Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:19, 9 July 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Vandalism of Grand Southern Trunk Road

This anonymous user has been vandalising the page already three times today. He has been removing material without discussing about it. Examples 1, 2 and 3. He also vandalised my talk page. I guess the 3RR definitely applies here. Docku (talk)

Radical idea concerning MascotGuy

As active as I've been these last few years in trying to fight this guy off, I'd like to propose something really, really different: Why not allow his next sock to edit and only that sock; he wouldn't be allowed to create any new ones. Once he picks his next user name, that's the one he sticks with. That is, assuming he does some good edits like the last few he's done. NawlinWiki is for it and I'm sure Gogo Dodo will be as well; they've blocked his last few attempts. He would, of course, be notified via the talk page that he's being allowed to edit and that his edits will be carefully monitored. I would hope that he would be willing to discuss changes on his talk page, but given his condition, it wouldn't be absolutely necessary so long as his edits remain accurate. I was the one who'd made contact with his mom some time ago since one of the socks was named for his mom's e-mail address. Never did hear from her again, though. Since he's far more clueless than malicious, what do you all think? Could this be brought up for some sort of vote? I got burned trying to counsel a couple of allegedly autistic users, but I think this may be different and I'd be willing to monitor his progress. I'm looking forward to reading your opinions. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth a try. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea, if you can get him to stick to one account. It seems like lately he's being blocked on principle rather than for any problem behavior. He's here because he wants to contribute, so if there are experienced contributors who are willing to keep an eye on things, why not let him? -- Vary | Talk 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you didn't provide any background information, or maybe I just don't know where to look I will simply comment on principle. If there is any way to allow or encourage an editor to contribute in a beneficial manner to the project it should be done. And personally, by should I mean must. Oh and if you'd like to enlighten me with some background and details of the situation I'd be happy to give an educated opinion on this situation. Beam 02:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to vehemently disagree with this, unless you're considering blindly reverting everything the sock does. The last time (to my knowledge) we nearly kept some of his contributions, they turned out to be too untrustworthy to keep. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive429#Seemingly legit article by a prolific vandal. And that's MascotGuy's M.O. - things that look plausible on the surface but turn out to be completely false. You'd be signing the community up for one hell of a babysitting job. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wknight94. We don't need to babysit this guy any more than we do now. Instead of welcoming him, we should find a way to make it so that he cannot access the site as he seems to have no problem with now. If we have to contact his mother again or simply block him on our end for as much as a permanent result as we can, we should do that instead of letting his edits go uncontrolled and allow him to create more garbage accounts that he'll never use in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit that even proposing this in the first place runs counter to what all of us have been doing for far too long. There's a problem beyond just a bunch of untrustworthy edits from a guy whose parents have a dynamic IP with Road Runner Cable. I've written to Wikimedia and gotten no response. I'm still waiting from a response from Jimbo on another matter and I know how busy he can be. In short, the highers-up seem to be taking no interest in the problem and I don't think they realize the scope of the work it's creating for admins and those like me with rollback privileges. This is why I'm thinking that we offer one carrot to this guy and one only. He claims an account and edits from that one only, period. No more socks and the first sock or bad faith edit nulls the agreement which he should be made to do on his talk page or in an e-mail to an administrator. As I pointed out a couple of posts ago, the "Animal Guy" sock did several bizarre redirects to the term, "round robin." Other edits were legit. Maybe the guy's growing up; I don't know. If he screws up, he's done and hopefully, a formal complaint can be leveled at his IP at that time. If this is moving toward a "no" vote, then what's the next step? Who needs to be alerted in the foundation? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a decent proposal IMO and useful for other cases, but not in this case as Wknight94 has identified. Orderinchaos 04:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's an interesting idea, but I'm not so sure that it's going to work in practice. As noted in WP:LTA/MG: This editor does make useful edits, but his frequent bad edits, and noncommunication with other editors makes him a problem. I think the difficulty will be getting him to stick to a single account and be communicative. I've got mixed feelings about this idea. On one hand, I've got faith in reforming almost anybody and it would be nice to finally be able to close something that has been going on for way too long. On the other hand, I think the communication issue is going to be a problem. He seems to be well aware that he is doing something wrong (e.g., the tagging of his own sockpuppets) and I'm not sure the problem can be fixed. But if somebody can open a communication line with him, it's an interesting idea. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• You're right. I'd forgotten about that bizarre little trait of his and I'm thinking as a rational and normal person which he clearly isn't. This is just a game to him as evidenced by the fact that he literally tagged himself as a blocked vandal at User:Guyapalooza. Just when you think you've seen it all. I do believe I've answered my own question. Since edits relating to the "Eloise" book and TV franchise seem to be his particular forte at present, it might not be a bad idea to semi-protect them for a little while. He keeps tagging, we keep bagging. If someone has the ear of the foundation, now's a good time to yell in it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it may be time to close this discussion. Acalamari just blocked a few socks which MascotGuy himself first tagged as blocked sockpuppets before they were even blocked. Heaven knows I made a good-faith effort to try and bring this guy in line, but there's no talking to him and whoever is in charge of supervising him is apparently unaware of the havoc he's causing. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

IP: 71.192.98.224 blockage

This person uses an anonymous IP to change all the articles' "Sister Cities" sections in order to add the state for all the U.S. cities even though the other countries don't include the state, the reason why they all follow the "City, Country" format of so it is be fair for all countries, but if this person keeps editing the articles to break that format in favour of the U.S. then it'd be disrespectful to all the other countries because he's putting it as if the United States was more important that all the others, this IP should be stopped, that's the only thing this IP does and he's done it in nearly 50 cities already and it seems like he'll continue if kept unblocked. Supaman89 (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is problematic, but I find it even more troubling that this hasn't been discussed with the user in question before blocks are called for. I've commented on their talk page, and on a Manual of Style thread linked from there. Let's see where discussion gets us, before we jump to conclusions. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While this may be a discussion for another forum, but owing to the influence of the European settlers there are place names that are repeated throughout the US - giving the relevant State can help. The other thing I find is that many (US based I presume) editors give only the placename and State, assuming that the rest of the world will know the nation... Which is often correct, but it isn't encyclopedic to treat one country different to the others - as mentioned above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

All countries should be treated equally, and if they all follow the "City, Country" format the U.S. has to do it too, implying that it is more important than all the others is disrespectful. Yesterday I was going send a warning to this IP but it was too late and I went to sleep, however I think it obvious that this IP is only being used for editing the Sister Cities sections in favour of the United States, even after this IP is blocked I'm gonna have to revert all this edits which are around 50. Supaman89 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to specify the state when naming a US city, because otherwise, you can't tell if Portland refers to Portland, Maine, Portland, Oregon, or one of the twelve other "Portland"s in the US. --Carnildo (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Or Portland, Dorset if it isn't clear you are referring to the US. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that maybe some cities in the U.S. need disambiguation but not all of them, for example Corpus Christi, Little Rock, Albuquerque, Mentor-on-the-Lake, etc. there is just one of them in the U.S. therefore it could simply be stated as "Albuquerque, United States" in any case disambiguation wouldn't be unique to the United States, other places within other countries also have repetitive names for example Torreón, Coahuila with Torreón, Chihuahua and Torreón, Sonora all within Mexico but respecting the "City, Country" format I would simply put "Torreón, Mexico" when listed as a Sister City, after all when people click on the link it would send them to the specific one; anyhow if we are going to add the state for the U.S. cities why don't we also do it with all the other countries, that would make things equal for everyone, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That disambiguation only makes sense when you have two cities with the same name on the same list of sister cities and, even then, if they are from the same country, since otherwise they would be displaying different flags and different country names anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves

We now have a backlog including items over a month old at WP:RM. Any assistance would be appreciated, as always. JPG-GR (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Tennis is the oldest request currently present and needs some attention. JPG-GR (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

disturbing vandalism

Hey, I just reverted some vandalism I REALLY don't like: diff. It mentions Obama's death. I'm sure this guy is just an idiot, but I'm not going to let this slide without bringing it to others' attention. I hope this isn't something we take lightly. --JaGa (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I just did a WHOIS and reported him to Charter Communications. --JaGa (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RBI, to be honest, given the nature of the vandalism... _GB 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's it? Look, I don't believe this guy is a true security threat, but his actions still should have consequences. You shouldn't be able to vandalize Misplaced Pages with comments forecasting someone's future death and not even get a stern message about it. Do we really have no policy beyond RBI for cases like this? --JaGa (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be flippant but this is ridiculous - fire up Huggle or Vandalproof and you'll probably see a hundred pieces of vandalism like that within 10 minutes. RBI is entirely the right course here – there's no earthly way that's a credible threat. – ırıdescent 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it isn't a credible threat, but I still don't think it should be tolerated. I spend a lot of time on Huggle and it's the first time I've come across something like this. This just seems like something that should have zero tolerance. --JaGa (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I can remember one morning where a guy uploaded a picture of a black man who had been lynched, with Obama's face crudely superimposed on it. The user then proceeded to add the image to a lot of articles (think upwards of 30-40). Seriously, this stuff happens all the time. J.delanoy_adds 20:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy CENSORED , these vandalisms are almost hate crimes! 30-40 pages with a picture of Obama being lynched?! It almost seems like something mre should be done......Graham (talk, contrib) 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally users aren't reported to ISP's or whatever unless they're serial vandals or something like that. Random vandalism like posting a picture of Obama being lynched is, quite frankly, mild compared to what happens here every day. Of course, if you want to report them, go ahead... Calvin 1998  21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am mildly amused that somebody declaiming (justifiable) horror at the use of race hate in attacking Obama should excuse the "CENSORED" comment by referring to it as French... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC) My hovercraft is full of eels!

Any time an edit insinuates extreme violence against another person - either another editor or a public figure - that vandal should be blocked, reported to their ISP, and a template should be placed on the IP's page informing them that they've been reported to their ISP. Just because it happens a lot is no reason to be OK with it. Just out of curiosity, what was done about Mister 30-40 pics of Obama hate? --JaGa (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins - Please contact the secret service with as much information as you have about this poster at your earliest opportunity. The DC field office may be reached at 202-406-8000. Please tell the operator that you are calling to report a threat to a presidential candidate. Thank you. --BenBurch (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone really going to do this? Or has anyone already? Graham (talk, contrib) 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I seriously hope not, as I suspect the Secret Service probably have enough on their hands dealing with credible threats without having to add dealing with a random piece of Misplaced Pages drive-by vandalism to their to-do list.

Perhaps getting a sense of perspective might be a good idea in this instance?

1. Admins (even checkusers) will have no more information available to them about this than any other user, since the person concerned wasn't logged in when they made their edit.
2. Take the edit in about the only bit of context there is available by looking at the IPs previous edit. Hmmm. Let's pick one at random. December 4 1983 - JK Rowling wins the lottery. A bit tricky, as the National Lottery didn't start up 1994.
3. Everyone knows that Scooby Doo is Scrappy's bitch and not Shaggy's. I mean, come on...
4. Unless I'm much mistaken, if Obama were to win the election in November he won't move into the White House until January 2009. This would presumably explain why he's there at 4.43 in the morning shortly after Christmas 2008, as he'd clearly have snuck in under cover of darkness to measure up for new curtains.
5. If that's a credible "threat to a presidential candidate", I'm a banana.
6. Continue ad nauseam, and ad realisation that this is just a random piece of vandalism and should be treated as such?

RBI is there for a reason. Revert, block, ignore. Let's stop feeding the trolls as this sort of drama is exactly the sort of reaction they're hoping to achieve. _{The public face of GB} 17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm OK with the opinion, but what's up with number 3? Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 00:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, but this is more of an immature vandal rather than anything else. There actually isn't a direct threat towards a candidate as much as a moronic statement. I totally agree with the RBI, if there is something that lists in full blown detail an actual scheme than that is a different story. Yanksox (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread has really run off in some quite interesting tangents. I think Yanksox's advice above is pretty reasonable. Orderinchaos 20:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I noticed that someone protected this page: Template:Quran-usc wich is a template for all Quranic verses. Homewer after careful investigation, i noticed that the protection tag TRANSCLUDES into all coranic verses extracts. Can someone fix it? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ! 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to noinclude this edit. —Giggy 03:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Thanks for the heads up. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoopsees. Sorry. Grandmasterka 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Something you should see...

There has been a recent dispute on the Misplaced Pages Help desk, concerning the section "How do I report admin abuse?". This section was stated by Jeffrey Pierce Henderson and, according to some comments on his talk page, resulted in some disparaging comments. I, Graham northup, was indeed involved with this conflict, and may have heated the situation by posting an anonymous comment (that I admitted to later), and Jeffrey accusing me of being a sockpuppet or trolling admin (that he reports has been stalking him). Other users involved include Theresa knott, Mjpresson (aka Mike P), and IP address 76.14.110.81. The discussion was archived and closed by Shinmawa (aka small caps SHINMAWA). Although the section is not protected, th archive templates suggest that no one else modify this article.

I invite any concerned administrator to please evaluate this case and deal with it accordingly.

Sincerely, Graham Northup (Graham (talk, contrib) 03:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Nothing to see here. To avoid sparking this sort of drama in the future, I would suggest that you try to make those sorts of comments when you are logged in for now on. There's really nothing else for anyone to do. If the uploader continues to have a problem with the actions of the deleting administrator, they can take it up with them on their talk page, or pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. Cheers, HiDrNick! 11:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will definitely remember this next time. Kind of embarassing... Graham (talk, contrib) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: the anonymous post was because I sometimes add PSs that SineBot confuses with unsigned posts. I took that to advantage, and, as described, didn't want to look like an idiot for having such a reversal of opinion.

Wood on xkcd

Wood was on xkcd today; it will probably be vandalized for a little while. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really get vandalism from xkcd readers?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes Check the history. It's happened several times since I wrote that last post. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been semi protected. I'm amazed there were no got wood jokes, though. —Giggy 04:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Got wood for sheep?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As 'vandalism' goes, it's about as mild and harmless as it gets. FCYTravis (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, they didja one better In popular culture LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted (again) and salted for a week. Hesperian 04:56, 7 July 2008 (UTCE

You may want to do the same to In Popular Culture (cAsE variant). Sigh. Some people don't seem to know there is such a thing as taking a joke too far... —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note that I protected this, and no-one has unprotected it, and protection has not yet expired, yet, after having been recreated by another administrator (which I do not object to BTW), it is demonstrably not protected. Does the creation of a protected title cancel its protection? Hesperian 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not an administrator from what I've seen create protection, only prevents a page from being made by a nonadmin, and not the ability to edit or move said page if it is created by an admin. So you will have to reprotect the page as normal, if it still needs protection. NanohaA'sYuri 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The scary thing is, I bet that, one day, there will be someone writing an article (or getting a dissertation) on the composition of our "In popular culture" sections (what gets mentioned how often, and what this distribution says about the popularity of various popular culture items)... and then we'll have a reliable source for the "In popular culture" article... meaning that this comic can be mentioned in its "in popular culture" section... and then the blogosphere will implode. Or be eaten by raptors.

A fitting tribute for Raptor Jesus. ⇒SWATJester 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Randall Munroe is a genius. FCYTravis (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For punishment, he must license it CC-BY-SA. — Edokter • Talk • 14:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He may be kidding with Wood, but Braces is already like that, with a list of pretty much every character, fictional and real, who has ever worn braces. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, LaraLove removed it about two weeks ago. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing problem with User:Bwfguy

Apparently, repeated notices that this site isn't a webhosting service are lost on this individual. He claims to be a kid who wants to see his stuff posted here with boxes and the like. His user page has been deleted at least once and he recreated it again. He also may have a sockpuppet at User:Tystedman at this point. I've brought this to the attention of AIV a couple of times, but like I said, he isn't getting the message. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bwfguy has just recreated his deleted user page again and with all this inappropriate stuff repeated 13 (!) times although having being informed that this is not MySpace or the like. Can't this be prevented permanently? Thanks. (Jamesbeat (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Question about disruptive editor

I'm not sure how to handle this, an editor has repeatedly been disrupting AfDs by making misleading comments, referencing policies that do not relate, badgering editors that are attempting to reach consensus, and replying to comments about comments/conduct with confusing nonsense. This editor has already been blocked several times for the exact same thing, including a sock-puppet account. I do not know how exactly RfCs work, but my comment was replied to with nonsense and a call to WP:NPA. I do not know if other editors will file a similar complaint, as the comments are spread throughout many small discussions and appear many times to be good-faith confusion. Several editors have commented in the AfDs, and on the user's talk page, about the confusing/misleading conduct. I do not simply do not want someone to get away with deliberate attempts to derail consensus. Any advice is welcome. JohnnyMrNinja 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First, who are you talking about? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles - I didn't want to put the name out in context with the above post on such a public board, but I guess it's appropriate under the circumstances. The specific response I referenced above is this - a comment I made before realizing the editor had a history of such problems. Another editor received a similar response here. There are many such examples, spread across WP. JohnnyMrNinja 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly you haven't addressed your concerns directly with LGRdC. Secondly this is what dispute resolution is designed for and thirdly, no admin action is required here. Spartaz 11:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)LGRdC notified. I find it hard to get wound up about his Socratic debate style (if you don’t care for it, you don’t have to engage him), but to each their own. It is true that some other editors share your opinions about his actions, so perhaps a user conduct RFC would be the best next step. I'd guess that LGRdC himself would be amenable to that. What administrator action or involvement are you seeking out here? HiDrNick! 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • LGRdC is somewhat disruptive but they clearly have only good intentions and there doesn't seem to have be any attempt to resolve this on their talk. I have weighed in there but I really don't think that this is the right forum to have this discussion or that their behaviour has reached anywhere need the point for admin action. I did archive this discussion but was reverted. Spartaz 12:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • JohnnyMrNinja, many deleters have at one time or another carried on making comments on several or more other comments of 'the other side' at AfD. However, you are right in that there are more deleters than keepers so this habit is shared. I don't consider that the views necessarily equal 'Consensus' as there are a number of regulars who do little but nominate and vote in these proceedings. Many others spend their time writing articles. The closing admin will weigh up numbers and points of view of all comments - if there are more than a few keepers then maybe there is a point to keeping anyway which deleters are missing, if not, one keeper does not bode well for an article's survival generally. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sonny Moore

The 'Sonny Moore' page has been protected and disabled by administrators for nearly a year now. I understand that this was due to vandalism, but can you please create a new page now? This person is fairly popular and I'm sure many people would like to read about him and not be directed to his old band instead. There is much info I can contribute myself if this was to be changed. Please consider this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrillpac (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please list the request to restore the page at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. I would suggest that before doing that, however, you write a draft article in a user subpage and refer to it there. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this cause for concern?

Hello.
I'm not sure whether this is worth any concern or not, so I'll just say what I've observed, and you can either have a discussion with another editor if it's important, or just ignore this if it isn't.
(I'd originally tried to take it up with the other editor in question, but as I think about it more and more, it actually has me somewhat concerned)
(background information, for those interested)
So, there was some time-filler on the news about Obama, and I got curious as to whether or not there was an article on 'Hussein'. I checked it out, and saw that there, indeed, was (well, it's closer to a disambiguation page, but that's beside the point). However, I noticed that it was laid out in a way that almost made Barack Obama look like an item or a place, and found that odd, so went to the talk page to see if anyone had commented on it.
Though it hadn't been mentioned there, there was a discussion about Obama (which I suppose isn't surprising).
And, like a typical talk page, some people behaved better than others, yadda yadda yadda.
(actual content starts here)
But, one editor really caught my attention. Some remarks were unfortunate, but not terribly unusual.
However, one line really stuck out: All anonymous IPs are nothing better than vandals, and need to be banned immediately. There's no point to hiding behind your pathetic IP address..
That struck me as being grossly inappropriate. I followed a little farther down, and noticed a further inappropriate edit summary from the same user: please sign your posts; failure to sign posts is an indication that you're too much of a pussy to own up to your own comments..
Now, here, I was in a bit of a difficult position. On the one hand, I found it abhorrent behaviour. On the other hand, it was halfway through March. To decide whether or not to say anything, I tried going through his talk page archives to see if anyone else had already mentioned it (heck, for all I knew, it was brought up already and he might've agreed that it was a little much). When I saw that it hadn't been addressed, I decided to say something.
It was only after doing this that I noticed that he'd left a comment on the anonymous IP's talk page. And that is actually the primary source of my concern. Here's what he said: I don't respond to anonymous vandals. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, then get an account and logging in like a normal user. If you think you can hide by being "anonymous", think again. I know where you live.(emphasis mine)
I don't know how to interpret "If you think you can hide by being "anonymous", think again. I know where you live." as anything but a threat. Still, I preferred to assume good faith, and had already left him a note, so it didn't seem appropriate to leave another message yet based on something else equally old.
But then, his reply gave me even greater cause for concern. It wasn't the 'get a life' crack, or the accusation that I was somehow looking for 'dirt' on him. It wasn't even his, once again, trying to push me into registering an account (so much for the '💕 that anyone can edit'). It was this line: Nothing pisses me off more than an editor that doesn't have the balls to stand up for what they write so they have to hide behind their IP address, Mr. Primus Telecommunications Canada User.
Once again, he presses on how much he hates anonymous editors, and then reveals that he's tried looking for personal 'real-life' information about me.

The previous occurrence ("If you think you can hide... I know where you live") might've just been an isolated incident. However, the moment he was confronted by another anonymous editor (me), his first instinct was to try to look up personal information about me to use against me. This is very disturbing.
Frankly, the personal attacks, the refusal to assume good faith, the compulsion to berate people just for editing anonymously... they're all bad, certainly. But the idea that his idea of 'dispute resolution' is to look up information on people to bully or intimidate them... well... Even though anyone editing anonymously can have personal details searched for online, that doesn't excuse an editor doing it to 'win' in a dispute.
In any event, it won't be long before I have another IP address, and my own ties to him will be gone. But his conduct really gave me pause. So, I mention it here in case anyone else finds it disconcerting. And, if not, just ignore this. 209.90.135.5 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"I know where you live" and "you're too much of a pussy to own up to your own comments"? What the hell is wrong with this guy? "Anonymous" are actually less anonymous than people with usernames. I'll drop a note at his talk page. John Reaves 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Though he does have a point about the age of the diffs in question, let's see what he says here. John Reaves 05:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The initial diffs: Yes, somewhat old. And repeating the action by trying to look up my personal information? It may not be as bad as "I know where you live", but it certainly looks like 'same old, same old'. At least he's gone from calling people pussies, to now simply implying that they lack 'balls'. In any event, I've been known to make mountains out of molehills, hence my letting you people deal with it from here (or decide that I'm nuts and not doing a thing). 209.90.135.5 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a rather disturbing incident. This user appears to have been making personal attacks and looking up information on anonymous users to do so. This is not a "mountain out of a molehill", despite your modesty, this was a mountain already. I may not be an administrator, but you've done the right thing, and you can trust my support.

By the way, if you really want to be anonymous, you can not leave your signature :). I'm User:Gnorthup if you really need to know. I'd like to see how much this would peeve this person.

Allowing anonymity is one of the pillars that makes Misplaced Pages so great. I recently posted a comment to User:Jimbo Wales by snapshotting an image of the WP:User access levels permission table (the edit permission part) and stated that "If the green block was one square to the right, Misplaced Pages wold be no better than any other forum" . Unfortunately, the use of the snapshot violated fair use, so I removed the section before anyone put attention to it. That aside, my point stands, and I'll shortly find evidence.

Found it! The third of the five pillars offers the following quote: "Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone may edit." And of course, "anyone" can mean any anonymous person. No one is allowed to treat any (helpful or not) anonymous user with such prejudice.

Like many editors, I regularly review anonymous edits, and see a huge percentage of constructive, valuable edits. Not just maintenance, tweaks, and copy-editing either; many specialized articles would still be stubs if it weren't for them. Some of the most helpful contributors at the reference desk don't have a registered account. Not only are they allowed to edit unregistered, they should feel welcome too. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets is hideously backlogged, with some 46 open reports. Admin attention here would be a welcome sight :) -- ] (] · ]) 06:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations is also backlogged (12 days). --Iamunknown 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll join in working through that one, since it doesn't require one to be an admin to do the tagging/checking :) -- ] (] · ]) 07:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Done up through July 1st. Sleep beckons. Will check it in the morning and do more if still backlogged. -- ] (] · ]) 08:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations backlogged cleared...here's hoping someone tackles SSP now :) -- ] (] · ]) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Spot Image

Hi. I've been emailed by User:Spot Image regarding the indefinite block of his account. A little background: this account belongs to a unique employee of SPOT Image who is sharing images from their database as an official initiative from this company (see his userpage on Commons). I have met the project manager a few months ago, as a representative of the French chapter Wikimedia France. They have released tons of images under a free license and they're adding some of them to articles on Misplaced Pages where they are relevant.

This user has been indefinitely blocked by pschemp some weeks ago because "Usernames that promote a commercial company are not allowed on WIkipedia." When the blocked user contacted me, I was quite puzzled that pschemp didn't even start a discussion with him; is it standard policy to block a user indefinitely without even discussing the issue that may exist? I have asked pschemp to review his block, given that "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited" (WP:U). I have explained that this user had chosen to create an account using the name of this company to ensure transparency; this user is obviously subject to the WP:COI policy, and this explicit username is the best way to have other Wikipedians aware of who this account belongs to and to help them check for WP:NPOV following his edits.

Pschemp has refused to reconsider the block, saying that " choice of name is free advertising for his company" and "the result is massive spamming of one company's name". I fail to see how the behaviour of this user has anything to do with advertising or spamming:

• this is not a role account, only one person uses this account (and I know his name, FWIW) ;
• this user has neither created nor edited the article about his company (SPOT Image) ;
• this user hasn't added any external link to his company's website ;
• this user hasn't added any POV content ;
• this user hasn't even created a userpage to try to benefit from Misplaced Pages's googlerank ;
• all this user has tried to do is add these images to some articles, hence improving their quality.

I don't see what the problem with this username is; is it that the name of the company will show in the history? So what?

I'd like to ask for another review of this block. Accounts like this one don't need to get blocked indefinitely without discussion ot accused of spamming by trigger-happy people. We're working very hard to convince companies and institutions to release some of their content under a free license, and few of them accept. This kind of welcome is surely not the best way to encourage companies to free their content and to edit openly without trying to hide their COI. Accounts like this one should get help to ensure NPOV, they should not be blocked on sight.

Thanks for your comments. guillom 07:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"ensure" not "insure". I don't see any behaviour that could be considered advertising. I would unblock the user, apologise to them, and hope they continue to donate free images to Misplaced Pages. Neıl 龱 08:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

fixed spelling, thanks. guillom 09:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is trying to get obviously watermarked images onto the main page - a deleted POTD attempt and two (unsuccessful) FPCs, both of which were closed for not reading the instructions and WP:FP?. MER-C 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be minor issues that could easily be solved by explaining to this inexperienced user what is acceptable and what is not. I would be glad to help with that. guillom 13:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a problem a friendly warning would solve. MER-C 03:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh - bad block. I don't see any obviously spammy behavior, either. Kelly 18:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody's objected, so I have unblocked User:Spot Image. Neıl 龱 09:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have objected had I been actually told about the discussion. Way to ignore my objections by not notifying me. Did any of you read what I wrote in his talk page? Seriously guys, we've never let anyone else post under a company name on[REDACTED] and this amounts to free advertising for this company. Now you've gone and set a rather crappy precedent - might as well just go tell everyone tehy can come here and spam their company name all over. It doesn't matter that he didn't try to do it maliciously, because the effect is that now thousands of google hits for that particular company will point to Misplaced Pages. It isn't fair to other companies, nor the people who want to deal with Misplaced Pages and not be constantly advertised to. Not involving me was disingenuous and unblocking without addressing my concerns was premature. How is it fair that this company gets to use WP as an advertising medium for their name and no one else can? pschemp | talk 11:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. Guillom said on your talk page that he had left a message on Spot Info's talk page. On there he mentions he'd opened a thread on WP:AN. It wasn't particularly disingenuous. Guillom, above, gives a convincing explanation and reasoning for this being a special case. Everyone else who participated in the discussion seemed to concur. If more people chip in and the consensus sways back towards blocking a good faith contributor, then fine. Neıl 龱 11:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not clam down, no notice was given to me about this discussion, which is the polite thing to do when you bring up a disagreement here. He asked me to comment there, and I did. He did not then tell me he was taking it to AN. This user was unblocked without addressing my concerns or getting my input. That is wrong and you know it. It's a crappy thing to do to a fellow admin. pschemp | talk 11:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Calm down, not clam down" AGF and give Guillom some leeway - he's a Wikimedia steward, and not a habitual editor of en.Misplaced Pages. It's not "really poor behaviour", it's at most an oversight - he did leave a message on an active discussion you were participating in, probably unaware this was a breach of en.Misplaced Pages etiquette. I also (wrongly) assumed that you would have seen the link he put on Shot Info's talk page, as you were one half of the discussion taking place there. I don't like not being informed either, so for that, I apologise. It was still a bad block, though, and rather than complain about the notification, I would love to see you explain in more detail your rationale for this block. Neıl 龱 11:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – nothing for an admin to do here

Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards