Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NE Ent (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 4 June 2012 (→Possible SockPuppet of User:SonoraEnergyGroup evading block - User:Sonora Energy and User:SEGH CFE 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Independent review of Xenos2008's block and ultimatum

Moved back to original thread on WP:AN. – Fut.Perf. ☼13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Oversight needed, erase personal information

At Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council, please make the following personal information invisible to non-admins:

• Revision as of 20:24, May 28, 2012, 209.6.69.227
• Revision as of 03:14, May 28, 2012, 209.6.69.227

And my own removal:

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Drawing further attention to it is not the best option. If it were me, I would take it to a trusted admin, behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're at the wrong place, bud. File an oversight request via email pbp 03:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack, don't be a fool. Binksternet is not a "bud" and he knows this shit well enough. Bink, I took care of it; please check to see if I got the right ones. And leave a note for the IP, if you haven't already, that this can't be done and will lead to a block for outing. Bugs, you're right, but we all know ANI is probably the quickest way. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies. Your quick response gladdened me. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't know that. I've found using the oversight form to be very quick, and seeing as you're not on the list I'm wondering what the basis of your opinion is? Nobody Ent 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet is asking to Censor information that proves Binksternet provides FALSE information. The information Binksternet removed was with regard to a FAKE newspaper that B asserted was "(Credibility check okay on The Rochester Citizen news. Replace ALEC blog response with WaPo brief summary. Adding Cronon refs and text.) " I have no objection to personal information being removed, once it is agreed that it IS personal information. HOWEVER, information that the Rochester Citizen is in fact NOT a newspaper, but someone's personal attack blog run out of their attic, and thus cannot be used as a WP:RS involved proof, which is ample, that it is NOT a newspaper. I was not "outing" a WP editor, and logically I was only "outing" a person if everything that proves it is NOT a newspaper is accepted as fact. You cannot "out" a WP:RS newspaper. Everything that is being removed was information about an alleged newspaper. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Baloney. I am simply trying to clean up after you. You were putting personal information onto the talk page including the address where someone lives. This is not allowed, so don't do it again. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Information" doesn't need to include address and number of bedrooms. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Revdel'ed. Nothing to see here. --Rschen7754 04:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)}}  New request added, but not for oversight, at 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

The fake NEWSPAPER lists its address and that is what was posted. It is not an office, it is not an apartment (which might have a business in it), it does not have any separate buildings, it is a modest single-family home, and zoned RESIDENTIAL, meaning it could not be anything bigger than a home office (and isn't big enough to likely qualify even for tax purposes as such), and certainly could not have any number of actual reporters coming in and out all day. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)  note timestamp. notation added by Ohiostandard.

WP:SELFSOURCE. Also deleted was proof that the "stories" the fake newspaper was reporting on were in fact the editor reporting on his own (usually not too successful, but you obviously couldn't tell from the Rochester Citizen) protests. To prove WP:SELFSOURCE, and therefore not WP:RS, the address of the Rochester Citizen, OR the name of the editor is needed. Sorry, but you can't get to WP:SELFSOURCE without identifying a "self", and doing a match. The identical match between the "self", the guy organizing these protests and the fake "source", the Rochester Citizen, is essential. Welcome the input of an oversighter to clarify how to get essential information out. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)  note timestamp. notation added by Ohiostandard.

Address is the address of the Rochester Citizen, and on the website of that same blog you allege is a newspaper. The fact that it is a residential area that does not allow businesses, including newspapers, and that it is the host site of activism that you allege it is objectively and with editorial oversight (in a newspaper of one) reporting on as a WP:RS merely proves that it is not a WP:RS.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a line between evaluating the reliability of a source and conducting aggressively inappropriate opposition research. You crossed that line several miles ago. MastCell  05:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the address of the "Rochester Citizen" is a private residence, then it (the Rochester Citizen) is not a reliable source unless the article is written by a recognized expert in the field, regardless of whether it is also the address of an editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the newspaper is indeed being run by a single person from their house, then posting the address here is utterly inappropriate. If posting the address is appropriate, that means it's a legitmate business, Q.E.D. You can't have it both ways. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A business being legitimate does not necessarily qualify it as a reliable source. Meanwhile, if the blog page stated its street address, it could be fair game. But it appears that it does not, and that the IP went fishing for it, which is not quite the same thing. As the street address was an individual's home rather than an office building, it's not appropriate to be posting it here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that "legitimate" is being used to mean different things. The Rochester Citizen is put forward as a significant newspaper by both the person that it is and the WP editors warring to get it used as a WP:RS. It is the name of a blog, but of a blog that claims NOT to be a blog, but a newspaper. Legitimate newspaper, no, legitimate corporate shell for the blog, with a published corporate address and phone that just happen to also be the address and phone of the unnamed blogger, yes. Posting of the address is appropriate because the address is the address that is SELF-identified as the address of a newspaper. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Where on the guy's website does he give his address? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-listed on the Rochester Citizen page is the address of the Rochester Citizen http://therochestercitizen.com/index0.htm?twindow=YellowPage&smenu=83&mad=No&sname=target_yellowpage.asp , the address, publicly posted on the website in question, that was posted on WP. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, SELF-listed (not a bot collecting addresses), since it is a membership organization, is the listing on the Rochester Regional Chamber of Commerce site ] enter "The Rochester Citizen" not Rochester Citizen. We are still talking about what an alleged business lists as the address of the business, and publicly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC). Also, comment properly indented by Ohiostandard.  note timestamp of post. notation added by Ohiostandard.

• New request: Three editors besides myself have commented about how hard the ALEC talk page is to follow. That's due almost entirely to our IP 209.x friend's apparent contempt for talk page norms, as documented in a section of that page. (link/snapshot) As long as this is here, I'd like to ask if someone would have a friendly chat with 209.6.69.227? There's really no reason he should be permitted to keep interfering with everyone else's ability to easily communicate with each other on the page, just for the hell of it. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it correct that they removed Binksternet's comments? If they do so on a fairly regular basis, or if they continue to do that, that's blockable. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I recommend not leaping in with both feet. Binksternet was removing the talkpage comments of the person without an account, citing BLP grounds before the accountless person started posting people's street addresses. It came up at the BLP noticeboard. The simple truth is that they've now both used the undo tool on each other's talk page edits, reverting rather than refactoring.

      The immediate problem is that the accountless person seems incapable of critiquing a source without lobbing personal insults in public at its author. Binksternet's response was to revert rather than refactor. For someone who is a party to the talk page dispute, it's possibly a wise course of action to pick reversion over refactoring the other party's contributions. However, refactoring to edit the thing that needs editing is usually far better than the blunt instrument of using the undo tool to remove entire comments of the other party just to (to pick an example) reinsert a talk page section heading.

      Lionelt trod that middle ground of refactoring the talk page to take out the insults, and the accountless person proceeded to negate any good that that might have done by getting even more personal in the next (now revision deleted) edit.

      Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yes, twice, and he's done so before.  ( ← please note these diffs present a different matter than Uncle G has responded to above. )

• 18:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• 19:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There are details, though, and I know ANI hates details. Sorry for that, but it's hard to grasp exactly what these two diffs are about, just from reviewing the talk page (permalink) since it's so "choppy" because of the IP's shenanigans.

I'm not asking anyone to block 209.6.69.227 over the preceding, or any of the rest of it that I haven't documented here. I'd just like the talk page to be able to be used for the purpose it was intended, without all the games. He hasn't listened to any other editor's polite requests to knock that off, but maybe he'll listen to an admin. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The 209.xx IP editor is going to end up blocked or otherwise restricted eventually, because s/he has made it virtually impossible to use the talkpage, to have a sane policy-based discussion, or to edit the article effectively. The question is how much time and editorial goodwill will be sapped before the inevitable comes to pass. In general, we expect limitless forbearance in dealing with this sort of combative, agenda-driven editing, and then we wonder why we have problems with burnout and retaining good editors. MastCell  20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. My favorite internet experiences are ones in which a proactive administration acts on its own to limit access to bothersome participants. A few warnings for the cleverer ones and then the gate comes crashing down. The noise is not worth keeping—the signal is the thing. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm completely fine with preventing the IP from editing there; unless someone can persuade me within the next several hours, I'm probably going to block the IP for disruption, and I have no problem with further sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Northern Lights. I do not see a case for disruption, though I do see a case for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My edits have been scrupulously concerned with facts and arguments. There are an extreme number of posts that address or insult editors, instead of addressing facts and issues. I assure you that this is disruptive, but that my posts are not among that category. I have collected every post that attacks or mostly addresses an editor not an article, and provide them here for your convenience. Used the collapse template because the personal attack list of posts is long

Must also bear in mind the many outside calls to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as well, much like this one ]; much partisan advocacy, from outside WP, to promote and disseminate info not on ALEC, with NPOV, but on people's pet boycott projects.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgot this one, where WP editor claiming to have searched and geolocated my IP to K Street, Washington, and thus proving I am a Lobbyist. "and it has since been deleted here here and here by some beltway person with an IP address of 209.6.69.227 "--209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To similarly ease the determination of an Administrator, I have taken the remainder of the Talk page, without the personal attacks, personal comments, personal disparagement, focus on editor not article, and posted it here. I have helpfully marked all my edits. Please find a single one that disparages a person, is not constructive, or deals with anything but the facts and the reliability of Misplaced Pages.

--209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the IP's entire copy-pastes of content from the talk page, as it comprised more than a third of this page's content. IP editor, use diffs in the future rather than copying and pasting stuff right from the talk page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that wall of text was an excellent illustration of the problem. But thanks for removing it. MastCell  04:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Would just add that we shouldn't take the bait re the IP's attempt to steer this into a broad debate about incivility on the talk page. Lord knows one can find loads of snarkiness there − with an abundance of the ridiculing comments coming from the IP, btw − but it's not about that. --OhioStandard (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ryulong; diffs aren't really applicable. I think the best way to demonstrate problems or lack thereof is to edit well and thereby provide the whole record in a way that any Admin can scan and immediately see where the problem is and is not. I believe (unless your removal of my edits was during the fix of markup and disrupted this) that my very cursory first pass achieved that. Very often, the first step in good edit is to organize like elements. I think it would be unreasonable to expect any Admin to sort out from the mess that is the Talk page, since it is poorly organised, and full of chaff, and a bit of a rambling mess. I merely sorted it into 1) antagonistic personal comments, personal attacks, addressing the editor not the article, 2) long single-source essays or major Google search dumps, which though not obviously antagonistic, seriously impair the readability of the page 3) edits that address an issue, even if badly (and was very tolerant in that regard toward other editors) The page as a whole is about one third of each category. I am not represented in category 2, almost not represented in category 1, and a precise, factual and to the point contributor to category 3. If you only read category 3, the category I contribute to, it doesn't read badly as a Talk page. I fail to see how that qualifies as disruptive.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's quite enough of that. I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for various disruption, and should it resume I'll block for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Refusal to indent as intentional disruption

( Late clarification, please note timestamp: When I made my first edit in this section I was unaware that the use of normal indentation is a behavioural guideline, and that such guidelines are subject to administrative enforcement, especially when other editors have been unable to persuade an individual to abide by them. --Ohiostandard 08:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC) )

Thanks, Blade. Let's hope the block gets IP 209.6.69.227's attention. But can I ask if there's an expectation that 209.x will stop posting by default at flush left, and conform to normal indentation practices, once his block expires? I know wp:indent isn't a policy, but I've always understood that was only because we don't want it to be used to bite newcomers who don't know any better. 209's refusal to indent is probably half of what makes the ALEC talk page so hard to use and follow where IP 209.x has touched it.

And as a corollary question to admins generally if you all won't mind: Are any of you willing to consider blocking experienced users (only) just for consistently refusing to indent, after being politely asked to, when it looks like they're just trying to be a dick? --OhioStandard (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Experienced users should know that there's more than one tool in the toolbox. Just as every article problem isn't fixed with the deletion tool and every content problem isn't fixed with the undo tool, every talk page problem isn't fixed with the blocking tool. Just WikiGnome the proper list markup in with the edit tool. This is a wiki, and we can refactor discussions for legibility, quietly and without fuss. Collect already pointed this out, a day ago, albeit in the middle of a paragraph. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course one tries refactoring. But an experienced editor who has already refused a polite request to start indenting always reverts such a refactor, in my experience. Our wp:refactor guide gives him the right to do so, without recourse, since it says, necessarily, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." IP 209.x did revert, in fact, the one time I tried an indentation refactor, as I documented in the third paragraph of the section you refer me to.

Certain experienced editors do use this technique, in particular contexts, of always posting at flush left to either add prominence to their own posts, to disrupt discussion that might produce a result they don't want, or both. Or they do it just to troll, I suppose, too. I'm not just talking about the occasional mistake we all make from time to time. I'm talking about a deliberate flouting of the expected norm for threaded discussion, simply because someone can, and I want to know if there's any effective way to address that when it happens? --OhioStandard (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The refusal to indent is just a symptom, not the underlying problem. The problem is that the IP doesn't listen to anyone else, acknowledge or engage with anyone's concerns, or make any effort to facilitate a productive discussion. If he started indenting his posts perfectly (or if we did it for him), we'd have fixed one superficial manifestation of the problem, but the underlying issue would still remain. If an editor shows zero interest in or ability at productive discussion, then proper indenting is the least of the concerns. MastCell  16:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree it's just a symptom, but its a real impediment to me and my ADD brethren. In neuropsych tests my tribe always has more difficulty ignoring salient but irrelevant visual stimuli than normals, and the same is almost certainly true here, re the constant left-margin posts. My own eyes saccade to flush left posts all the time, even though they're not the ones I'm trying to read.

Even for people whose brains don't work like that, though, constant flush left posts make it impossible, or very difficult, anyway, to choose or understand who a reply is intended to address. Each new flush left post effectively acts like a new, randomly located level 3 heading, if you stop and think about it, in its impact on thread continuity.--OhioStandard (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's unlikely anything would eventuate from an editor's refusal to indent, and any attempt to punish an editor for not indenting is something I would oppose on principle. Yes, indentation makes talk pages easier to read and I much prefer it, but it's not dictated anywhere that I can find in Misplaced Pages's policies. WP:INDENT is an essay, and WP:TPG merely suggests indentation would be 'good practice'. You can't punish someone for not doing something they're not required to do. Aside from that, you mentioned that you have trouble following conversations that don't indent as a reason why it should be indented. Did you consider that the editor in question is not using indent for the same reason, that they may have a much harder time following indented conversations? This issue specifically seems to be one of those 'live and let live' situations. You indent, he doesn't, and everyone focuses on the words being written instead of how much whitespace is to the left of those words. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's an opinion. Just to note, though, neither I nor NULL are admins. And I was already aware, as I wrote above, that wp:indent isn't official policy at all, but only, as I believe, to keep it from being used to bite newcomers. I doubt you've ever had the experience of trying to communicate with other users on an extremely active talk page with four or five concurrent contributors, when one person, one of its most active contributors, always posts at flush left? I say that I doubt that because it's extremely rare; I've only seen a couple of users do it.

Stop and think about what happens: Every unnecessary flush left post acts like a new, randomly positioned level 3 heading, a "roadblock" or "fence" of sorts. You can't use indentation any more, even if you want to, since indentation can't "span" or "reach across" a flush left post. That is, one has to decide whether to post below it, and use an "@" symbol to address someone above it, or to post above it, with the result that it gets pushed down the page, farther and farther from the comment it was actually replying to, with each new "above it" post. Eventually the flush left post's temporal context is entirely lost, and you can't tell what it's intended to be a reply to. Lather, rinse, repeat 15 or 20 times on a long page, and the whole page becomes extremely hard to follow without examining each timestamp individually and comparing it to every other one in the mashup of posts that result.

It's not a matter taste, in other words, not an "I say potaato, and you say potawto" thing. It's more like, "if you say potawto then you effectively shout down all the other threaded conversations in the section and force them to reset after your post." No one will be able to tell who's talking to whom, on re-reading, either, without you go to the "@JoeBloggs" thing, which is pretty limited. But I really don't want to argue. I'd rather hear from other admins especially, and from Blade in particular. --OhioStandard (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I took the IP's refusal to indent into account, as I agree it was probably intended to be annoying. Although certainly not the biggest problem, it was an impediment to communication and pretty clearly calculated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Blade didn't outdent his preceding comment; I did, since my initial question had been primarily directed to him. -- Ohiostandard 09:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Indenting might not be required, but it is common courtesy, and as Blade points out continual refusal to do so is just point-making. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy, certainly, but I don't agree that it's a WP:POINT issue, calculated or not. Lack of indentation is not disruptive, it's extremely minor and WP:AGF dictates we assume it's not being done with a disruptive purpose. It should not be used in any justification for a block, that's something that should stand on far more unambiguous grounds. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bushranger; For those who don't know, btw, Bushranger is an admin. I understand that opinions differ, but I doubt there would be much difference of opinion if we'd all experienced what it's like to try to communicate on a talk page where a prolific contributor refuses to indent:

I wanted to join in on the discussion, but trying to read the talk page was so confusing that I kept putting it aside, never getting a clear idea of what was going on. So I'd say that if 209's goal is to keep new editors from joining into the discussion, he's been pretty successful. And of course, it is effing irritating too. After reading that several attempts had been made to get him to conform to the accepted manner of posting without success I decided to ignore his posts (as pointed out by OS above), though that's probably not the best way to go about trying to keep the talk page readable either.  --Gandydancer, at 21:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC) excerpt

Here's the context of the preceding. I'm all for individual liberty and live-and-let-live. But when one person's use of his liberty makes it hard to use a talk page to communicate with others, as five editors of the ALEC article have observed, then I say we need to constrain that one's liberty just a little. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope - if you wish to add colons, do so. I found no precedent for blocking a person for that horrid infraction of ... what? Collect (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Bushranger: I've just now discovered that the use of normal indentation is a behavioural guideline that editors are required to follow. Such guidelines are subject to administrative enforcement, especially when other editors have been unable to persuade an individual to abide by them. Our enforcement policy states, "If an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, over time resorting to more forceful means, such as administrator and steward actions." That's exactly what's happened here, of course: Blade didn't block 209.x only for refusing to indent, but he, or you, or any other admin would have been fully justified in doing so. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Needs attention of oversighter only

Please note preceding subsection heading was created by myself, who also moved IP's comment from where it had been top-posted in this edit immediately after thread's level 2 heading to its current location below. Done per talk page guidelines, thirty minutes before thread was due for automatic archiving, to make thread easier to follow there. --Ohiostandard

Needs attention of Oversighter only. Guidance on where to submit proof a Newspaper is not a newspaper in the usual sense, but a WP:SELFSOURCE blog. Proof inevitably involves proving the fake Newspaper is really a person, and the person is the whole of the fake Newspaper.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The preceding request is moot, in my opinion, despite the IP's edit summary of, "OVERSIGHTER needed, desperately. Please ignore the 'irrelevant side-discussions.' Would like this issue resolved, with guidance. Needs to go to WP:RS board". No one at the article in question intends to reinstate The Rochester Citizen cite; the consensus against it as a reliable source is well established at this point.

If IP 209.x still wishes to have that consensus "registered" at RSN for some reason, any post he makes there can and should just refer to this present ANI thread, without posting any names or addresses on-wiki. To do so would be entirely unnecessary at this point, given what's transpired here, and given the unanimity of opinion at the article in question. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

With that, I believe this entire thread should be closed, using {{Archive top}} rather than a "collapse", so sections and subsections of it can be linked to directly when it rolls to archives, and so currently-existing inbound links can be updated to reflect its new location when that occurs. An appropriate closing comment might read as follows: "Potentially identifying address information revdel'ed. De facto consensus on unsuitability of source at relevant article renders further discussion moot. IP blocked by The Blade of the Northern Lights for 48 hours for unrelated talk page disruption." --OhioStandard (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User:ConcernedVancouverite

Hello admins and concerned members. I am posting this in order to bring your attention towards the recent activities of fellow user User:ConcernedVancouverite. I don't know whether he is too obsessed with his attachment with Misplaced Pages or not, but there are few things about him which are hurting my sentiments of expanding and contributing to Misplaced Pages.

• He is an active user, with good edits and works great as recent changes patroller. However, he seems to be is very much hurry to find and nominate articles for speedy deletion, without issuing a notice to the creator of the article to improve upon the concerned issues, or rather do those himself. But No. All he wishes to have, is to have them removed as soon as possible. Although this might sound as a responsible task to himself, it becomes a pain to those to who wished to work upon those articles. Give some time people. Let them rectify mistakes.
  

This is frustating, since they'll have to write it all over just because they copied some copyrighted text directly and did not languify it. Patience is a good thing to keep on Misplaced Pages.

• He made an un necessary sockpuppetry case against me, without undergoing a personal recce of the my contributions.

Kindly suggest me some ways, so that I can work and contribute avoiding him as much as possible (Though I respect him much as my senior and there is no personal offence meant here). Because it's easy to erase things than to create them.

• I myself know of 100's of articles which could be deleted easily on many grounds. But then even I try to secure and wikify them rather them nominate for deletion and show that I'm very responsible at my work.

Please try to understand the real motive of mine. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting stuff that editors would ultimately have to rewrite "because they copied some copyrighted text directly" is actually a good thing. Doc talk 08:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the reporter's talk page and contributions, the reporter appears to be a serial copyright violator, and has persisted in this behaviour long after being warned about it. I just found and tagged several recent pages of his, but don't have time to go through the full list (which admittedly contains a lot of useful contributions as well). Could someone please help in tagging or deleting the rest? I don't know whether a block is in order; he seems communicative but perhaps incapable of distinguishing between plagiarism and original contributions. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There were copyvio problems at Commons too: Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_28#Suspect_uploads_may_need_attention. I'll take a look in a while at the contributions here. —SpacemanSpiff 13:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG incoming! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I had just started editing then and wsn't familiar of all these things. I was gradually made to learn by some good people here. So please don't take any account of the past.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I checked three articles and all of them were copypastes from the sources. In a couple of cases he copy pasted phrases intermixed with each other, but no original content. Deleted those three. If anyone else wishes to check the others, feel free to do so. Eitherways, I'm not sure it's worth wasting time over to check everything. —SpacemanSpiff 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me a thing. How do I get to know whether a website hosts a content within Public domain or not? I do not know where to find it.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If the material was published within the last hundred years or so, and there is no message explicitly placing it into the public domain, then it almost certainly isn't, and you can't copy and paste it into Misplaced Pages. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• • P.S. I think the section needs renaming, it doesn't have anything to do with the Vancouverite anymore. —SpacemanSpiff 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Probable copyright violations are always worth "wasting time" to check, since they expose Misplaced Pages to legal liability and bring the project into disrepute. As this editor is known to often copy and paste text verbatim from websites, I think we should consider all of his non-minor contributions suspect and examine them accordingly, or else just delete them en masse. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No. You don't need to be tensed to work upon those. Now that you have brought to my attention the issues with them, I'll work over them since I created them. You don't need to worry.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess I wasn't clear, I meant we shouldn't bother wasting our time to check, just go directly to the step of deleting or reverting any content contributions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said above, you don't need to go into rampage mode for back to back deletion of the articles. I'll do it. Just paste a message with the issue and I'll try resolving it. Assume some good faith over me. Deleting all, would take much labour and energy and motivation out of me.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • When a COPYVIO is discovered, it must be immediately removed. There's no grace period whatsoever that allows us to keep them up until they can be made "right". Just to be crystal clear on that point. Doc talk 08:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • There's no making right, either. A derivative work is no more permitted here than the original. Uncle G (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • actually, only if it is an undoubted copyvio that the copyvio must be immediate removed or the article fixed. There are many ways to handle this problem without deleting articles. when it isn't absolutely obvious, only consensus or the WMF can decide what is copyvio. Derivative works are a father complicated matter, as the article just cited shows, if you read it all the way through. A transformative use of a copyrighted work is not a copyvio. (What does in fact count count as such use is of course subject to interpretation in any case, and consensus is the way we interpret things like this, especially as many things that are not legally copyvios are prohibited on WP by the self-imposed limitations in our own fair use policy.) DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

* There are some kinds of information, facts which cannot be altered. Suppose a text illustrates the structure of building as - " The building is constructed in a L shape. When you enter through the main gate, you see two fire proof water fountains .... " . Now, How am I supposed to present this content in the article without having a close paraphrasing. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  06:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The building has an L-shaped design. Two water fountains are visible from the front gate. --NeilN 06:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing should really be a guideline. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I hand't noticed before that it wasn't. RfC started on whether it should become a guideline. Dpmuk (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be, but I'm afraid the process is likely to wind up capable of being summarized as 'can open, worms everywhere.' - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Working towards a solution

This may be a competence issue. It looks as though people have been trying to explain to him for months what constitutes copyright violation, fair use, public domain, paraphrasing, etc., but he repeatedly questions these explanations, or makes other statements clearly indicating he never understood the explanations to begin with, meanwhile continuing to contribute non-free images and text. See for example:

• Commons:User talk:Tekxtinct#Copyright of images you have uploaded on Commons
• Talk:Shree Jain Vidyalaya#Regarding Copyright_Violation
• Talk:Pari Mahal#I had found this on the Webpage.
• Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 28#Suspect uploads may need attention
• Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 12#I mean this is for my brother(User:mathewJPH)
• Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 13#A question on Image Copyright Issues.
• Talk:National Institute of Disaster Management#Obtained the permission to use the content.
• Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2012 June 2
• User talk:Vivek Rai#A suggestion
• User talk:Vivek Rai#Copyright of images you have uploaded on Commons
• around two dozen templated copyvio notifications on his Commons and Misplaced Pages talk pages (the latter of which he usually blanks immediately after receiving)
• (IIRC) several more contributions to talk pages of now-deleted articles
• the entire thread here on ANI

If you take the time to read those pages you'll see him being warned about copyright violations over and over again, or him asking the same copyright questions over and over again. He's invariably provided with very thorough and useful information and advice, but none of it seems to get through to him; to take just one example, on 3 May he asked whether it was OK to contribute text for which the copyright holder granted permission for use on Misplaced Pages only. He was told in no uncertain terms that this was not sufficient, and why. However, today he tried to argue that the text he copy-pasted from the National Institute of Disaster Management website into the article of the same name was acceptable because the NIDM had granted permission for its publication on Misplaced Pages.

He seems like an otherwise bright and enthusiastic kid, but at what point (if any) do we concede that he may be, for the time being, incorrigible? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm going to ask him if he'll agree to a "no main space and only one sandbox article" kind of an editing restriction -- essentially no mainspace contributions at all for a few months and he can work on one article at a time in a sandbox, which he'll technically have to get reviewed for copyvios etc before someone can review it and push it out to main space. Only after that has done can he start work on another article in the sandbox. Honestly, this is more lenient than normal in this kind of a situation but he seems to be asking questions, just not understanding the responses, so perhaps this may be worth a last shot. Does that seem like a reasonable solution? —SpacemanSpiff 18:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he can just be assigned a mentor to work closely with him and review his new articles…? Is there a place where we can solicit volunteers for that sort of thing? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT may be a starting point, but they focus on inexperienced users, and this might be a little different. Someone who does copyvio clean up regularly may be able to help but I can't commit to a length of time, a couple of articles maybe, but not beyond that. —SpacemanSpiff 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Arbcom occasionally assigns mentors to problematic editors; where do they get them from? Given his youth, enthusiasm, and communicativeness, I think that a very patient experienced editor working closely with Vivek would be vastly preferable to asking him to agree to an edit restriction, or worse yet, blocking him outright. (Then again, I remember the last time I saw an apparently well-meaning young but uncooperative editor placed under mentorship, and it did not turn out well.) —Psychonaut (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Arbcom stopped doing that years ago. The last one where the Committee approved a mentoring proposal initiated by other editors who participated in a case was during the Mattisse case. It turned out to be very significantly unsuccessful, and on review of prior mentoring remedies, it turned out that most of them had similarly poor results. There were exceptions, but no logical way to figure out which situations were more likely to result in a positive outcome. Risker (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What I have to say finally

First of all, thanks to everyone for being an active member of this discussion. Now with many people connecting to this topic, I'm seriously learning out from my fallacies. I have identified some mistakes of mine, which I would like to share and wish everyone here, work this issue to a solution generous to the Misplaced Pages Community.

3 Mistakes of my Life at Misplaced Pages

• Mistake 1 : When I first came into editing, I didn't know about different copyright concerns. I directly ambushed with loads of copying and Image uploads and eventually what happened is now known to everyone. Fellow Wikipedian Sir User:Nthep , helped me to learn a lot through a series of email and talk conversation. I belief that it is impossible to learn anything without asking every possible detail of the same. That might be evident to you from those stupid questions asked by me.

Rectification to this  : As I am learning in this process, I now find where I was wrong and you could see now that most of images that I have uploaded recently are under appropriate licenses. I didn't even know how to upload logos, but now I am. Issues are bound to be resolved over time. This time, it is the text copyright violation. I understand the gravity of issue and since then tried to follow every action I'm supposed of.

• Mistake 2 : Arrogance.

Rectification to this  : This thing, as it for everyone, turned out to be very devastating and misleading. I'm in the process of complete elimination of the same.

• Mistake 3 : Insincerity on my part.

Rectification to this  : Entering into arguments, misunderstanding people are two main mistakes committed by me. This is a true sign of in sincerity and I don't know how I became like that. This is ought not to happen ever again.

Possible remedies

I request you to kindly not impose any editing restrictions. Also, If you please overlook any previous history of those serial copyright violations as those were a stupid act on my part. I shall firstly try to spend some time learning the vastness of Misplaced Pages. I assure on my part that such actions are not going to be repeated. Since apologies to Psychonaut, User:ConcernedVancouverite and everyone else hurt unintentionally by me. It'll be an honor for me to work under someone's guidance. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  15:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Danceking5 and personal attacks. Again.

Danceking5 (talk · contribs)

See this edit summary, in which he calls me a stalker. Again. Something which he has been told in the past, in terms which were entirely unambiguous, not to do. → ROUX ₪ 09:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've left a message on the article talk page. If he stops, this should be sufficient. If not, others will likely consider other actions. I do note he was blocked at his last ANI for editwarring and personal attacks although this event doesn't nearly approach that level. I would try to overlook this one comment, assuming he will move forward in a more civil manner, until shown otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously, nobody is going to do anything about this? He has been told in the past not to accuse me of stalking, and was blocked for doing so before. WTF. → ROUX ₪ 16:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not inclined to block over a single use of the word "stalk", even if he has been blocked for before for doing similar acts multiple times. If another admin wants to take stronger action, I will not interfere or complain. All I can do is what I feel appropriate for a singular breach, which was to notify the editor, and put them on notice . Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Both editors need to be civil - the conversations are riddled with personal attacks. No need for a block - as both parties have simply reacted to each-others personal attacks. Both have been blocked in the past for the same type of behavior, thus I dont see how a block now would help the situation. The archive and current talk page show no progress at all on the subject at hand, best both parties agree to simply start fresh and move on from this almost year long problem. Get more people involved if you are at an impasse - dont just keep kicking each-other in the nuts. Dispute resolution requests details the various different methods used in dispute resolutions. Moxy (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn to pay attention. Danceking5 removed cited fact from the article, and called me a stalker when I reverted the removal. I made no personal attacks, nor was I incivil, so please if you are going to insist on commenting please do so accurately. → ROUX ₪ 07:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If your not aware of your actions your going to repeat them (See Talk:Trance music) like "Pay attention, kiddo, 'cuz papa's gonna take you to school. ". Best look over the conversation and see how many times both of you have insulted each other. As has been stated to you many many many times (and now the new editor)- try and be mature in your post - don't call people names or imply they are stupid and you may get a better response. Dont you think its odd your always in this situation with editor after editor? Best to move on and seek help to resolve the problem(s) that neither of you seem to be able to do alone.Moxy (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is so much nonsense in this paragraph, as well as such a total disconnect from reality, that I cannot be bothered responding to it. → ROUX ₪ 10:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I noticed this exchange too which felt a bit sour. I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to accuse Semitransgenic of, "pushing an original research agenda" but then criticises him because "all of his information comes from books and magazines", in any case this clearly isn't just a problem with Roux. - filelakeshoe 14:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Danceking has definitely crossed the line now in this edit with the 1) continued insistence that Roux is a stalker based on events that occurred a year or more ago, and 2) much worse, saying of Roux, "This kid has a history of mental illness I think". I'm WP:INVOLVED (and I'm not currently utilizing my block button anyway), but Danceking5 really doesn't seem to get what's appropriate behavior and what isn't. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Nor does he understand basic logic. 'Progressive' is an adjective used of certain styles of music, indicating a structure which 'progresses' or evolves from one phrase to the next. 'Fugue' would be the best analogue in classical music, near as I can tell.

I want a fucking block to extend until this guy 1) apologizes for calling me a stalker, 2) apologizes for attacking my mental fitness, 3) retracts all accusations. → ROUX ₪ 10:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Two points First, Roux, I am not a bloody jukebox whose buttons you push to do your bidding. Your comment on my talk page is highly inappropriate in tone and should be struck. This point isn't up for debate. Second, I have blocked Danceking5 for 1 week for his ongoing personal attacks. We all seem to agree his actions are over the line. His last block was some time ago, 1 week, so I chose to match the time. If another admin feels I have been too generous, they have my blessing in adjusting the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly care if you find my tone inappropriate. I am fucking furious that this nonsense was allowed to continue in the first place. We all know it's perfectly okay for other users to attack me repeatedly, but for fuck's sake, someone could at least pretend to understand why I am so fucking angry about it. → ROUX ₪ 11:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I do understand why you are frustrated. What I don't understand is why you are verbally commanding me and being rude now both here and on my talk page. In the end, you have gotten what you wanted but it isn't good enough. It is one thing to get angry, we all do. It is another to overreact and attack those that are trying to help you. You seriously need to go have a cup of tea and relax. Before I could even have my first cup of coffee, I went and examined and blocked, making it a priority. It if this isn't good enough, then I can't help you and perhaps you should have contacted someone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If you actually understand why I am frustrated, you therefore must understand why I am speaking the way I am. I am fucking furious that nobody here had anything to say other than mealy-mouthed "well don't do it again" nonsense, ignoring the fact that he has made and been blocked for the exact same accusation before. So when he does it again in eight days, I'm expecting more of the same, and another useless short-term block that will not actually change anything. And yet, of course, if I had made a stalking allegation against anyone, I would have been blocked immediately. That is the source of my frustration. → ROUX ₪ 11:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown has blocked Danceking5 for a week for the outrageous attacks. This isn't long enough, but whatever; I'll see you in eight days when he does it again. → ROUX ₪ 11:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

a bit late here, but Danceking has used the same "stalking" accusation elsewhere during the week here and here. This is not the first time either. Two things seem clear to me:

• Danceking is suffering from a severe miscomprehension with regard to watchlist usage: "Anyone who would put something on a watch list to MONITOR new editors contributions, so you can play god on if their information can stand or not, is highly unhealthy"
• Danceking also routinely uses talk pages to promote a brand of life experience based original research. Perhaps WP:NOTFORUM (amongst a litany of other other guidelines) is simply not understood. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

63.152.117.46/63.152.98.3

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

63.152.117.46 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

63.152.98.3 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Hi. I would like to lay the groundwork for a complaint against the IP user using the IP addresses 63.152.117.46 and 63.152.98.3 (he may have others as well) for edit warring. He/she engages in immature, disrespectful and disruptive edit warring. His contempt for other editors is plain from his comments, including (), ):

• "of course it's Ckalja, the picture isn't gonna be of Mike Tyson. removed -- stating the obvious"
• "everyone knows that Chicago and New York City are in America. people in Boogie Wonderland know that. everyone knows that. no sense in adding U.S."

He/she has already been warned three times by three different editors at IP address 63.152.117.46. ANI notification tag added. Quis separabit? 23:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The other IP has one warning but as I am positive this editor is not heeding and will not heed other editors' advice and I may be offwiki tomorrow I would like to bring this to the community's attention here. Perhaps a brief, instructive (palliative if you will) block may help the editor see the error of his/her ways. Respectfully submitted, Quis separabit? 22:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I really can't see the need for a block. I've only looked at the first IP (.46)'s edits, and I agree that some of his edit summaries are flip, but I wouldn't block him for it. Perhaps if you tackled the substantive problems you're having with their edits, rather than focus on the silly edit summaries, things might go better. I've also looked at the edits themselves, and in some instances his edits are contrary to Wikepedia practice or MOS (and not major problems), but some of them actually make sense to me, or at least they're quite defensible. For example, he prefers a birth place in the infobox to be New York City, New York, as opposed to New York City, New York, U.S. I pretty much agree with him. The U.S. is unnecessary, particularly as the New York stuff is wikilinked. I don't usually fight with editors on this kind of issue, although I do draw the line at spelling out United States. As for edit-warring, if you believe he's doing that, then issue the appropriate warnings, talk to him about it, and then take him to WP:3RRNB if he persists. I see no need for action here, although I suppose someone else could add another note to him about collaborating rather than pushing forward all on his own. It is sometimes hard for IPs to understand some of these things as they feel ganged-up on by more experienced editors. I haven't looked at the possibility of IP hopping.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

" I've also looked at the edits themselves, and in some instances his edits are contrary to Wikepedia practice or MOS" -- so have you let him know? Quis separabit? 19:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

At least two other editors have left warnings which he or she has ignored. As far as WP:MOS in re "New York, New York, U.S." or "New York, New York", I agree that it is not that big a deal, but both are acceptable under MOS, and I don't appreciate some newcomer IP leaving snotty comments and switching back edits that have been made, especially on a selcetive basis. He or she is not changing every infobox on every article he/she edits in that manner. I agree about spelling out United States, and often find myself changing "United States" to "U.S.", but that's not really the point. I don't know if he/she is intentionally edit hopping or just using a public computer, but both IPs are clearly the same person. Quis separabit? 19:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, your comments in some ways are "snottier" than the IP's. The main comment you object to is that one about Chicago and New York. It was an unnecessarily sarcastic, flip comment, but he didn't call anyone names as you are doing. Even assuming the two IPs are the same, that doesn't mean that are IP hopping with nefarious intentions. They could simply be assigned different addresses when they use their account. Without some evidence they are evading a block or posing as two different editors to make a point, it's not a problem. Nonetheless, I have left some detailed advice on the Talk page of the IP who made the flip comment (I don't see any comments like that by other address). My advice to you is to focus on the content and the changes made by the IP rather than on the edit summaries or whether they're being consistent or whether the change was unnecessary. As long as the change is supportable by guidelines and practice, let it go. Does it really matter if the birth place says New York, New York rather than New York, New York, U.S.? And don't get so hot under the collar about "some newcomer IP". It's unfair to IPs in general and it's contrary to what Misplaced Pages is about. I'm sure you can do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Fine. However, I never accused the editor in question of misusing IPs or "IP hopping" -- you brought that up. I even said, in response to your comment: "I don't know if he/she is intentionally edit hopping or just using a public computer, but both IPs are clearly the same person." I would hope that as senior editors we would project a united front since doing otherwise will never inculcate a healthy respect between editors, whether IP or otherwise. Quis separabit? 23:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A "united front"? You must be thinking of some nirvana-like Misplaced Pages I'm unfamiliar with. I didn't say you accused the IP of hopping. I was just talking about that as a possiblity for intervention and dismissing it. And you're welcome for the advice I left for the IP. At this point, unless you have something new and important to say, I'm done. I'll leave this open for a while in case you wish to comment further, and then I'll close it as no administrative intervention is required here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Community ban of Antony1821

Kostas45 (talk · contribs), sockpuppet of Antony1821 (talk · contribs), has said on their talkpage that "the more unblocking time the more accounts i will create" i.e. intends to continue socking. They are incredibly disruptive, and obviously have no intention to reform or contribute constructively. I therefore propose a community ban. Note - I am going on holiday tomorrow for 8 days, not back till Tuesday 12th, so would appreciate somebody advising me of the outcome of this discussion, either way. GiantSnowman 18:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've just removed Kostas45's talk page access for another threat to create more socks. They've only created 5 accounts so far but they are clearly behaving disruptively and have no intention of stopping, so I support a ban, if only as a formality. Hut 8.5 18:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Support ban based on editor's clear statements of intention to violate wikipedia policy. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Had a read of their SPI earlier today. Their obsessive need to edit Olympiakos FC and Greek football related articles should make them fairly easy to hunt down. Blackmane (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Ban. Threats to create sockpuppets in response to a block is unacceptable behavior. FurrySings (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Support ban (obviously) as I've been dealing with his socks for a long time and they've all shown signs of zero understanding towards Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. For your consideration, I believe his threats became reality, as there is a big possibility James1453 (talk · contribs) is the newest sockpuppet of his. (already reported at SPI) – Kosm1fent 10:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And confirmed: 11:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Support pretty much per what the above user says. Also, Kosm is 100% right, JAMES1453 is ANTONY1821, he expressed in his KOSTAS45 account's talkpage the utmost desire/need to edit several footballers, and it shows in JAMES' list of "contributions". What a nuisance! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Support: Obviously this twerp needs to learn some lessons about how civilized grownups act. Pity it's not our remit to do so. Ravenswing 05:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Jaguar

This bit was archived ages ago. Restoring as reference to thread.

MMA, part 1287

See also Misplaced Pages:ANI#MMA_AfD.27s above. I have just closed another disruptive AfD - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (3rd nomination). I have also noted at least one WP:POINT nominations for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19) of articles edited by the few editors who are trying to uphold Misplaced Pages policy in the MMA area. I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say "enough". Black Kite (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As an editor who has passively observed the MMA disputes that flare up on the boards every other day (it seems), I'm also of the mind that some unified solution should be adopted—it really has been quite "enough" at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As only tangently involved (MMA editors trying to change policy/guidelines to make such articles acceptable to which I've commented on), yes, this is far past the point of disruption. That said, the MMA ppl have brought up a good point that if the various individual event articles aren't considered notable, then why do we have articles like 2008 Food City 500, 2011 World Series of Poker results (note, 2011 World Series of Poker exists but is ok), and similar? There is an inconsistency here, and it might step from the larger idea that the various sports arena itself is a walled garden - by no means as great a degree as the MMA - but clearly with a larger allowance for topics and the like. At this point there needs to be a course of action that pulls any decision away from those involved with MMA or at least the troublemakers making such pointy AFD noms, and get to a resolve quickly, but making sure that solution applies uniformly to other sports-based articles. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that we have articles like 2008 Food City 500 because no-one's got round to deleting or merging them yet. Yes, the solution should apply to all sports, but with well over 3 million articles stuff like that is always going to sneak through; it doesn't mean we should let it go though. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fully aware that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument, except that I recall seeing editors from the various sports (nonMMA) suggest the NASCAR articles are just fine but the MMA ones are a problem. This mirrors a similar discussion about the denial to include eSports (professional video game competitions) within NSPORT because "its not a sport". I do applaud most of the editors that are knee deep in sports, self-aware that sports coverage far outweighs most other contemporary topics and thus having restraint to what is summarized on WP, but there remains some aspects here of walled gardens that we can't sweep away by just closing down the MMA stuff, fairly. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a very subtle difference though, one that came out of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open in that an annually repeated sports event is a little different (I am not saying I necessarily agree with that). Mtking 00:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What's enormously unfortunate about this situation is it's somehow identified as an "MMA" issue when the exact same sets of pages exist all across the site and tend to be the rule for formatting rather than exception. The main difference here is that for various reasons the AfDs on this particular subject have been unusually successful. Simply contrast this with worse entries such as that, or that, or that, or that (the list is trivial to enumerate). When users who feel their area of interest is being singled out see their concerns dismissed by wiki-insiders, it creates a great deal of frustration with the process and thus the highly visible drama. Should the same exceptional deletions happen on any other part of wiki with a significant userbase, the consequences would hardly differ. The challenge to solving such a systemic dilemma is to studying how the system works rather than respond with the same natural instincts which is the hallmark of institutional failure. Agent00f (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are some things that will always be the case in Misplaced Pages or in any similar project without centralized control and therefore without fixed enforceable rules:

1. within a field, the results at AfD will be inconsistent
2. between fields, the accepted emphasis will be inconsistent
3. everyone will think their own interests are being unfairly neglected

I accept this will happen even the areas of most concern to me, and though I continue to push gently for greater coverage of them, I will not forfeit whatever sympathy there is for my minority interests by making a nuisance of myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's significant element of randomness on wiki by design, then the implication is userbase interests here were specifically unlucky. With this understanding the org shouldn't be unduly alarmed that intrinsic variation produces outliers. IOW, when the stars align, page sets get wrecked and those who use them become displeased proportional to the wreckage. The connection between these last two is basic human psychology which is difficult to trivially amend. Agent00f (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say enough." What method would you recommend for getting rid of MMA fans? Portillo (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• For those who cannot edit without being disruptive or incivil, then blocks and/or topic bans are clearly indicated; that's not even controversial. That doesn't just apply to MMA fans, but to any editor of Misplaced Pages. I merely bring the issue to ANI so that more eyes may be available. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Do you think there's a broad enough consensus about deleting the articles at hand that it could be made a CSD category? It's a brutal but effective approach.—Kww(talk) 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, I don't believe so. Whilst some are clearly non-notable, others are on the fringes. Even the ones that are obviously non-notable have some sources, even if it's clear that they fail WP:NOT and WP:SPORTSEVENT. I think the main issue here isn't the articles (they can be dealt with in time) but the disruption that is spreading to other areas. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and the AfDs end up like this - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC 145. I doubt if that's going to be closed as anything else but Keep, but that is effectively saying that "any sporting event that is mentioned in the newspapers is notable". Without going too much towards WP:WAX, that means you could effectively make a case for (as an example) all 1,760 professional soccer games that happen in England every year. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed respective projects and fan bases are turning the Encyclopaedia into a sports newspaper. Mtking 20:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is Misplaced Pages running out of server space to the point where things that meet the WP:GNG aren't acceptable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is a reason that the sports notability guidelines don't consider regular games as part of a professional league series as notable just because they were played and reported on, and instead provide seasonal summaries. This is the solution that pro-MMA editors have been suggested to head towards but they fight to include every possible detail against global consensus for this type of information. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• What Masem said. Your average NFL or Premiership game, NASCAR race, major American college football or basketball match no doubt nukes your average UFC event for GNG-applicable coverage, and I'm sure that given the green light, there are any number of Manchester United or University of Nebraska supporters who would be positively eager to write articles on them all. If "routine sports coverage" is a valid excuse to shoot down an independent article for the next Celtics-Heat playoff match, it sure is heck a valid one to debar your average MMA event. Ravenswing 05:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• and another one kept that is just like all the rest Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC 21, it would appear that the MMA fan base has worn the other editors down ....... Mtking 10:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

<outdent> I'm not sure if this belongs here, but there is another MMA discussion going on over at Talk:List of professional sports leagues regarding whether they qualify as a league or not, which has been prompted most likely by the same circumstances regarding all the MMA AFDs. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding

Recently I've been unable to participate in any article without User:WhiteWriter (sometimes with his buddy User:Antidiskriminator) arriving to oppose whatever it is I'm advocating. The user is going around constantly provoking and inciting conflicts:

First its the WWII Serbia article, then the Government of National Salvation article , then I post an edit in the House of Flowers (mausoleum) , and there's WhiteWriter reverting me and starting a bad-faith conflict . It really goes on and on like that. The user arrives to oppose my position on Talk:Kosovo , then on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia , then he assumes an opposite position to mine on Talk:Bleiburg massacre , then its on to the Yugoslavia article, where he's threatening to report me unless I "acquiesce to his demands" or whatnot. I post an edit , and sure enough, there's my newest "nemesis" starting some edit-war , and/or opposing me on the talkpage.

In addition, User:PRODUCER expressed concerns he's been receiving the same treatment.

Some of these articles were never edited by WhiteWriter in the past, and WhiteWriter and I never engaged in any serious disagreement before the conflict at the WWII Serbia article - and now all this in relatively quick succession. Personally I started noticing the pattern quite a while ago, and warned the user. I didn't report anything since I wanted to be sure its obvious to others as well. My impression is that, unless something is done, this behavioral pattern is bound to continue on indefinitely.-- Director (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I am writing, please, wait a few minutes... --WhiteWriter 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do. Though judging from experience I'm reasonably certain you won't actually address your own behavior, but will instead attempt to paint me and my actions actions in the light you see them in, trying in essence to "explain" why you think its necessary to WP:HOUND my edits. -- Director (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

First, regarding this "report". All of those "staking" articles are on my watchlist for years, as i am here since 2005, except Bleiburg, which is still on our Article alert. Talk:Kosovo is No.1 top edited user page in my edit count, and also, i follow most of those regularly, so, this is just pale distraction from the main theme, and real problem.

On article Yugoslavia, User:DIREKTOR tried to remove Federal Republic of Yugoslavia numerous times during article existence, without agreement or consensus, while FRY is in that article since 2001. (diff from 2008, diff from 2010, diff from today)

On commons, DIREKTOR tried to remove FRY from map image two times (diff 1diff 2) by violating COM:OWERWRITE. Then he uploaded new file without FRY, and went cross wiki, over more then 35 wikipedias, replacing old location map, even when local articles clearly have three Yugoslavia's explained in article. (Հարավսլավիա, Yougoslavie...) By time and same activity on en wiki, it is clear who is that IP... (someone else's userpage, graphic lab archive from 2009...) And user know very well that cross wiki POV pushing is strictly forbidden, and therefor, he signed off.

I reverted this vast removal on Yugoslavia, with talk page explanation, but again, only blind revert, and this. I should discuss the additions? I should discuss the stable version?

It is clear that in WP:ARBMAC related subjects blind POV push reverts are disastrous. Since reacent problems with the same user, i am reverting as less as possible in a day, but this is over me. Not to mention that he informed traveling circus friend of DIREKTOR, PRODUCER, so i will probably soon expect more staking accusations. User was blocked for edit warring eleven times, so you may understand now the main idea of this "stalking" report... --WhiteWriter 21:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to come down on anyone's side here, but I think it's fair to assume looking at Direkor's, Producer's, and WhiteWriter's contributions not just in the recent past but the years gone by that all three edit on similar topics and often the very same pages, so it is not a case of true stalking because the pages in question may either be on everyone's watchlist or the users may even have the automatic intuition to visit the articles in question. It's a fact they don't always see eye to eye but I feel stalking is a bit harsh. We'll all be here for time to come and we'll all (me included) edit on a number of these pages. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis, it is evident that it isn't a coincidence that Whitewriter has consistently popped up where I or DIREKTOR have edited and always in opposition. The most recent case for me was at the Srebrenica massacre talkpage where he has never edited or participated and which, after being confronted about it, he gave this silly story to explain it. It is insulting yet at the same time funny to see that Whitewriter considers me a "circus friend" of DIREKTOR when it was he who immediately "took over" for PANONIAN and engaged in this "tag teaming" after PANONIAN was banned for his disruptive behavior. Might I also add that it is certainly not a coincidence that Whitewriter is always there to blindly help a fellow Serbian editor out in WP:AE also in opposition even though Whitewriter has had nothing to do with the matter. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Those are users who confronted traveling circus, and got blocked by team work participation. Others just could not keep up, and went away... And i did participate in those matters, please, don't fabricate. Also, respond to that "silly story" by other editor, User:R-41. (...who are tag teaming here...) --WhiteWriter 22:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have edited almost all of the articles listed under this complaint, and have recently been in opposition to Director and/or PRODUCER in about half of them. They are all on my watchlist, and I also watch several user pages to monitor for canvassing. I regularly see accusations of socking and stalking on the talk pages, and I rarely consider them justified. Just because someone opposes your point of view doesn't mean they are harassing or stalking you. I don't consider this falls into this category either. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@WhiteWriter: Yes. Peacemaker67 and the admins are also in on it too and we get our directives from the top. /sarcasm It appears you are indeed using the essay "as a weapon against editors who are acting in accordance with Misplaced Pages's editing policies to cast aspersions on their good work" as it cautioned some might. You participated in those matters? I could have sworn you said "I am user who didn't participated in entire process, neither on article, nor on talk page." Please correctly remember your own actions before slandering someone stating that they have "fabricated".

@Peacemaker67: It's an obvious pattern of disruption directed at both DIREKTOR and me. WhiteWriter consistently and with increasing frequency only gets involved in pages where we edit to take whatever opposing position is available. Classic WP:WIKIHOUNDING. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, dont be mean. I was talking about very that dispute in that citation, and not all history. How could i comment if i dont know anything about the subject? Not to mention other diff, where i participated years and months before. Reading is participation! And will not respond to this baseless fabrications anymore, before TLDR... Main subject here is en wiki / cross wiki POV pushing, and not this imaginarium. Everything most important have already been told, and that is it. "pages where we edit" is useful clue... Going to bed, good night to all. --WhiteWriter 23:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This "imaginarium" is backed by diffs and please stop trying to change the subject after failing to address it. Claiming TLDR, "fabrications", and being vague only shows your inability to do so. Stating that you are "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" as described by WP:WIKIHOUNDING is not a sign of "ownership". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a great example of why we have WP:ARBMAC. There are a number of related articles that are hotly contended by partisans from both sides, both equally convinced of their side's correctness and how the other side continues to wrong them. There is no such thing as NPOV on these topics. Regular editors on these subjects typically have block logs that fill up most of a screen.

Shall we hand out topic bans all around or move along? Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, just topic-bans all-round. For what? No I don't think the "ARB" stands for "arbitrary". You may disagree with the accusation that was brought up, but there's nothing going on. There isn't even an active dispute, let alone some kind of conflict. I'm just pointing out that, for the past month or so, every time I post somewhere WhiteWriter immediately appears to oppose whatever I do or advocate. So, what's my ARBMAC violation? I'm posting comments? At worst I was hoping WhiteWriter might be warned. Is the "block everyone" method so deep-rooted that it could be applied even when there's no violation on the part of anyone other than (perhaps) the accused user. Or should I have just let myself be followed around (which I think is pretty obvious) in hopes of not getting banned if I mention that I'm being followed around. Gah.. ANI. -- Director (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

<clue>Try option #2.</clue> Toddst1 (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Is there a third option? -- Director (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course there is a third option. You know noticeboards like this generally don't lead to any actions taken in articles related to ARBMAC. Try arbitration enforcement if you think there has been a violation, but always beware the boomerang. Also, you can file a user request for comment. Get some outside opinions. See if others view his actions as problematic as you do. Nothing in this area is generally easy enough for a simple noticeboard block. Follow the steps of dispute resolution. AniMate 20:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

At this point I'm kinda hoping WW might have gotten the message re this following business. But if it continues I pretty much won't have a choice but to follow your advice. Thanks, AniMate. -- Director (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And i will not wait, AniMate, for new edit warring or cross wiki battle nationalism by DIREKTOR. I will follow your advice in the moment. --WhiteWriter 08:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Themodernizer removing files from articles without explanation

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

Themodernizer stopped editing Misplaced Pages over 3 years ago, on 1 March 2009. On 18 May 2012 he reappeared with a request to change his username. After that was done and he had moved his talk archives etc, he started removing images from Windows related articles, without any explanation as to why he was doing so (typical edit) and then nominated the images for deletion as orphans by deleting all content from the file pages, replacing the content with {{di-orphaned fair use}} (typical edit). This was noticed by two admins, one of whom asked why he he was doing what he was doing on his talk page. His response was rather puzzzling. I noticed his activities when he removed an image from Windows XP and, as I was puzzled too, asked a similar question. I then reverted a number of the edits that he had made. Since then, he has not provided an explanation as to why he is removing images. In fact he has not replied at all. However, he has subsequently reverted a number of my edits. Unfortunately, as this activity was not noticed early enough, a number of files have since been deleted. Many of the file removals seem random so I'm concerned that this account may have been compromised and, in any case, there needs to be some explanation as to why these files are being removed from articles, before any more files are lost. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems he's trying to remove his own uploads. No idea why. --NeilN 16:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

His are being targeted, but there are a lot that aren't his. I don't know how many of the 26 that have been deleted were his. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to your userspace page, I've been restoring them, but I'm running out of time. I've left a stop-or-get-blocked notice on the user's talk page. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The long list of picture deletes and reverts to Aussie's edits without explanation or discussion may suggest that Thermodizer is WP:NOTHERE. Penguin 236 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all of the examples you listed were uploaded by me originally: Themodernizer (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Still, you have no right to remove images with no reason other than you're the one that uploaded them. Fair use or not, all your contributions are released explicitly under at least the GFDL, so if others decide that they are still useful they should stay.-RunningOnBrains 23:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, there is still the unanswered question, why are they being removed anyway? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible SockPuppet of User:SonoraEnergyGroup evading block - User:Sonora Energy and User:SEGH CFE 1

Hello all Administrators, i need to inform you that this user account User:SonoraEnergyGroup which got blocked yesterday because of username policy violation as reported by me, I suspect that the same person has created this another account to evade the block and created a new user account User:Sonora Energy. The unblocking request requested on User talk:SonoraEnergyGroup by SonoraEnergyGroup requests a new username "Sonora Energy" of which a user account of the same name was created just minutes ago before unblocking was requested. The account would have been created because the IP autoblock was disabled. Also Sonora Energy first edit here on User talk:Jimfbleak asks them many things and there is also and IP address 201.165.9.12 (talk) which claims that a new user account by the name of "SEGH CFE 1" will be created because the name change was declined. Therefore i kindly request the admin's to please look into this matter and find out the truth here. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's not bite down just yet. They're a new editor and need guidance, not the block cannon just yet. Since Jimfbleak is an admin, bringing this to ANI is clearly an over-reaction. Their username was blocked as an obvious company name, as was their second and third. Once the username requirements has been explained to them, they might see things differently. Blackmane (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not biting anyone anything here, please assume good faith by me here. I had already mentioned and explained the username problem and it's policy 2 times on the user talk page of User talk:SonoraEnergyGroup and second time in more detail as possible. Next what they do after the article is deleted ? A very similar username is requested in ublock which is declined and a username of the same name is created. An IP address is also arguing the same thing pushing it's own Point of view on Comisión Federal de Electricidad. I am not asking that the other accout and the IP address be blocked, but at least a valid request be considered and reviewed upon, just closing the discussion is not the solution. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, User:SEGH CFE 1 was, in fact, created, and it does seem to be linked to Sonora Energy. Jeancey (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice Jeancey, i was about to post this same thing just here :). All these suspected sockpuppet accounts seems to be promotional only accounts , User:SEGH CFE 1 a just created another suspected sockpuppet is back on track where SonoraEnergyGroup started and end up getting blocked due to the same things, username and creating this page User:SEGH CFE 1/sandbox to again start the same deleted article without discussing any issues with me and other users, clearly non-cooperative and now also clearly seems to be promoting only accounts plus causing disruption. Now will an actual action be taken or not inspite of giving loads of proof and evidence ? TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• SEGH CFE 1 is now blocked and I've left an additional message on the main account's talk page. WilliamH (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

These are not socks. Please review WP:ILLEGIT. Socks are secondary accounts created for deception; In the single post, account Sonara_Energy explicitly links the account and states they are doing so to find a name that meets Misplaced Pages requirements. Nobody Ent 00:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but that's not it was blocked for (I didn't add the template). SonoraEnergyGroup (talk · contribs) requested a username change unblock request to SEGH CFE 1, which I declined, but subsequently created the account anyway, which I then blocked. WilliamH (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I must reiterate that I agree with you, that this may not be typical sockpuppetry, but each account they create avoids the issue for which they were blocked and sanctioned. I appreciate their frustration that they have not taken to this like a duck to water, but if one has been blocked for a specific reason then it repeating that which got them blocked is not going to help. WilliamH (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As indicated by the indenting, my response was not intended to be in response to WilliamH's statement about blocking. Clearly the blocks are fine per the username policy but calling the account socks and tagging their pages such is just plain rude. Nobody Ent 01:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ILLEGIT, Circumventing policies or sanctions, in this case, block evasion. It doesn't matter that they're explicitly linked, they're still socks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As the block message for {{Usernameblocked}} states "You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. " signing up for a new account isn't block evasion. Nobody Ent 11:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack by 92.29.56.93

Revision as of 10:16, 2 June 2012 - Talk:Elizabeth II

In the above revision, 92.29.56.93 made a personal attack on User:Amandajm. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the edit certainly constitutes an offensive personal attack, but i'm not sure what can be as, seeing as that is the IP's only edit. I am not sure if the severity of the the remark constitutes a block, but perhaps a warning should have been posted on the IP's talkpage before coming straight to ANI. Penguin 236 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't even think it constitutes a personal attack. More silly than anything else. Why are we here?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the BNP is very racist, so this has the potential to be very offensive. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the IP meant that Amandajm was being very pro-British, not racist. Penguin 236 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Response of the "victim":Thanks for the concern! The statement made by 92.29.56.93 was obviously intended to be rude. However, the edit of mine to which it responded expressed a great deal of anger and frustration, and prompted the more reasonable response from another editor that I would serve my own cause better by not SHOUTING.

I think that 92.29.56.93's rather rude mode of expression was simply the result of perceiving my frustration as "over the top!

I don't think that it needs to be taken further with 92.29.56.93. who has already been reprimanded by another editor. Not unless this person has made similarly rude comments that have caused offence to others.

I might comment here also that there has been a resolution over the matters that I was finding so frustrating, since several other editors posted comments expressing opinions supporting my own.

Amandajm (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Odd behaviour

User IP, SalihibnTarif, OldestHistorian, AfricoHistory and possibly some others seem to be attempting to protect Salih ibn Tarif by perpetual edit conflict. I have left a couple of notes. Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

Well maybe that did the trick. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

Threat by SH Wiki

This edit seems to be a rather serious threat (given that Steven Jobs is dead) by a SPA, whose only contribution is to make unsourced POV edits to Boundary 2. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears like a death threat. Did you email emergencywikimedia.org? Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not. (Didn't even know about that address). But given that these people are anonymous, what could the Wikimedia people do? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Could merely have forgotten Jimmy Wales ~ Misplaced Pages ≠ Steve Jobs ~ Apple. Dru of Id (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a bit of a stretch to equate it to a death threat. Given the quality of the rest of their contribution, more likely to be ignorance (i.e. it's Jimbo they meant). DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I assumed they knew who Steve Jobs was, but perhaps you're right and it's plain stupidity. In any case, the editor has been blocked for persistent vandalism, so the question seems to be moot now. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah althogh I don't complain if people want to report death threats, have to agree it doesn't look remotely like one to me. Before reading, I thought perhaps someone said they'd end up like Steve Jobs or something which I wouldn't take as a serious death threat but at least does come across as one. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards