell him about Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC and that he doesn't stop, he'll find himself blocked because people have been disputing much more stupid points in that region for much too long? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nasal irrigation

For a long time there has been a slow edit war between Grockl (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) and everybody else. Grockl is a SPA pushing the POV that pulsating nasal irrigation is wonderfully beneficial and all other methods of nasal irrigation are essentially inefficient. For important further information on Grockl see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Grockl/Archive and . So far I have seen Grockl as the main problem. Since I alerted WikiProject Medicine and the COI noticeboard, Grockl has been slightly less obnoxious.

Grockl's main opponent is static IP 67.170.1.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a Comcast user from Mt Vernon, WA, with a history of outing Grockl as a certain medical doctor who lives in the same large city as Grockl and is known for a brand of pulsating irrigation devices.

Now there has been an escalation due to unacceptable posts by 71.227.174.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a Comcast user from Seattle (60 miles from Mt Vernon). Per WP:DUCK this is the same user as the Mt Vernon IP.

• Extreme personal attack by 71.227.174.7 against Grockl.
• Predictable response by Grockl.

In addition to any immediate actions, I think an experienced admin should watchlist Nasal irrigation and User talk:Grockl. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is no admin interested in dealing with the IP that left "Hi I'm Grockl, a massive homosexual." on Grockl's user page? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Npovshark's persistent tendentious editing on Europe

Europe has been for a long time a stable article in which editors have worked by tiny increments to improve the sections on history, economic history, maps, and so on. It is amongst the top 200 most consulted articles on this encyclopedia. Occasionally editors have disputed border or transcontinental countries, but ambiguities because of possible differences in definitions have been carefully sourced, discussed and annotated. Npovshark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a recently arrived editor, whose main previous contributions have been to British National Front and Nazi Germany and their talk pages, arrived at the talk page of Europe with a drama-mongering complaint about the article . He since withdrew this unsourceable comment about religion and European identity. Over four days he has tendentiously disputed the principal map, which he has attempted to delete a number of times; the map, overlaid with links to states and seas, was carefully prepared by User:Ssolbergj over an extended of period of time, having obtained consensus. Npovshark has not respected etiquette on the talk pages and has not provided sources when requested. I realize that he is inexperienced.

However, this is no excuse for making a huge undiscussed change to a stable article which can be seen in the following recent diff , where, incorrectly claiming consensus, he completely rewrote the lede, which has been constant for years. In this change he has unilaterally created a separate status for various states mentioned in the main article, justified in the lede "because of differences between the populations in terms of historical, political, cultural and legal and philosophical traditions." The states recategorized in the main article are Azerbaijan, Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey. (No citation has been provided for what seems to be a very clearly expressed WP:POV.) I reverted this edit, which he restored with a personal attack in the edit summary. Normally people tinker with one or two words in the lede, but they do not make wholesale changes of this type, falsely claiming consensus. I hope this highly disruptive editor, who is edit warring with false claims of consensus on a central WP article, can be strongly cautioned and blocked if necessary. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that this problem, hopefully now a non-problem, can be solved by adding more sourced scholarly material to the article. The historical evolution of the term "Europe" as a continent from antiquity to the modern age of plate tectonics has been extremely well chronicled in the academic literature. Mathsci (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked anon back with new IP

81.132.184.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was blocked as 86.143.154.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see AN/I) and 81.158.54.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has returned and resumed vandalising. Neither block has expired as far as I know. Orpheus (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. TNXMan 16:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Moorishbrooklyninteligence

Despite numerous warnings (User talk:Moorishbrooklyninteligence) this editor insists on repeatedly adding the same pair of inappropriate links to numerous pages Special:Contributions/Moorishbrooklyninteligence. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Linkspam like this can be reported to WP:AIV, which usually gets quicker action. I've filed a report there; you shouldn't need to do anything more this time. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

151.49.224.0/20

I'm bringing this here because I can't decide whether a small range-block or article semi-protection is more appropriate. Various IPs in 151.49.224.0/20 have been inserting information that violates WP:Record charts and WP:BADCHARTS into articles related to the group 30 Seconds to Mars. Neon White and I have both reverted the edits, and I have placed talk page warnings on 151.49.235.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 151.49.233.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 151.49.232.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's impossible to tell if the warnings are being ignored or not heard, but the IPs are simply reverting any changes that remove the information.

Affected articles are:

• 30 Seconds to Mars discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A Beautiful Lie (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Kww(talk) 16:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive sig?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A while ago, there was this conversation about an editor whose signature was disruptive because it was too big. Now, there's an editor whose sig is so small it's almost unreadable: _shoot!. I had to hover my cursor over it to see what it was. A direct request to the editor to fix the problem was turned down -- would someone care to advise the editor to alter the sig so that it can be more easily read? Sigs aren't supposed to make identifying the editor more difficult. The editor is currently standing for admin, so I'd like this to be cleared up before he or she is presented with the mop. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Reads ok for me. --John (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm having no problem reading it – are you using an odd browser or a very small screen? For me, the font size is displaying at the same size as (for example) that in Pedro's sig, which he's used for years without any issues. – iridescent 17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing odd - IE on a laptop. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pedro's sig, that's actually not the case. They're both small, but Law's is a superscript, which is rendered smaller than small regular text. Same with small and subscript. Compare: _shoot! and Pedro :  Chat  Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)At least one admin has a sig that doesn't link anywhere, thus breaching WP:SIG and making it hard for editors to communicate with him. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Duncan: I'm aware of that situation - but at least you can read that sig and know who it is. (Besides, I think the argument in favor there had to do with long precedent. But I would prefer this specific discussion not get sidetracked.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually can't see it (I use the blackscreen gadget), but this as custom sigs do not appear to have to be compatible with Misplaced Pages gadgets that's not all that unusual. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It reads well in Opera 9.64 --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've just checked under Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari, and it seems as if IE is the only browser that has a rendering problem with that size of type -- it looks quite reasonable under the other browsers (so I'm not surprised that a lot of people haven't complained). But since IE is used for about 60% of online activity... Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine and readable in Internet Explorer 7 and 8. seicer | talk | contribs 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree. It does not look good with IE7 under Windows Vista. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you bring this up on ANI? What immediate, administrator action is required? He already replied on his talk page that he'd modify his signature if there was consensus; so far, you are the only one to chime in that it is too small, and thus the complaint revolves solely around you. seicer | talk | contribs 17:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I made my request for admin action in my initial post above: "would someone care to advise the editor to alter the sig so that it can be more easily read?" Every complaint starts with somebody.

Incidentally, why would the editor need a "consensus" to solve a problem brought to their attention that is easily solved by the editor? Unless one thinks that I'm just an asshole complaining for the hell of it, wouldn't a more reasonable response be "Sorry, I wasn't aware of the problem, the sig is of no real importance, so I'll fix it?" Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So, if one person complains, then it must be valid and must be fixed? Fine. I find your "t" and "c" in your signature to be far too small. I demand that you change it. Not doing so will be considered disruptive to the project. seicer | talk | contribs 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that you're just being obstreporous rhetorical and pointy, but if you actually do find the "t" and "c" hard to read, please drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll be glad to adjust them -- although the talk and contributions links aren't nearly as important as the sig, which identifies the editor. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Works fine for me (Safari and Firefox on Mac OS X). I advise you to use a different browser. Tonywalton  17:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I'm using the browser used for 60% of transactions on the web, you can't wave your hands and tell me to get another browser. That's just silly. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that everyone should use a browser other than Internet Explorer, but that isn't a realistic expectation. There's no valid reason to have a signature that's essentially broken in any major browser (though I'm sure that Law was unaware of the issue). —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it is disruptive in any way. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Having a signature that's practically unreadable to a large segment of users isn't disruptive? (As noted above, I'm sure that Law was unaware of this.) —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see it as a big deal. Ikip (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Having a fancy signature definitely isn't a big deal. Maintaining its intended functionality always should come first. —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks ok to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine in all of my usual browsers, but when I load it in Internet Explorer, it's virtually unreadable. —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• It looks a mite small in IE, but not to the point of disruption. You really ought check out Firefox, it's world beyond IE. Unless you can't, for whatever reason. –xeno 18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, as I mentioned above, I have Opera, Chrome, Firefox, Safari and even an old copy of Netscape, but I use IE as my default because it's the browser used by the majority of people, and the one that a casual user of the Internet would be most likely to use. I want to see Misplaced Pages as those people -- our readers (i.e customers) see it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my hopeless plug for an end to custom signatures. Thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Gwen - I love playing around with them, but I think that you are correct - there's really no need for them. All sigs should appear in a standard manner.

I will now mount my horse and tilt at that windmill over there. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I evangelize Firefox to everyone who'll listen, but it irks me when people respond to complaints regarding rendering issues by telling others to make the switch. There's no valid reason for a signature to be difficult to read in any major browser, period. The fault may lie with Microsoft, but the solution is to adjust the signature code.

Note that Law has not yet been advised of the issue, so this should not be interpreted as a criticism of that user. —David Levy 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I normally use Firefox, but I loaded up IE7, where the signature is a bit small, but not disruptively so. At least it links to his userpage; I find users who refuse to link to their user or talk pages to be far more disruptive than those who have small signatures. FWIW, I run my screen mode in 1280X1024 and medium text size in IE7, on a 19" monitor. Horologium (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a 15" LCD with a resolution of 1400x1050, and I'm literally unable to read the signature in Internet Explorer. —David Levy 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

SO let me get this straight, the user said essentially "You're the first to complain, I didn't know there was a problem, if others have a problem, let me know and I will gladly change it without further fuss" and your first inclination is to start a WP:ANI thread and call him disruptive?!? Please, let me use User:Law's own words here: "If it is, i'll change it. I'll be happy to revert back to the the default. I will truly do so. In fact, it may be a problem, so I will bring it to another forum. I don't want to be obtuse about it. Thanks." I've never seen someone brought to ANI for agreeing to fix a problem. Goodness gracious... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I see no evidence that Law is aware of the problem. I'm going to explain it (if no one beats me to it). —David Levy 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

David, Law was informed of this thread at 17.01 UTC today. He does not appear to be currently editing. DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant that I would leave a note on Law's talk page explaining that there is an issue relating specifically to Internet Explorer (which I just did). I see no reason why Law should have to wade trough this questionable thread to be advised of that simple fact. —David Levy 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayron: I'm not going to respond to a synopsis framed in that manner. I simply do not understand why a user, especially one who wants to be an admin, wouldn't accomodate a reasonable request, that's easily done, from another member of the community. After all, a sig is not big thing. It's not like I'm asking the user to change his or her name - it's just typography. Being able to read the editor's sig using the most popular browser on the Internet seems quite reasonable to me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, there's no evidence that Law is aware of the IE issue. —David Levy 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was gonna say about his sig on his RfA, but not due to the letter size matter at all. The sig looks very small to me in my browser (firefox) too, but not unrecognizable "with efforts". The sig only consists of a little bit boldy "black texts" and has no background color nor a frame, so I happened to missed his comments several times (eg. T:TDYK). The sig is blend with texts, so makes his comment inconspicuous indeed. But does the sig breach the policy? Nope--Caspian blue 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC

Oh, in IE 7 (I tested it) and IE 8, the sig looks much smaller. The complaint seems legitimate now.--Caspian blue 19:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me. –Juliancolton |  18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How many people are going to write that (without elaboration)? Are you using Internet Explorer? —David Levy 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• That "example" picture being used is misleading because signatures always appear next to a timestamp which makes them stand out. Nevertheless, I would advise Law to embiggen his sig a bit, just to help those of us who are still using IE, for whatever reason. –xeno 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed to an image showing an example from the editor's talk page. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, still would make one squint I suppose. –xeno 19:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that it is a perfectly cromulent signature? AniMate 18:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's incredible how well-developed our coverage on The Simpsons is... I did not know they popularized the word embiggen! Cromulent, no, not quite, given the new IE8 example which is even worse. –xeno 19:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks mine to fe. HalfShadow 18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can only read "Half" of HalfShadow's. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I also find the signature slightly hard to read -- I'm using Firefox on Linux with the DejaVu fonts as the characters run into each other slightly -- especially the a and the w of "law". I also would find it easier if the font size were larger. ] 18:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks ok to me, no problems reading it. We can't fault the user for anyone's own bad eyes/age/computer issues. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Again, the signature looks fine to most of us not using Internet Explorer. Have you viewed the IE8 screen capture?

2. Indeed, we shouldn't fault the user (as there is no evidence that Law is aware of the IE issue). —David Levy 19:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• It looks fine to me, but I think accessibility trumps taste issues. I've worked in the third world, and I have absolutely no room for dismissal of people with behind-the-times computers. The people most in need of Misplaced Pages have the shittiest browsers. Write for them. -GTBacchus 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I can't understand why anyone would regard the ability to have a fancy signature as more important than other users' ability to read it. —David Levy 19:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

↑What he said! And ↑↑him too! DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

At least on Firefox, you can adjust the standard text size. The relative size of super- and subscripts might depend on the standard font. Maybe changing the standard font is the best idea in some cases, because all super- and subscripts would be affected, not just those used in Misplaced Pages signatures. (There are some sigs on WP that are really hard to read, but super- and subscripts is a standard functionality in all browsers that should result in readable letters.) --Cs32en (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. All this fretting over something that's just so meh. Seriously. As far as I'm concerned, there are several more-distracting sigs in this thread alone. —Travis 20:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Law's signature isn't distracting; it's difficult or impossible for many users to read. —David Levy 20:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

From User talk:Law

I apologize for being obtuse and firefox-centric. I'm really sorry that my sig cause any problems. I've gone back to the default. Law (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I learned a couple of technical terms from this case: embiggen (above) and littlefy (here). :D —Travis 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheese...I hope my sig's ok ... I would hate for there to be a "technical" reason for opposing me in RfA (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chronic IP vandal on Name-dropping

Beginning about a quarter of a year ago around January 2008, an anon IP editor has repeatedly inserted 2 names into the article which are non-notable, harrassing and attack edits. The article has been protected numerous times but everytime the protection is lifted, he keeps coming back and inserts the same names.

The IP ranges looking at the history are 58.178.128.0/17, 58.179.128.0/17, 210.50.192.0/17, 211.26.224.0/19, 211.27.0.0/16, 202.138.0.0/16, and 203.134.128.0/17. I tried to figure out the ranges, if i'm wrong on some of them, please correct me. All IP's trace back to Primus Telecom in Australia. Also the article has been semi-protected for another month. Since all these ranges have been virtually one in the same person, should the article continue to be protected, or keep the protection and block the ranges? Looking for input on this one. Momusufan (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Whomever it is adding the same two names also makes requests for the article to be unprotected for the specific addition of those names so it's not as if the users aren't savvy to some extent. I'd say it's something for the abuse filter given content never changes. treelo _radda 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw that unprotect request, Chaser made a good call denying that request. Never thought about making an abuse filter out of that. That sounds like a good idea, someone should consider making a filter to stop the additions of those two names. Momusufan (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It also might be worthwhile going through the IP addresses and hitting them with {{isp}} using both arguments- I believe that and related templates serve as a much better deterrent than warnings and blocks alone since it suggests something beyond blocking (hint, hint). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that right now. :) Momusufan (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still open to somebody creating a filter to stop this vandalism. I doubt when the protection ends, it will stop completely. He will just keep doing it again and also make those frivlous unprotect requests. Momusufan (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Felon's mailing address

A new WP:SPA has twice posted the prison mailing address of Bernie Ward, a well-known radio personality now serving time over a child pornography conviction, in Ward's BLP article. The latest addition includes a claim that Ward "would like for his mailing address to be public". I reverted and asked them not to re-post until we've decided whether it is appropriate. I'm concerned that this is a technical violation of privacy, and might invite letter that would cause consternation for Ward or for the prison. However, since it is a prison, privacy and mail work differently than for typical people. So our options go anywhere from tolerating it, saying it's okay but not right for the article, all the way to oversighting the article history to remove the address. Any thoughts? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be allowed. It's either a violation of privacy or its a convicted child pornographer trying to use wikipedia as a way to get in touch with people on the outside. Either way, no way.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the address is for the federal prison's P.O. box, which is certainly not as bad as a private residence. However, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I would remove it. At best, the article could mention the name of the prison where he is incarcerated. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia- it's not a means for publishing contact details, as the only logical purpose of such details being published here is for him to do business. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(addendum) And as to oversighting, might as well send a request off anyway; it's a BLP, and it's very logical to consider these details potentially dangerous, if not to the subject, then to the mail screeners at the prison. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oversight Request sent. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2

I request that Ludwigs2 and his proxies--if any--be banned permanently from editing Dignity.

Ludwigs2 has made many edits to Dignity since November 2008. His edits have consisted of moving sentences, rearranging paragraphs, deleting text, and composing an introduction. At this point, all that remains of his edits are some deletions and the introduction. Ludwigs2 has never contributed any referenced information to Dignity. I object to the introduction by Ludwigs2 because I find it inaccurate, unreferenced, sophistical, and incoherent. I object to his deletions because I find them frivolous.

I find that any discussion with Ludwigs2 is futile. He does not care if he is disruptive. Misplaced Pages has blocked Ludwigs2 five times for disruptive editing (See .).

Ludwigs2 made the following statement at NPOV.

Ludwigs2’s statement tells me—burdened as I am by strict rationality—that he is too highly evolved to be editing a simple article like Dignity. His “real rationality,” with its indifference to fact, reason, references, and good writing, is not a good fit for such an ordinary and scholarly subject.

22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A few points: 1) This is a content dispute. For content disputes we have WP:DR (which isn't particularly good), not ANI. 2) After a quick glance at the talk page and the reverts it seems to me that you are at least as wrong as Ludwigs2 in the content dispute. 3) When you report someone to ANI, you are supposed to notify them. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

KingdomofAngevin

This KingdomofAngevin (talk · contribs) is spamming user talk pages (about twenty so far) with the message:

'New Kingdom Project

Hello, I've enjoyed your comments, and would be delighted if you'd contact me about a new nation project (a constitutional monarchy) we are working on. Our address is thekingdomofangevin@yahoo.com. Your advice could be quite helpful.

Cheers!

KingdomofAngevin (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that covered by any rules? Can I treat it as vandalism or must I assume good faith? - Pointillist (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it look like WP:SPAM to anybody? I think so. Momusufan (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree ... all of his edits have been to spamvertise/promote this virtual nation. Blocked indef. Blueboy96 22:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses, much appreciated. - Pointillist (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tycoon24

Yesterday, Tycoon24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for edit warring and 3RR on the article Tea Party protests, specifically for at least five insertions of the turnout estimates provided by a partisan source, Pajamas TV. The inclusion of this data has been repeatedly removed by multiple editors. After his block expired today, he immediately returned to the article. His first edit was to insert a section with an edit summary that clearly showed his particular POV (), and his second edit was to insert the Pajamas TV turnout information yet again (). As yesterday, I will be taking no admin action as I was involved in editing the article, so am bringing this here for others to review. Black Kite 22:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I hadn't realized "multiple users" were concerned over the legitimacy of Pajamas TV until now. Also - do you have a real reference to "the second" or "first" issue you are referring to? I in no way showed my particular POV in any edit I have added to the Misplaced Pages page that you are referring to. Both of your links reference the same lone issue regarding Pajamas TV. If what you mean by my POV edit having regards to Ron Paul, how is that my point of view? Please go and read through the Ron Paul Elections Misplaced Pages page and you will see that all information I got was from there. So I believe you are stretching a bit on the POV issue. The other thing, regarding Pajamas TV, please read the for the Tax Day Protests. You will see my comment under the section for Pajamas Media. There are only three comments, so it would have been impossible for me to know or verify that "multiple users" actually disagree with the source. According to the Talk Page, only one dislikes the source while myself and another user agree that it is a valid source. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pajamas TV data has been removed by at least three editors, caveats attached by others and had "verify" maintenance tags place on it by yet another, but you have reverted back to your preferred version every time - given that, I would have thought it was obvious that multiple people disagree that it is a reliable source. As for your first edit, the edit summary mentioned "today's wasteful spending", which is why I referred to it as POV. Black Kite 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added to the discussion page my opinion on the matter. For now we can leave the "estimating crowd numbers" to fivethirtyeight.com, which is a source also admitting to doing exactly what PJTV is doing - estimating crowd sizes. Seems like a double standard to accept one source but not the other in this case. I know I'm not alone in this thinking either, but if the Misplaced Pages Power seems to reside in users with partisan opinion against PJTV, then so be it for now. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that fivethirtyeight.com is only an estimate as well, but at least it links to local reliable sources giving their estimates. PJTV not only has come up before in numerous discussions about whether it is reliable, but it also has a partisan interest in the events, and its turnout estimates are based on aggregating figures from their own reporters who in many cases were participants in the events themselves. When these issues are considered, it should be fairly clear why such figures should not be quoted as reliable. Black Kite 00:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mhazard9 - possible disruptive editor?

Mhazard9 (talk · contribs) This user has recently made a number of edits to two articles I watch, Franz Boas and Cultural Relativism. The edit summary always indicates that the intention is to "clean up" language, but all I see are edits that make the language more obscure or confusing, unclear or imprecise. I checked the user history and saw that s/he had done the same thing at the article on code-switching. Then I read the user's talk page and saw that a couple of other editors have expressed concern regarding other pages. All of this leads me to suspect that this is a classic disruptive editor; hard to tell, at first, because a pattern emerges over a range of articles. But I admit this is a very subjective judgment of mine, and, while I strongly believe in eliminating disruptive editors, I also know that many are, quite rightly, cautious about applying this label to editors. Honestly, maybe this person is acting in good faith. But it seems to me to be a puddle of poor prose slowly spreading across varous articles. I'd appreciate it if other editors checked out this user, comparing his/her edits across the range of articles s/he edits, and tell me whether or not my concerns are ill-or well-founded — and keep an eye on him/her for a while, or suggest a course of action ... Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified Mhazard9 about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Keystoke logging

Anonymous IP's constantly adding spamlinks for their warez to Keystroke logging. Use of widely different IP ranges makes action against the spammers tricky. Please semi-protect the article. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Added to spam blacklist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Math Champion

• Math Champion (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cool piplup2 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PakoPenguin (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The user Math Champion, and his quacking sockpuppet, Cool pipup2, appear on the surface to be semi-constructive editors, but in reality, MC appears, from studying the contributions, to be a vandal-only account. This account, as well as the sockpuppet, have vandalized several user pages, and, at one point, attempted to out PakoPenguin a user that he or she has been harassing. At least that is what it appears on the surface to be. Pako could be a sock of MC, based on the edit history of the userpage, or even a meatpuppet. Either way, the vandalizing needs to stop, and the blatant sock needs to be blocked, as it appears he was using it to vandalize other user pages when his other account was told to stop. Opinions?— Dædαlus 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! My take on Math Champion is that he is using Misplaced Pages solely as a playground. I do not know if this is squarely vandalism, but if we do not have a policy for such hyper-trivial use of Misplaced Pages we should. I am for banning, on the face of it, but look forward to other views. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified Math Champion about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Employee Free Choice Act semi-protect request

Would an admin kindly put a semi-protect, say for a week or so, on Employee Free Choice Act. Disruptive edit warring from several IPs all in Milwaukee, Wisconsin ( 129.89.24.99 , 129.89.24.98 , 173.89.48.219 , 129.89.32.101 ) . Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy failure / Reword Template / Reword Header

I've just had to notify two editors about the threads about them here as the creators of the threads (Slrubenstein & Daedalus969) failed to do so (and yes I will be notifying both editors about THIS thread immediately after posting it). I think we need to upgrade the language/policy on this.

Currently Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader (which is the boilerplate text at the top of this page for anyone who is not aware) says "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use {{subst:ani}} to do so)." - needs something like "If you are posting about another user on this page, you must use {{subst:ani}} to notify them if they have not already been notified unless there is a compelling reason not to."

Template:Noticeboard key (which is the boilerplate text that appears above the editing window when you attempt to edit this page for anyone who is not aware) does not have any relevant warning/suggestion - needs "If you are posting about a user on this page, you must use {{subst:ani}} to notify them if they have not already been notified unless there is a compelling reason no to." - for some reason this page is fully protected so this will require unprotection or an admin to edit.

Anything else just isn't cricket. Exxolon (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Exxolon. DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards