Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 27 January 2007

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• 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)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Yes ads and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject No ads

Should we allow advocacy WikiProjects? This doesn't seem to be the reason we are here. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, well, it is directly related to the ongoing running of wikipedia. But it's not realy a project, it's a narrowly focused discussion. Perhapse merging them and moveing it to WP:CENT would be better? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Aaaaaargh! No! There is endless precedent for not having, creating, keeping, encouraging or permitting Wikiprojects which advocate one side of a debate. All it does is polarise. It doesn't help that one of these had only three edits, one of which was from Greg Kohs. A meta-debate on meta-advertising, whether, and in what form, and so on, is fine, of course. Kohs seems to have interpreted it as implying we should have ads in mainspace though... Guy (Help!) 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject No ads is pretty long running and pretty harmless. Well unless you want adds on wikipedia of course. A bit like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Any attempt to delete it would be somewhat silly and likely fall foul of the disruption clause. In short I don't think we need any more drama right now.Geni 20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so it's harmless to those that agree with it. As JzG said, there is longstanding precedent that one sided advocacy is not a good thing. WP:CSB is totally different because it is directly working on improving the project by fixing a current problem. Obviously Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Yes ads is Pointy, but the point is actually valid. You can't disallow one, while keeping the other side. - Taxman 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha, well, I'd like to see who'd be willing to slit their throat and put it up for WP:MFD :P. Patstuart 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, even for wikipedia-related issues. There are much better and far less divisive ways to go about this than silly advocacy wikiprojects. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please back up that claim with evidence. Remember the wikiproject did atchive it's initial aims.Geni 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean it was the right, or or best way to do it, nor even that it doesn't cause more damage than good. The only reason I wouldn't put it up for MfD is I think there'd be way too much ILIKEIT and not enough application of policy. But do let me know if someone does. - Taxman 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think there are better ways name them.Geni 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There don't have to be better ways to do it for it not to be something that we want to have here (ie not meet our policies and goals). But a non partisan factual discussion of the pro's and con's of accepting advertising would be better than the current AVOID ADS BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY type of thing currently there. But do we even need that? Meta is more the place for that type of thing. Personally I think it's amusing people are willing to let mirrors get advertising income on their work, but not the Wikimedia Foundation. At any rate policy is fairly clear that partisan things like this are not what we are here for, and I would say the same thing about a similar page for the opposing view. - Taxman 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So you supported the answers.com deal as intialy stated?Geni 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall excatly how it was originally stated, but I recall there was a big difference between how it was stated and what was assumed. It's also not relevant to whether the Wikiproject is the type of thing we want here, but I do support opt-in only advertising. I've not yet seen any compelling arguments against that, and an order of magnitude more funds than are currently available could be very well utilized to reaching the foundation's mission. - Taxman 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

look at your sidebar. Do you see a link to WP:TOOLS featuring the answers.com thing? That was the initial plan according to the foundation.Geni 13:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I dont think that the First Pillar is very ambiguous about this. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Any interpritation that rules out the no ads wikiproject would also likey impact this board.Geni 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First allow Wizardry Dragon to put forth his interpritation of the frist Pillar.18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have a certain conceptual amount of agreement, I'm wondering how much of a real difference would be made by more or less retitling the above group to WikiProject Ad Analysis or something of the like. Given the prevailing sentiment, it seems like even if based in non-advocacy the discussion would be largely the same. Heck, it may be that allowing this as an avenue for the expression of some pretty strong feelings may even better allow for a separate project or discussion to be more neutrally grounded. Isn't this something where we'd be served to not only look at the strict sense, but also the context and cost/benefit as a whole? Bitnine 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pay-per-edit?

Just dropping a note. --physicq (c) 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiring an independent source to repair inaccuracies seems like a fine way to avoid conflict of interest, if that was really the deal. HighInBC 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has stated, and I agree, that this is a very unethical practice. It should be discouraged. Very strongly. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Jimbo said it then that is another matter... HighInBC 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote:

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo. The whole point of Misplaced Pages is that we are all volunteers, who are in this just for the love of it. We have no vested interests in this project, we have nothing to gain and nothing to lose (besides an off-wiki life ;). Paying someone to edit Misplaced Pages for you is absurd. Besides, wouldn't this make the blogger Microsoft's meatpuppet? And I don't think hiring meatpuppets will circumvent WP:COI. Aecis 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea of hiring an independent source is common but inherently ridiculous. You're not independent of someone if you get paid by them. Again, if you have a problem with your Misplaced Pages article (or another article you have a conflict of interest in), post to talk, but don't try to edit it yourself. Superm401 - Talk 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Boy, I thought Guy was joking last week about not getting paid. You other sysops aren't getting the anonymous deposit of $5,000 (USD) from a numbered Cayman Island account each month? Teke 01:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I knew there was more to it when I didn't pass my RFA last week... so who got the extra cash? AH! HA! It was you wasn't it? (eyes turning left ... then right) Seriously though, what would be wrong, if considering I am a notable enough subject, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc... lets say Phil McNeely. And I wanted to pay a student to make sure my article was well balanced per wiki policy... or even to start an article on my bio. Perhaps, he may even defended the article on my bio from being edited or having information that may be libelious and negative to not only my political campaign but my life as well. If someone can obviously argue his way through the system, such as lawyers often does for their DUI clients, then I see no reason why we (an experienced wikipedian) can't be payed. Perhaps my hidden skills as an expert writer, lawyer, or something else will help propogate my POV. Perhaps a real paid lawyer could give me a fair representation during my debates. Perhaps a well experience wikipedian will know how to contour the rules in this persons favour. Remember every article is full of POVs (see the quote on my user page). I'm not saying we should keep the information, but if Microsoft wants to spend 10'000 $ during the launch of Windows Vista to make sure that certain POV are well sourced and properly reference as per wikipolicy, I'll make sure to argue it the best I can per my knowlege and experience in advocacy at AMA and as per my education. Jimbos opinion is exactly the same as mine. It's one man's opinion. --CyclePat 02:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

P.s.: It's funny you quote WP:COI. That "guideline" says "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;" however as an independant contractor writing for an organisation, technically, I would not be related to the company. I obviously wouldn't be arms lenght but technically, I wouldn't be editing an article related to my organization. --CyclePat 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Letter vs. spirit. —bbatsell ¿? 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• People who take advocacy as you do make me question my membership in the AMA. What part of unethical is hard to get your mind around? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • LOL, Well... where do I start.... (self referene back to my above comment? nah). Well, in general, being a prosecutor (attacking), I think, doesn't require much imagination, but being a defence lawyers requires a lot more imagination. ie.: He might have been here, he migth have been there, we could done this instead, the wikirule might have meant this, etc... (oops! Advocates aren't lawyers that's true.) Anyways, being an advocate is about the same because you are somewhate making a choice to defend the other side, all while remaining still technically being honest and ethical. However, again, it always requires, a lot more imagination to defend someone. "There is always another way of seeing things or the possibility of another solution to what is being alleged." Surely, and I mean this as a compliment, your little train that could still has some imagination to remain an advocate and undestand that there is really nothing unethetical about arguing other possibilities!!! How else would we protect the right of the trully innocent wikipedians! ;) (smiles) (Don't worry, like the Bernado case, a good defense lawyer eventually releases even incriminating videos) p.s.: good one Bbatsell! --CyclePat 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A few things here.

• COI is a guideline, and has next to no teeth. (All it says is try to avoid them)
• The whole point of Misplaced Pages isn't about the "love of it", but is about writing an encyclopedia.
• I thought the whole treatment of the MyWikiBiz scenario was an absolute farce, and involved drawing up some of the worst guidelines ever. (It involved the paid party writing articles off wiki for other unrelated users to copy over, which pretty much meant in was incredibly hard to trace compared to say drawing up articles in the userspace or AFC)
• I have no qualms over Misplaced Pages:Reward board.
• I believe that you can be paid to write something an still maintain a neutral encyclopedic stance, even if you are being paid by an involved party.
• I believe that if we maintain a high level of accountability of paid-edits they can be beneficial to Misplaced Pages. And a lot less damaging than the hordes of drive by vanity anon spam that we get.
• Having your firm/services connected to the use of a paid-editor is a hell of a lot less damaging for your publicity than having crap erroneous articles about your firm/services.

hahnchen 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For a similar situation, see the Arch Coal DRV. - hahnchen 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see paying someone to write an article about your buisness to be any better or worse than doing it yourself. If you are notable enough and its not written like an advert noone will ever know and it will probablly stick. Otherwise you will have wasted your money and possiblly caused yourself other problems (like seeing the deletion debate for your article as the first result for a google search on your name). Plugwash 02:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't quite agree with Jimbo's stance on this. While I understand somewhat his opposition to the MyWikiBiz, and even agree with it partially, this is somewhat different IMHO. Microsoft appear to have down this in a fairly resonably way, approaching a blogger who I presume was considered fair and neutral, not someone who wrote about Microsoft the best company in the world all the time. Their conditions clearly didn't require any level of performance and as this blogger wasn't running a business, it seems far less likely they would care much whether they kept their hirer happy. Indeed, as a blogger with a reputation to keep, it would seem not that likely IMHO. Definitely it's far better then the goodness knows how many companies who have employees doing it on company time. Perhaps MS should have done this via the Misplaced Pages:Bounty board or Misplaced Pages:Reward board and gone for FA or something 203.109.240.93 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, this story has reached the front page of cnn.com, so it seems to be getting a lot of attention... ATren 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if someone wants to pay me $5,000 to put what they want in articles, as long as they can give me a reliable source, I will happily do so. HEck, it doesn't even have to be reliable. Or be a source. Just give me money, please. Proto::► 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus community ban

I have been asked, by several editors on my talk page and by email, to commence an wp:rfc on user:Ludvikus. However, I think that there may be enough evidence to implement a community ban for Disruptive editing:

• His editing of Philosophy is tendentious. The talk page amply demonstrates that there is little support for his views. Furthermore his affectation of martyrdom is tedious.
• He is campaigning to drive away productive contributors. His actions on Philosophy make that page unlikely to attract new editors. His insults on user talk:Peter J King clearly had a strong influence on Peter's removing himself from the Misplaced Pages. His comments on user:Mel Etitis are another example, including the disruptive posts for which I blocked him; indeed, his obnoxious approach to other editors in general, and the sheer volume of tendentious material he posts, "operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors".

For the purposes of a community ban, what counts as "a handful of admins or users"? If another admin could take a look and advise, I would be grateful Banno 06:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ludvikus has a single 48 hour block in his block log, and that is from Banno. I can see that he has many complaints on his user page, but it would be a bad thing to give someone a community ban just because they are in a small minority. If he continues to be disruptive, and starts violating policy extensively, then we could reconsider, but right now I oppose. Incidentally, it might be an idea to drop him a note on his talk page to tell him about this discussion. Sam Blacketer 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• So informed here on his talk page. Regards, Navou 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

An RfC is the way to go. Jkelly 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Since User:FT2 is attempting a reconciliation, I will leave the article in his hands. However my expectation is that we will hear more about Ludvikus. Banno 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From Larry Sanger, Why Misplaced Pages Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism

...One has only to compare the excellent Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to Misplaced Pages's Philosophy section. From the point of view of a specialist, let's just say that Misplaced Pages needs a lot of work.

There are many ways to explain this problem, and I will start with just one. Far too much credence and respect accorded to people who in other Internet contexts would be labelled "trolls." There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Misplaced Pages project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. This drama has played out thousands of times over the years on unmoderated Internet groups, and since about the fall of 2001 on the unmoderated Misplaced Pages.

This is another case in point. With the benefit of hindsight, I should have implemented the ban, then asked the questions. This would have provided the needed support to the competent editors. My bad. Banno 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's worth correcting the false impression that some editors seem to have gained that the problem lies merely in Ludvikus being in a minority. The main problem is that he makes a vast number of low-quality edits, which he defends with a volubility and aggression that make it difficult if not impossible for most other editors to get a word in or to edit sensibly. He makes little sense on the Talk page (aside from his sarcasm, bluster, and personal attacks), but he does so at inordinate length. He only has one block for two reasons: first, the blocking rules don't really cover the sort of disruption in which he specialises, though it's worse and more frustrating than much that is clearly blockable; secondly, just about the only admins who have any interest in the area are already editing at the article.

Incidentally, I had various run-ins with Sanger before Misplaced Pages was created, and didn't think much of him — but I have to agree with his analysis as quoted above. The Philosophy article, which should be one of Misplaced Pages's flagship articles, is a laughing stock. As a professional philosopher myself, I find it deeply embarrassing --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

May I also draw your attention to this edit on Jimbo's page.

Please see also this edit where he combines threats of legal action with physical violence. I'm comforted that we are physically separated by a large ocean, but this is a bit unnerving for editors who may live more closely. Dbuckner 08:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice also that since the Philosophy page was locked, his edit trail shows he has moved to other articles in philosophy, wreaking havoc along the way. This is no better than vandalism. Why wasn't a ban implemented forthwith? It is simply impossible to do any further work with this character around. Dbuckner 08:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point and time I'm seeking:

• An apology from Administrator User:Mel Etitis for his disruptive use of the Bristol Stool Chart to show, call, or shout, "SHIT" at me with it on at least two separate occasions.
• I suspect it may have possibly been an ego confrontation that sparked the disruption.
• If he aplogizes to me much progress can be had.
• I am perfectly capable of letting by-gones be by-gones.
• I sincerely hope it is possible to restore good faith between us. He is the best writer I have come accross on Misplaced Pages - and appears quite intelligent. I only hope he is capable of a reconciliation, as I believe I am. I hope he also has the security to acknowledge my intelligence as well. I'm hoping we can both be equally forgiving men, as regards one another.
• I urge you all to assume Good Faith, which is Misplaced Pages policy - as we all love Misplaced Pages, as well as Jimbo, one of its genius founders.

Sincerely, --Ludvikus 19:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is alot of truth on both sides of this issue. I have not involved myself in the mud-slinging but I have as a result received some in the background and do not find this dispute between the two sides to be very fruitful. I would not single out one person in the above but each has gone through their amateur dramatics, use of offensive language on both sides, over-zealous editing (on one side it is from speaking too much on the other a kind of childish huffy threat of withdrawal and denial of what the volumous one says).

Against one, you might say annoying behaviour (see some long-winded edits on philosophy talk), on the other, when not in a huffy mood its more like group bullying (see coordination on talk pages) of a largely unaware, new person. Not sure which is worse but for me I have some facility in ignoring volumous talk but find the more bitter language less easy to brush over. Note, I take some risk in making this statement as I believe some of the mob types have quite a nice corner-thing going here.

On the matter raised as to whether the online Stanford Philosophy site is better than wiki, I think most of it would be disallowed here as being Original Research or Essay. So in that sense wiki's philosophy is better. It also has alot more than Stanford.

Lucas 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel, Mel, Mel, the issue is quite simple, actually. Let the clouds pass, and the flames subside. You have rated me, on the Bristol Stool Chart as falling somewhere between a 6 and a 7. All I'm asking you to do is reconsider your rating, or perhaps rating system. Do you understand, Mel? --Ludvikus 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to draw everyone's attention to this discussion today. ]KD Tries Again 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Dear FT2: It seems you have overlooked the following letter I have sent you:

  Dear FT2,
  *I submit that you fail to distinguish, at this time,
  between conduct before User:Banno's 48 hour ban, and conduct after.
  I believe that if you do so, you will find that it is User:Dbuckner
  who is the primary, if not the exclusive, agent of the alleged disruption.
  *Or are you saying that it is Misplaced Pages policy to punish an editor twice for the same offense?
  *One act in question is the use of the Bristol Stool Chart
  - which is naturally construed as shouting "SHIT" at an editor - to evaluate an editor.
  *May I ask - should that not be the only disruption to be considered now?
  *Could you be more specific as to what other alleged disruptive uncivility you have found?
  :Respectfully submitted, Ludvikus 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have been rated by User:Mel Etitis to be between 6 and 7 on this Bristol Stool Scale.
• It appears to be accepted, condoned, and tolerated practice at Misplaced Pages.
• I find it discusting, offensive, uncivil, and the ultimate form of DISRUPTION.
• It is no different than calling someone SHIT.
• I ask you all to click on that Bristol Stool Chart and imagine yourself to be rated on that scale by Administrator User:Mel Etitis. How would you feel? And who would be the source of disruption? You, or Administrator Mel?
• It reflects poorly on the reputation of both Misplaced Pages and Jimbo.
• I find it very difficult to believe that Jimbo would allow such behavior if he new about it - and I expect that he does, as I have written to him about it.
• I am still waiting for an apology from Administrator Mel Etitis.
• If you inform me that such graphic images of human feces may be used by administrators to rate the performance of editors, I would leave immediately.
• Just tell me that such conduct is common in Misplaced Pages, and I will disappear.
• It is that simple. Just let me know, for example, that Jimbo permits Administrator Mel Etitis to behave in such discusting manner - and I'm out the door.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

JuJube's annoyances

This user (Danny Lilithborne (now JuJube)) has to be stopped. A long time ago, we were having a long argument about heights and weights of Street Fighter-characters. There are many different versions of the heights and weights of these characters. Now JuJube has removed these Heights and Weights because this is too difficult to verify. Other users have asked him why the heights of these characters have been removed and JuJube blames me and says that these things have been removed because of my "constantly editwarrings". But to me, he said that the heights have been removed because this is too difficult to verify. Well, JuJube harasses me and I'm afraid that if other users would add the heights and weights to these Street Fighter Characters that JuJube would blame ma again and I'm also afraid that he would add a sockpuppet-shield to those users who would add the heights. And these problems are very frustrating for me. Please do something against JuJube and I'll be very happy. Thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• About my old username. Well worked under the username and then I've created a new account because it was too difficult to understand the "changing username" link because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not very well. Well, I've created a new account because my old username is a name of an existing character and everytime when I type my old username into the google-web machine, my contributions also appear and also JuJube's sentences about my old username also appear. Please don't forget to tell JuJube that he should use my current username in any cases. Well, I've left you a comment because JuJube has to be stopped, as I mentioned. Sergeant Gerzi 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also helpless and I can't defend myself against JuJube because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not well. So I ask you to help. Sergeant Gerzi 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• JuJube has been here a long time and he has a point about the difficulty of verifying these figures. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Height and weights doesn't seem to be verifiable. I agree with JuJube on this one issue. Savidan 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They're often in game or in manuals. Similar to TV plot summaries, can't you just reference those?-137.222.10.67 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to revamp

As the current voting goes, it seems WP:RFI is going to follow the ill-famed WP:PAIN into history. There are almost no strong objections among the voters but some concerns were raised about making general reordering of the house. Here is the idea.

The first thing would be to rename WP:AIV to WP:RTB (Misplaced Pages:request to block) since that's already what it is. Not every action that requires immediate block are limited to simple vandalism. If the user goes apeshit posting horrific racist attacks all over talk pages, creates inflammatory usernames or does similarly blatant and obvious disruption, such user should be blocked on the spot similar to the blanking, penis or moving vandals. Such reports are already posted to WP:AIV and are acted upon by its watchers. The message on top of the renamed board should clearly state that only complaints against such blatant abuse should be brought there and the reports on the established content writers should be never placed there (not to repeat the painful PAIN and RFI experience).

The second step that would reduce the load of WP:ANI, the concern some users expressed, would be a sub-board where all the user complaints that don't belong to WP:RTB will be posted. The message on top of such board should say that no block should be imposed on a user before at least one full hour commences between the filing of the complaint and the blocking action. Such delay would allow to gauge something close to a consensus on whether the block is warranted. Since urgent requests will all go to WP:RTB, there will be no harm in one hour delay. Of course WP:AN3 will continue to run its course. Also, blocking per individual admin discretion case by case is allowed and no one is going to change that.

Opinions welcome, --Irpen 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• The idea has its merits. My only concern at the moment is the further fragmenting of the noticeboard and the creation of another layer of bureaucracy which might be confusing to new users (who, for that matter, might not realize that they're in a dispute with an established editor). This almost sounds like the return of Quickpolls, but I'm certainly game for an attempt. Mackensen (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• We don't need WP:RTB. That's what WP:AN/I is for, isn't it? There's not really a backlog I can see. Luigi30 (Taλk) 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. AIV is not just about blocks, it could be for urgent page protection, spam blacklist requests or some such. And then we block them... Guy (Help!) 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• The only issue I have is that blocks are preventative, not punitive. As such, immediate action should be taken by an admin when a block falls under the blocking policy. To impose a time restriction is to tie a hand behind a back in preventing future disruptions. Other than those sorts of details, I've long thought AIV should be renamed and the reorganization could be very useful. Why not set up a talk page and work out a format that'll encompass all the guidelines on blocking, go from there? Teke 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To supplement: sysops have three special tools (block, protect, delete). We have a specific process for requesting protection and deletions; there is no such process for blocking. If you follow through the logs for protection and deletion you can relatively trace where, if you are curious, the decision came from. Blocks are much more indiscriminate, from username to vandalism to 3rr to socks...a format would be nice for non-sysops to post their requests in a system that doesn't span five different community spaces. I don't want more process imposed on blocking, just a system for admins to follow up on user requests. Reiterating that: no more process, we already have it spelled out. Teke 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to Block also makes it sound like the place to come iof you have a grievance and want someone else blocked. Viridae 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Teke

What about calling it Misplaced Pages:Requests for emergency blocking? --ais523 11:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have never had need to use it, I really think that some form of WP:RFI's please-watchlist functionality should survive. It's rather separate from the blocking system, and it could probably be even more useful if more people knew about it. — coelacan talk — 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why WP:AIV has to change, though. Titoxd 21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lee Nysted experience

Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here for a short while, also as Nyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He created Lee Nysted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) four times, and we've also had The Lee Nysted Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nysted Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), AfDs at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nysted Music. Vanity content has also been deleted from his user page and his talk page.

Here is a perfect example of his fundamental misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages is here for.

It has been established, to a high degree of probability, that no sources currently exist on which we can base an article. Every one he's brought so far turns out to say a whole lot less than he claims, and a whole lot less credibly. He's been consistently argumentative and vexatious. He's now going round soliciting a new article. Our inclusion criteria have been patiently explained to him a number of times, he seems to regard them as a minor obstacle to be worked around in pursuit of the greater goal of an article on himself, not any kind of guiding principle. He has two other editors working exclusively on Nysted-related content, Huntress829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Smdewart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All show an identical pattern of wiping Talk pages, but they probably are meatpuppets not sockpuppets.

So: Misplaced Pages's Lee Nysted Experience has been canonical vanispamcruftisement, and if we hadn't already coined that term we'd have had to for this guy. It is more than apparent that he is desperate to get an article on Misplaced Pages, and if he ever did it's equally apparent that he would WP:OWN it. Forgive the tetchy tone, but I have had enough of him, and if anyone ever offers me one of his CDs free and for nothing I wouldn't even use it as a beermat. I propose that if he doesn't shut up in the next - oh, ten minutes or so, that we ban his argumentative vainglorious ass. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I blocked his sock a while back. That's why I remember this guy. I'd support one last reminder of the purpose of wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting on the checkuser results for this one. We know it's vanispamvandalhoaxcruftisement, but let's wait for the checkuser, and at least you can block some of the socks and put a note on their page. Patstuart 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's back. Why am I not surprised that the two most strident folks in that case, User:Lee Nysted and User:Huntress829, as well as the previously identified User:Nyslee, are socks? Interesting to note the previously unknown sock, there, too, though it hasn't done much. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lee Nysted I have indef blocked Nysted and his socks. At the risk of attracting further opprobrium, fuck him. This is a project supported by the donations and donated time of hundreds of thousands of individuals, and he has no thoughts other than to abuse it for sordid vanity. Not one single edit from any one of these accounts is anything other than shameless self-promotion. Dude, game over. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unrepentant self-promotion too. Endorsed. Patstuart 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy. Great work on this one. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

East of Eden

Hi all. I've seen a situation which I believe requires a review from some admins.

Catbird222 (talk · contribs) has edited East of Eden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), claiming multiple times to be the copyright holder of both the book and the upcoming film, and has removed information from East of Eden which s/he believes to have "infringed" on his/her copyright . At first I thought this was most likely trolling, but when investergating further into this, I found that there was a MedCab case open, which Catbird commented on. This edit has prompted me to bring it to a wider attention, as I'm not sure as to believe Catbird or not.

I have left a message on Catbirds talk informing him of this discussion, and one on the talk page of BradPatrick (talk · contribs) also, as Catbird says that Brad knows about this already. I'd like to add that I'm not comfortable with the fact that we have no hint on who this editor is (as it makes it impossible to verify if they are telling the truth}, or who they work for, nor am I happy with the ammount of Legal jargon being thrown around in his/her pervious edits. Thε Halo 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever they are, they should be banned for legal threats. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I have indef. blocked User:CatTurd222, whose name and choice of articles to edit was clearly made in order to mock CatBird222 (the name itself violates the Username policy). User:Zoe|(talk) 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good block. User:Fan-1969 is now blocked as well. There may be more imposter accounts around connected to this. Jkelly 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether we consider these things to be "A polite, coherent complaint". Because WP:LEGAL emphasizes that "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat"." I'm not convinced at all that it is an accurate or reasonable complaint, but it has seemed to be civil.

They definitely should be directed to Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright#Are you the copyright owner? - if all of us are out in left field, and they are justified, they'll get what they are asking for, and if they are being ridiculous, they will get told politely why they are wrong. Pointing them to that is a decent idea regardless of whether or not they are blocked. GRBerry 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Article Problems/Copyright section you mentioned above on Catbird's talk page. It should also be noted that CatBird only edits Steinbeck related articles, including Lew Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where s/he removes the mention of a certain Megan Steinbeck . 152.163.101.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) then re-added the name, while also adding "stop removing my name, GS" . Not sure if that's important... Thε Halo 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am confused, the issue here is that Catbird222 wants to use Misplaced Pages to publish claims that a third party, has engaged in fraud, and is removing the trivia section from East of Eden because the recording artists listed there infringed on copyright by mentioning the book or its author, but is not claiming that any Misplaced Pages article infringes on their copyright. As for WP:NLT, as far as I know, Catbird222 is not making threats against Misplaced Pages users, just asserting that there are legal issues with third parties. That said, some of the editing raises WP:BLP concerns. Frankly, I don't think that restoring the trivia section in East of Eden is so pressing that we cannot have a conversation about the concerns; ideally one that doesn't involve otherwise unpublished accusations of wrongdoing by third parties. Jkelly 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Catbird222 (talk · contribs) is wrongfully invoking my name in this debate. I do know a lot about the Steinbeck controversies, and have been in long conversations with folks in a legal capacity about same, but not to Catbird's benefit. Catbird is explicitly placing herself at risk by editing Steinbeck articles which are not directly related to John Steinbeck IV. That means no John Steinbeck, and this seems to be going markedly in a bad direction. Beware of vanity editing on Nancy Steinbeck as well.--Brad Patrick 13:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Jkelly 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuous removal of 3rr warning

AdilBaguirov is continuously removing a 3rr warning that I put on his talk page. I dont know if it is necessary for the warning to be on his talk page for it to be effective, but still, he has disregarded the fact that it is a warning and not an actual punishment. Anyway, I hope someone can talk to him and calm him down.Azerbaijani 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's better not to reinsert a warning after the editor has removed it. That looks like edit warring. The warning itself remains in the history and you can refer to it in a diff if necessary. The removal demonstrates that the warning has been read. Durova 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, but I'm afraid I dont think he understands it, therefore, has not read it. He assumes that the warning implicates that he did break a rule or something, without realizing that its just a warning.Azerbaijani 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if he hasn't technically violated any rules, why in the world are you trying to force him to display a warning? --Cyde Weys 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising

I was looking at now-banned User:JossBuckle Swami's user page, when I noticed the category above that it was a part of. Suspicious, I clicked, and found a bunch of names on it.

While it's a legitimate category (in that it was not created by JossBuckle Swami, but by Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs)), what caught my eye were its members and their edit histories. Though created on October 31, 2006, its members only began adding themselves on January 3rd (including JossBuckle Swami). And while I'm sure most are legitimate editors, the timing, as well as the edit histories and some odd gaps therein some raise red flags for me: not enough for Checkuser, but enough to ask some questions, especially about the first two:

• Mecredis (talk · contribs)

Total edits: 2 9

Added Cat tag: 8:26, January 3, 2007

Previous edit: December 10, 2004

• Sstair (talk · contribs)

Total edits: 4

Added Cat tag: 20:51, January 3, 2007

Previous edit: August 22, 2006

• Matthew kokai (talk · contribs) -

Total edits: 226

Added Cat tag: 05:25, January 4, 2007

Previous edit: December 14, 2006

Previous edit to that: October 15, 2006

• MarkJaroski (talk · contribs) -

Total edits: 16

Added Cat tag: 10:19, January 5, 2007

Previous edit: 20:14, January 3, 2007

First edit of month: 10:59, January 3, 2007

Previous edit: March 1, 2006

Suspicious person that I am, I thought I'd bring it here. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good observations. MFD on the category? Durova 00:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The project with which the cat is connected no longer exists, suggest you take this to CFD. --Wildnox(talk) 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The category bothers me, yes, but that's secondary: it's the users who've added themselves who concern me. Note especially Mecredis (talk · contribs) -- two edits total, both to his user page and 25 months apart. Again, the timing looks suspicious. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mercedis has 9 edits, last in August 2006. It is definitely odd behavior but nothing we need to be concerned about at the moment, particularly since (as you point out) they are practically not editing. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:UCFD would be more appropriate than CFD, since it's a user category. Mairi 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on the edit count, but my point still stands: gone for two years, but the sudden appearance amid a cluster of similar sudden appearances making the same additions to the same category? --Calton | Talk 07:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, sockpuppetry issues aside, how can we justify deleting this one and not Category:Wikipedians against advertisements? Savidan 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The wikiproject it was attached to has just been deleted, I think that is justification enough. Viridae 04:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While there are no official rules of user categories (the closest thing we have is Misplaced Pages:Guidelines for user categories, which is inactive and only an essay), based on past precedent categories where users state they are against Misplaced Pages policies are acceptable, as long as they don't say they don't follow the policy. If someone thinks this should be deleted they are free to nominate it, however. VegaDark 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Calton asserted above that "it's a legitimate category", so presumably whatever user division it creates, both userboxes would need to go. I'm not sure I disagree with either deletion, but any nom would reasonably apply to both. A side note, I don't believe 'being attached to a wikiproject' is a requirement for a userbox, but userfication of both might be appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please attribute to me the correct opinion: ...it's a legitimate category (in that it was not created by JossBuckle Swami...). Very BIG qualifier there. I have made no argument supporting or opposing this category. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the stance (and thus the opinion) is a reasonable one, and thus shouldn't be destroyed by nature of what it is. WMF is forgoing about $200 million annually by not having ads. Think of how much good free content stuff all of that money could be used for ... Cyde Weys 17:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Then if a group of active and not-suspiciously-like-sockpuppet Wikipedians decide to recreate the category, they're free to do so. I don't propose salting the earth. Yet why keep a category that appears to be artificially populated by one person in support of an extinct Wikiproject? Durova 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I happened on this discussion here by chance while adding wikilinks to incident boards and wikipedia guidelines to my user page. I added my user name to Category:Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising on December 10, 2006 according to this revision difference. I also put info about it on my user page. At the time I added my user name there were only a few user names. Maybe 2 or 3? I don't remember. How does one check when other user names were added to the category? Now there are 13 user pages listed. Why was the project page deleted? Why is there even discussion about deleting this category when there is this category: Category:Wikipedians against advertisements. Why is its project page not deleted also? Actually, I don't want it deleted. And I support user-controlled ads with options for placement, turning them off, etc.. But little of this can be discussed without category pages, project pages, their talk pages, etc.. --Timeshifter 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a ban on Lightbringer

Might as well make this de jure instead of de facto. Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been the subject of an arbitration case, where he was banned from Freemasonry articles for POV editing and personal attacks. To circumvent this ban, Lightbringer edited with numerous other sockpuppets, for which he was banned for one year. After this ban, similar bans have continued; 29 CheckUser requests have been brought against Lightbringer in all, with numerous sockpuppets and open proxies blocked, with the most recent case less than a week and a half ago.

For extensive sockpuppeting and violation of the Arbitration Committee ban, I propose an indefinite ban on Lightbringer. Ral315 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned he's banned. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• support Syrthiss 13:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• I support with reluctance. Hate to see a user go out like this... but it wasn't our choice. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• It took me ages to cleanup that RFCU page when I came across it... This nonsense has gone on too long, really. Support in full. Daniel.Bryant 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, yes. One of the 1% of problem users who take up 99% of people's time. Proto::► 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lightbringer was banned by the Arbitration Committee in April, 2006; see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer#Lightbringer banned. Dmcdevit·t 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• What part of "go away" was he having trouble understanding? Endorse, though unnecessary per ArbCom ruling. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Politely and without fuss, it's time to close the door for good. Durova 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• It's become pretty clear that he's never going to stop doing this (he probably thinks it's fun), and I believe he exhausted the patience of many of us long ago. In addition, he stopped using his main account a long time ago, so I doubt anything short of a full community ban will allow us to shoot him on sight anytime. Scobell302 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikimob and associated AfD

User has requested page to be userfied. I've been helping him navigate the AfD process, but I wasn't sure of the policy on moving AfD'd pages so I advised him to request userfication. In any case, if someone has the time it would be awfully nice if he/she would userfy this page for User:Janusvulcan and speedily close the AfD. --N Shar 05:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at it; if we userfied, I don't think it would be a problem as most if not all the delete !votes had to do with the fact it was an inappropriate article in the namespace (e.g., neologism). Patstuart 05:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thought. It didn't have personal attacks or anything... --N Shar 05:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• The cited "sources" are threads which make this an attack, so I deleted it as such. That is (hopefully) not the intent of the author, and there is a place for philosophical debate on this subject albeit possily not at this ;;precise title, which is rather judgmental. I am happy to userfy it to somewhere provided it is cleaned to avoid any identifiable reference to specific editors, if somebody would like to say where it should go. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone conclude this case?

The evidence gatherer has admitted that he tagged 2 legitimate users so can someone conclude the case? Bowsy 13:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've closed this case but I suggest you read my conclusion and keep in mind my suggestion when editing. Because you share a computer you need to be very careful about editing the same articles.--Isotope23 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, after all, it needed to be on record that we were legitimate users. After all, none of the evidence was very reliable. Bowsy 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else see this as a possible misuse of the userspace?

User:A Study of Misplaced Pages appears to be soliciting interviews on his/her userpage and Helpdesk. I have not contacted the user yet; just wanted to see what the general thought on this was first. To me this is pretty clearly against WP:NOT#WEBSPACE.--Isotope23 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, everything this person is doing is about wikipedia so I'd be inclined to leave 'em alone. Besides, I wouldn't want to guess how it would impact the book if they got booted. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen surveys, and polls done on Userpages before rather successfully, and personally I don't see any issue with it, nor can I think of any better way(off the top of my head) to get interviews of Wikipedians. It may be in some measure against policy, but I'd leave it. Canadian-Bacon 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the argument is that it doesn't further the goal of building an Encyclopedia. I disagree with that sentiment... I think both public relations and research both have a indirect but real effect in furthering our goal. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I think it's a bit of crystal-ballism to say that this will further the goal of building an Encyclopedia; it might... or it might be an absolute smear job (or it might just be something that never goes anywhere). That said, I don't have any plans to start unilaterally hassling the editor over this.--Isotope23 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's very true... but if its going to be a smear-job then I'm not sure why they would even bother with a survey. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could possibly be defamatory, but unfortunately I doubt we have a way to figure this out beforehand. I however, am still willing to AGF on this case. Canadian-Bacon 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am strongly against using Misplaced Pages for commercial interests -137.222.10.67 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Category problem

The Category:Ascorbates page is really acting up. Whenever I try to go there, it acts as if the page doesn't exist and I'm in the middle of creating it. Yet I thought it existed and I'm sure I'm not in the middle of creating it. I think it might be a server file referencing problem, but I don't really know. Thanks, Ruff 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no Category:Ascorbates, and there is no deleted history either. Jkelly 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

48 hour block of Sand Squid

I've blocked Sand Squid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours as a result of the following conversation:

Like I said, if it remains deleted or is restored matters little to me anymore. I won't spend any effort on rewriting it. I've found a new way to entertain myself with Misplaced Pages.--Sand Squid 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and what did you find to do to entertain yourself? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Vandalism  :-D

This is alot more satisfying than creating or repairing an article someone else will delete. There are those who create and those who destroy. Since I apparently cannot create, I will destroy. Or at least annoy.--Sand Squid 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this is unusual, I would like my actions reviewed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What was the purpose of blocking for forty-eight hours? If you're convinced that the account will only be used to damage Misplaced Pages, it should be blocked until that is no longer true. If you're not convinced of that, the block is only likely to annoy the user further. Jkelly 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to bring the block here for community review before I lengthened or removed it. 48 hours was simply an arbitrary length to serve temporarily. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that it's best to wait until vandalism actually happens, and then block. People say things they don't really mean, sometimes. Friday (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if he's just blowing off steam there isn't much reason to block. I'd say unblock unless he actually does something wrong.--Isotope23 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Like make another personal attack on someone else? and here. Probably also and . He's been unblocked without agreeing not to vandalise. IMHO, that was a mistake. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have thrown an NPA tag on his Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Er yeah, that is the kind of thing that would make me think twice about an unblock.--Isotope23 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Done is done. All's quiet at the moment. Let's leave things as they are until we see if anything happens. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/RunedChozo

There has been been some ugliness in this debate recently; someone brought up the possibility that this user is the same as now banned User:NotAWeasel. RunedChuzo, who does edit the same articles, and has similar civility issues, is now engaging in move warring on his own suspected sock page: . If anybody would be willing to file a checkuser, move protect the page, and slap the user with some sort of short ban for incivility again (read the page and its history), it would be appreciated; I'm going on wikibreak. Thanks. Patstuart 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was done on November 16, 2006, by Dmcdevit. It confirms that Wheelygood was a sock of RunedChozo, but that NotAWeasel was editing from a distinct different location. You can ask for another run at it with fresh data, but...shrug. Perhaps an RfC is in order? Teke 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 1 week for disruption, personal attacks and lack of civility. Asterion 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have filed it as a new CheckUser request as discussed here. I would appreciate your input. Asterion 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Article I deleted and salted linked from third party website

In my recent changes patrolling, I found Pie vs cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been blanked, and it had an AFD tag on it (screwed up somehow). Anyway, looking at the AFD, it was full of SPA !votes and three requests that it be speedy deleted. I did so, and when I realized I had forgotten the talk page, I went back, deleted it, and found that the article was recreated. I deleted it, found that it had been recreated, again, and WP:SALTed it. I then found the same text at Pie vs. cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), deleted it, and was then notified by the person who had recreated it three times, that the article "Pie vs cake" was linked from the Rooster Teeth homepage. After seeing what has happened with the F@NBOY$ deletion, did I mess up big time (or will they not care since they have the main article)?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) unblocked

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

Considering the Sturm und Drang surrounding this user's block, I was mildly surprised to see that he was unblocked with apparently no on-wiki community input. I have no opinion on the correctness of this action, but I do take issue with it happening without discussion. pschemp | talk 22:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Considering the circumstances around his blocking, that really should have been discussed. He did cause people to leave because of their feelings concerning his behavior (which doesn't really need to get dredged up here again). And now he's got a manifesto on his Talk page where he isn't committing to follow the rules. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Where on Misplaced Pages was this discussed, Tawker? (i.e. IRC would be the wrong answer). El_C 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't it was cabalized by e-mail with Nearly Headless Nick and friends. (i.e. I wouldn't say this if I supported the unblock) semper fi — Moe 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• 18:03, 19 January 2007 Tawker (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Nathanrdotcom (contribs) (it was ONE email... we don't normally indef for GF contribs after said time. Nathan did make IGF contribs before, lets give him the benefit...)

For those who are trying to follow along... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not familiar with the history here, but surely there are plenty of folks keeping on eye on this? If it turns into a problem, a re-block wouldn't be controversial. Maybe this is no big deal. Friday (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say get familiar with the history before making assumptions. It wasn't a run of the mill block. pschemp | talk 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, you ask where on wiki was this discusssed. Where on wiki did this whole issue happen? ♥ Fredil 01:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that it lasted many months, it sure doesn't look like a run of the mill block. I'd just rather see a re-block based on an argument that re-blocking is helpful to the project, rather than based on procedural objections to the unblock. Friday (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me make it clear then: Until a discussion happens, due to the circumstances of the block (not any "procedure") re-blocking is helpful to the project. I will however, not expound upon those circumstances since the mention of them even at the time was not sanctioned. pschemp | talk 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Was this discussed with other affected parties? Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Snopake has been gone for several months now, due in large part to this, and Phaedriel hasn't posted since November. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a big deal. Unless there are objections, I will be reimposing the block while the matter is being discussed by admins, on-wiki. El_C 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have no objections. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Me either. A discussion is all I ask. pschemp | talk 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am an affected party (not only am I Snopake's brother, Nathan blamed a large part of his block on me), and I was not involved in any discussion about the unblocking. Thε Halo 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sceptre (talk) is was still around, but appears to have left as of today. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Sceptre left last week after seeing a nastygram that the the Encyclopaedia Dramatica wrote on him. And they wonder why we won't let them have an article here? They even went so far as to detail the nathrdotcom controversy over there. Imagine writing crap like that about a 15-year-old. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

According to this, however, Sceptre supported an unblock before he left. User:Zoe|(talk)

E-mail I got from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington about this

Not really sure what it is worth, but I did recieve a e-mail from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington about this in November. It didn't seem like a immediate thing to worry about, but I guess it came true:

November 13, 2006 e-mail from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington:

*plonk*

Censored Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's real name/other Internet name for privacy. So there you go.. semper fi — Moe 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, they apparently gave up the idea of getting community support for an unblock. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

-- What is the point of publishing this? It is clearly a private email. Asterion 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly legal to publish, only 1 party has to consent to publication.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio. :p ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Many states require both parties to consent. --Cyde Weys 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense, if "only one party" has to consent, there would never be a case where it was published without proper consent, since in order for an outsider to publish it, they'd need to see it from the sender or the recipient! Milto LOL pia 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is taken from Misplaced Pages:IRC channels page: "The Misplaced Pages channels on freenode are a place to chat about Misplaced Pages on IRC. However, as far as their influence on Misplaced Pages goes, IRC is equivalent to e-mail: chat is considered a private conversation which in ordinary circumstances has no effect on how one is treated on Misplaced Pages." I know it is not straightforward but it seems to imply the opposite of what ALKIVAR's saying. Asterion 08:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether legal or not, it's almost never considered acceptable to post a private email on-wiki without the permission of the person who sent it. Moe, you should know better. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Any objection to redacting the e-mail unless Sir Nicholas consents to its remaining posted? Newyorkbrad 17:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Block reissued

I have reimposed the block (Tawker, as well, does not appear to object) and hid the comments on the page while the discussion is ongoing. Any objection if I also protect it in the interim? El_C 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Send this to Arbcom?

Although this was a community block and by rights should be discussed openly here. I think that's not wise. There are real people here and real issues. I'm taking no view either way on what's right or wrong. But having accusations, information and counter-claims examined here is unlikely to be in the interests of any party (and some are minors). Whatever is said here is pretty much published and permanent. I'd like to move that this decision be referred to arbcom, and invite all parties to submit their evidence to them. I know closed discussions aren't the wiki-way, but this looks like an exception. Let's send if for a private consideration on the arbcom mailing list.--Doc 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no familiarity with the circumstances underlying this situation, apart from what I read on AN or ANI as a relative newbie back in August. However, I urge all concerned to exercise extreme sensitivity and discretion in discussing this matter on-wiki. It is obvious that the situation involves extremely sensitive emotional matters involving several editors and former editors, some of whom are minors. In addition to prior discussions of the matter on Misplaced Pages, which were probably excessive, these editors are the subject of attack pages on another website which will be trawling any drama that may take place here for material. I am not trying to pretermit community discussion, but please bear this in mind. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There certainly needs to be a discussion, but I agree with the above statements, especially when you consider how wikipedia attack sites used this sensitive situation last time. Thε Halo 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there was neither a public announcement nor an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. This is, indeed, a highly sensitive issue, and after some thought, I am protecting the page while the matter is being sorted out. Thanks. El_C 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The unblocking needs to be discussed by someone. I am perfectly happy if that someone is arbcom, but just unblocking someone like this is not acceptable. *Especially* considering the circumstances. pschemp | talk 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with posts in this section. Tyrenius 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to officially ask arbcom to take this.--Doc 23:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if ArbCom will take private evidence, and if nathanrdotcom will have to be unblocked in order to participate. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom does not have to be unblocked to participate. He can e-mail his evidence and statements to an arbitrator, arbcom-L, or a clerk. There have also been circumstances where an editor was unblocked to participate in arbitration on condition that he/she edit only arbitration case pages, with immediate blocking the consequence for going beyond that. Thatcher131 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The original situation and the ill-feeling it created was very unfortunate. We aren't equipped to deal with issues like this. Some time has passed, hopefully enough for some perspective. Since there's still too much bad blood for us to discuss this without getting upset, I agree with Doc's sugestion that the arbcomm consider this, although given the original situation, it might be better if a lot of the "evidence" is kept off-Misplaced Pages. Guettarda 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have filed an arbcom request --Doc 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is so super secretive. I just read Sceptre's second RFA and I'm befuddled - Benon's userspace link has long since been gone, and comments indicate that the nature of this affair is so sensitive that us uninvolved parties will never know what ever took place. ED isn't being helpful, either... Hbdragon88 01:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well now im back a touch of clarification, the userspace User:Benon/sceptre had *nothing* to do with nathanrdotcom, it was a completley diffrent incident, I had it deleted after a rather messy MFD

I have no qualms about an admin reversing my speedy deleteion of the page if it is deemed nessasry, its really not at all that intresting to be honest. The "incident" was quite sensitve having gone so far as being disatisfied with the arbcom's response involved parties passed it up to Jimbo. The "secrecy" was to protect another anonomyus party who wanted to remain out of this whole thing and any further involvment. If you *really* want to know the whole story go ask jimbo, the arbcom or else google it. In summary Sceptre did some bad things a while back that got him --> <-- this close to being removed from wikipedia permanatly, to many established contributors myself included. Benon 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative

It seems like a lot of pointless bickering and very bad past issues being brought up can be circumvented by simply blocking his acocunt forever and allowing him to create a new one, entirely seperate. Milto LOL pia 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering his behavior whch caused the blocking, that would not be appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Was it as bad as everyone says? Or was it blown out of proportion? David D. (Talk) 08:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was the latter, but we may never know for sure. —Pilotguy (ptt) 14:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes you say that? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I basically have a wikistalker called Astrotrain. He has gone through almost every piece of work I have ever done all at the same time. What can I do about this - I am going going to be able (timewise) to defend each case, can I have some help/advice!?!--Vintagekits 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain has been a long term contributor since July 2003... Vintagekits has been here since August 2006. This is not wikistalking, this is a difference of opinion over notability. It also appears to be a British vs. Irish sympathy issue. I suggest mediation, not blocking.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, your personal attacks are at an end. You have been warned once, don't do it again. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

THis was not an attempt to be a personal attack. I want to raise an issue and thought this was the best place to do it.--Vintagekits 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at his edits over the past month and tell me if I am being unreasonable.--Vintagekits 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth (not much) my considered judgement is that Vintagekits (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is the indefinitely blocked Bluegold (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Same history of sockpuppetry, same stylistic quirks, and created the day after the indefinite block was issued. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If I was sensitive I would call this a personal attack!--Vintagekits 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But it's not a personal attack. Is it worth a checkuser? Proto::► 09:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Angus requested a check at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegold. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy and Ludvikus

A request for a community ban on Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was posted on WP:AN on 24 January, due to a strong view from editors and sysops that "the community's patience is exhausted" (WP:BAN). It was suspended when I was asked to mediate the matter and "attempt a reconciliation" last week. I am concerned that even after just a week, I feel there may be strong evidence that the views of the complaining editors seem plausibly founded, and that this user may be pivotal to amicably resolving the matter.

I would like to present the information I've noted in this last week, for evaluation and comments now that I've been mediating a week on it. If feedback is not greatly adverse to Ludvikus I shall continue working as at present. But I need to clarify that aspect before spending further time, especially as one of the cites appears to show clear wilful intent, scant regard for the project's aims, and possible view to wikilawyer.

I have included DIFFs for matters I myself have seen. I have not included any diffs that others might make if it was taken further. For now, as a mediator, I would simply like independent WP:AN feedback on the posts that I have seen this last week. I would also like to check whether the evidence tends to support a view that "the community's patience is exhausted", as some have suggested, and whether editor concerns over Ludvikus should be addressed before progressing further. Many thanks for any insight and opinions.

Link to cites: User:FT2/Evidence pages/Philosophy. FT2 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There can be no doubt that there is a consensus for a community ban amongst the editors of the Philosophy article. The only question here is, is that sufficient to ban someone from the Wiki? That is, as I asked before: For the purposes of a community ban, what counts as "a handful of admins or users"? I am of the opinion that in this case there is sufficient evidence of mischief for a ban to be enacted. Banno 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking over the evidence (and this edit particular), I feel a ban is in order. The user's conduct is appalling, and is of negative value to Misplaced Pages (sorry, I realise that's very utilitarian). That being said, I would urge you to consider removing the 'behavioural analysis' section, which is not helpful - diagnosis by proxy of the user's psychological state is wildly inappropriate. The editing speaks for itself. Proto::► 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While I only have a minor background in philosophy (arg, looking back I didn't mean that as a pun), I get the feeling that I should link to this page in case I should ever want to write a textbook on disruptive editing. Vague legal threats, mentions of 'fisticuffs', persistent and admitted incivility (even if the admission was for a retaliatory portion), as well as the content edits themselves... When it actually becomes more brief to mention the types of problematic editing user isn't engaging in, and the behavior doesn't change and has a noticeable and pressing harmful impact, what really remains as a question? Bitnine 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Light comedic relief

Something I spotted over at WP:MILHIST - . I do hope that is a spoof news site... Carcharoth 01:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See disclaimer . Hbdragon88 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Pagemove vandal

Need admin help reverting page moves by Ashchen220 (talk · contribs · logs) —Dylan Lake 02:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal has been blocked indefinitely, page moves have been reverted and deleted from the article histories. Aecis 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Envidia

User:Envidia has moved the article on the sloth animal to Sloth(animal) and then edited Sloth to be the same as Sloth (deadly sin). None of this received consensus support. Veinor 03:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd revert the changes, but not being an admin I couldn't do much except a cut-and-paste rollback, which messes up the page history. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it and left a note on his page, explaining the WP:RM process. Since the "new" sloth page was just a copy and paste of Sloth (deadly sin) I moved Sloth(animal) back to its home, deleting the copy-and-paste in the process. Sloth(animal) is perhaps valuable as a redirect, even given the incorrect spacing. Savidan 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. My main concern was Sloth being about the deadly sin; not everybody is Christian. Veinor 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring between Nationalist (talk · contribs) and Jerrypp772000 (talk · contribs) includes personal attacks

I'm concerned that Nationalist (talk · contribs) is edit warring with Jerrypp772000 (talk · contribs), and while doing so is making edits with summaries that range from boardering on not assuming good faith to outright personal attacks. This user has been blocked recently for telling another editor to "Fuck off" , and I've noticed this behaviour contiues after Nationalist's block expired. User talk:Nationalist contains a number of links to offenses, which include calling another editor an "extremist POV pusher" in an edit summary while engaging in an edit war, to continueing abuse on article talk pages here , and here where he belittles another editor as not knowing as much because he's not an admin. The edit history of Chien-Ming Wang also shows a pattern of disruptive edit warring with other editors (5), including Jerrypp772000 above. Thanks. 74.13.126.131 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

There's an ongoing situation that a few of us would appreciate some advice on how to deal with more effectively. Starting in November of last year, an anonymous user started targeting the article on Cheri DiNovo, a Canadian politician, with unsourced allegations that both violate WP:BLP and would be highly libellous if left to stand. This led to an extended revert war which lasted until the article was sprotected on December 30; the user then began targetting the talk page with personal attacks against the Misplaced Pages administrators involved in the issue, which they did so persistently that the talk page had to be sprotected by January 4. The anon editor then started a tit-for-tat game on Michael Prue and Robert Hunter, again using unsourced BLP violations to discredit Prue. Again, they were so persistent that Prue was sprotected on January 21 and Hunter was sprotected on January 24. The user has also inserted the same sets of allegations into Sylvia Watson and Frances Lankin, although as of today neither of those articles has had to be sprotected.

In addition, the same user has also done the following:

• inserted their allegations about Prue and DiNovo into smear campaign.
• created a special talk subpage at Talk:Cheri DiNovo/Comments just to reinsert their personal attacks against WP editors after being blocked from that talk page; they later did the same thing at Talk:Michael Prue/Comments even though that talk page was never actually sprotected.
• inserted "Cherry DeNude, famous Toronto strip-tease artist in 1970's" into Cherry (disambiguation).
• inserted DiNovo into The New Yorker as a contributor (she never was), and then turned around and used the fact that she was wrongly listed there as an attempted swipe at User:Durin's credibility. They also added DiNovo to the list of past members of the band Earth, Wind & Fire and to List of people on stamps of Costa Rica, presumably toward the same purpose.
• attempted to erase the notice of the DiNovo dispute that was posted at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
• repeatedly and persistently vandalized the talk and/or user pages of administrators who've gotten involved in the matter, often calling us either "fascists" or "NDP attack queers". This has included me, User:CJCurrie, User:Durin, User:Bucketsofg, User:Pete Peters, User:BostonMA, User:Imjustmatthew and User:Blue520.
• inserted personal attacks against Durin into durian.

This has happened under a variety of IP numbers, all of which resolve to APNIC. (Virtually the same allegations against DiNovo have also been posted to Rabble's discussion board and as responses to a number of blog entries on the Internet, albeit still without any sources. The poster of many of those comments self-identified as a resident of Bangkok, so it's likely that this is the same person.) Having to constantly revert this crap is, needless to say, getting tiresome, but since they're on a dynamic IP range there's no easy way to block them. I've tried addressing the matters of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP with them — if such a notice is addressed on an IP number's talk page, then it just gets ignored since they may never even see that IP number again, and if it's addressed on an article talk page, then they repeatedly delete it when posting new personal attacks against Misplaced Pages administrators.

This whole thing has now been going on for over two months, and it really has to stop. Sticking it out in the hopes that they'll eventually get tired and go away simply isn't working...so what, if anything, can we do about this? Bearcat 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning it here, and getting some other people to help, is probably the best thing you can do. I've been aware of this singularly nasty chap for a couple weeks now (see User_talk:Durin#What_a_shock for examples of the type of behaviour to expect from this troll). I've also traced a lot of the IPs: they're in Thailand, Hong Kong, and various other places, but none seemed to be open proxies. I like WP:RBI for this kind of thing, but sometimes it takes a while to bore them to the point they leave you alone. Antandrus (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch those articles for a while. Superm401 - Talk 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Deletedpage

Nihonjoe and I have added a parameter to this template to categorize salted pages by month. Usage is: {{deletedpage|January 2006}}, or whatever. At some point soon (possibly Monday), Betacommand is planning to go through and retag the existing pages en masse. Nihonjoe cleverly designed the template not to break if you don't include a parameter (those just won't be categorized ), but this seems like a good way we can keep track of these. Chick Bowen 06:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, for protected deleted categories, the parameter will still work, but it will categorize the template both in the protected deleted page by month category and (not by date) in Category:Protected deleted categories. Also, I see I wrote 2006 above--I am aware that it's 2007, although it's only very slowly sinking in. Chick Bowen 06:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There'd been some talk of replacing this template with protected redirects to a page in the project namespace containing similar text (thereby removing salted article pages from the random article pool and total article count). This seems like a good idea, and I believe that it should be strongly considered before any such bot run occurs. (Of course, the redirect pages still could be categorized by date.) —David Levy 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, though actually I think we should do the bot run anyway, because that way we can go through the old ones before replacing them with redirects. Chick Bowen 07:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, it just seems a bit pointless if we're only going to perform another bot run soon. We could just as easily delete the older pages after they become categorized redirects. But it's no big deal. —David Levy 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the protected redirect option. It has all the benefits of salting a page (that is, it keeps vandalism, hoaxes, and attack pages from being recreated), and eliminates the major drawback of salted pages (Special:Randompage running into salted pages, mostly). The only other problem with salted pages – which would still exist with the protected redirects – is that they prevent a real article from being created at the article name. I suspect that this is a desirable outcome at a vanishingly small percentage of salted articles; in any case, the project space target of the redirect can certainly contain detailed instructions for editors who wish to see a page unsalted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say most salted articles shouldn't have any article created there. Did you mean to say a small percentage should have good articles? Superm401 - Talk 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe {{deletedpage}} should change too much. And a protected redirect would be an absolute no-no. As is categorising them by month (another bad idea). This is a bad idea. --SunStar Net 11:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Proto::► 11:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I ask this, too. Should pages be kept deleted/protected indefinitely? Sorting by month will certainly allow for better tracking of these issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They are already date-sorted in User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedPD, and there's also a date-sorted list on the toolserver. —Centrx→talk • 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally not. But we need common sense here. Most vandal page creators move on quickly and so 2-3 weeks will suffice. But others are slow burning, and get recreated every month. MOstly if the deleted page is deleted and the things gets recreated, the harm is low. But if we've got someone posting a libellous article every few months to some obscure name, then we'd probably want to protect for a long time. And then there is Male bikini-wearing. I recently had someone repeatedly creating a redirect from a name to asshole. Basically, deleting protected pages is fine, as long as the admin looks at the reason for protection, the deletion history, and engages his brain. Automatically deleting something after x days is unacceptable. Cases will vary.--Doc 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, but a chronological categorization system wouldn't force sysops to delete older pages without investigation. It would merely point them toward the most likely candidates (some of which may have gone overlooked). —David Levy 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what Doc says; the purpose here is to allow us to go through them and make judgments, not assign a deadline. I think we're all on the same page about that. Chick Bowen 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I even recall seeing some complaints of a recently salted article perhaps being unsalted too quickly by another admin who was cleaning things up. Since this would be a purely informational tool, it could be used however best fits, which in some cases would probably be to leave things salted if they are very recent. Bitnine 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, SunStar Net, please explain why these are bad ideas. Others have cited advantages, so what are the drawbacks? —David Levy 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There already is a chronological list, which does not look like a backlog along the lines of AFD, PROD, orphan, etc. There are pages that should remain protected longer, so you end up with old, old, categories with one or two pages each. —Centrx→talk • 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when is permanently protecting a redirect a no-no? In cases of high-traffic articles it is a good solution to prevent duplicate article creation or copy and paste moves on articles where this is habitual, as well as thwarting sneaky vandalism. Absolutely no where in the Misplaced Pages:Protection policy does it say to not protect a redirect. Teke 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this better than the current system, where a bot lists deletedpages, in a single list, by date? —Centrx→talk • 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The current listing is actually more useful, as it includes links to the talk page and to the deletion log. When evaluating deleted pages, there is no reason to go the main namespace page—they are all exactly identical; the deletion log has the information appropriate for making a decision about what do with the page. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the list is quite useful--I confess I'd forgotten about it. I've added a link to it from the template. Chick Bowen 02:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Nicole Kidman

Could someone with more knowledge than me on IPs have a look at Nicole Kidman. There seems to be an orchestrated vandalism attack by a series of seemingly unrelated IPs to add a disparaging picture into the article, and reverting my and others reverts as vandalism. I've requested a semi-protection in the appropriate place but wondered if these IPs are related. --Steve _(Slf67) 09:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Semiprotected for a week. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Apparently someone created sleeper accounts for this silliness. Some kids have too much time on their hands. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 22:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed that said accounts are still continuing to vandalize the page. Perhaps stronger measures are necessary? MSJapan 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we just shoot these sock accounts on sight? -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've just indef blocked them all... They had no constructive edits, only daft null edits to build up a small edit history. Thanks/wangi 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling template gurus

It would be good to add an optional parameter to the sprotected and protected templates to show expiry. It woiuld be even better if this could be computed from an argument, so you put in "7 days" and it works out 7 days from today. Can that be done using the wiki syntax? Guy (Help!) 09:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can be done, but the current/date time would have to be set... either by the user typing it in or via substitution. --CBD 12:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I put in one possible implementation method for 'protected' as described at Template talk:Protected#Date parameter. If this system makes sense to people the same could be done for 'sprotected'. --CBD 13:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CFD has a large backlog

WP:CFD has a backlog extending back to 4 January. 12 days worth of discussions are not yet closed. Many of the unclosed nominations have a broad consensus. Could the administrators help with the backlog? Dr. Submillimeter 10:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests

CAT:PER is now at 15 entries and has been backlogged for over 24 hours, which is a bit extreme for what's meant to be an immediate-request category, so I'm pointing out the backlog here. --ais523 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a go on some of them, but last I looked there was 10 or so left. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

71.57.0.70 Legal threats?

"Please be advised that I am a User Interface consultant for a law firm specializing in civil corporate cases in downtown Chicago. We would be happy to pursue you and your assets by proving that you took hostile action using an unclear area of Misplaced Pages policy and deliberately tried to harrass and harm someone's business." ] Sure sounds like a legal threat to me, could an admin take a look? This user has also been spamming a couple pages, you'll see it's the only thing in their contributions. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And to top it off, now he's violated 3RR at Arlington Heights, Illinois as well. Let me know if I should just take it to 3RR noticeboard. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked them for one month, pending any agreement to cease legal threats. Those interested in taking legal action must pursue such actions off wiki. alphachimp 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The block for legal threats is extremely appropriate, but I am not sure this is a static IP. Newyorkbrad 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is Comcast... it may be static or it may not be. If I remember correctly they change IPs every 3-6 months unless you are paying for a static.--Isotope23 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll see if anyone requests an unblock or not. Thanks. There should be a page somewhere (no, I'm not qualified to write it) listing the most common ISP's and whether their users are statically assigned or what. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comcast IPs are effectively static: they change only if you leave your modem off for a while, or if something goes wrong with the DHCP server. --Carnildo 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So if you just turn your modem off then back on, it doesn't change your IP? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The person to ask about this is 68.39.174.238, but I believe that's correct, Zoe. Chick Bowen 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's part of how DHCP works: even if you're no longer using it, the server is only supposed to give your IP address to someone else if the server's run out of IP addresses that are completely unused. --Carnildo 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

GARRRRRRR

Please Help with my mono book message changer page. I t will not work for the life of me. --D.H. ( T | C ) 20:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with blocking for racist and personal attack comments?

Even though I'm an administrator, I wanted to see if other admins agreed with how I'm proposing to deal with User:Williamdevino. This supposed 14-year-old kid from England is going around posting racist and hateful comments on different talk pages, expressing support for the KKK while also sphewing hate at people of color. For samples of this, see his userpage and talk page, as well as and . That last link shows User:Williamdevino demonstrating his talent at truly wonderous language. That last post also seems like it falls under the blocking policy for making "Personal attacks that place users in danger," as well as a violation of the NPA guideline. However, before I blocked him I wanted to see if other admins agreed with doing this. Also, should he be given a warning before blocking or has he already crossed the line on acceptable behavior?--Alabamaboy 20:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with one warning, and a block for any hate-speech after that. -GTBacchus 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a neo-Nazi troll more than anything else, considering his edits. One warning, and if refuted, indef-block. --physicq (c) 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just posted the warning. We'll see what happens now. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have indef-blocked already based on edits such as this, but since he's extremely likely to violate the warning it may not matter much. Newyorkbrad 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked briefly after seeing that second diff. That's really, really not a "get off with a warning"-level breach of our behaviour guidelines. Jkelly 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was tempted to block him immediately but he'd posted comments on some article talk pages I edit and I didn't want people to think I had a conflict of interest.--Alabamaboy 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I love this comment on his user page: "I am a supporter of the KKK, AWB and NAZI party and have been since I had an apifamy of sorts and acquired white, Christian, European pride." Apifamy? Sounds like some painful type of bowel blockage :-).--Alabamaboy 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? After comments like this one I would have expected an indefinite block, no questions asked. As a matter of fact... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was any doubt before, that removes it; I hadn't gone back quite that far in the contribution history. Support indefinite. Newyorkbrad 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Support indef. That's a death threat, unambiguously. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, shouldn't Jimbo hear about edits like this? RyanPostlethwaite 23:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I also missed that death threat back in the contributions list. Removes any doubt whatsoever.--Alabamaboy 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef, without regret. HighInBC 05:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a death threat, it's garden-variety inarticulate bigotry. I still support banning this fuckwit on the grounds that he has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of abiding by policy, but we really must stop over-reacting to use of the word kill when there is no credible threat of harm. Personal soapbox, sorry. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm JzG, this is a death threat. "WE'LL KILL HIS WHOLE FAMILY.", how much more plain should it be? I agree that just the word kill does not make a death threat, however, when you use that word as a verb toward a person or group of people, with a statement of intent such as "We will", then yes it is a death threat. HighInBC 15:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what Guy meant is that there's no credible threat of harm. If I start receving letters written with newspaper clippings from the KKK, that's a death threat. A dumb teenager with testosterone problems typing silly comments on a keyboard in his bedroom isn't, because there's no...well, threat. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be indefed, of course. yandman 15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about blocks

Recently i got blocked not once but twice for things i did not do. Firstly i would like to know how this could happen. It seems that the admins are trigger happy. The first block was labeled with "with an expiry time of indefinite (Probably User:Dick Witham)" So if your not 100% sure why block, No checkuser was performed just a block. What happened to Presumption of innocence?

The second one was for "with an expiry time of 48 hours (Continuing violations of Misplaced Pages image copyright and fair-use policies)" I got blocked for reverting an image i did not uploaded it and one thing i cant figure out is how is one image Continuing violations?, Wouldn't it be violating images copyright as i wikipedia does not hold the copyright for that image WWE does. Also even if i did upload that image i got given 0 mins at all to fix it cause the tags were placed on my talkpage the same time that the block was given.

So in conclusion i would like a review on both JzG & Yamla to ensure that there has been no abuse of power and to ensure that there is no other collateral damage, I also request that the two block/unblock actions are struck from the block log. DXRAW 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the first issue, the second thing will just not happen. It is not technically possible to expunge, strike, or otherwise alter the account logs, and it isn't something that is going to be coded any time soon, as developers have previously stated that they refuse to implement that functionality. Titoxd 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yamla blocked, then saw the revert and immediately unblocked. This is a problem how, exactly? Guy (Help!) 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Yamla's block is

• The edit summary he used to describe the block.
• The manner he did not allow the user to fix the image before blocking.
• The block happened in the first place!

The problem with JzG's block is

• The edit summary he used to describe the block. Its always better to err on the side of caution. Not go shooting from the hip.
• No checkuser was performed.
• The block happened in the first place!

DXRAW 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you are now free to edit, I see no reason why you must pursue these admins to the ends of the earth. All admins have made mistakes, and all of us have apologized for them and moved on. According to your pursuit of "justice," shall all admins be desysopped for unfortunate mistakes? --physicq (c) 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should be desysopped, I'm just saying there should be a review so this does not happen to anybody else and to see if anybody else has experienced this by either those two or other admins. DXRAW 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Take Yamla's block for example he put the image tags on my talk page and then blocked at the same time. How is User X meant to fix anything up if he gets blocked straight away?

Also with JzG's block he did not do any checkuser or ask for a second admin he just took the admin stick spun around in a circle and picked me a user who's only crime is to try to improve this website. DXRAW 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The solution you are looking for, then, is WP:RFC. Though, I can say, the objective you aim for is quite hard to attain, as all admins are after all human, and all humans make mistakes. --physicq (c) 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at that page and it does not seem to fix this situation. DXRAW 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Folk make mistakes, no harm done... Time to move on?/wangi 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There was harm done otherwise i would not have posted that. DXRAW 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why you are pursuing action for editors who have apologized to you. Do you not accept their apology? --physicq (c) 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it should not of happened in the first place so i want to know why it happened, and will it ever happen again? I see this thread is turning into this DXRAW 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, JzG thought you were someone else, and Yamla thought that you had taken a different action than you did. They were wrong, and quickly fixed it (Yamla within the same minute). That's why it happened - I fail to see what additional explanation you're looking for. Will it ever happen again? Until we perfect AdminBot 2.0, there's a possibility that it might (and even then, it may). If it does, you should assume good faith and remember that no one here is infallible. --TheOtherBob 01:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that nobody is answering my questions so i will repost them

• How come the image tags were placed on my talkpage and then blocked in the same minute. Why was no time given to fix it up?
• Why was no checkuser preformed as JGZ was unsure if i was a sockpuppet?
• Is this an isolated incident or has there been others by these admins or other admins?

DXRAW 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TheOtherBob, let this go. They've apologized and it appears to be honest mistakes on their parts. You have an apology. More on.--Alabamaboy 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont want an apology i want the above questions answered. From what i see people are saying yes you got blocked but now eveything is ok but nobody wants to correct the underlining problems that caused it in the first place. DXRAW 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Because you are asking us to change the personality and character traits of an individual administrator, which we simply cannot do. --physicq (c) 02:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So you think its ok to give no time for a user to fix up an image? What is the point of having the image tag there if a person is just going to get blocked? DXRAW 02:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question why did the person who uploaded the image why are they not blocked? DXRAW 04:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

DXRAW, is there a specific resolution you're looking for? Everyone seems to have acknowledged that mistakes were made, you received an apology, but you're continuing to ask for more. It would help out if you could be specific about exactly what you want. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer why a CheckUser was not done, CheckUsers are not an automatic thing when it comes to sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is, first and foremost, proven in actions and behavioral patterns. In fact, unless things have changed recently, CheckUser only works on very recent edits, so if both accounts have not edited within a month or so (or perhaps even less than that, I'm not a CU or dev), it would be impossible to determine via CU, as this data would have been discarded. Guy incorrectly read the evidence, unblocked, and apologized. Seriously, what more do you want? We aren't perfect. (edit conflict) Agreed with Chairboy above. —bbatsell ¿? 04:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have posted twice what i would like answered and here it is for a third time.

• How come the image tags were placed on my talkpage and then blocked in the same minute. Why was no time given to fix it up?
• Is this an isolated incident or has there been others by these admins or other admins?
• The person who uploaded the image that got me blocked why are they not blocked? DXRAW 04:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know not of the first and third questions, but I can answer the second. Yes, this is an isolated incident as far as I know. --physicq (c) 04:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but really mate - what more do you want? Here are answers (no assurance that they're right answers, but they're answers.):

1. Someone screwed up - then fixed it and apologized.

2. Maybe - I don't know. But when you're talking mistakes...lord, if you only counted my mistakes, they would be far from "isolated." (And I'm not even an admin.)

3. I don't know the story here, and maybe they should be - but how are you harmed by someone else not being blocked?

Look, mistakes happen all the time. The best I can tell you is that you should assume good faith, and accept everyone's apologies - we all mean well here, and we're all sorry that you got blocked in error. That's really the best I think anyone can offer. --TheOtherBob 04:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

3) Logic would dictate if i got mistaken for the uploader and blocked then the uploader should be blocked but that has not happend. Why? DXRAW 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me be the rude one and enlighten you that we are all getting exasperated at your quest for accountability because you are asking them at the wrong forum. We have showed you the apologies made in light of such an incident and we tried to answer your questions to the best of our ability. Perhaps you may ask the admins who blocked you for the answer to #3. --physicq (c) 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted here cause i wanted a review of the actions. DXRAW 05:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And you got your response, which was yes, they were wrong, the offending admins have apologized, and hence it is time to move on and embark on writing the encyclopedia. --physicq (c) 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets put this into a Real World example. You got put into Jail twice for something you did not do, But then got told no its ok eveything is fine now cause your out & by the way we cant get read of your record. Have a nice day. DXRAW 05:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me enlighten you that Misplaced Pages is not the real world. If it were, then everyone will be subject to lawsuits, personal attacks, and death threats with wild abandon and with no accountability. --physicq (c) 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it would be closer to the mark to say you were arrested and released without charge. As far as I know this is not actionable in the real world unless you can prove malice or deliberate harassment. Can you show that in this case? Guy (Help!) 10:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it is what is commonly know as an example. DXRAW 05:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the example does not work if the context is completely different. But no matter. Now, you say that you wanted your questions answered. They were done so to the best of the community's ability. Is there anything else we can help you? --physicq (c) 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for question 3 to be answered so no there is nothing you can do to help. DXRAW 06:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your third question is that these are very much isolated incidents. That they both happened to you within a relatively short time, though entirely a coincidence, is very unfortunate, you're quite right to be upset, and you have the sympathy and apologies of the community. Chick Bowen 06:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you, though--if you mean why has Jan otto (talk · contribs) not been blocked despite some questionable image uploads, the chief answer is that he does not appear to be active at the moment. If he continues to upload copyrighted images without any regard for fair use criteria, however, he will likely be blocked. Chick Bowen 07:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I can answer one specific question: no checkuser was performed before blocking because it can take days to get checkuser results back and in some cases the checkusers refuse anyway. If these were the only blocks in your history, or if they'd been allowed to stand after being challenged, then you might have a case, but neither of these is the case. The only people who are likely to look at your block log are admins, and the block/unblock summaries are clear enough that no mistaken inferences are likely to be drawn. You have been told that the devs refuse to remove or facilitate the removal of blocks from the block log, so really that is the end of the matter: you are asking us to do something that can't be done in order to fix a problem we tell you is not a problem, in that we will not draw unwarranted inferences from these blocks. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump

Do the pump pages still need protection? It's been a few weeks since the SummerThunder shower - perhaps it's time to clear the skies. Durova 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are the "federal clowns" still around? I can't tell, since I haven't even viewed a page in two weeks. MER-C 11:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

In the past few weeks I've noticed several threads take a similar shape:

1. An editor starts a discussion with I did X. Is X all right?

2. One or two people give a very hot response. That's Y! Y is wrong!

3. The original editor comes back with. Actually I did X.

4. The hot responses continue. Y violates policy. Y is misconduct!

5. Some AN and ANI regulars browse by and add. Yup, Y is wrong.

6. The editor who started the thread remains civil yet has clearly become frustrated. What evidence do you need for me to persuade you that I did X? Could I please have some feedback on X?

Or to be more specific, one discussion I've seen play out several times is:

A. I gave Joe Wikischmoe a 48 hour block for vandalism.

B. That's a punitive block. We don't do that!

That's a WP:AGF foul: B can't intuit A's motivation. So try some better alternatives.

B. My first reaction is that looks like a punitive block.

or

B. Could you explain how that's preventative?

These calmer responses invite A to respond without putting A on the defensive. So if the block really was punitive A gets the chance to fix things without getting put on the spot, if A had good reasoning A's reputation doesn't get dented, and everybody comes away with a little less Wikistress.

I've seen other variations on that theme (maybe I'll write an essay on the subject when my computer is fixed) but the basic theme is, try not to let an assumption of good faith toward one Wikipedian morph into an assumption of bad faith toward another. Durova 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Could you explain how that's preventive" is a good question we should all ask ourselves from time to time, probably in response to any admin action. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More Dwain

User:Dwain is at it again. While the offending Freemasonry page is no longer linked directly to his talk page, it is locatable in talk history and still exists on his Geocities site at the address. So, I'd like those revisions purged. Also note the issue he fomented on IMDB after a year here, when he started the problem in the first place. He clearly has a much larger and more long-standing anti-WP stance than he lets on, brought about mainly (it seems) because he cannot get his way and do what he likes where and how he likes. MSJapan 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A close look at his diffs also shows he is stashing old articles he created that are now being prodded or AfDed in his userpage history: Charity Bishop (prodded for nn) is here, and Michael Kaplan (AfD for vanity) is here. These are both articles he created as Pitchka, and Dwain is currently engaging in personal attacks on the Michael Kaplan AfD. MSJapan 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Warned Dwain for attacks. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Userfication" of {{Greene}}

I nominated {{Greene}} for deletion at TfD (see the discussion here). The discussion was closed as "no consensus" by Cryptic. That, I agree, was correct, in that there was no consensus to delete. However, given the discussion, I believe the proper resolution should have been to move the template to userspace. I discussed this with Cryptic, who did consider my concerns about the outcome. Despite his comments, it still seems to me that this template should be userfied - it certainly would be in keeping with the manner in which the "userbox" debates were resolved and the reasoning discussed at the TfD. However, I am left with the problem of how to resolve this matter. I don't think it's a proper matter to discuss at deletion review; likewise, I can't just migrate it over to userspace (that would require a co-operative host, and I'm not exactly inclined to do so given my position on the template). Thus, I am bringing this request here, as it seems to me that this requires admin action, one way or another. Agent 86 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for next step

Hello,

I have been having problems with a particular user who has been engaged in sock puppetry, trolling, personal attacks, and vandalism of a couple of topic pages, topic talk pages, my user talk page, and another user talk page. I have already discussed this with the user. Several times I have had sincere discussions with the user about his conduct and have even warned him a few times of his behavior. However, nothing seems to sink in. Please let me know what the next step I should take. Thank you. Wiki Raja 01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is a content dispute, you should visit requests for comment. For interpersonal disputes, you might try the Mediation cabal. Teke 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

personal information needs to be purged

I just reverted this tidbit of vandalism but the information regarding the name and phone number of someone offering free sex is still in the edit history. Can someone purge that? Caper13 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --physicq (c) 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be oversighted as well. Prodego 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Attention: Undiscussed page moves on a massive scale

I just want to call the attention to the fact that User:Highshines has started a massive page move campaign of articles relating to Chinese royalty. Thsi is completely uncalled for given the fact that Highshines has refrained from taking part in the discussion about how to normalize the names of Qing dynasty royalty on Talk:Xiao Xian Chun. An administrator needs to talk to Highshines soon, before he/she makes a complete mess of these pages. For evidence, please refer to Special:Contributions/Highshines.--Niohe 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Jiang left a not about the moves, and I supplemented with at link to WP:RM. I also removed text from the userpage that was a copyvio from Sparknotes. Teke 02:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I warned that this would happen last week on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive72#User:_Niohe. I also want to alert other adminstrators to the fact that Highshines has been blocked for sock puppetry and disruptive page moves before, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highshines. In order to cover this up, Highshines has removed the sock puppeteer tag from his/her talk page and deleted warning messages from his/her talk page.

I don't have any administrative powers to undo this kind of massive disruptive edits. This will happen again, and I think it is time to block Highshines from editing these pages.--Niohe 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am undoing the moves as they did not have any sort of consensus for the amount of renaming the user did. Teke 03:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All moved back to where they were. That will prevent it from happening again, since my moves created redirects the user cannot move them back. RM would be for doing that. Teke 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can "overwrite" an article if the only edit is creating a redirect, or at least I think I have seen that happening... -- ReyBrujo 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

True enough, I'm watching the pages. I was speaking in the context of moves :) Teke 04:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Go make some false edits (add some of thsoe "R from" templates) to prevent users from movewarring...I did that when a user kept moving Kitty Pryde to Shadowcat. Hbdragon88 09:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone had any doubt what kind of editor Highshines is, please have a look at the following foul language posted to Jiang's user page (in Chinese) for four hours:

I think Highshines has earned himself/herself a block by now.--Niohe 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Chinese, would you mind providing a translation? Additionally, I'm not sure why the user made that post when I told him at the time that I was doing it to remove copyvios from Sparknotes. sigh Anyone other uninvolved third party care to dive in here? Teke 18:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Teke. I know you're doing the right thing. However, someone also deleted my userpage after you, and I think it was Niohe. By the way, all the page moves I have done was according to Niohe's suggestion on the talk page of Xiao Xian Chun. Highshines 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would worry about it. What Highshines wrote is the kind of profanity you don't want to translate. It was a rant directed to the person who touched Highshines user page, making various comments about the smell of the private parts of the mother of that editor and the circumstances surrounding his conception. Is that enough or do I need to give you a verbatim translation?.

Niohe is both exaggerating and lying. All I have said was that the person who removed my user page (not Teke, but after him) must have had a bad upbringing. I can provide a verbatim translation: "To whomever deleted my userpage: The one who had performed stealthy actions on my userpage must have been forced to do bad and brutal things by his mother. Also, he must have been beaten badly by his father. Therefore, he was formed that way." At that time, I was really angry with Niohe because he had frequently vandalized my userpage and talkpages before. Highshines 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You know that is not an accurate translation. Don't even try.--Niohe 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an accurate translation. I can show it to every one word by word with a Chinese-English dictionary. My remark is clean, but your paraphase has added further sexual contents to it. What are you planning at, Niohe? Highshines 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, how would you translate "谁妈的逼" into plain English? Or "谁爸操了以后"? --Niohe 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole phrase "谁妈的逼" means "who has been forced by his mother to ". The character "谁" means "whose", and the character "逼" is a verb which means to force someone to do something he/she is unwilling to do. In this case, I meant that someone so vandalic must have been "force by his mother to do immoral things". I know it is a bit strong, but I already suffered enough from the vandalizations of my pages. Highshines 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

的 is a possesive prefix marking the noun following 的 to belong to the noun preceding it. You used 谁妈 which means "that person's mother" and 逼 therefore is a noun, and the only meaning of 逼 as a noun is an obscene reference to female genitalia. -- 我♥中國 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong about "the only meaning of 逼 as a noun is an obscene reference to female genitalia.". I have never heard of that. Instead, 逼 also means "forcing someone" when used as a noun. Highshines 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you say your user page was vandalized, can you provide diff histories showing the vandalism? -- 我♥中國 22:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Highshines has also started to use threatening language, as evidenced by his comment to my my talk page. If the above profanity won't earn Highshines a block for abusive behavior I don't know what will.--Niohe 20:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Niohe, if you were the one who removed my userpage, you better explain why. If you didn't, then why do you have to feel being "threatened"? Highshines 20:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Teke did it, as he said: . 146.186.221.141 21:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If I wronged you this time, Niohe, please accept my apology. However, if you have been kind to my pages before, I wouldn't have been so mad at you. Highshines 21:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology for what? For including me in your rant or for calling me a liar when I paraphrased your profane remarks? --Niohe 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want to accept it, that's fine to me. I was trying a apologize for a possible mistaking you as the remover of my page. However, I don't think my remarks have any profane element. Instead, your paraphrase only produced exaggerations and lies. Highshines 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. First, you apologize and then you call me a liar.--Niohe 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Privacy issue

Someone has posted a request on Talk: Sean Bell, putatively from a gun store owner looking for one of the attorney's involved. Post includes an email address and phone #. May be a privacy violation and/or slanderous, depending on whose email address and phone this is. Natalie 03:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Expunged from history; thanks. Chick Bowen 03:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Improper AfD - not sure if this can be speedied

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Giovanni Battista Maganza - messed up AfD listing. Not sure if I can speedy a malformed AfD, so asking if an admin can delete this. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You could just tag it with {{db|mistakenly created}};no need to worry about the rules. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to ignore any rule. {{db-author}} handles it quite nicely. 146.186.221.141 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Moe me being too lazy to look up the specific db- template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, more personal attacks...

Please see the comment made by Roazir here: Please see here where I posted my first complaint of a personal attack against me: These users may be the same person. I would really appreciate it if someone took care of this. I'm sick of these personal attacks.Azerbaijani 06:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you believe he used another account/IP to evade 3RR, you an file a Checkuser request: WP:RFCU. Otherwise, better to just ignore that kind of comment; it was hardly bannable material. 146.186.221.141 21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

User:82.3.192.91 has referred to me as a Banya which is a derogatory Indian term and has also made unsubstantive deletions of the Janjua article which I have reverted. Can the racist personal attack be dealt with? --Leonidus 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the term on google, it is a place name, and a surname, can you show me a source that describes it's offensive meaning? HighInBC 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

During a dispute regarding external links on Mika (singer), Mel Etitis (talk • contribs) left the comment "Fine — I think that you're wrong, but I don't have the energy to fight more teenybopper music fans." - aimed at myself. He repeatedly restored the comment, finally claiming he was seeking admin intervention regarding my removal of the personal attack, although he has made no contributions since. Suggest user be given a warning on civility by a third party. ed g2s • talk 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you go edit something else for a while? Let's not be princesses constantly on the lookout for peas. Opabinia regalis 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - WP:SPIDER. Arguments happen. 146.186.221.141 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about new edits on the Oscar Wilde page

Hellp. I am posting this too make you aware that editor Neal kydd has recently made a series of edits on the Oscar Wilde page without providing sources and which seem to me to have a touch of original research. While I could be wrong about the orig. res. aspect the message on the editors talk page seems to bring it into question. In any event the lack of sources is the bigger issue and I am wondering if you might be able to give this editor some direction in this area. It is also possible that I am out of line about this which is why I have come to you as I know that you will let me know if I am and I want to avoid a revert war. Many thanks for your time in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since my above message another change has been made removing some of the article as it stood wothout any comment why in the edit summary and another question has popped to mind, in that, if this editor is adding passages from their published works is there a copyvio problem on the horizon. Again, I could be off base but I wanted to make you aware of all of this. MarnetteD | Talk 17:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We now have an edit changing a documented first meeting between Wilde and Bosie in 1891 to a possible meeting and a sentence that state that "later becoming became intimate".

Being bold is one thing but taking over an article and not allowing for any corrections is another and I hope that this editor, with some a ssistance, can become a valuable member of the wikipedia community, but, as a wikignome, I don't know where to begin to offer that help so I am hoping that you all will be able to do what is needed

Weird vandalism

I am really not sure what is going on here- User:Augmon92 is adding {{subst:Welcome}} to many pages, but, despite the fact that there have been no edits afterwards, they are coming out as displaying a strange message. Two examples of where he has done this are User_talk:Saowanee.alexander and User_talk:Exhead. I may be making a false accusation here, but something strange is going on, that needs to be stopped, preferably quickly. Those two pages are the ones I came across because I was posting on them for another reason. If you take a look at Augmon92's contributions, there have been A LOT of welcome messages of late, but the most recent few show up as normal, when I checked them. It is worth noting that Augmon92 has recieved a lot of warnings in the past. J Milburn 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked, someone has already dealt with it. There is still a lot of stuff that needs reverting though, we could well be scaring off new editors. J Milburn 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Augmon was most likely forging automatic edit summaries, as {{welcome}} has been protected for some while now. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He was, and I have found how- User:Augmon92/monobook.js. That needs deleting, and perhaps reviewing to make sure it can't be done again. J Milburn 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Using user page as web site

Not really sure how to handle this situation: User:The-princess-georgie and User:The-princess-georgie-gallery are apparently being used as a web site host. The former account has made 3 edits outside the userspace, and the latter has made edits only to the aforementioned user pages. The gallery page says, "This is my gallery for my site The Princess Georgie" and The Princess Georgie links to the other user page. Page also has "top affiliates" and news sections, etc., like a real fan site. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the first and gave an explanation on the user's talk page, and Vegaswikian got the second one. Per WP:USER, WP:NOT, and plenty of precedent, these types of pages should indeed be deleted. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I recently deleted a whole load that were expired Prods. I think that might be the least confrontational way to go forward. Waiting a few days until deletion will not hurt and it gives the editor in question time to show their nose (not much chance, but...) Agathoclea 21:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Add Category to protected template

Template:Context should appear in Category:Misplaced Pages introduction cleanup. It seems to be fully protected. Please add. TonyTheTiger 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In the future, you can just add {{editprotected}} to the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cats (musical)

I have a request for a community ban on the article pertaining to Cats, the musical. Vandals come in at least five times a day and mess with the page. Could you please make it so that people outside Misplaced Pages cannot edit it? It would be greatly apperciated.

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Jkelly 21:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin seeks advice with regard to subject editing her own article

KyraSchon (talk · contribs) has just registered and has edited Kyra Schon (diff) to remove details of her employment, which were cited properly to her own Web site, as well as her employer's. Regardless of the availability of this information on the Internet, she added to the article the "she prefers to keep details of her employment private. She has had Night of the Living Dead enthusiasts show up where she works, and found it to be a somewhat frightening experience." Additionally, she removed the link to her article from her employer's article. I do not doubt this is Ms. Schon and have asked her to confirm this on her user page.

My concern is this: This information is significant to the article, in terms of the details of her life and is easily found online regardless of being on Misplaced Pages; however, I do not really want to contribute to fans' harassing this woman. Please advise me on what to do in this situation. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards