Misplaced Pages

If it worries you, show him . I doubt it is harmful. x42bn6 Talk 00:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably ask them why first. Note that they were blocked 1 week in January for 'abusive sockpuppetry', so hmmm .... - Alison 00:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not the sekret page :P The page is released under the same licensing as all the rest, I do believe. Users without the flag just can't see the page because to access it would be for its use. I see no problem. It's something I've never considered before so I add the "I might be wrong." Teke 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, the page used to list the AOL proxy blocks and others, which it no longer does. It only lists the ranges of the Canadian, UK, and US government IP blocks. Furthermore in my it's no big deal. Teke 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's GPL'd, so it's not even secret - he can go to any other site that runs MediaWiki 1.10alpha and request it there. There's no issue here. Titoxd 05:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, he's not asking for checkuser results or real names or something. I have a small wiki on Mediawiki running on the machine next to me for some collaborative projects with a few friends, anyone else could do the same and find out exactly what it looks like. Seraphimblade 08:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just show the appropriate mediawiki page. Viridae 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone. After some thought, I decided that it was harmless and uploaded Image:Admin's toolbox and Image:Block user.png, and answered his question at Talk:King Lopez#Re: Question. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A query with some images tagged for deletion "no source"

• I started to have a go at images in Category:Images with unknown source as of 8 April 2007 "Images in this category are potential candidates for speedy deletion under criterion I4 once this category is seven days old.". I soon found in there a succession of images that were declared by their uploaders as "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. ..." that User:Aksi great tagged for deletion {{no source}}. On looking in his user-talk page I found a discussion about images in User talk:Aksi great#Images uploaded by you, which seems to be becoming acrimonious. Anthony Appleyard 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems in order to me. Aksi feels s/he has reason to not trust the licences, has asked for further clarification and has been met by User:ParthianShot not answering the question, rather squirming out of it. The question is simple enough: " add proper image descriptions?", but the answer is a long diatribe about why the question is improper, rather than providing the information or asking for clarification. If you don't want to delete the images based on the conversation, then leave it for somebody else or ask Aksi for clarification.

You did at least contact Aksi after bringing this here, didn't you? It's common courtesy to do so.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally I understand the strange message you left me on my talk page. There are 2 issues here. The images I tagged on 8 April, and the images uploaded by ParthianShot. As Redvers has said I have a reason to doubt the images uploaded which I tagged on the 8th. Those images look like really professional images to me. They are of a very respected politician of India and it is difficult to get such good images of a person like that. Hence I asked for a source for the images. No source has been provided by the uploader even though it is now 12 days since I tagged the images which leads me to suspect that the images were taken from some other source and are not free images. Hence we should err on the side of caution and delete those images. They can always be retrieved later if the uploader comes with proof of source. About ParthianShot, it is a different issue. The website from which he has taken the images has commited copyvios and hence all images taken from that website should be removed from wikipedia. I haven't tagged any of those images yet. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My problem with Aksi is not the deletion of the images, but his misuse of his admin privileges. I believe that he has blocked me on basis of a private request by another user (FullStop). The matter was originally raised by another contributor (, ), , , , ). However, I would greatly appreciate if someone look into this matter. Regards ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. Images tagged for deletion "no source", by Aksi, is in continuation of his wrongdoings, possibly under Fullstop instruction. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again.- Aksi_great (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again? When the above issue was resolved, that you believe it has been brought up again unjustly? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Images must have a source. Images without source information may be deleted 7 days after being tagged. That's policy. Regarding images uploaded by ParthianShot, the dituation should be discussed at Possibly unfree images to determine whether they are reliable. Regarding ParthianShot's images, he uploads images sourced to a web site that has a prominent GFDL license posted. However, that web site has been proven to post textual copyvios, therefore the accuracy of the GFDL release for the photos is also in question. Thatcher131 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher131: ...However, that web site has been proven to post textual copyvios..! May I ask how and when it was proven? Can I see the evidence for this claim? Thanks. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of Reddi

As a result of talk page spamming and forcing people to sign a memberlist at WP:PARANORMAL (which there is another one that he was unaware of), I blocked User:Reddi about 12 minutes ago for 15 minutes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm blocking him, again, this time for 31 hours in his personal attacks against User:ScienceApologist, which includes trying to remove him from WP:PARANORMAL (I also have reason to believe he was spamming the talk pages of the members to influence this decision or that of the recently opened Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For his actions, see this diff—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything is some sort of conspiracy with him :\. Seems like a valid block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how related it is but this editor redirected Electrostatic levitation to Electrogravitics which is a completely separate concept... I reverted this and there was nothing more of it but I was rather puzzled/disappointed to find this redirection. (→Netscott) 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Winona Gone Shopping

This user was blocked July 2006 for various things. I have deleted the talk page several times as they seem to want to use it for a blog and linking to their myspace. Today though they asked for a block review. I declined to unblock based on the fact they said it's a role account and the implied legal threat. Of course I could be reading too much into what they said so others might want to review it as well. I'll advise the blocking admin, Tony Sidaway, about this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Shared account ("giving passwords away" is shared in my book), edit summaries like "I'm just here to piss on stuff. Particularly, on Jimbo Wales", implied legal threats, regardless of their excuse just now ... I think it should stay declined. - Alison 11:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Username concerns as well. Newyorkbrad 12:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• My inclination would be to delete and salt the talk page (e-mail and myspace links are back). Rklawton 12:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Salt and pepper. --jpgordon 15:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good block. _InBC 15:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the talk page - given the rant and the links to myspace and email, and I have protected the page. Feel free to revert me, no hard feelings, I just think that this block was very much justified and Misplaced Pages does not have a need for users like these, especially as they state they don't intent to edit ever again. There's always the unblock list if they truly want to have their block reviewed, so that's not a reason to let them edit that talk page in this case. --JoanneB 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - I don't remember all the details of the original blocking - but I do recall this user was bad news.--Doc 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse too. Just for background, this was previously a good account (under a different name) until about a year or so ago, when the user suddenly either freaked out or really gave up his access to somebody else. Ever since then it's been only trolling. If the original user ever wished to return to actual editing, he'd have silently created a new account by now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good deletion, good protection. _InBC 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge Bay Weather and Doc Glasgow encountered the user months after the user was already blocked, when the user was claiming to be multiple users and using the talk page for sundry purposes. However, all this came after the block. The user was never suspected of being "multiple users" till it claimed to be so after being blocked. The user was blocked for two offensive edit summaries, quite simply. I can go back and discuss the details. All this talk of "multiple users" and this morning's "legal threat" (Mark Geragos posting on the talk page) are after the fact. 68.126.248.18 21:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who here is actually familiar with why the user was blocked almost one year ago? 68.126.248.18 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support an unblock, if the user promises not to troll or use his userspace inappropriately. As Fut.Perf. pointed out, this was a good user, and I think we should give him another chance. Khoikhoi 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the user :) and I promise not to "Save" any inappropriate edits anywhere in Misplaced Pages if I am unblocked. 98% of the bad edits came after I was blocked. And there was no sockpuppetry (ever) or vandalism of articles (besides my User Page and User Talk Page) since then, and classifying those edits as vandalism is controversial. I have not started a new account since I was blocked on July 26th 2006. I don't need sockpuppet charges. 68.126.248.18 22:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The two offensive edit summaries: the one referring to Jimmy and another one which you will find in the initial User talk:Winona Gone Shopping, an edit summary made on July 24th, 25th, or 26th. For no reason, I stated (addressing no one, and there was no talk of anyone banning me for anything, it was out of the blue): "Here is my death threat: permanently ban me and I will kill you. Your move, tough guy." This was not addressed to anyone. It was a "silly" threat, as noted. Those two edit summaries are the reason why i was blocked. If I hadn't made those edit summaries I would not be blocked now unless I did something else later. 68.126.248.18 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

JoanneB, I restored the page for now. I think it's important that others see the odd style that comes from that user or users.

Winona, I knew about you well before your blocking but saw no need to comment at that time. As to what you did in the past that had nothing to do with my declining to unblock you. It was because you said that the password had been passed on to you by Alexander. Who knows how many others he passed that on to. I thought I saw an implied legal threat but I wasn't sure so I brought the matter here.

Take a look at User talk:Winona Gone Shopping. It appears from the comments, all made by 68.123.235.63 that there are, again, more than one person using that page. I really don't think they need to be unblocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern better now. If I had passed on the password to a friend, then he could have passed it on to who knows who and the account would be unreliable. 68.126.248.18 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP, but they're all the same person. Khoikhoi 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they're all the same person. What happened after the block IMO is not as important as what happened to initiate the block (two edit summaries). And what happened after never exceeded some bizarre edits to (my)Userspace. I apologize for claiming to be more than one person, but I have friends/fans in MySpace who want to believe that I'm Winona Ryder (officially I am not, I assure you) and I know they check up on my activity in Misplaced Pages because they have told me so. It's "funny" that in MySpace they believe I'm Winona claiming to be Alex while in Misplaced Pages most believe I'm Alex, perhaps having shared his password. It's all one user. All the edits in my Userspace are not the issue of my block. Unblocked or not I'll refrain from them. My MySpace was quite busy before, the hugest Winona in MySpace till I had to reduce hundreds and hundreds of "friends" because of time constraints. If you search "Winona Ryder" in MySpace, I am the only one. If you search Angelina Jolie, you get like 50 different pages. I'm so unpoopular after the Saks Fifth Avenue scandal :-) gotta go, thanks for your time 68.126.248.18 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the various IP's are the same person but they talk as if they were different people even when using the same IP. Look at the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk is now protected from being created and deleted. There's no reason to let it go on.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I find the overreactions, belief in multiple users, protectiveness of Jimbo Wales and general ******** here to be very interesting. However, how am I going to change my Username if I am blocked? 68.126.248.18 06:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I want something like User:W.L.H.. 68.126.248.18 06:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in being unblocked only so I could change my username, then I can be blocked again for those two earth-shattering edit summaries, for which I have already apologized. I mean, what do you think I'm going to do if I get unblocked? I no longer agree with the GFDL license so I don't want to (but I might) edit; I assure you no one has the password except me. If people beyond my control have the password, why would I request the account to be unblocked? 68.126.248.18 06:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you just want a name change and then leave, can you e-mail one of the bureaucrats from your account and request a name change through that channel? We'll take care of the userspace pages afterwards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would settle for that, at least for the forseeable future. Thanks! At first I created the MySpace profile with the same name (in the URl) as my username in Misplaced Pages to show the identity of the two. But now since I no longer use the Misplaced Pages account yet I'm still using the same URL in MySpace I want to begin disconnecting the two. Not because I am worried of any serious troubles: I am not impersonating Winona Ryder. I always say that I'm not her. If they don't always believe me that's not my fault. In fact, I may possibly (I can't verify this because Misplaced Pages is too wide open) be in contact with people who know her, and my page has been up for so long and it is so noticeable (being the only one with that display name) that it is quite likely she knows about it and would have sent an ICBM if she really had an issue with it. I have had another profile deleted under mysterious circumstances which was probably the result of somone taking issue with what I was doing. Anyway, a google search readily shows to people that there probably is a connection between the WGS in MySpace and the WGS in Misplaced Pages (and I am well aware that a google search will also bring up this page). Changing my username in Misplaced Pages will help to tone down the connection. 69.224.231.23 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Should I just log in and send the emails or should I get confirmation that this suggestion is possible ? Once I log in, my IP will be blocked till it changes again. 69.224.231.23 19:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Merely logging in shouldn't trigger an autoblock. You can log in and go to people's userpages and use the e-mail function. Give them a link to this discussion. I can't guarantee they'll fulfil the request, but I don't really see why they wouldn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Living bios in need of attention

User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs - go through, give a severe sourcing critique, remove from list (or from Misplaced Pages) - David Gerard 17:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I can't beliee that Dave Brubeck is unsourced. I think we should take some Time Out to fix that. I'll be Far more Blue if it's not fixed soon... 80.176.82.42 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sockpuppeteer notice

How does one deal with removal of a sockpuppeteer notice? See here. I've reverted that with an edit summary with links to the appropriate sections of WP:USER#ownership... and WP:SSP#reporting.... But I have a strong feeling this won't go away. Otheus 19:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's how you deal with it: Don't put a suspected sockpuppet tag on the userpage of someone who hasn't been banned for abusing sockpuppets. How would you like it if I stuck one of those tags on your page and started edit-warring over it? If you have the PROOF of him using sockpuppets abusively, then he should be banned. If you don't have the proof for that, you shouldn't be tagging him. Frise 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually WP:SSP explicitly states that you should. -Amarkov moo! 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's called "suspected" sockpuppet. JuJube 22:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what it states. This is something that needs to be tempered with a little common sense. There might be thirty or forty people I suspect of being sockpuppets, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around taggging them. There are three or four people I know for a fact are using sockpuppets, but since they aren't abusing the policy I'm not going to tag them either. Edit warring on someone else's user page over a suspected sock tag is incredibly silly. If you KNOW they're abusing socks, then they can be banned. Frise 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But the point of WP:SSP is discussion. That involves getting people who interact with the alleged sockpuppets to comment. And it doesn't say that you can tag everyone who you suspect of being a sockpuppet, it says you can tag people who you suspect of being an abusive sockpuppet, and have a SSP report open on them. -Amarkov moo! 22:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring over a suspected sockpuppet tag is as dumb as edit-warring over the removal of a warning. The community has come down hard on the latter, and the same conclusions reached apply to the former. - Merzbow 04:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but so far, no comment on exactly how to deal with it. Do I report it to AN/I as removal of a warning? Otheus 05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with, but in general it might make sense to find out why the tag is supposed to be added. After all, the report is still on WP:SSP and will be dealt with decisively at some point, so a tag is not strictly necessary. —Centrx→talk • 05:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Centrix has a point. I have filed three SSP cases, and in each case, the users got fairly angry. Is that a classic guilt response? I'm not sure. But posting it on their user page didn't seem to "help" encourage "discussion". But at the same time, the community and the accused need to be aware of the suspected puppetry and case. In this case, it was resolved quickly, but in other cases, it might take quite a while. So while there is an ongoing investigation, there should be some kind of notice. Otheus 06:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the notices on the user page are necessary. The suspected master + puppets should receive a notice of the case on their user talk page, which makes sure they're informed. I'll start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Suspected sock puppets to remove tagging the user pages from the steps in filing a case; anything that makes the procedure simpler and reduces futile edit warring is probably a good thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... warning removals don't need to be reported, because they are not actionable. If this is like warning removal, then you don't report it at all. -Amarkov moo! 05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tonyppe

Thread retitled from "Offensive?".

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this one... I'm not a terribly big fan of the typical user page on wikipedia, so I decided to put this image (which happens to be featured) on my userspace because I love the artist's work. I hadn't logged in for a while, and then I noticed this edit on my talk page requesting that I remove the image because it offends gay muslims (?). I would normally be quite willing to take down an image that someone found offensive, but I noticed the same user had made several edits tweaking vandalism notices I had placed . Any thoughts? I wanted to get an outside viewpoint before I contact the user with my reply. Rookwood 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call this "tweaking". Looks more like vandalism to me. Natalie 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but the editor seemed to be making (a few) reasonable edits as well, so I was trying to assume good faith. Rookwood 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage is fine. Tonyppe is asking for a sharp warning for personal attacks for this sort of thing. – Riana 02:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no good faith to be assumed about his insulting edits. JuJube 02:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I admire your good faith approach to the user's message, but I'm afraid I'll have to concur with the judgement they were most likely trolling. I know that we have some Muslim editors, if any of them can figure why this image would be offensive, please do point it out. Personally, I like it. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tor blocking - soft or hard?

Obviously, open proxies are and should be blocked on a regular basis. There seems to be a strong consensus that anonymous editing from Tor nodes should be blocked. I usually see account creation likewise disabled. From what I've seen, though, there doesn't seem to be consensus on the "anon only" block option -- some admins block all users, others block only IP users, and I frequently see Tor blocks reconfigured one way or the other. As a community, do we have any particular preference, here? Blocking anons and registration seem to be unanimously agreed upon, it's only blocking accounts that seems to be a sticking point. I haven't seen any arguments or upset feelings over this, and don't have a particularly strong opinion, myself, but figured it couldn't hurt to discuss. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that a lot of good wikipedians use Tor. I am thinking about installing it myself, but I am worried about this. I support soft blocks only, because then a vandal would have to register over a regular connection. If they got blocked, their main IP would be autoed, so I support soft blocks. mrholybrain's talk 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser has repeatedly found abusive sockpuppets editing through soft-blocked tor proxies. Anyone smart enough to use tor is smart enough to find an ublocked IP to create a sockfarm and age it, then edit through tor. Hardblocked tor users can edit through the secure server. Thatcher131 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As previously, soft blocks aren't so soft and have their own implications for use. These are anonymous open proxies by any other name and should be treated as such. --pgk 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, and have long advocated, that Tor should be anon-only+account creation blocked, but anonymous edits should be permitted. We should also automate this, and for gods-sake we should only block edits from exit nodes, not middle nodes. If you're able to find an unblocked IP to create the sockfarm you'd also be able to find an unblocked IP to use the sock farm. I don't see how we can claim to respect users privacy but we will aggressively block any method a user could use to actually achieve said privacy in a strong way. --Gmaxwell 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I block tor exit nodes as a full block (everything on). So NOT anon only, and account creation disabled. I don't believe we don't guarantee privacy, and these are just open proxies. Prodego 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Prod backlog

Hasn't gone away. See Category:Proposed deletion as of 15 April 2007, Category:Proposed deletion as of 16 April 2007 and Category:Proposed deletion as of 17 April 2007. Needs some work with a plunger. MER-C 07:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Starting to nab some, but being at work, I can't get into hardcore "psycho admin with a mop of doom" mode. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Another one: Category:Proposed deletion as of 18 April 2007. MER-C 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CtK19, CTK

Thread retitled from "Blanking".

I'm not sure this is the right place to put this, please correct me if it's not. Would someone have a look at this article? The entire contents was replaced by User:CtK19 some twelve hours ago. It seems to me that this user is promoting himself on WP, and also that the article does not meet WP:NPOV. I think this edit is vandalism, be it intentional or not.Cassandra B 10:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it to the previous disamb page and left a notability message to the user. Thanks for spotting it! -- lucasbfr 10:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ampersands on my "command line"

I don't have a clue where to look for the reason for this, but my command line just went from this:

   * Jd2718
   * My talk
   * My preferences
   * My watchlist
   * My contributions
   * Log out

to this:

   * Jd2718
   * My talk
   * My preferences
   * & lt;my-watchlist& gt;
   * My contributions
   * Log out

I think somebody's monkeying around with something they shouldn't be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

• See the village pump. >Radiant< 15:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Crookes suing Wikimedia

According to a whole bunch of news websites, this guy's suing Wikimedia along with pretty much the rest of the internet. Shouldn't his page be office protected or something? Who do we notify if anyone? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been protected - though not at OFFICE level. x42bn6 Talk 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Yamla protected

If I may say, I believe this is inappropriate. I have no way of contacting this user. The idea was that it was protected because of an "edit war", but there were only a few edits over several days in this "war". It is totally inappropriate to fully protect (not just semi) an administrator's talk page. Unfortunately, I can't complain, because his page is protected. Part Deux 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, your view would be absolutely correct. In this instance, there are other reasons for this protection which unfortunately should not be discussed on-wiki. Please e-mail the user if necessary. Newyorkbrad 15:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I have a link to the discussion? I'm not seeing how not letting us know why his page is protected could in any way harm this user.

In any case I wanted to know why on God's green earth he didn't protect User talk:A young n***a from da street for abuse of the unblock template and WP:POINT problems. 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It could. Please e-mail Yamla. --Iamunknown 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In any event, any administrator can address the issue on the "User:A young..." page. Newyorkbrad 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not buying it, do you think he could add a link to the top of his page saying "email me"? Part Deux 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not buying what? I don't appreciate that implication. It wasn't even him that protected the page. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about this discussion until now. My page was protected as a result of an attack I considered rather serious and the only way to protect myself was to protect my page. The protection expires after a week from the initial incident and I'm seriously hoping this is enough. If it is not, I am not sure what I will do. I considered this protection to be necessary and a last resort. Semi-protection is occasionally necessary in the short term but admins should rarely need to fully protect their page. I note, however, that I am always available via email. As to protecting that user's talk page, I still don't see a need to protect it. My involvement was limited to deciding whether or not to unblock the user. While that username was not acceptable, the word in question was bleeped out (I would not tolerate someone using the full n-word in a username) and a single unblock request only rarely is grounds for protecting the page, even if abusive. --Yamla 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

Just thought you should know. Spartaz 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Offensive user name (n*)

User:Knights who say Ni...Grrr who seems to be editing in an "unhelpful or unconstructive" way has a user name that is offensive when it's read out loud.Sjö 16:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For future refernece, this sort of thing should be filed under WP:AIV. I've indef blocked the user. Rklawton 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm new to the English version.Sjö 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lyude5/monobook.js (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page created by banned user Lyude5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to be deleted. I tried to put {{delete}} on it, but users cannot edit others' monobooks. Please take care of it. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done – Steel 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow unblocked

I have unblocked T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk · contribs). T-man was blocked for six months after the moderation imposed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic was deemed to have failed. I increased the block to indefinite after the user used sock puppets to evade the ban and also carried on making personal attacks. However, I have been in email contact with the user and he indicates he will not engage in such behaviour again. He also states he has not created other sock-puppet accounts since I increased the block; something I have not confirmed, taking the user at their word. I am applying good faith here and repealing the extension of the six month ban to an indefinite one. The six month ban itself expired on the 11th March, I believe, being reset after the sock puppetry was exposed. Steve block Talk 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of RfArb request

Please direct all communication regarding blocking of pedophilia advocates directly to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org Fred Bauder 12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

CAT:CSD Backlogged

Just reminding everyone, CSD is getting hopelessly backlogged with image deletions, specifically Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. If anyone could hop on over, I'd really like some help clearing the backlog. As a reminder, NPWatcher helps a crapload. ^demon 01:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Orange "You have new messages bar" not showing up

This issue hasn't been receiving much attention so I thought I would bring it up here. Whenever you receive a new message the orange "You have new messages bar" should show up but it does not under an IP address or it malfunctions and stays stuck. So for all those who revert vandalism, the warnings being posted on IP talk pages may not be received because the messages bar doesn't show up. To confirm this, just test it out yourself. Send a message to your IP address and see if you receive it logged out. This issue only affects IP addresses. -- _Hdt83 01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See for more details:

• Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Bug_ID_9213
• Bug #9213

I did check it, and it worked perfectly for me. Anchoress 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me, and hasn't done so in a while (I've been testing with my uni IP address). What's worse is that I blocked the IP as a test for a few hours, and the orange bar only came up when I looked at the block message. – Riana 01:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I tested it as well, and it didn't come up. I recall an incident early on in my administrative career where I blocked an IP, and then the IP requested unblocking because he/she didn't know that he/she was getting warned on the IP's talk page. Maybe they had the same problem. // Sean William 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD

>400. I cleared A and B, but I'm out for the night. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cleared two WP:CSD#I8 backlog dates tonight but there are tons more over there. Plenty left! :) - Alison 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget the Tracking Speedies page. At first glance it functions just like the category, but hit the history tab and you get the full benefit of the added dimension of time. --Cyde Weys 06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for two AFDs to be closed by the same admin

Is there any way I can get two AFDs to be closed by the same administrator? One of the noms is on a single article, while the other nom is on multiple articles. Both of these should've been combined into one AFD, but were not. Both of these have been open for four or five days, so merging the two discussions now would be impractical. Many people cross-posted on both of these, and I don't want the points brought up on one to be missed by the one who closes the other. Regards, Tuxide 06:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdales locations
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Parisian locations

Talk:Trans Thane Creek

Recently, while on vandal patrol I noticed that someone from an anonymous IP had created the article Trans Thane Creek in the articles talk space rather than the article space. I assume that the article's creation was in good faith as it seems benign, so I moved the article info to the appropriate spot. Only problem is I could not move the edit history (as found in Talk:Trans Thane Creek), I worry that anyone seeking information on that subject may try to contact me for clarification. I didn't write this article, just did a minor fix and moved it; I don't know anything about the subject. - HammerHeadHuman  07:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You should use the move button, it worked last time when I did this. MER-C 08:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tried that, but because the correct article exists now it won't let me move the info. But, I have just found Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, I will post the same message there and hopefully someone will get to it. - HammerHeadHuman  08:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: this problem has been fixed. - HammerHeadHuman  12:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please delete NN article

I tagged this with the prod tag and its expired now, could someone go delete this junk? Thanks! Have_You_Got_It_Yet? The Parsnip! 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The prod tag puts it in the correct category, and an admin will get to it in due time. There is no need to duplicate the request here. CMummert · talk 13:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

/me saw it and headed off to try and find a copy ;) Thanks for the heads up! --kingboyk 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Might be better running this through AfD. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't dispute the prod. If this were a music site with less stringent sourcing requirements, it would be a clear keep. Although I found it a useful and interesting article I don't think it belongs here. (Writing this on the assumption that nobody else has disputed the prod since I wrote). --kingboyk 13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry :-), I just nommed it for AfD, I think it would be better to get a greater consensus before deleting, maybe someone will find some better sources. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries mate. That's how prod works and you don't have to justify your decision to me :) --kingboyk 14:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the prod tag? It was tagged for the correct amount of time, nobody took issue with it, now it's supposed to be deleted (I think). I don't get it. I was going to list it at AfD originally but the AfD page says it should be prodded first. This place is confusing... :-O I don't think it's right to give special treatment to this just cuz you like it or something. The Parsnip! 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, I contested the prod, I don't feel this article should be deleted without getting further comments into it, I may be wrong and it may be speedily deleted, but the prod still had 5 hours to go, you can still comment on the AfD. I'm not giving special treatment and I resent that accusation. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I thought it said the prod was expired. Why do you think it needs more comments? If it's not notable then it's not notable. Anyway, whatever. I voted delete at Afd. The Parsnip! 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When you prod an article, the reason that the deletion is not done automatically when the tag expires is to give one more chance for a human to review it. If there is doubt that the deletion would be uncontested, it is perfectly appropriate to change to AFD, and there is some element of discretion in the process. Now that the prod is contested, the page shouldn't be speedily deleted. (Note that I have had nothing to do with that page except to comment here). CMummert · talk 14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I just believe it's best to give people chance to review this with an attempt to find some sources for it, I've found a couple of ones already, but let's take this to the AfD page now, not here. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the place to tell admins if DYK is backlogged and you need an admin to clear the backlog?

I asked on ANI, but was referred here. Ironically, the backlog was cleared a few minutes after I posted on ANI, but I'd just like to know for future reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaypoh (talk • contribs) 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps the best way is to contact one or more of the admin participants listed at DYK; several provide the times at which they are likely to be available in order that you might know whom to contact straightaway. Appending {{Adminbacklog}} should also work, although I, for one, don't think there's anything particularly wrong with one's posting at ANI should there be a significant backup and should DYK not have been updated for 8+ hours. Joe 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Web screenshots

I just went through Category:Screenshots of web pages and deleted over 20 images that were tagged with {{web screenshot}} but which were actually just pictures someone found on a web page. There are a LOT more that need deleting: I only got through the As. There may be a way to help avert this problem with better wording at the Mediawiki interface or the tag wording, too. Mangojuice 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content/templates for an attempt to clear things up. --Iamunknown 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wdefcon.

This page was deleted by Thebainer (as far as I know, without consensus), and I believe it to be very useful. I don't think this was the correct action (should have been an MFD, which was never announced on the page and therefore probably was not done), but I'd like to know your opinions. · AndonicO 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There was an MfD for Misplaced Pages:WikiDefcon (which your original edit seemed to mention): Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon. As for Template:Wdefcon, it was kept 4 times at TfD; I'm not convinced that a T1 speedy was appropriate in this case, and would suggest Deletion Review as an appropriate forum for this discussion. (By the way, wasn't T1 originally designed for userboxes?) --ais523 15:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the MfD is from February 2006. Kuroji 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Since this is now on DRV - let's leave it there. There are more important things to worry about either way.--Doc 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, such as AIV being full, which is what I was about to add to the template. · AndonicO 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, was full 10 minutes ago (some 20 reports). · AndonicO 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Template restored. As it has survived multiple XfDs, it is inherently non-speediable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. · AndonicO 15:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As Doc said, further discussion about this should probably go on at the template's DR: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 24#Template:Wdefcon. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Peterhowitt (talk · contribs)

As he was requested to do, this user has proven his identity with the OTRS department. Don't know what you want to do with this, but I thought I'll report it... --Mbimmler 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Legality of changing speedy-deletes into prods?

• Some speedy-deletes are contested with {{hangon}}, and a long argument develops on its talk page. An example is Clacket Lane, which was speedied {{db-band}} at 06:31, 23 April 2007 and (at date) more than a screenful of closely-typed inconclusive arguing (4109 bytes) has been put in its talk page. When that happens, the delete is no longer de facto speedy. What would be the legality of removing the speedy-delete tag, and any hangon tag, and putting a prod tag in instead? Or turning it into an AfD and cut-and-pasting the arguing into its AfD discussion page? Anthony Appleyard 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Since prod is supposed to be for uncontested deletions, in these casaes there is obviously a contest, so i would say that AfD was the way to go. I see no objection to copying part of the reason from the DB tag into the AfD nom, but the nominator would probably want to exapand on the stock tag text. DES 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh I would not advise cutinng and pasting other people's comments into a new AfD, Instead add a pointer to the previous discussion in the AfD, and perhaps one to the AfD on the talk page. DES 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I suspect that some users do not know about {{prod}} but always speedy-delete to get something deleted. Anthony Appleyard 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It would really depend on why the speedy is contested. In most situations, an AfD would be appropriate, but if it was contested simply because it did not meet any criteria (they are intentionally specific) a PROD wouldn't necessarily be wrong. For example, if an article about a person asserts notability but no sources are available anywhere to actually prove notability, a PROD may work, in theory. However, it is likely that the user will simply remove the tag. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Proxy comments at WP:RFC?

I have received an e-mail query from an ArbCom-banned editor about whether this person may submit comments via e-mail to a user conduct RFC. I know proxy editing isn't allowable, but is proxy commentary an exception? Please advise. Durova 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the differentiation myself. If they are banned that means they can't participate in the project. --pgk 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)