Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 7 July 2008 (Archiving 3 thread(s) from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lebanon related afds

Hi, there are some Lebanon related afds running that would benefit from the attention of some admin. They are being target for vandalism (just as well as the articles) and had recently even been closed by one of the editors involved (non-adminm, of course). The afds are Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Skiing in Lebanon, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi. See the history of these afds and their respective articles for knowing the users (and anons) involved. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, a related dispute seems to be taking place at Faraya Mzaar Kfardebian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Damiens.rf 13:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps take to WP:AIV? If editor has removed any more AfD tags after this diff Although it appears stale per this diff on my talkpage. . Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mosaic Dallas spam

New "article" Mosaic Dallas by a single user looks somewhat like spam. --Túrelio (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (albeit unreferenced). Will clean it up a bit. – ırıdescent 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, cool article. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

neat picture! --Allemandtando (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone knows anything about Dallas, can they have a look at this one? My cleanup of it has left it with more issues tags than article at present. – ırıdescent 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that, all it needs are some references and expansion. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Subtle vandal

A few minutes ago I noticed this edit to the backgammon article. I googled Patrick Nikodem to see if I could find any evidence of notability. I didn't, but I did find the same name mentioned in completely unrelated articles. . I'm looking through histories as I'm writing this and have found two IP's adding the name to a lot of articles, 128.91.97.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 202.72.240.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I also found the name mentioned at this Misplaced Pages mirror site entry. I haven't tracked down the IP responsible for that one yet. I suppose I can search for the text string and revert other instances I find, so perhaps no admin action necessary except a heads up.

On a related note, has there been any talk of banning certain text strings from Misplaced Pages? I know there's been a problem with vandals adding an unlinked URL to a large number of pages. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Grouphappy (talk · contribs) and this edit, which adds "Pat Nikodem" to a list of sea captains. The IP used to add Pat Nikodem to that article is owned by the University of Pennsylvania, where there is a Patrick Nikodem majoring in Finance (email included in Google results). Not sure there's much we can do, but you could always send him an email. - auburnpilot talk 20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone check if Phil Jagielka's middle name is really Nikodem? (added here by IP) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see (un)reliable sources stating his middle name is "Nikodem", quite a lot, actually. There's also a Polish tabloid Super Express which uses it: . But nothing reliable - not even Everton's site nor UEFA's. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that Phil Jagielka's meddle name might be Nikoden, Smith Jones (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)???

I don't know if it's right or wrong, just that there seem to be many places that use "Nikodem" as his middle name. He does have a Polish ancestry, apparently () and Nikodem doesn't sound English - perhaps his middle name is Polish? x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask, Smith Jones, is that Patrick Nikodem is the name that a few IPs have been subtly vandalizing with, as you can see by looking at my first post in this thread. Since that middle name was added to the Jagielka article by an IP, I thought that might be vandalism, too. But now that I've looked into it, it seems quite plausible that someone from that part of the world, might have that middle name. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat

What should be done about this. The title says it all, but it was one of a number of foul pages introduced by Volapuks (talk · contribs). Should this threat be acted upon? I have asked for oversight for a number of the pages, but suggest that someone else also sends one as my e-mail can be temperamental. Woody (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From looking at this (admin only) its apparent he knows this place. RBI. Right thing has been done and he'll probably return again one day doing exactly the same. Rudget (logs) 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one that deleted them all, I presume oversight don't deem them to be personal information worth deleting then. Woody (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

CPP

Please keep an eye on the article Communist Party of Pakistan. Jamco (talk · contribs) repeatedly fill the article with promotional coi material, and possibly hoaxing. Except for perhaps seeking to make the user understand wiki norms (a previous posting by another user on his talk page hasn't resulted in any change so far), perhaps some disciplinary action is suitable. --Soman (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him. The content is not appropriate and his edit warring to try to force it in and then claiming some kind of special privilege as the "spokesman" of CPP is not acceptable. Sarah 14:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett blocked, requesting review

I have blocked G-Dett (talk · contribs) for 24 hours due to continued incivilty after being repeatedly warned about on her talk page. You can find a discussion about it at User talk:G-Dett#Comment. There I reminded her that she was a party in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, explained to her about the "Decorum" section, and told her about commenting on content as opposed other contributors. For those interested, feel free to read the rest of the section - I am requesting a review of this block in order to see if other members of the community agree or not. Khoikhoi 08:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If a contributor is misrepresenting policy, it seems appropriate to point that out, even to "comment on the contributor". --NE2 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support block. G-Dett is under civility restrictions from the ArbCom case, and was repeatedly using uncivil terms ("troll") to refer to another editor, despite repeated requests from administrators to stop. Further, she was using this kind of inflammatory language in relation to articles that are already powderkegs, in the Palestine-Israel topic area. If G-Dett would like to point out concerns with an edit, or editor, she has the right to do so, but she must do this without the incivility and name-calling. --Elonka 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this here and not at AE? Not to mention that truth is always a defence, even in "powder-kegs". Elonka, you've already made at least one article worse through over-application of discretionary sanctions, please don't do so with others. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Truth is indeed a defence, but if it's expressed in an aggressive fashion that raises genuine issues with civility. I'm sorry to see G-Dett get blocked for this, since in my (admittedly limited) experience of her she's been a productive and very lucid editor, but I can understand the reasons for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think Khoikhoi and Elonka acted very decently here, and I agree with Chris' comments above. I do hope that people will look into the situation that sparked this, as it will need to be addressed at some point, with or without my dulcet-toned reminders.--G-Dett (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

reporting possible vandlaism, WP:CANVASSING, or other vioatlion of WP: policy???

8 (UTC) User:68.248.74.14 has ben making a handful of wierd and offensive posts to myslef and <--- dozens of other users with schauch speed that her posts seem tobe automated. I am not sure twer this report should go since i am not sure wehther or not this is a result of some sort of edit dispute i was invovled in the past or some sort of vandalism/spamming atempt or a WP:CANVASS scheeme. Any help rendered here wil be appreciated and thasnk you for reading. Smith Jones (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do IP's not require warnings before being blocked (even if it is blatant vandalism)? Angrymansr (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting specifically on anything, but as this section of the blocking policy states, warnings are not an absolute requirement for any blocks, of any users. Although, most people (including myself) find it courteous to make sure the users know what they're doing wrong, and to inform those users by means of a warning or warnings. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided seems to highly urge warnings but not require it. I was confused because back in my vandal fighting days I would report IP's to AIV and a few times the responses from admins were the user did not have sufficient warnings recently, though many times the page was filled with them over a long period of time and no action would be taken until many warnings were issued within a few days. Thanks for the information. Angrymansr (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That range does not require a warning, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal information. They have been at it a while now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal information

68.248.74.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted someone's phone number in a bunch of talk pages. Should this be taken out of the history, or just reverted? (Note:similar vandalism has come from similar IPs) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just an Anon IP with nothing better to do. If the number is a issue an Admin will remove it from the history. Bidgee (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem from this IP range. See User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Friendly IP and the history. They have been hitting several pages. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to force the IP range to edit with an account and not via an Anon IP? Then again we may still have the same issue. Bidgee (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked that range for one month. That range is in Southfield, Michigan, on AT&T's DSL network--has anyone contacted them yet? Might not do much good, since we've got a lot of abuse from anons on that network (most notably Mmbabies)--but it's worth a try. Blueboy96 17:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted them twice over the past week but nothing seems to have happened. I think they had a few accounts, Blackbeltpussy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Blackbeltstinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Blackbeltsmelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I'm not sure. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help me with my troll?

OK, so a couple weeks ago while patrolling recent changes, I reverted a simple NN edit to List of computer scientists . I gave the user a basic test1 warning. He then undid my revert. I reverted again, with a more descriptive edit summary , and gave him a test2. He then signed out of his account and undid my edit again as an IP user . After that, he began trolling pages that I created or had recently edited, sometime blanketly undo'ing perfectly reasonable edits of mine , .

I asked him to stop trolling my edits, and that I felt he was harassing me . After this he seemed to stop editing, and I thought everything was over. Until today. He started off his editing today with a pointless edit just to revert something I had fixed . Recognizing my troll's IP, I reverted this edit, and left him a test2 on his talk page . He then proceded to make bad faith edits to articles that I had created . His only edits today have been to articles I created. All of this had been done with absolutely no dialogue from the user.

Attempting to remain civil, I even offered to let him put his name back on the List of computer scientists article if he would just quit harassing me . And now for the first time he's posted something on a talk page, apparently just to further mock/harass me .

I'm about to run out of civility with this guy, and I don't know what to do. Could someone please let me know what to do in this situation? A third party's neutral POV would be greatly appreciated, even if the response is that I could have handled the situation better.

Thank you,
Adolphus79 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP's hard to block for long since it's shared and belongs to a US gov agency. It's sad but true that when this kind of thing happens, the most helpful way to get rid of it is to edit as if it doesn't nettle you at all (pay it no heed) and maybe quietly revert a day or so after the vandalism. This will tend to be highly boring for whomever's behind it and you'll likely see less of them soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a sad state of affairs, I originally thought this was just some kid getting pissy about my removing his name from a list, but come to find out that this is not only an (educated?) adult, but someone that works for/at the FAA? Your advice is pretty much what I've been doing, wait til he is no longer active, then go through and revert... considering that out of the entire FAA range, this is only coming from one particular IP, I'm considering contacting the FAA themselves about this. It would be one thing if it was a rotating IP within the range, but it looks like there are only 2 IPs in that entire range that have been used to edit wikipedia. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Andycjp ignoring policy

User:Andycjp knowingly disregards Misplaced Pages's overlinking guideline, and to a far less problematic extent, that on red links. When other users ask him to reconsider his modus, he merely argues. My interaction with him consists of User talk:Andycjp#Overlinking and his replies on my talk page. I don't know what to do; the reason I seek intervention is that it seems easier than reverting the massive numbers of unconstructive edits he makes on a daily basis. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a request to his talk page, asking that he read the WP:CONTEXT and WP:RED pages. He's replied to my message, saying that he will read them. -- The Anome (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He has indeed been reading: he has tried to edit the policy subtly, in addition to continuing with his nonstop link edits (Special:Contributions/Andycjp). I had already made it clear that he must use the guidelines' talk pages in order to challenge them. He has kept up his argument with me, including the cheeky overlinking ("'Relevant' is subjective"), although he mollified his plea of innocence. Given his activity since your message, I can only see his reply to you as devious. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956 Ceedjee is claiming that the article is AfD while making incorrect allegations. The events occurred as referenced. Secondary sources have been used. Exodus does not imply war. also he has not notified me by placing the tag on my talk page and I can't find it on the AfD log page. So where do I get to argue my case?

The Afd page is here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956. – ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please. I assume numerous people went from here to go and give their mind. There numerous references in that article but not a single one of these talks about a Palestinian Exodus that would have occured from 1949 to 1956... Ceedjee (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

I am me93 (talk · contribs)

Hi. Please see here here, I'm not suggesting they are, but they seem similar and I am just putting this here to your attention if nessecary and to see if you think that they are similar enough or not so that if nessecary. Thanks. ~AH1 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User Cali567

Since Cali567 started adding a very controversial genetical study on every argentine article in reference to demographics: (eg. Argentine American, Demographics of Argentina, etc) there has been several edit wars every day, that is why I requested the full protection of Demographics of Argentina. Though there was a consensus on Demographics of Argentina she continues making her edits. User Jersey Devil and I told her that this kind of issues have to be solved on talk pages, still though she continues making her edits.

This user has been warned more than once, nevertheless I have given her the last warning for disruption. If she continues the disruption please block her. Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Need attention on Barack Obama talk page

An IP-hopping editor who has struck before is editing Talk:Barack Obama to add the n-word to discussions and edit summaries.

The editor struck a few days ago too. Playing whack-a-mole by blocking the IP accounts after warnings isn't doing any good. For the moment we probably need semi-protection of the talk page and/or immediate blocks on the affected IPs. We ought to delete the edit histories as well. As Hate speech this is hurtful, particularly given the subject of the article. Wikidemo (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't think deleting the edits is necessary, and given the size of the page history it would be painful. MastCell  23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks! Maybe we do something about the one edit that uses the N-word in the edit summary? Just being there is hurtful.Wikidemo (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Practically impossible without developer intervention. With 12479 edits to the page, it surpasses the maximum number of a revisions that an admin can delete (5000). Oversight is possible, but there's no personal information or libel in the comment (even though it is a disgusting comment), so I doubt they would be willing to use the tool for that edit. I'm suggesting we ignore it, but someone may disagree. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay ignoring it but it must be disheartening to African Americans (and some others) to be called racist names in a public forum. You can't see them without being reminded that you're not fully welcome or safe. The thing about hate speech is that like libel, threats of violence, privacy breaches, etc., the words themselves are the injury by their presence. I guess we're done then, assuming it doesn't pop up again. Thanks again. Wikidemo (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If more people archived by phsycially moving the talk page over, this wouldn't be a problem. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs

At Talk:Chris Long (American football) there is bee na lot of rancor. Now, in an effort to achieve real consensus an Adminstrator editor, User:Baseball Bugs, made an WP:UNCIVIL personal attack against me. I ask that since he is an Admin and should be held to a standard that he be civil and that this incident not go unpunished. Saying it is obvious that English is not my first language us unhelpful, untrue, uncivil, un-wiki and un-becoming of an adminstrator editor. This makes it impossible for the past to be the past. In a heated atmosphere which Bugs has done little to dimish that. As an Admin he can reduce the rancor by being civil. The old axiom applies, if he's not part of the solution he's part of the problem. It makes me wonder if he's reall interested in the Long article or if he is there to stir sh!t. I cannot assume good faith with an Admin edit taking a personal shot about my lack of language skills.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs isn't an admin. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My error, I thought he was. For that mistake I apoligize. My complaint against him still stands.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable here. It may not be the best observation to verbalize, but questioning whether or not English is somebody's first language is not a personal attack. - auburnpilot talk 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Beg to differ. It was not "questioning" is was a statement:

"Well, it's obvious English is not his first language. That hasn't stopped him writing long, incomprehensible diatribes. That's why I'd like him to explain in 25 words or less. In English or Spanish, either one is OK. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) "

A statement is more than a question. It was a cheapshot, no? I am not suggesting a block, just a warning or something72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It appears to be in response to Ksy92003's comment "I'm anticipating about 95% of that response to be in Spanish". - auburnpilot talk 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As AuburnPilot says, not actionable but I will concede his comments could have been more civil, GDonato (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem, as I and others have told this guy, is that he writes lengthy diatribes that don't make sense. I would just like for him to explain in 25 words or less why the item he keeps pushing for is special enough to be in the article. Baseball Bugs 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, he can post as much as he wants. When I see something that I can't be bothered reading then I simply don't read it, GDonato (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't know this guy's history with this article, or you wouldn't be saying that. He's in constant battles over it, with a variety of users. Someone asks him why some obscure speech is notable, and he responds with a broken-English, rambling essay that makes virtually no sense. That's why I would like for him to explain briefly and then maybe it will make some sense. Baseball Bugs 01:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The user's address is in New Mexico, I don't think that Spanish is his/her mother language. Ksy92003's comment was out of place, even if the user speaks Spanish mocking him won't make him disappear. Anyway, was resquesting help from a Spanish-speaking user that hard? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want him to disappear, I want him to explain in a way that's readable. Baseball Bugs 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GDonato, although I tend to be a little more proactive. I don't see a problem with asking people for brevity, so long as it is done in a civil manner. - auburnpilot talk 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This being the English wikipedia, it is reasonable to expect its users to write readable English. Baseball Bugs 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In kind of an ironic twist, the IP address has now bought himself a 3-month block. Baseball Bugs 01:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He says I'm mocking him further, but all I wanted was a straightforward answer to a question. I'm not sure why he was specifically blocked, although it does come on the heels of a 3RR block about - you guessed it - that same article. Baseball Bugs 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He was apparently caught in a range block trying to net trolls, and has now been unblocked. Baseball Bugs 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say this is resolved and I will withdraw this report of this incident. I think there were a coupld of folks who said that Bugs should have been more civil and I think that serves as a warning enough. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I likewise agree it's resolved, as I'm done talking to this guy. Baseball Bugs 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and 72.0.36.36 appears to speak English acceptably well. Most of the errors I saw were more consistent with a failure to proof-read than with poor ESL fluency. Either way, if you know somebody is sensitive about their level of fluency I would suggest not provoking them. Of course if you really have no idea what they are saying you might ask them to rephrase it, but I had no difficulty understanding the general meaning of any of his posts. Of course his attitude is a whole other story... — CharlotteWebb 01:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He writes the way Bush talks. Either way, it's painful to hear. I tried to get him to answer a simple question, and he won't do it, so we're done. I'll let the collection of other users that he's annoyed deal with him. Baseball Bugs 02:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see my comment has been called to attention. I didn't intend to insinuate that the IP doesn't speak English. My comment was in reaction to Baseball Bugs asking the IP to explain the situation in 25 "English" words or less, and I joked that he might respond in another language to circumvent that request. I didn't intend to offend anybody or to infer anything. I apologize that my comment was misinterpreted, albeit understandably. Ksy92003 (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone who knows about copyright/images take a look at this

See this revert: . The images are claimed as permission obtained but *shrug*. Viridae 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(oh and I got edit conflicted when starting a new section - I thought that wasn't supposed to happen) Viridae 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a copyvio/unfit fair use to me. Commercial URL on the image, no license, no fair use rationale, everything about these images seems wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've speedy deleted them, and warned the uploader. PhilKnight (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the rest that the supposed author removed. The Other two images seem suspect too, but I've tagged them with nld instead of speedying them right off the bat. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Will someone take a look at this? I would post the diff but I can't for some reason. While patrolling the recent changes I ran into three of these which all take you to this page. If you try going to the article, or click the diff it takes you to that page, whatever it is I have no idea. It's the edit to the Solomon Islands article. Landon1980 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused, it is fine now and his edit was reverted. I couldn't even pull up the article's history, clicking the diff or the link to the article turned the page into an animated page with vulgarities seconds afterward. Landon1980 (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't have anything to do with the edit by the IP, because it just happened to me again on a different article. Landon1980 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this relates to vandalism at Template:Commonwealth realms, I've now protected the template. Melburnian (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Cheers Landon1980 (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a Grawp vandal. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting protection

I need help. I made an edit, got blanked, came to ANI and the admins okayed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#Is_Chinese_government_website_notable_source.3F

However certain editors continue to blank out these edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Falun_Gong&diff=223041906&oldid=223037963

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Falun_Gong&diff=223364394&oldid=223363516

This is not the first time this has happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bobby_fletcher#Editor_Asdfg12345.27s_blanking_of_facts_from_notable_source

I would like to request some protection. If I've done something wrong please let me know. Thanks. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The normal place to request protection of a page is WP:RFPP. Enigma 08:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody trying to hack my password

I just got an e-mail from Wikimedia that someone with the IP address 71.115.153.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (apparently in Reston, Virginia) tried to reset my password...should this be reported to anyone? Kelly 00:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have received over 100 of these emails. I have always ignored them, no harm seems to have come from it. Is the IP one you have interacted with? Kevin (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Once you start getting those, in an odd osrt of way, it means you're doing good work for Misplaced Pages. (I've gotten a couple myself) Wizardman 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh, you caught me redhanded! :-p Angrymansr (talk)

for future refernece, what does that mean when someone tried to resetr your password? That doesnt seem like something that might be important or dangeorus so could someone epxlain what that means please??? Smith Jones (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It means someone/something may have tried to steal her password. The only person who should be resetting your password is you. You should not receive e-mails for password resets if you didn't do it. That means someone else is trying to tinker with your account. Angrymansr (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it means someone clicked the "I forgot my password" button on the login screen, and nothing more. It's absolutely impossible to break into someone's account by doing this. --Carnildo (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty narrow view of the possibilities. While most of these attempts may be harmless, this issue goes far beyond Misplaced Pages. There's something called Social Engineering which may allow hackers to gain entry to your e-mail without changing any passwords, and then they can come here and click e-mail new password and the account has been breached. Sounds far fetched? It happens all of the time. I don't think blowing it off as "impossible" is the right answer. The U.S. Gov't can't avoid being hacked, but somehow Misplaced Pages has it figured out? The right answer would be to ensure that you have full control of your e-mail and wiki account, and to change your passwords if you deem it necessary to a strong password scheme. Also advise not to use the same passwords for your e-mail and wiki account. Angrymansr (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the techniques of social engineering, and asking for new passwords has nothing to do with it. For more information, visit this site and log in with your Misplaced Pages username and password. --Carnildo (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, if the user's e-mail has been hacked via social engineering or by any other means then their wikipedia account can easily be breached using this tool. It's not impossible. Angrymansr (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh...shouldn't those attempts be reported somewhere, or are they beneath notice? Kelly 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

cant people who do that be blocked? I mean, I dont want to come back one day and fidn someone else vandalized WIkipedia on my account or come back and find my account locked with some strange Nordic-Swaihili code or something! I would lose la my of my contributions have to find all of hte articles that I have worked on before in the past. I thinkt hat there should be a way to stop people from freel being able to reset someone elses password without their knowledge and/or consent. Smith Jones (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just have a very strong password and you will be fine. You can try to reset anyones password by trying to log in as them. It will only reset though if you click the link in your email. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying...so basically we ignore the hacking attempts? Doing something like that seems at least as serious as vandalism. Kelly 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree. Maybe the Hackers haven't not founded a way to compromise the our security failguards yet but they shall some day and if we dont find a way to knock them out now we will come in one day and find that a admins' account has been stolen and the entire encyclopedia has been horriblie vandalized. Smith Jones (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's really someone trying to "hack" your account but rather someone just trying to annoy you by having the emails sent to you. I get them on a regular basis and have done for at least a couple of years and I've always assumed it was some vandal I blocked who was trying to piss me off. The emails aren't of any use in "hacking" your account unless they also know your email address and are able to access it to be able to get the link in the email. Best thing is to make sure both your email and account passwords are strong and then just ignore them or even filter them to junk mail so you don't even have to deal with them. It's much better now that they have set a limit on one email per day as a couple of years ago some of us were receiving dozens a day and I seem to recall someone who got over 100 in one day and that was what eventually led to the developers setting the limit at one request per day. Sarah 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I got 60 in a ten minute period back in the Great Password Reset Flood :) Daniel (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

tank you for all your help. so I guesss we editors in good standing will have to put uwp with attempts to violate the intereigity of our accounts from these nutcases, right? Well, i guess its not that a big of a deal since the amount is limited! Smith Jones (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering they can't actually do anything by sending these requests, it's nothing to worry about. --Carnildo (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I get these almost every day. Usually, the IP responsible has made no edits. It's not a big deal, although if you start getting them, make sure you have a decent strong password. Marked as resolved. Neıl 龱 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I get these e-mails too, and I've been avoiding anything remotely contentious on Misplaced Pages, so I don't think it has to do with editing disputes spilling over into retribution through hacking, or even a deliberate attempt to annoy. I notice that Neil, Kelly, Sarah, and Daniel all have common first names as user names. It would not be surprising if new editors registering accounts for the first time often try to choose these same user names, without knowing that they are already taken. When that doesn't work, the software presents several options, one of which is a password reset over e-mail. And the most universal approach to solving computer problems is to try every available option and see what happens. They may click on the button without really understanding what it means. Rather than malice or hacking, I think a simpler explanation is a bit of confusion in signing up for an account. So I don't worry about it. --Reuben (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The IP address is already disclosed in the email. There is a bug open: bugzilla:14630, to log this IP somewhere reviewable as well, so that if there are incidents in which someone is harassed by a lot of these attempts, there is information available to further an investigation. This bug has support from a number of current CUs... ++Lar: t/c 12:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per the growing consensus below, Giovanni33 has been banned by the community, in accordance with the banning policy. No need to continue this discussion. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just blocked Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 1 month for a 6th infringement of his 1 revert per week editing striction. This time, he used socks to revert twice on socks to revert twice on Glenn Beck. Here as Giovanni, and here with a sock (confirmed at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Giovanni33). I've just realised as I've been writing this that the report is completely stale - It's from June which has suddenly given me huge doubts about the appropriateness of the block. But..... Do we really need this here. Giovanni has a huge history of using socks and/or meat puppets, as documented by his latest arbcom case, which he's set to be banned in. Can't we just ban him as a community? I think our patience is used up. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think he's either got sloppy, or was too clever for his own half. In regards to the latter explanation, Giovanni seems to be arguing that because he would never openly allow a puppet to be linked to his account, this can't be him. So having been exposed to what I would term "Giovanni logic" this would be the perfect ruse to try to deflect evidence of his puppetry at the pending arb-comm case. If these supposed conspirators who are trying to get Giovanni blocked could avoid linking Supergreenred to him, they could have done the same with Ratatoui. Equally if they wanted to get Giovanni banned by linking accounts to him, they could have done that with supergreenred. This scenario is just barmy.

I think Giovanni is taking the biscuit now, but faced with a 1 year renewing ban I think he would try almost anything. I have noted that in the past abusers of puppets have been indef-blocked even with a pending arb-comm case - the arb-comm just ensures that if they're ever given another chance they still have to face at least that 1 year ban. John Smith's (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse an indefinite ban. John Smith's (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite ban Just look at his block log, it's appalling. You actually have to expand the log to 100 items to see the entire thing. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that ArbCom have very nearly given him a year ban - see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Proposed decision#Giovanni33 banned - I would just leave the month block, and then let the ban take effect. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's foregone by now. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that there are only 6 entries beyond it fitting within 50 and given that about 20 of the entries are unblocks, I'm not sure the description above is completely accurate. That said, it is certainly one of the longest block logs I've ever seen. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban in view of that block log. Any ban ArbCom may impose would just run concurrently to the community-imposed one.  Sandstein  20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC) — Clarifying on request: I endorse a community ban of indefinite duration.  Sandstein  22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban indef ban - in light of appaling POV pushing, rampant sockpuppetry, etc. Enough kiddy glove treatment - the only people not supporting a ban on Giovanni anymore are people who have been supporting his edit wars. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban and extend to indef Enough is enough. G33 has shown on numerous occasions that he has no respect whatsoever for this community and it's policies. Jtrainor (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that some of these comments could be a bit clearer. Are people endorsing the one-month ban or the suggestion of an indef-ban? For the record I will check, but from now onwards it might help if people specified. John Smith's (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that if users don't clarify the ban length, it's safe to say that they are endorsing an indefinite ban. The one-month "ban" is not a ban. It is a block. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. John Smith's (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• endorse ban Frankly, I'm a little annoyed that this has taken this long to deal with. Even without the latest behavior I would have likely endorsed a community ban. Giovanni's continued presence is a net negative for the encyclopedia. The most recent edits I can find from him in article space that were productive and not edit warring date to almost a month ago. Giovanni at a fundamental level does not understand that NPOV is not HisPOV and moreover, seems to be consistently unwilling to try to learn. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. For those who are concerned about process, User:Bluemarine was community-banned while his RFAr was in progress, and the arbcom's one-year ban was added in addition to the community ban which was in place. It appears that a similar situation has occurred here. G33 has clearly exhausted the community's patience. Horologium (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban as per all of the above reasonings. Greg Jones II 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef Sceptre 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef Probably holds the record for the biggest time-waster in the project's history (after Mantanmoreland of course). His article productivity is almost zero, and the most frequent argument I encounter against his banning is variations of "his POV needs to be represented". Unfortunately, that's not at argument for ignoring massive sockpuppetry and edit-warring. The 4 ArbCom votes so far to put him under a 1-year self-renewing ban (the first ever) are a big hint what to do here, folks. - Merzbow (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Two things: one, I think it is time that Misplaced Pages and Giovanni33 (and related socks) part company, and two, leave the thread open, because this place will tolerate disruptive editors endlessly, but close a ban discussion "too quickly" and there will be hell to pay. MastCell  07:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• What a load of nonse. ArbCom's considering this very matter, and Ryan decides to step in, guns blazing? Just back off slowly, everyone, the people we elected to handle this are already on the case. Obviously do not endorse ban. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Are you objecting to Giovanni being indefinitely banned, or being indefinitely banned prior to the result of an arbitration case? There is precedent for this - Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine#Bluemarine_banned is an example. John Smith's (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• comment the vast majority of editor endorsing the ban are those editors who vehemently oppose the content that G33 has added to articles. If you remove their (Ice Cold Beer, Jtrainor, John Smith, Merzbow, Sceptre, The Evil Spartan - just from the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States) predictable endorsement of the ban, there are only about 5 non-involved editors endorsing the ban and about 3 non-involved editors questioning the ban.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting the situation. As far as I can see only Relato refero actively opposes a ban and he always sides with Giovanni - he is far from being "non-involved". Gwen did not opppose the ban, only saying that it was a foregone conclusion the arb-committee will ban him for a year. Phil said that he would keep the month block, but he didn't say he opposed a ban (there's a difference between opposing something and not supporting it). John Smith's (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that's a load of horseshit. I don't "always side with Giovanni", I merely think that sockpuppetry is unlikely here. For the record, I believe the article he most focuses on, State Terrorism, needs to be stubified and rewritten from scratch, focusing only on the highest-quality, directly relevant sources, which is the same approach that WMC is taking, who is hardly on Giovanni's "side". Attempt to avoid misrepresenting people for momentary gain in a trivial argument, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Relata, I was talking about when Giovanni has been blocked - not editing. From my memory you have objected to him being sanctioned in the past, and I cannot remember a time where you supported sanctions against him. If that is not the case I invite you to set the record straight with circumstances where you did support them. But certainly on the arb-case you opposed the proposed sanctions on Giovanni.

Maybe you could let me know the answer to my earlier question. Are you opposing the indef-blocking of Giovanni period, or simply before the arbitration case has concluded? John Smith's (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not votes for banning. We do not vote on the fate of people. A strong case has been made that Giovanni33 has exhausted community patience. No administrator has objected. Therefore, Giovanni33 is community banned, until an administrator objects. Even then, Giovanni will remain blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. Jehochman 12:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If this isn't a classic illustration of what Jimbo meant when he said we're too nice to the disruptors I don't know what is. Enough is enough. He's had multipile chances. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Giovanni33

I called it a mistake because I thought it was just a hasty error by Ryan per the RFCU, which confirms user Rataoui as the puppet of banned SuperRedGreen - not me. The arbcom case is currently considering the evidence and arguments of these claims. Since one would think that when an arbcom case is opened to look at the evidence of the claim that one account as likely being another, this supersedes subsequent punitive actions possibly taken by other admins, pending that investigative process and determination of fact by the arbcom proceedings. Otherwise what it the point of the arbcom case?

What seems to have happened in this case is that an admin may have made a mistake but is now saying that it's "likely anyways" that arbcom is going to decide against me so the block should stay anyway, effectively superseding the arbcom process that is charged with making this exact determination. This is procedurally wrong and a previous ANI thread concluded that it would only muddy the waters of the arbcom case. Ryan has said that Arbcom is going to ban me anyway, so it does not matter. I disagree. In practice this just prevents me from even responding in my defense on the talk pages of my arbcom with important counter arguments to the comments of others against me. Yes, there are reasons to believe and not to believe that I have any real connection to this account (SGR), but that is what arbcom is deciding on: Until they do, admins should not jump the gun, and make the determination on their on and block me for it hoping that arbcom will back them up in the end, and that it will be moot if I'm blocked or not. This is not fair, and a violation of due process.

For the record, I've held that SuperRedGreen is an impersonator, and has wikistalked and copied not just me but other editors. I had no problem when that account being indef blocked. Now they come back with a puppet, and once that is confirmed, they should be blocked -- not me! This is obviously a transparent attempt by someone to make me look bad. The user checks confirms the connection of these two accounts, and there is no connection to meGiovanni33 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, checkuser (technical) evidence has suggested that you are likely Rataoui. It isn't the result of any human error. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The human error is Ryan claiming it was confirmed when it was not. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise that this thread was closed with the result that Giovanni33 is banned, and then was re-opened. FWIW, I think that it should remain open at least over the weekend because (1) it is currently 4th of July weekend, so admins/editors in the USA may not be able to comment until the end of weekend (or later...) and (2) the thread was closed after being open for under five hours. --Iamunknown 05:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that some people have thrown a wobbler over the fact Ryan started the discussion when he did, implying that he did it deliberately to limit the discussion. Well, guys, from his profile it looks like he's English, not American - so he had no reason to know about US holidays.

I don't disagree with the thread being re-opened for a short while, but unless it now becomes an informal rule to not close threads for community bans over the holiday period of any English-speaking country, I think having to keep the thread open for longer than the weekend is a bit much. John Smith's (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As a long-time Gio supporter and "give Gio the benefit of the doubt"er, I'd like to suggest that too much mercy is as bad as too much severity. Ban him. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It has been my observation that, over the past year or two, User:Giovanni33 has frequently clashed with User:John Smith's, particularly at pages such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, in which Giovanni would attempt to skew the article toward portraying U.S. actions in a more negative light, then John Smith's would revert the article to portray the same actions in a positive light. In this case, I'm actually shocked that the very same editor on the other end of the revert warring (whom in many cases was reverting to worse versions) is the one pushing hardest for Giovanni's block. If there is anything political to do with this push (I believe there is), the block should not take place. The pot is equally as black, if not blacker, than the kettle in this case, and I cannot believe that no one has as yet pointed this out. I recommend a look through the archives on this matter to all making their opinions known here. Badagnani (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, I have reverted that particular article a total of 5 times this year. 3 times against an anon-IP that was making poor changes (and may well have been a sockpuppet) and only twice against Giovanni. Now compare that with Giovanni's edit-warring on the page wth multiple users and his repeated use of puppets (I have never used them myself). He has also been blocked 6 times for violating his revert parole - I haven't been a single time. Yet you still accuse me of being as bad or worse than him? That is not credible. The facts speak for themselves. John Smith's (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Badangani - Yes, his opponents are going to be the first to notice this chink in his armour. But the fact is, the people who would like to support him based on his arguments, can't because of his behaviour. Too bad. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I had a similar reaction to Badagnani on seeing John Smiths' lobbying on this page and I just reverted his addition of Giovanni to the banned user list. I don't really care if there is consensus to ban Giovanni as I have been watching the problems with his behaviour and his blatant socking and lying when caught out for the last few years and like other longterm editors I've basically had enough but it's absolutely unacceptable for Giovanni's editorial adversary to have any involvement in determining the consensus and then restoring his name to the banned user list. Sarah 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm hardly his "editoral adversary". He may have bullied me in the past, but I couldn't care less about his views or editing interests. I would say that people who have suffered from his behaviour in the past have as much as a right to express their opinions as someone who has never come across him, though I have never suggested my views should be taken as a means of establishing consensus. If people wish to oppose a ban they can do so, but I have a right to query their views - I don't see that as lobbying.

As for the list, as an administrator surely you know it's for logging bans. He is banned so I restored the name. Until he is unbanned it should be there. What is more important - waiting for an "uninvolved editor" to put it there, or having it there as a record of the fact he is under an indefinite ban? I guess you would say the first, but I would say the second. John Smith's (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are his editorial adversary - that's why you both ended up at ArbCom. Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the purpose of the banned user list and I have no objection to Giovanni being added to it; my objection is to *you* being the one to add him. Considering your background with this user, I find your 'leading role' here very concerning and political. I think you should just back off and leave dealing with Giovanni to others who do not have such a past history with him. Sarah 07:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, the arb-comm case was way into last year and I thought Giovanni could change. Sadly he hasn't, which is why I came here. I tend to query comments so I can understand if you think I had heavy input, but I was merely curious and not "leading" the discussion. But I think we have agreed there is no more that we need to say on this matter - we agree to disagree on the rest. For the record I had already decided not to restore his name to the banned list if it is removed after the protection expires because it isn't important. John Smith's (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Small addendum to the above: Someone should probably go around and clean up all of G33's socks as well, those that havn't been already blocked, that is. It's odd to leave them unbanned. Jtrainor (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the ArbCom case closes, I will open a WP:AE for them. Likely those specifically named in the FoF will be banned with the closing of the case; the other major one that needs to go that's not named is Olawe (talk · contribs). - Merzbow (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with Sarah. This is disgraceful. Regardless of the pros and cons of banning this long-time user, the fact that the proposal was made, the "decision" ratified and the discussion archived in less than 24 hours, covering the period of a major US holiday and the traditional "recovery" period cannot possibly be justified. That the majority of the discussion was between traditional "opponents" of the ban-ee only adds to the distasteful nature of an event that once again carries more than traces of the fetid stench of IRC. If you refuse to give the Arbitration Committee remedy the respect, time and patience it needs to work, at least indulge us with the pretense that this is a real community decision and not one patched together by a band of rogues in the pitch of the night. The contributions and style of Giovanni33 may well be ban material, but this is not the way to go about it. 220.236.108.16 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I object to the premature closure of the discussion. I am not yet convinced that this user's actions warrant a ban. We should consider this carefully and with alternative remedies in mind. Perhaps Giovanni could be asked to avoid a particular article, if that article is a source of controversy? Everyking (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have a strong opinion either way until I read this (see toward the bottom of the section): I think it's best that he stop editing here until whatever unspecified legal actions he plans with his lawyer are finished. There are certainly some veiled legal threats there and I think he needs to explore those before editing here again. RxS (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User: Mizbiplob

Mizbiplob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I don't know where else to put this. This user appears to be acting in good faith, but contains to make up categories, add uncited "facts" and roll back corrections made to his english. I've tried leaving messages on their talk page including help on categories; but they simply don't respond; instead claiming they don't understand on the user page. It's all very weird; and a ban would be over the top; but correcting every edit they make is getting tiresome. Any advice? --Blowdart | 07:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I reported to AIV due to the nonsense pages. The user has been blocked twice and persists in creating nonsense pages, despite multiple warnings. See their talk, and an admin can see how many pages it has created that got deleted. I'd say close to ten. Enigma 08:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I had thought about AIV; but most of the nonsense, to me, seems to be due to the lack of a decent command of English, and no understanding of what is notable. --Blowdart | 11:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom page

Hi. On the United Kingdom page there is a box over the page that says stuff about grawp. I managed to 'hack' into the history of the United Kingdom page but it is not down in the history! thanks!--82.152.210.114 (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pararubbas

Pararubbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite numerous warnings, the user consistently removes external links, references, stub templates and other valuable information from articles. I think a temporary block may be appropriate. Cheers! BanRay 11:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Desmond Hume99

Desmond Hume99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been trying to create an article on Spoilertv, a non-notable website. He has since brought the matter to DRV, where it was revealed that the user is evading a block . — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have salted the article and indef'd the account as a block evader. Since there is an ongoing DRV I would not oppose any unblocking to allow participation if considered necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassin' (no pun intended!)

I just received this rather interesting message on my talkpage. It's from an editor I've never interacted with, on a subject I know nothing about. I can't be bothered to look into it, but someone else might want to, it looks as if others have been spammed/canvassed too. Cheers! ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's canvassing - it doesn't seem to be written in a way to influence the outcome; it's mere notification of a community discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But it's being given to loads + loads + loads of totally unrelated contributors, on a non-wide issue (as in, not deleting the Main Page, just a routine DRV-type thing). That sounds like canvassing to me, or at the least spamming. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)

It's weird if TreasuryTag has never had any interaction with the user and/or the article. I know on at least one occasion I mass-Talked about 20 or so users who had participated in a particular AfD discussion, because a discussion relevant to the previous AfD was taking place and both sides of the discussion were concerned about making sure any interested parties were made aware... but I'm not sure how I feel about pinging random users to get more participation. It's not canvassing, for sure, but... I dunno, that's weird. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi: Thanks TreasuryTag! This will hopefully get a few more editors over at the deletion review for the Alan Cabal article: Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_3#Alan_Cabal I have seen too many of the same people from the AFD there so I'm trying to get a fresh group to opine.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Manhattan Samurai is trying to have the article on Alan Cabal undeleted, but all the references provided in the DRV are blogs, blog comments or trivial mentions. He has also refused to accept userfying the article, insisting that it be in mainspace while he works on it. Finally, he has resorted to direct insults in the DRV, which I already warned him about. I refrained from !voting in the discussion because of that, but this is quickly becoming tendentious. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I now see that Manhattan Samurai has already reached his final warning for personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He was just addressing editors active on other subjects on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3‎, (I was one of them) as he wanted some independent opinions. Maybe he took things too personal, but I believe that everything has been settled. Cst17 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Betacommand (up to 4 blocks now)

As noted at the top of the page, I've moved discussion of Betacommand's most recent blocks to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand. Just a reminder since I've already had the obligatory complaint about the subpage move. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidas

This user User:Wikidas is going around posting nonsense into the Muhammad article further this user is adding content without discussion in talk page . User provides poorly scholared information and seems to be into editing war with bringing sock puppets to revert article. --Veer87 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Veer87 the edits you object to are not "nonsense" or unsourced as you claim. You are engaged in an edit war despite receiving a final warning for you not to continue to remove sourced material from articles. Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this case? I believe Veer87 should now be blocked for edit warring and vandalism of the Muhammad article. I am recusing myself from taking that action to prevent even the appearance of a mis-use of the admin tools in a content dispute - though I don't believe this is one. Gwernol 17:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)