Revision as of 11:04, 28 September 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• 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)

Current issues

User:Thafadi Adahabou

Today User:Thafadi Adahabou treatened to kill some people. He also vandalised some other articles. All his bad-edits have been reverted, and je is indefenitly blocked. But shouldn't you admins bann his IP-adress forever asswell? -The Bold Guy- 15:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He was only active for today. He may very well have been using a dynamic or shared IP address, in which case an indefinite block would not only not block him, but it may needlessly block other contributors. Someguy1221 16:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, we don't know his IP address, because having a username masks it. When a username is blocked it does block the underlying IP, but only for 24 hours. If he reappears as an IP, we can block him again. Natalie 14:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Threats to commit murder is very serious. Please post diffs. If it is serious, reporting the user to the police may be appropriate. What if the murdered said "I told WP what I was going to do and they only blocked me. They did not do anything even though I told them the person I was going to kill, the victim's address, and the intended date of murder." This scenario may be not applicable in this case but I have not seen any diffs to say one way or another. Archtransit 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at his last edits. --Golbez 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely an administrator with CheckUser powers could find their IP address? --saxsux 19:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is not intended to be used for fishing expeditions -- & that would be a fishing expedition. Natalie's answer above is appropriate. Besides, the death threats sound to me a little odd (although the block is justified): threatening to kill trolls? (Maybe it depends on who one considers a troll.) I can't help but wondering if this is some kind of joe job: someone allows a "friend" to use his computer, "friend" creates an account on Misplaced Pages, causes havoc, gets blocked -- all without the owner of the computer knowing. People do weird things. And if this is not the case, as Natalie says, we'll block the IP when that person makes more threats against trolls. -- llywrch 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise abusing his power to impose his way

Administrator User: Future Perfect at Sunrise is using his admin standing to impose his way of 'looking at things' on the Wikiproject Republic of Macedonia which allegedly is using for pushing POV, which could not be further from the truth, as the project page is just a mean for coordinating efforts concerning articles that deal with Republic of Macedonia, there is nothing POV on it, and there are Greek and Bulgarian users there which can offer a balanced opinion on all matters. He went even further and proposed the whole project for deletion as his 'authority' was not respected. Capricornis 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ROMacedonia. I don't see any problem with Fut.Perf's actions here, considering the abuse of the WikiProject system outlined in that nomination. There's already a strong consensus to delete, and for good reason. Seems to me some of the WikiProject participants need to be censured as well. — madman bum and angel 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just censured...probably some bans are in order. Future Perfect has done everything right in trying to restrain an mischievous little nest of POV-pushing. Moreschi 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And filing an MFD is not an abuse of adminiship tools; it doesn't require that bit to file any sort of deletion case. User:Zscout370 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Read all the refutals on each an every of Fut.Perf. arguments on the MfD page. His case holds no water whatsoever, he hasn't proven probable cause nor any of his claims are beyond reasonable doubt. He has exhibited conflicts of interests and personal bias.This notice is not for his reporting of the wikiproject to the MfD, but for all of his 'acting as a higher power' by unilaterally deleting parts of the wikiproject without discussion, deciding what constitutes POV without discussion, imposing his opinion without hearing other arguments, etc, etc. His last MfD application was the last drop in the ocean, where he presents only one side of the case, withdraws facts, and misrepresents information just to prove his points right. The people who agreed there are either notorious for their hostility to anything Macedonian like NetProfit (check his contrib history and how many edit wars he is involved in), or the others who probably didn't even bother to check the validity of his claims. I could garner just as many votes against deletion if I alerted many pro-macedonian users who don't spend each and every day (or week) on wikipedia. But that is of no consequence, if he gets his way and this project gets deleted (not that a new one cannot be created within minutes), it would be a final proof of how much wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. Capricornis 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, nothing to see here. Perhaps a review should be undertaken to see if disruption is occurring so that the problem can be dealt with in an appropriate manner. Orderinchaos 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Zscout370, you are right, filing an MFD is not an abuse of the adminship tools, but this MfD request came as result of this argue between the Fut.Perf and Capricornis about the To do list of that project:, where (see the second link) Fut.Perf concludes that when Capricornis is willing to bring the case to a larger audience, the case would continue at MfD. I don't think that an admin user should fulfill an MfD because the other user wanted to bring the dispute about the To do list to a larger audience and because he found the To do list POV-ish. What is the purpose of the whole project deletion just because the To do list is supposedly wrong? I'm afraid that this deletion is going to happen and I'm disappointed that would be result of an admin user initiative. MatriX 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing closed AfD

I just pulled an IAR to clarify an out-of-order AfD list in a closed deletion discussion. That seem unreasonable to anyone?--SarekOfVulcan 15:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, that is why we have WP:IAR. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing a closed AfD discussion is not really high up on the list of heinous wiki-crimes. That is more a public order thing. I often edit archived pages and closed discussions. The trick is knowing what sort of changes are reasonable and which aren't. Clarifications and corrections should always be added, while making clear that the addition was made after the closing point. That is one of the advantages of a wiki after all - mistakes can be corrected. The trick is to do it in such a way that people reading the page after you don't have to look through the page history to work out what happened. Carcharoth 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's about what I figured. Thanks for the input!--SarekOfVulcan 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a written-down policy that closed AfDs shouldn't be edited. It lies in the realm of common sense. Adding a new comment to the debate is inappropriate, but what Sarek did above is OK, and fixing format problems seems OK. A related case was discussed at the Village Pump where half of an AfD was blotted out by an unclosed strikeout. Someone daringly fixed it, and no retribution ensued. EdJohnston 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any written policy about editing closed anythings, but as has been noted, it depends on the edits. I've edited closed RfAs before, but I've also warned editors for editing closed RfAs (for my part, it's usually either correcting the final tally or removing the "voice your opinion" link; in the later case, it was someone adding bogus supports to his own RfA). Your edit, Sarek, definitely strikes me a proper use of IAR. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the templates we use to close AfDs say that it shouldn't be edited, but I agree that in this case (and similar cases) common senseical edits are perfectly fine. Natalie 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of editing a closed AFD that definitely should not happen. This would be covered by {{uw-delete1}} (or higher) as a content removal "wiki-crime". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocks vis a vis Proxy

I'm sure this is a redux, but there is really no reason to indef block proxys? Even static IP's change. I'm seeing this done on dynamics also when I view the block feed. Just something to keep in mind. Regards, Navou 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think open proxies should be blocked only 2 weeks to 1 month at a time. The common open proxy is detected and shutdown by the ISP it is running on rather quickly, most are running on unsuspecting home computers. An IP that is an open proxy now is unlikely to continue to be so forever. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If there was better documentation on how to detect them (or any documentation), they could be checked from time to time and left blocked until they were detected not to be an open proxy. Perhaps even a bot? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy Hannah strong disagree. IPs should be blocked for years on such a case, if not indefinitely. Yes, they change, but most of them do not change. They can always request unblock. If we start blocking them only for a little bit, I am going to guarantee you all right now that you might as well throw our page on WP:BAN right out the window, as every sock in the drawer will be on those addresses. The Evil Spartan 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked several hundred open proxies and have only been contacted by 3 or 4 asking for unblock, which I always do if I can verify the status of the IP. I doubt you will find many open proxies on truly dynamic IPs like AOL or British Telecom dialup; the proxies aren't useful to users if they are too hard to find. Thatcher131 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

2 weeks to a month is MUCH too low. There are hoards of lists of anonymous proxies out there. I usually do five years. It's important when you block one to note in the block message what port the proxy is on, or, if it is a web-based anonymizer, what the URL is. That way, if the IP does change and a legitimate user asks for an unblock, someone can confirm that it is no longer a proxy. --B 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I know that some people disagree with this, but soft blocking them is a very bad idea too ... if you soft block a proxy then all a banned user has to do is have a friend create an account for him and he can live forever on a soft-blocked proxy. --B 20:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to drive home the point, this is User:B editing from an open proxy. It took me about two minutes of googling to find an unblocked one. (I will block it.) If we don't block them long term, we will make no headway whatsoever. --208.112.107.20 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think people worry about folks that truly have no other means of editing. BTW, is there a definitive way to test the various ports? I know there's nmap but if you find a suspicious port, how can you actually use it to edit? I imagine there is no definitive way since zombie ports could be made to behave however the zombie creator wants but is there a usual method? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the simple methods is checking to see what ports are open. 208.112.107.20 has at least five open ports including 80, and 443 which are HTTP ports β 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

But this particular one isn't a proxy server in that sense ... it's the IP used by a web-based proxy planshost.com. --B 22:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If nmap shows a suspicious open port, the usual way to confirm it is simply to try using it as a proxy and seeing if you can access Misplaced Pages. This can be as simple as sending "GET http://en.wikipedia.org/ HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n" to the port and seeing what comes back. If the response is from a Wikimedia server, you can assume you've found an open proxy. Of course, as B points out, this will only work for some types of proxies. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We realy need to work on some kind of consistent "best practices" guidelines so we don't end up with this hog-podge of blocks. Some indef, some 1 week... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive username User:CompuHacker?

I read on the username page that usernames that allude to hacking are inappropriate (under "Disruptive usernames"), I'm not sure if this counts. 172.142.128.94 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:RFCN. The Evil Spartan 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It may have been whacked when it was created but now there is an established positive editor behind the name so there's no point raising the issue to him/her now. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hacker can be either a positive or a negative term. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. --Carnildo 18:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Black hat or white hat; we like the whites. --Haemo 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to find fault with names, watch for disruptive edits. There are the blatantly wrong names like FUCKAGOAT or something, but then there are the ones that are just indicators that you should watch for activity. Hacking has both good and bad meanings. —— Eagle101 23:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Merge?

Most of the merge discussions I've seen take forever, but I can't think of any reason not to move one of Maya Herrera or Alejandro Herrera to Maya and Alejandro Herrera and redirect the other to it, since the content is the same. But I wasn't sure how bold that would be, and the Heroes editors always seem to get really picky when I touch their stuff, and I don't have the time to establish myself on their turf. Since the character Alejandro can't leave Maya's side, though, it seems unlikely that they're going to have separate experiences to merit separate character pages anytime soon. Anyone?--Thespian 06:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• A suggestion to get more people from the Heroes crowd talking about it would be to go also to the Wikiproject Heroes group (Personally I don't have a problem with merging until they do have separate experiences on the show)-- Marcsin | 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD needing a review

I would like for someone to review a TfD. Essentially, the lone opponent to the template's deletion is declaring the TfD void because of a old AbCom ruling on an unrelated dispute. The AbCom ruling itself was about two editors engaged in an editwar over BC/AD vs BCE/CE when both formats were expectable by the MoS. He is also using the AbCom ruling to practically declared owner over the template and articles it is/was transcluded on. --Farix (Talk) 11:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please link to the discussion? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I just realized I forgot to provide the link. Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 17#Template:Infobox Oh My Goddess! character --Farix (Talk) 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem there - it looks like it will be deleted despite that one user's objections. violet/riga (t) 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing it, I closed the discussion as delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the close and the explanation. The only reason I had brought it up here was because that same editor has a long history of displaying ownership on articles in the subject area. --Farix (Talk) 20:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that editor has been mentioned here more than a few times. ::sigh:: -- llywrch 19:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson closed

The above arbitration case is closed. Jmfangio has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user Tecmobowl. Chrisjnelson is restricted to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page for a duration of six months. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User page and talk page moved - muddle

Hallo, I think user "Vivi Greenwell" has managed to move her pages into a muddle - see CONTENTS and Special:Contributions/Vivi_greenwell. I'm not sure I know enough to fix it and suspect she doesn't either - have left a note on her talk page, but perhaps someone expert could help? Thanks. PamD 17:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the pages back and deleted the resulting redirects. I've also left her a note. Thanks for notifying. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Simon Wessely

Heads-up: User:Angela Kennedy has arrived and set up her stall over at the talk page for Simon Wessely. Kennedy has a visceral hatred for Wessely, and is one half of the noxious One Click Group website, see Wesselygate. This individual should under no circumstances be allowed to edit the article if it is unprotected, and should probably be topic-banned from the talk page and all ME / CFS articles as well. User:Jfdwolff will probably need a lot of help over there, vicious ad-hominem is the stock in trade of this particular bunch. Check the history of the Wessely article before Jimbo's deletion last year to see the One-Click mob's style, and their version of "neutral" point of view. One-Click's first neutral comment on the subject of Simon Wessely will probably be delivered by flying pig sometime in the third millennium of the Hades ice age, shortly after the heat death of the universe. OTRS volunteers should be on the lookout, as Wessely has had to complain several times over biased editing by members of minority patient activist groups bitterly opposed on principle to Wessely's ideas on palliative treatment for ME/CFS, a subject on which he is one of the most published experts in Europe. Kennedy proposes citations form the Countess of Mar and from Malcolm Hooper. Hooper, especially, is speaking well out of his field, he has no qualifications or accepted expertise in the subject, and his comments have been excluded by consensus from the article on that basis. (Guy) 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The basic problem here, as Guy points out, is that Simon Wessely's page is frequented by a host of single-purpose accounts who have used the page to criticize him and, through him, his work. This is one of those real-world disputes that's spilled over onto Misplaced Pages, with the requisite WP:BLP violations, apparent meatpuppetry, tendentiousness, etc. User:Jfdwolff is reasonably on top of things, but given the battleground that the article has been and continues to be, he could no doubt use assistance. User:Angela Kennedy has thus far confined her input to the talk page; while possibly violating the talk page guidelines, I would be inclined to give her a bit more slack there, but this article and talk page have generally been a WP:BLP Superfund site; I'd encourage a few more admins to watchlist the page. MastCell 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Read her talk page. Her fundamental problem is that as far as she is concerned, all the experts are wrong, except the ones that agree with her, which at present includes virtually none of the active research community. Her view of the past conflicts is that Misplaced Pages has systematically undermined "the little guy" by insisting on mainstream published sources and rejecting polemic written by people working back from a conclusion. The Wessely article will never be negative enough for these people, and they are virtually the only ones (outside of our admin community enforcing policy) who give a rats ass about the article. Maybe it should simply be nuked. I removed a link to one of Angela Kennedy's papers from the article very recently, please read it and see her perspective on this. They have invented their own pejorative term to describe Wessely's approach, and they complain that we are not giving enough weight to those who use this term. Peer review is notably absent from all the stuff they want inserted. In short: they want to use Misplaced Pages to fix a real-world problem, which is that psychological palliatives for ME/CFS are widespread and supported by substantial peer-reviewed research evidence. These individuals have also harassed Wessely in real life. That we can't include because it's not directly stated in the sources, but I have now exchanged emails with Wessely and it is the case. (Guy) 15:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about a member

Physik=Vanilla2. Maxim_(talk) 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to make a complaint about Vanilla2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first heard of Vanilla2 when he tried to had an RFA. I wanted to help him steer towards his goal, but reviewing his contributions, he has done some bad things here. Examples:

Stop it you fucking non-members

Added "300 Part II" to 300 (film), then reverted his own edit and added it again Note that he was told to stop, but continued (see below diff)

Vandalized Prison Break (although he reverted this himself)

Blanked a redirect

Telling Pascal.Tesson to go to hell because Pascal removed a fair user image on Vanilla2's userpage

Removed a user from WikiProject Saw because "he copied him."

Tried to unblock a serial vandal

I would like to maybe see what an administrator thinks of this. Forgive me if this is in the wrong place. Thank you. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been too kind. Seriously. He's stretching his welcome too thin. Maxim_(talk) 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I've been trying to hlep this guy out but it's become frustrating. What do you think we should do about him? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with JetLover's concerns about this user. There appears to be an issue with impulse control when making edits and comments, and the user has not availed himself of the ample help which has been offered. --- Taroaldo 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Only two edits within the last week are self-reverted vandalism. Follow up if problems resume. I'd definitely have blocked for some of the previous actions if I'd been aware of them when they were new. Durova 10:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As somebody who followed Physik during his tenure here at Misplaced Pages, I really think that Vanilla2 is probably a sock puppet of that user. His grammar, his editing habits (what he uploads, the content of what he edits), his obsession with adminship, and the fact that he tried to unblock Physik as one of his first acts as an editor all point to that conclusion. Maybe I'm crazy; I wanted to get some second opinions first and this seems a good forum in which to do it. bwowen talk•contribs 12:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser? MER-C 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd endorse a block. Bwowen raises some good points about his habits. Even if he isn't the sockpuppet in question, he's worn out his welcome and it's time he's shown the door. ^demon 13:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed by checkuser Dmcdevit as a "very clear" match between Physik and Vanilla2. Blocked as well. Maxim_(talk) 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User names

I requested a review of a user name at WP:UAA (BCSPM (talk · contribs)) because they had created Boldt Consulting Services, and it seems like they have the same name as the article they created. It was deleted and I was told to take it to WP:RFCN. So I took it there and it was deleted without discussion, not even a friendly note on my Talk page. What's the point in having either page, if a questionable User name can't get discussed anywhere? Corvus cornix 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't dig through the history, but I'm assuming that the reason it was deleted from RFCN is because the user was not asked to either clarify or voluntarily change their username on their talk page prior to bringing it to RFCN. Quoting from the instructions at the top of the noticeboard:

Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply. If after that you still believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Misplaced Pages's username policy, you may list it here and explain which part of the username policy you think it violates.

It's a pretty strictly enforced requirement. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So, how about if I go to WP:COIN instead? Corvus cornix 22:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You never put {{UsernameConcern}} on his talk page. Give him a few days to respond, then report him. It's not blatant, anyway. After all, it still doesn't say "Boldt Consulting Services". Looking at the username, I don't see anything wrong with it. Only "BC" matches with the company, the rest is un-related. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "BCS" part matches up exactly, and, from looking at the deleted page, the "PM" likely refers to "Project Management", which is a listed division of the company in question. It's clearly related to the company, but that doesn't mean we can or should bite them without explaining why. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RFCN is the proper venue, but only after it has been discussed (or there has been an attempted discussion) with the user in question. Basically, it's to ensure we don't WP:BITE new users for inadvertently choosing a name that might possibly violate the username policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, does this edit satisfy the concern? Corvus cornix 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Give him some time to respond, though. Maybe about a day or two. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I understand. Corvus cornix 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected Administrator User Talk Pages

# To request assistance from a specific administrator, enter User talk:Whomever in the search box to the left and press "Go."

How do I leave messages to admins who've sprotected their usertalk page? (and their user page). 132.205.44.5 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You can click the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox on the left side of the administrator's page. Unless their talk page is suffering from enormous amounts of disruption or vandalism, sprotecting it is generally not endorsed. If you can point out the page in question, someone can look into it and ask the admin in question about unprotecting it. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont't see such a link. Is it only available to non-anons? 132.205.44.5 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:Bishonen 09:17, 29 July 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) m (Protected User talk:Bishonen: fed up with abusive IP edits for now. ) (undo)

You can also create an account. Corvus cornix 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to wait four days after creating your account if you wish to edit a semi-protected page, though, so e-mail is of course faster if you need to contact a specific administrator urgently. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon is right; "E-mail this user" is only available for logged-in users. For that reason, admins should not semi-protect their talk pages long-term or without a pressing situation. Chick Bowen 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And over two months is far too long. Bishonen should really unprotect his/her talk page. Natalie 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Her email is enabled, and that's good enough.--MONGO 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, anonymous users cannot use the Special:Emailuser function, so they currently have no way to contact Bishonen. Melsaran (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone happen to mention to Bishonen that this discussion is going on, in case she didn't see it? I'll mention it to her just in case. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

CrossRef here.Rlevse 17:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the thread on ANI is marked "resolved" and will soon be removed, I'll reply to both that and this one here. First of all, thank you, MONGO, your defense is much appreciated. Secondly, it's not that I'm especially sensitive to having anonymous little penis vandals I've blocked coming to my pages and calling me Bitchonen. (Disappointingly, only a few have in fact had the inventiveness for such a simple pun.) Not at all. There's another reason why I've sometimes been keeping my userpages semiprotected for quite long times: it's to discourage a special "friend" of mine who never gives up. I would rather not elaborate, but instead ask people to consider my record before they decide whether or not to extend an assumption of good faith to my words. If Misplaced Pages is in fact not for me, I suppose now is as good a time as any to find out. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC).

As I have so recently asked another administrator, please unprotect your talk page, user talk page protection is not nice to legitimate anon and new users, as well as being a violation of the protection policy. Prodego 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Friday's post, to which Bishonen linked above ("If you can't handle being abused by random strangers, Misplaced Pages is not for you."), I very much doubt that Bishonen would protect her page because of random strangers. I am aware of several cases of user talk pages being semi-protected because of a particularly vicious form of trolling. I don't think one should do it just out of whim, but I have no trouble in extending an assumption of good faith to productive users and admins who don't have a reputation for being over sensitive or for making unreasonable demands. Nor do I feel that it's ever essential for an anon to be able to post directly on a particular admin's page. If Bishonen blocked you, posting on her page would be block evasion anyway; use the {{unblock}} template or try the unblock mailing list. If she protected a page that you want unprotected, make a request at WP:RFPP. If she deleted a page, there's always deletion review. If you have something you badly want to say to her, you could make a post on the talk page of one of her friends. And I don't see that it's a violation of the protection policy, which says merely that it shouldn't be used "with the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users." Let's not make too big a thing of this. There are hundreds of active administrators with fully editable talk pages. If a very small number, who are not known for being unreasonable and who are known for contributing productively to the encyclopaedia, have personal reasons for being more comfortable with semi-protection, it's not really doing any harm to anyone, so why not just leave it and go and spend more time writing an encyclopaedia? ElinorD (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• For what it is worth... agree with ElinorD's and other's comments. --Iamunknown 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I hereby invoke WP:IAR. (poof) Leave the talk page protected until the persistent troll gives up. As long as we have more administrators than persistent trolls, this solution works. See also crapflooding. Access control is sometimes necessary to preserve a shared resource. - Jehochman 00:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

From WP:PPol: "Indefinite semi-protection may be used for (1) Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism. (2) Biographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that are not widely watchlisted (3) User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user" No mention of being allowed to semi-protect a user talk page there, it is expressly forbidden. For temp protection: "(1) Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses. (2) Article talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions." Once again, shouldn't be protected. Here there is a caveat, since semi-protection is ok on user talk pages for a short amount of time, when disruptive users can't be blocked. But July was several months ago, so the page should be unprotected, the troll probably did give up. WP:IAR says " prevents you from working with others... ignore it". But protecting a talk page does exactly that, prevents you from working with others! So the policy and ignore all rules both say to unprotect the page. Prodego 01:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find this response to be anal retentive and excessively legalistic. Nothing is permitted unless it is specifically written down? No, not really. Admins should be accessible to users but there may be exceptions, and as this thread shows, this anonymous user has had no problem getting attention from other admins. It's a wonder that no one has actually asked the anon what he or she wanted and why only Bishonen could provide that. Thatcher131 02:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes, maybe just sometimes, longtime great contributors should be able to do things others can't. ie IAR and make an exception. It's not like it's so desperately critical to the functioning of the encyclopedia that all anons need to be able to get a hold of her immediately. I submit that good contributors are more important than trolls and we shouldn't feed. - Taxman 03:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's now 3 months since Bishonen's talk page was semiprotected - surely a trial period of unprotection could be attempted without the world coming to an end. Neil ム 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article namespace

I've noticed that the terms "article namespace" and "main namespace" are used in thousands wikipedia pages, many of which are policies, style guides and other important pages. I was quite surprized that there was no Misplaced Pages:Main namespace/Misplaced Pages:Article namespace artile, not even a redirect, so I quickly hacked one from several other instruction pages. I guess y'all have to take a good look at it. `'Míkka 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is Help:Namespace (the shortcut for it is WP:NAMESPACE). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not well. It is for meta and way too general. `'Míkka 08:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgz33

I just logged in and found the folling at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Any vadalism here?. As I was one of the ones he was attacking I'm not sure that I should be taking any action so I bring it here for others to decide. However, I'm concerned that he now appears to be trying to find out where others live as in "Do you know if Quartet or Yankees is from Toronto?" CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No wikipedian should be collecting nor distributing personal info on wikipedia. It's suggested not to give it out either. For example, some minors put their ages on their user page. Such is not recommended, especially for minors. Warn the offender. I'm not sure if there's a written wiki policy on this, it's just common sense though.Rlevse 14:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Paulcicero

This stalking story has started around middle of August this year with this revert by user:Paulcicero. It is interested to notice that 2 statements confirmed with internet links has been reverted/changed with facts without sources. (he has never edited before this article)

Then it has come this : (he has never edited before)

Then on 24 september it has been this (he has never edited before on this page)

My personal best is article House of Trpimirović where new user has started edit war (in which I have not been) so in the end on 23 september I have reverted article to User:Paulcicero version of 8 July with which everybody has been happy (part of article which speak about archont Petar ). But now user:Paulcicero is not happy anymore with his version and he is reverting me If this is not bad faith edith and stalking I do not know what it is ??

All in all user:Paulcicero has reverted me or on any other way made changes of 9 articles (Creation of Yugoslavia , Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991 , Chetniks , Independent State of Croatia *, Jasenovac concentration camp *, Serbs of Croatia *, Extermination camp , The Holocaust *, House of Trpimirović *, which I have edited in last 40 days. You must take in account that I have taken pause between 9 and 22 september tired of his games. Where is writen * he has deleted statement confirmed with internet links which he do not like. This is clear example of bad faith editing. In the end I will like to know if it is possible to revert without thinking of 3RR rule if somebody is deleting statement confirmed with internet link. --user:Rjecina 02:25 27 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.91.99.205 (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Help

Wasn't sure where to ask for help on this... I've been asked to break up List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/S into 2 articles due to pre-expansion template limit. So I've broken into List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Sa-Sh and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Si-Sz. I then moved List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/S to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Sa-Sh. Now, my issue here is not knowing how to change the Siblings output found on each of the pages within List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Visit List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and you'll see at the top of the page: Siblings:

-- this is put on each article within List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and I need to change the output that {{List LGBT short}} is giving from to but I can't figure out where {{List LGBT short}} is located to make changes to it. Thanks for any help. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:List LGBT short. When something is included between double {}, it is a template and can be found in the template: namespace. I have changed it for you. Fram 08:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 08:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

An admin acting like the Supreme Court, more tact is advised????

Appears to be resolved. There was some discussion. That's all that was requested by the original poster, not a change in decision.UTAFA 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

- - -
I commented on an AFD about one of the minor 9-11 hijackers (not Atta, the ringleader). That article was proposed for deletion. I disagree but am for merge/redirect (as WP states that the event, not the non-notable person is to be covered in articles).

The other AFD's of the same day were decided around day 5 or 6 as expected. This one sat longer, probably because there was not a clear answer. Then an admin stated "Keep, Groundless AFD".

I can see how someone would say "Keep" and as an admin, their decision is the law. However, "Groundless AFD" is in violation of AGF and isn't true at all, given that so many admins passed up the decision because it was a harder decision. Certainly a speedily keep or speedily deleted AFD is groundless, not this one.

Is there any support to declaring the AFD as "keep" and not "keep, groundless AFD". You can say it here and I would be satisfied with the matter and the matter closed (IMHO). It would soothe feelings, right the process, yet have no change in the article's retention. This is not a major issue, hence it is not in AN/I. I certainly don't want to be part of a vote where I voted "redirect/merge" while the official result was "groundless AFD" because that potentially harms my reputation ("Mrs.EasterBunny voted yes in support of a groundless AFD, therefore Mrs.EasterBunny is actually Mrs.Satan" Oh!!!) Mrs.EasterBunny 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, "redirect/merge" is not a 'yes' vote on deletion because such a result would not result in the article being deleted. For another thing, people really don't care all that much about your votes in AFDs - it really doesn't matter (I've contacted the admin regardless, but maybe you should work on not being so thin-skinned about these things) —Random832 17:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reputation would not be hurt at all if you provided a well-reasoned and policy-based argument for redirect/merge. Leebo /C 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tact is a good idea. The decision may be rouge (I don't know, I haven't looked into it), but admins are not gods and do make mistakes; if you challenge (pleasantly) a seeming mistake and an admin gets busy on your ass because of your challenge, it won't stand and others will notice. But that almost never happens. Instead, admins being yer actual human beings, a quick tap to say "I'm confused, your decision ] made no sense to me. Can you tell me what you meant?" will almost always provoke forehead-slapping in the admin, rather than kvetching. In my experience. And with me. In my case, I may take the opportunity to boringly lecture you on how obvious the decision was, but I'd also quietly learn a lesson for next time and also instantly forget your troublemaking :o) ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevant info: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marwan al-Shehhi, closed by Wknight94 (talk · contribs); subsequest DRV opened by Mrs.EasterBunny (talk · contribs) (who contacted Wknight94 here).

For what it's worth, I agree with the comment that this was a "groundless AfD." The overwhelming consensus was to keep. This is a sourced article about a historical significant person. In addition, the person who made the AfD nomination stated he/she did it because "the victims of (9-11) terrorist attack articles are routinely deleted citing non-notability." The admin was being polite in saying this was a "groundless AfD." I'd probably have closed the AfD earlier with stronger words than that.--Alabamaboy 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It could have been done more politely. The nomination was technically correct, al-Shehhi really is known solely for a single incident. However, it seems clear that participants agreed it was a rather important incident, and al-Shehhi became sufficiently notable as an outcome. So I agree with the closing as keep, but do think saying the nomination was groundless could have been phrased better. --AnonEMouse 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, some single incidents are of such importance they make the people who caused the incident important. Overall, I agree with the single incident rule, but in this case it doesn't apply. I also disagree that saying something is groundless is not being polite. The comment on the AfD which asked the nominator if they were "legally retarded" is an example of civility issues, not merely stating the truth about an AfD. Best,--Alabamaboy 20:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from above:
Your reputation would not be hurt at all if you provided a well-reasoned and policy-based argument for redirect/merge
It could have been done more politely
I agree with the closing as keep, but do think saying the nomination was groundless could have been phrased better.
As a result of these comments and the facts that you brought up, I now declare that this AFD is keep, striking out the "groundless" comment. Nobody gave any reason for it to be groundless. Some did say that the magnitude of the attack was sufficient that even a minor player in the attack warrants an article. I am commenting because I have some experience in disputes of a Middle East related article. UTAFA 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I commented above that the AfD was indeed groundless and stated why. Please do not remove the comment from the AfD. And I notice that you are a new editor to Misplaced Pages. Perhaps that is why you misunderstand things like this noticeboard. I'm afraid one editor does not have the ability to "declare that this AFD is keep, striking out the "groundless" comment." That's a consensus decision, and it's probably not something we'd do in a case like this.--Alabamaboy 21:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop here. I didn't remove or modify any AFD comments. The groundless comment was not a concensus, merely a decision by one administrator. I seconded the motion about the "groundless" comment. I request that everyone, including Mrs.EasterBunny to accept that this issue has now been discussed and resolved (resolved by recognition by some that there is merit to a "keep" decision, rather than a "keep, groundless AFD" decision. UTAFA 22:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the issue has dwindled off. But I'd oppose changing removing the groundless comment. The AfD was indeed groundless, for reasons stated above.--Alabamaboy 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

View source

I have come across protected page and the blocked message at my school (since my school IP is blocked), and I see "View source" lots of times, which may be confusing for many users.

Sometimes, I see the words "View source" when I come to a page that is fully protected. Even clicking a red link on a salted page (protected and deleted page) it still says View source, but there are no "source", so the title "View source" doesn't make sense for the message saying that the page is protected to prevent creation. We will have to think about a new title for the message that says that the page has been protected to prevent creation.

Regarding the block message, my school IP address has been blocked from editing because many students continued to vandalize, so I checked out the block message, to see what it is like. It also was titled "View source" instead of "User is blocked". "View source" would also not make sense for block message, especially for block message that blocked users get when they click on a red link. "User is blocked" makes more sense for block message that blocked users get when they click on the "edit" button or a red link, since "View source" can be a bit confusing for people. NHRHS2010 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but long experience hanging about Category:Requests for unblock has shown that innocent users getting a message saying anything like "user is blocked" is often reason for detonation, ANGRY SHOUTING, threats, recrimination etc. It's spin to just say "view source" rather than "edit" on a page, but good spin - the alternative is hordes of angry, innocent users calling for the scalp of the blocking/protecting admin or writing semi-informed articles in newspapers about how Misplaced Pages is no longer editable by anyone. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It only makes sense if it says "view source" when actually viewing the source on a protected page, but in a message saying that the page has been deleted and protected to prevent creation, there are no source so "view source" does not make sense there, as well as the block message. "User is blocked" would make more sense to a block message since sometimes, block messages doesn't even have sources, when the blocked user clicks on the red link. View source can be confusing particularly to block message because users have to scroll all the way down if there is a source. NHRHS2010 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I see. Do users who are encountering an editing block or a protected page immediately go and click "view source"? Is this something we can predict that they will do with confidence? I know that some people would suggest not trying to second-guess what a user would do, but in this case, my thoughts would be that this is a reaction that neither a brand-new user nor an experienced user would have. Perhaps an intermediate-level user?

Anyhow, the change you suggest would, I think, require a conditional (if x=y then z=a else z=b) modification of the MediaWiki interface; if so, it's nothing that admins can do, so you might be better to ask about it at the village pump or propose a change via Bugzilla. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a MediaWiki bug: the edit tab for nonexistent cascade-protected pages shouldn't say "view source". Perhaps there should be no edit tab at all in this case (since you can't edit and there's no source to view)? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It may be the bug. Instead of "view source", it should say "page protected" when users click on the "edit" button on a protected, nonexistent page, while the block message should say "User is blocked" because the block message can sometimes have no source to view. NHRHS2010 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd still argue against any element of the interface saying "user is blocked" automatically. Heavens to Jimbo, the very word "blocked" appearing automatically to people not directly blocked causes enough ructions as it is. It could even (he says, producing a card that seems to trump absolutely everything these days) be thought to be biting. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just committed rev:26189 to fix this. It simply removes the "view source" tab entirely if the page doesn't exist. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the block message, the title "view source" still wouldn't make sense since sometimes, there are no source to view, usually when a red link is clicked. The block message shows that the block is meant for a specific user, IP address, or IP range, and also shows whether the user is blocked directly or not. So "User is blocked" still makes more sense than "View source". NHRHS2010 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(Followup) Ethnic-warring and nationality

Sorry if this is intrusive, I don't want to canvass each of the ANI individuals concerned so I thought of posting a single ping/followup here: anyone who participated or was interested in the ANI section "Ethnic war brewing, and abuse of WP:MINOR" last week may be interested (as an editor, not an admin) about the 3 (con)current new RFCs on exactly the very same problem/solution/war:

• at Talk:P. G. Wodehouse#RFC (British vs. English) (disclosure: that's mine)
• at Talk:Andy Murray (tennis)#Nationality
• at Talk:Colin McRae#Protected.

As well as:

• about the possibility for an admin to merge the three RFCs into a single-page general RFC for the topic of representation of nationality (which is essentially independent of the bio subjects)? (Dunno if that's doable/done.)
• about an advance call to policy-makers at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Representation of nationality

Regards,

— Komusou  @ 19:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Ortiz

This is a pretty obvious hoax article, and it's neither notable nor verifiable. Either the author or the subject came into the discussion and asked for it to be deleted because it was all untrue. This meets either WP:SPEEDY delete criteria A7 (request by author) or A10 (defamation of a living person), depending on whether we believe that the requestor was the subject or the author. It kind of confuses me, but I think it can be speedy d'ed, and it probably should be on the slim chance that there actually is an Alyssa Ortiz, that this article contains libellous information about her, and that she asked for it to be deleted. I suspect that because this is a few days old, no admins will look at it until the end of the normal waiting period.

I also suspect that if I knew how to change the template to a speedy, I wouldn't have to do this on the noticeboard. Sorry to bother. Thanks in advance. Deltopia 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've speedied it. Someone ought to look into the other contributions of Sxe lifer (talk · contribs) and the various IPs that have contributed to the article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also deleted Travis Helmsley and NATW X-Factor Championship. Others seem to have already handled most of the rest. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've checked out the IPs, and I've tagged an orphaned image the user uploaded for deletion (another image has already been tagged for speedy deletion). I believe most of the loose ends are tied up. I'll leave a kind but stern message to the user.-Andrew c  21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I also took a look at the IP contribs. Most are dynamic IPs from BellSouth and have no edits outside this cluster of articles. However, two of them, 68.199.18.48 and 71.146.26.25, stand out of the crowd. The former, from optonline.net, has made both vandal and anti-vandal edits to wrestling-related articles. Their edits to North All-Time Wrestling were also vandalistic, so they may just be a wrestling vandal that happened to hit the page. The latter, from sbcglobal.net, edited Alyssa Ortiz to add "Has a cult-like following among wrestling fans in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia", which would certainly seem to mark them as being in on the hoax. However, they also have a couple of unrelated edits in the same time frame. Maybe a friend? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neo-Darwinism

Hi there, this AfD has been open for over a week now. Could somebody try to assess what the consensus was? Tim Vickers 21:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dom Passantino (3rd nomination) also has been there for nine days. Any takers? -- Jreferee t/c 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. Tim Vickers 21:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tim Vickers 21:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion.-Andrew c  22:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

United Nation of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone take a look at United Nation of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and determine if there's a slow-speed edit war going on there? There seem to be about two different versions of the article: the short version, which Masonuc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to favor, and the long version, which Useruser1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is favoring. The long version looks like a thinly disguised ad for the organization, while the short version ends with a paragraph that's pretty critical of the organization. I'm not quite sure if it counts as libel, but the criticism is pretty well unsourced. I asked Masonuc (talk · contribs) if he had any sources for the allegations, but according to the talk page blanking, he doesn't want to respond.

I'm really not even sure the group is notable enough for Misplaced Pages, except as an offshoot of Nation of Islam, but I'm not well-versed enough in such groups to make a determination. Any thoughts? --Elkman 00:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed a merge with Nation of Islam. Tim Vickers 05:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gayunicorn

I have been trying to work with a new user, User:Gayunicorn, who was having difficulties figuring out the 3 step AfD process. See User talk:Gayunicorn for my communications with the user. However, my attempts have not been successful, and the user still has a malformed, incomplete nomination, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alphabet murders. I wanted another admin to take a look at the situation. Should I just go ahead and fill out the afd2 template for the user and transclude the page on the current day list? Should I close it as a bad faith/incomplete nomination? Based on the users recent comments, and perhaps the user name (which may have WP:UAA concerns), I'm starting to lose faith in the editor. So here I am soliciting another admin opinion. -Andrew c  00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've completed the nomination. I don't expect to see many people agreeing with the nominator, but there's little harm in humoring them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. -Andrew c  01:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: User was blocked by Penwhale based on WP:UAA. Also, user was warned (multiple times) for inflammatory, soapboxy, boarderline vandalism to talk pages. -Andrew c  01:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird Editing Patterns

I came across a user on WP:BOTREQ who not only made a weird request (see the heading "LegendBot"), has a bit of a weird side to his editing patterns. If you look at his contribs, you see that he's made a whole lot of User_talk: edits, but not a lot else. Could someone take a look at this or am I off my rocker tonight? ^demon 01:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks weird to me. And that's the oddest bot request I've seen for a long time. — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, give me 2 pounds of what he's having. Sounds like good stuff. -- lucasbfr (using User:Lucasbfr2) 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletion of South Vietnam medals based on "copyright violations"

The template Template:SouthVietnamWarMedals just had half of its medal pictures deleted as “copyright violations” based on the pictures being discovered on another webpage. The webpage in question, the “Army Insignia Homepage” has most of its medals pictures taken from either the Institute of Heraldry webpage or the Awards page of Randolph Air Force Base. The website owner also claims to own the copyright to pictures of South Vietnamese medals, which is legally impossible since that country no longer exists and a single person cannot say that they own title to military medals of any country. In addition, I’ve seen some things around the internet about the guy who runs that website; it’s a great website and the person who made it should be proud, but he has often shouted copyright violation and at one point tried to sue NPRC because they had “his pictures” displayed on their webpage. In short, I ask an administrator restore those pictures. The copyright violation was far from proven and should have been discussed first before summarily deleting. -OberRanks 01:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on this specific case, but in general when we get a copyright claim through OTRS (as happened here) the burden is on us to demonstrate that the image is free, not the other way around. I will invite the deleting admin to comment here. Chick Bowen 01:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Obsolete badges of the United States military and Obsolete military awards of the United States was also hit badly under the same pretense. The badges I know the webpage owner took from Randolph since Randolph actually went after his site at one point. I know little about OTRS, how can we see the complaint that was filed? My username and password didnt work when I tried to log on. -OberRanks 01:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone email me the ticket number so I, an OTRS person, can take a peek at it? User:Zscout370 03:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Given that all the images deleted had no source, but claimed that they were pd from the us goverment, and the request was from someone with a state worker's e-mail address I assumed we were wrong and they were right. I could not find any alternate source other then them, and another otrs member concurred with me that removing them was the best option. All the images were uploaded by user:Husnock. In any case, all the edit summaries should have had the exact link to the page that had the original image, and a link to the otrs ticket. The OTRS ticket is at https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1100658. I am glad to completely undo myself if someone can find a source other then the listed sources in the edit summaries. (just see my last 100 contributions or so) and can demonstrate that the second source owns the copyright to the images. As it is only federal government photos are in the public domain, not the state govenment, and I am led to believe that this is the copyright holder who is not a federal employee but a state employee. —— Eagle101 04:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I should note that if you can find an alternate source, that clearly owns the copyright on the images and its clear that the image is free, go ahead and upload them. But please note the source of the images. As it is, all the images that I have deleted would have probably qualified for deletion at one point or another without the copyright problems, as none of them stated the original source, just a claim that the image was pd. —— Eagle101 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The one that is most concerning of all is the image removed Vietnam Military Merit Medal. The picture was a photograph of the medal which the man who runs the Army Insignia webpage was claiming he had copyright over; ridiculous since noone can claim copyright over a very public photograph of a medal created by a country which no longer exists. My other problem with this is that I know about the person who runs that webpage and the problems he has caused. Forgive me for saying this, but he is kind of a real jerk. Over half his webpage is stolen from IOH and the other half taken from other federal government sources. He then put together a webpage of stolen images, claimed copyright on them, and then tried and cast suspicion over others. The fact that he also had the nuts to then make a formal complaint against Misplaced Pages is beyond imagination. But this is all well and good, I'm taking this off-Wiki in any case and talking to the Army anf the Air Force about getting his webpage shut down. I have half a mind to write the Vietnamese Consulate as well. In the mean time, I'll see if I can find other versions fo the deleted pictures through contacts I have in the military. -OberRanks 05:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Case in point about what I'm talking about here. Take a look at his webpage and compare it to the links for the medals on the IOH webpage. -OberRanks 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The photo could very well have been his image, as far as the site, if you can find out that they are the original copyright holder, then feel free to re-upload. using them as the source of the images. The problem here is we have someone claiming copyright that looks legit, and none of our images in this case state where we got the image from, so I removed them until we can sort this out. Once we know where and who has the copyright, and where we are going to take the images from, I am glad to assist in re-uploading them. Would you like me to contact that website asking them about ownership, or would you like to? —— Eagle101 05:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that this is a very good example of why we need to have source data on our images. Where did they come from? So when re-uploading new versions of the images, please take care to note where the source of the image is. —— Eagle101 05:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Another note, if I am to contact the website, I would need to know which of their images I want to clarify ownership and copyright status. —— Eagle101 05:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A sidebar; even if the image was from the IAH, I have found this on their main page: PLEASE NOTE: The images of all badges, insignia, decorations and medals on this web site are protected by Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507). Permission to use these images for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use.. So, we should just get rid of their images until we figure out what we can and cannot do. User:Zscout370 06:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On a simplistic point, the image on the medal is one issue. The image as a photograph is another. If the website owner took the photos he could claim copyright for his "particular images". That is unless the copyright of the medal superceeds that. Just because a "medal" image may be seen as PD or fair use even doesn't mean that a particular photo is open for use. Hope that helps. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 09:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, we got plenty of veterans on the site; we just could ask them to take photos of their medals, if needed. We got plenty of options; what path you take is up to you. But if you need some guidance, let me or Eagle know. User:Zscout370 09:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:220.127.226.25

This user is problematic and has numerous complaints against him on his user talk:220.127.226.25 note from User:Lucasbfr: fixed the link. He has already been warned on two occasions, and I have ANI-NOTICED him as pending-ban. He removed all of the requests for citations on the Rapture Debate page, and had to have the article reverted. It is obvious to me this user has no intention of being helpful. EvanCarroll 04:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The user hasn't edited in two months... unless we are talking about a deleted article. -- ReyBrujo 04:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User has no deleted edits. Hesperian 05:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Something's not right... The talk also does not exist, and, as near as I can tell, never has. Wrong user, maybe? SQL 05:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, unless I am missing something, Rapture Debate has never existed. SQL 05:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Rapture debate is the article. Tim Vickers 05:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yeah, I figured out where I got it wrong... Thanks! SQL 05:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What is an ANI NOTICE? Some new template? :P —— Eagle101 05:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

{{ANI-notice}}? =) --Dynaflow babble 05:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yey! another template :) I guess its too hard to type out, howdy I brought issue XXX in which you are involved in on WP:AN >.> —— Eagle101 05:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a "I've told the admins about you" note on somebody's userpage. The edits in question are these from June. I suggest not doing anything. Tim Vickers 05:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, this IP removed fact tags from the article in June and got reverted 2 days later. I don't think it requires any sort of admin attention. -- lucasbfr (using User:Lucasbfr2) 10:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgz33 again

After finding the latest comment from him I have changed User:Burgz33 block to indefinite. My patience is at an end with this editor as he's had multiple chances. Edits such as his idiot list and this under the original account. Then there are this and this from one of his Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Burgz33. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Burgz33's sock parade and incivility have made his contempt for Misplaced Pages's policies clear.--Chaser - T 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also endorse. I see no reason anybody should have to put up with that type of comment. Be gone with him. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 09:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed, he had more than enough chances to improve and chose not to take them. Neil ム 10:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards