Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:01, 26 August 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Problem with someone who just won't stop.

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

The content issue : There are two college societies with the same name, "Mystical Seven". They both have articles, that's not a problem. One society uses Mystical 7 as its name, and that is actually the proper form of the name for that society. Not so for the other. There is a disambiguation page for both Mystical Seven articles, and the redirect page for "Mystical 7" should go to the society that uses that as it's name, not to both societies. As one poster said, "a redirect from 'Coke' as a name should go to 'Coca-cola', not a cola disambiguation page for Coca-Cola and Pepsi."

The editor issue : There is a user who can't apparently understand this. He wants to have the redirect for Mystical 7 go to the disambiguation page for both societies. (He's given no reason why.) It went back and forth a bit. HE then asked for comment. The comments he got supported the 'it should go to the one society that uses the name, not the other' side of the argument. He still reverted to his view. I changed it back and he STILL reverts it back to his view. I have a hard time accepting that this is good faith anymore, since it has all the appearance of a profound and sullen stolidity.

So the question is this : what do you do with an editor who can't accept his own request for comment?Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? If you mean the question he asked on the secret societies talk page, that's not exactly something official and binding that can be enforced. Not only that, but there was no consensus either way in it, in the four comments I saw. (Personally, I agree with him) --Golbez (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Ok, these are secret societies? I've never understood how we can have Misplaced Pages pages on secret societies. If they're secret, then we don't know about them. If they're not secret, then they're something like "private membership" or "confidential membership." However, that violation of fundamental logic aside, we do redirects for misspellings. It's routine. Therefore, it's safe to assume that a person who has only heard the name (after all, it's secret) will type "7" sometimes and "seven" sometimes, so it would be logical to have the redirect serve as the landing point for any query. The "7" people lose nothing. After all, they're secret, so presumably they don't want people to find them quickly. Geogre (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This is hardly a Coke and Pepsi issue, and it's extremely misleading for you to use that analogy, Thaïs. These societies have the exact same name, and people who are unfamiliar with the particular form of the word seven should not be penalized by having to dig around, looking for whichever of the two they're trying to find. Mystical Seven and Mystical 7 should both stay as they are currently. GlassCobra 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources, so it hardly makes them secret, does it? Corvus cornix_talk 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've never understood how we can have Misplaced Pages pages on secret societies." Then don't comment on the articles...

"we do redirects for misspellings." That's the point, it's not a mispelling. The phrases are distinctly different.

"These societies have the exact same name" it's not the exact same name. The connotation of "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are quite distinct. Did you read the two names before making your comment?

"These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources" These societes have very reliable sources, and several of the articles are better referenced than 90% of the articles in wikipedia. Why would you make an arbitrarily dismissive comment about these articles if you understood the subject matter? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to concur that I think the current setup is correct: "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are both plausible search terms, so it's good that both should lead to a dismbiguation page. Each article has a hatnote directing any mis-led reader to the other page, which is also good. This all seems to be straightforward, and I don't think any specialist knowledge of the subject is needed to form an opinion on the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all. BUT, that isn't even the point. This already went to a discussion, and user geniac refused to accept that comments went against him, and is still pursuing this. He is not following wikipedia policy, and for that matter, is not constructively contributing to the process. Why should articles be sacrificed to the endless quibbling of someone who does not understand what he is doing? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The only other dscussion I've seen is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Secret_Societies#Mystical_7 and I certainly wouldn't say that there was a consensus to change Mystical 7 to point away from the dab page. There's been a discussion here too, for what it's worth. The two terms are essentially interchangeable, from the perspective of someone who does not know that much about the societies and is searching for information - which is the person we want to help.

As an aside, you might want to dial down the rhetoric a little. No article is going to get "sacrificed", and this really isn't that big a deal. edited to add I just read the intro to Mystical_Seven_(Wesleyan) again, and noticed this: Properly written as "Mystical 7". So... you're arguing and slow-edit-warring in favour of something you don't have a source for. um. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of the typical Misplaced Pages reader, and even the author of this paper, "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing. This really isn't an issue for the admins' noticeboard any longer though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 03:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because you've made it a question of whether you agree with one side or the other, and not the actual issue, which is one user's relentless pursuit of his own agenda, wikipedia policy, or common courtesy be dammned. ---And how can you possibly say that ""Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing"? They clearly do not. (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you don't realize that the number 7 is spelled "seven". --NE2 08:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about what I think; it's about what the sources think. The link I posted is to www.wesleyan.edu, and you'd think they would know if anyone would. Either provide a reliable source saying "the proper name of the Wesleyan society is 'Mystical 7' and not 'Mystical Seven'" or give it up or risk being snactioned for tendentious editingOkay, nobody is going to be "snactioned" just yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear case where a disambiguation page is needed. Since both names sound the same, and since both names, as names if not as societies, mean the same thing, a dab page absolutely needed. We use dab pages when there is potential for confusion because, for example, two different articles have similar or essentially the same name, or because spellings are very similar, and so on. A user who searches for Mystical 7, but is looking for Mystical Seven, will be confused; this is exactly why we have dab pages. Please review WP:DAB Exploding Boy (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Exploding Boy and my fellow new admin, SheffieldSteel; this is a clearcut instance where a dab page and hatnotes are appropriate. JGHowes - 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sheffield Steele has decided to resort to threats, and has given up discussing the content, I'll give up. The fact that he can get two other people to gang up with him is surely a testament to the cogency of his argument. For the record, "7" is a natural and rational number, and "Seven" is a collective noun; — Geniac, Sheffield Steele, NE2, and Exploding Boy are wrong. The distinction is not observed at Missouri, (it would not even be an appropriate distinction there). But I am not going to keep arguing this, I don't really care if wikipedia is accurate or not. Thanks for the threats, but I'll pass. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame. I was hoping Thaïs Alexandrina would reply to the large text and ignore the small, not the other way around. I'm striking the "threat" since it may have been a bit hasty on my part. I wasn't trying to threaten anyone but provide an argument based on fundamental Misplaced Pages policies. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says that material must be attributable to a reliable, published source, and Misplaced Pages:Neutral Point of View says that we have to represent the material in our sources fairly, neutrally and without bias. I'm not aware of any source which says 'the name of the Wesleyan society is properly written "Mystical 7"', and in the absence of such, we should not include that material in the article on it. Further, to say that Mystical 7 must redirect only to one of the two societies under discussion (again in the absence of sourced information that only one uses the name) would show a distinct bias towards one of them (in addition to the arguments based on usability already mentioned). SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would add that Thaïs Alexandrina needs to take it down a notch. Nobody ganged up on anybody; you posted here to get input from admins, and you got it. It may not have been the input you wanted, but that's the risk you take. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that being an admin included the prerogative of threatening. For a final note, I see neither of you have challenged my contention that the phrases are not the same, and that the four of you have been wrong. To have the page redirect to one society and not the other makes perfect sense if it is not used by the other, no favoritism, just plain sense; however for people who could not distinguish between the two phrases, it might have seemed an unnecessary distinction. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What threats? Please be specific. As to your "contention," it's frankly nonsensical. 7 is seven is 7 is seven. That's the point: the number seven can also be written as 7. When we have two identical-sounding names, the only difference between them being that one is written with a number and one with the number spelled out, we need a dab page to avoid confusion. What exactly is your problem with that? Exploding Boy (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your contention that the phrases are not the same, I have already cited an academic source using the two terms interchangeably when referring to the Wesleyan society - that's the group that you say must be written "Mystical 7". If the source behaves as if there is no difference between the phrases, and if no source has been provided saying that there is a difference, Misplaced Pages's content should treat the two equivalently. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 04:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Do any secret societies need articles? I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill, just a bit. Come on, did you have to bring this to AIV? A simple conversation could have taken care of it. --Lord₪Sunday 14:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You would think that this would not be such an issue, but it seems that neither Geniac or Shefford Steele are willing to even entertain a discussion. The distinction I've noted has not been contested, --there has been no argument by Geniac at all, just reversion after reversion. And Shefford Steele has NOT offered an "academic source" he offered what was originally a college newspaper article. This is pointless. I say, let it be wrong, it's only wikipedia.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Thaïs Alexandrina is continuing her campaign regarding naming. Please see the Talk:Mystical Seven (Wesleyan) and Mystical Seven (Wesleyan) pages. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Boy editing

I invite any administrator to go to the Talk:Mystical Seven (Wesleyan) page, Exploding Boy is hostile and out of control. I brought up a legitimate issue on this page. I discussed it here at length. I did prove my initial point that two phrases were not identical. No one has challenged that. From that point, Exploding Boy went to the original page and took out one statement that referenced the dispute. (That is, he eliminated the reference, rather than finding some way of addressiung this content issue.) That statement did have a "fact" tag, but just from this month. It was brand new. So I put it back, saying that the dispute should NOT be hidden, and that the fact tag was new. he's now gone off, reverted again, and is again making hostile threats across the board at me. The fact that he has buddies claiming that they are a new consensus, (on an article none of them have ever posied on until this hour), should not count for anything. This is just hostility and ganging up on people. I see no other explanation for why they are making an edit war out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaïs Alexandrina (talk • contribs) 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Interested parties may refer to Talk:Mystical Seven (Wesleyan)#Article name and Revision history of Mystical Seven (Wesleyan). as well as the section immediately above. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is out of control, it's Thaïs Alexandrina. This editor is deaf to discussion, ignoring consensus, policy, hints, and all other means of communication that have been tried. They insist not only that they are correct, but that it's the other editors who have been disproven in the above discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, you were.... the phrases are not the same. You said they were. That would be wrong. Get over it. Go out and pet a cat or something.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thaïs, I'm going to offer you some friendly advice here. If you want to stick around and contribute to Misplaced Pages, chill out a little bit, review our policies and guidelines, and maybe expand your selection of articles you work on to get some more experience. The way you're going, you're headed for a block. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had no previous interaction with Exploding boy or the article in question. I merely found his arguments on this page compelling and yours not, so I posted on the article's talk page voicing my support of his position (i.e., building consensus). Calling us a gang is hardly civil, so please refrain. To me, rhetoric about numbers aside, you're recommending an unsourced change which violates WP:V. That change shouldn't be there, end of story. justinfr (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also point out that removing the statement from the article doesn't "hide" the controversy, it merely removes it to the article's talk page, where such issues belong. justinfr (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Justinfr, you recommended a change based on a "scholarly source" which was not, in fact, a scholarly source, it was a college newspaper article. So this shows that you evaluated the issue... how? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And can some editor suggest that Exploding Boy post something that does not include a threat? Anyone can look at the talk page for that article and see that rather than addressing any content questions, he only insists on correctness of his actions and adds threats of retribution. I do not see the productiveness of any of his actions or posts. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading through the different discussions Thais A., and I'm having a really hard time finding a post of your own that isn't filled with hostile language and "threats". Just saying. On the surface, to argue that "Mystical Seven" and "Mystical 7" are different is rather farcical. I support having Mystical 7 be a redirect page to both "secret" fraternities. How many different editors need to be against you before you stop railing on about "everyone is threatening me" and just understand that you don't have a case here? You are drawing unnecessary attention to yourself, I'd hate to see any sanctions against you or anyone else over such a triviality. You do good work here, and I hope you stay. Keeper ǀ 76 20:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is a { { fact|date= } } tag, how long do most people leave for that citation to be provided? I assume that since it is dated by the month, that one should allow at least a month before removing the challenged data. I usually let it go for three or four, just to be safe. ... But then again, I'm patient with people. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy was quoted to you already on the Mystic 7 talk page, but I'll summarize it for you here anyway: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." As for what you "usually" do (ie: allowing unsourced material to remain for 3-4 months), I can't see how that's possible, given that your first edit here was at 03:58 on July 16, 2008, according to your contribution history. At any rate, it's immaterial if that's what you've been doing, perhaps while editing under a different name; now you know the policy.

The Administrators' noticeboard is not the place to hash out content disputes, and it's not a place for you to fling around unfounded accusations either. I'm going to request that someone close this conversation now, and I'm again going to caution you regarding your incivility. I also strongly suggest you review the following policies:

• WP:CIVIL
• W:RS
• WP:POINT
• WP:SOURCE
• WP:TEND

Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The admin recall process is dead

This section has been moved to: Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN)

Points system for admin recall

This discussion moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators open to recall#Points system for admin recall (WP:AN)

Concerns with possible copyright violation

We have an adminstrator among us who is a serial image copyright offender. I'm talking not about occasional errors in judgment or the usual dodgy fair use claims, but about a sustained, fraudulent series of uploads claimed as self-made when they were clearly collages of copyrighted elements. What makes it worse, he has been deliberately and systematically lying about these images to defend them, and he is still doing so. If this was not an admin but a normal editor, he'd be blocked for a couple months for this.

I'm talking about Dreadstar (talk · contribs), and his images:

• Image:2001question.jpg (March 2008, with earlier versions at Image:2001questionwd1.JPG, Image:2001question.JPG, Image:2001questionColorHAL.JPG)
• Image:DSSword.jpg (March 2008 version on en-wiki, equally dubious replacement created on commons in August 2008)

Evidence in form of graphical comparison is here: Image:Dreadstar comparison.jpg (my upload, deleted to make it admin-only, since it's not formally NFCC-compliant)

Dreadstar's repeated lying can be seen here: , , PUI, , , with further talk at User talk:Dreadstar#Image closure.

What makes this even more serious is that this abusive editor has also been taking admin action in image-related matters. Oddly, all his (quite infrequent) image actions seem to consist of unexpectedly popping up at IfD to close some of the most hotly contested borderline NFCC cases, always as "keep" (, , , ). In at least two of these cases, he was keep-closing controversial IfDs where the uploaders/defenders were his wiki friends.

Disclosure: Two of these IfDs were my nominations, and before anybody now shouts I'm doing this in retaliation: yes, of course this move comes in reaction to his. If it hadn't been for these closures and I had just come across his abusive uploads by chance, I would have done what I do to all such recalcitrant copyright offenders: block them or topic-ban them from all image uploads. But seeing highly controversial and high-profile admin decisions being taken by somebody like this is just something I can't put up with. This person has been systematically subverting and sabotaging our policies, he can't be trusted to be an adminstrator. He must be desysoped, or at least make a binding commitment he'll never again take admin action about images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Without even looking at the IFD closures, I find Fut.Perf's arguments at quite convincing. (FP, do you have any objections to reproducing the text here and the image offsite?) If the problematic actions at IFD are as serious as you describe, there is a real concern here: one that needs to be addressed by the community at the proper dispute resolution forum, not just here. east718 // talk // email // 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair about the IfDs, none of them was really obviously abusive in the sense that some other admin might not also have taken them. I challenged one of them at DRV and it was upheld, so, well. It's just the pattern that struck me, together with what I consider rather poor arguing in closing them, and the combingation with the very obvious copyvio offenses. – Technically, I'm not very good with hosting images off-wiki. If people want it fully accessible, could somebody else please lend a technically-challenged person a hand? Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf's post is in the box below; the relevant image is here. east718 // talk // email // 07:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated a link within the above to point to a now deleted Commons image. —Giggy 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some question should be raised here of why FutPer finds it acceptable to call other admin liars and trawl through the history of people who disagree with him to find something to attack them with. He follows a system of engagement and browbeating (that can be seen at the recent closure of HMS Conqueror, that caused FutPer to check through Dreadstar's history, where after people disagree he then trawls through peoples image upload history to find any faults). While following a deletionist agenda is not a bad thing, the zeal and delight with wich FutPer seems to engage in it is unsettling at the very least. FutPer should, at the very least, be encouraged to seek annother admin's input immediatly after a disagreement with someone, rather than deleting things on his lonesome with an editor he is already in conflict with. I understand that FutPer may be getting the right results, and I do commend him for the work he does in keeping the copyright violations down, but I do think that process is just as important as the result, and the way he goes about things is unnerving at best. (For what it is worth I am out of the country starting this afternoon, so if I do not respond to any questions about my decision to speak here or such, I apologise in advance.)Narson (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted. While I agree that FuturePerfect's language is immoderate, that should be dealt with elsewhere. What is significant here is that the core accusation seems to be correct: the elements of these images are, essentially, identical on the per-pixel level, which makes the claim of multiple independent drawings not credible. Nandesuka (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would disagree, there are multiple issues to be look at here. Not being an admin I can't see the evidence against User:Dreadstar for one thing; he doesn't get a full community hearing as he should for one. I don't think the behaviour of one party in a dispute should be swept under the carpet just because they've apparently uncovered a juicy piece of dirt on the other. There are multiple issues at hand here. Justin talk 12:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute, and unilaterally deletes images he feels fail the CSD over the reasoned objections of the uploader, does belong here - even if the images meet the criteria. Even if it's not just retaliation it's always going to look like it. It only seems to me to be good practice to allow another admin to delete any image he tags, where deletion has been opposed and where he is in an active dispute with the uploader or those who object to deletion on another matter. Pfainuk talk 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Images failing NFCC are not the issue here. There were a few of those too, and Dreadstar didn't raise objections against their deletion. (Those weren't in bad faith, although I note in passing that their existence is in fact another piece of evidence against his competence as an admin.) The deletions in the copyvio cases were absolutely straightforward. As for not acting unilaterally any further, that is of course the exact reason I brought this here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the assertion that "Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute" unfounded and unnecessarily inflammatory. FutPerf identified a number of image copyright issues, and as any administrator should when any apparent systematic abuse is detected, he reviewed the other editor's contributions. He then (rightly) chose to bring it here rather than take action himself. The image comparison inked above is compelling, and if FutPerf's analysis is correct then this is both systematic abuse and quite deceitful behaviour. To ignore it would be wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet he deleted all the images several hours before he posted here. And yet he acknowledged that the reason he went through Dreadstar's upload log was because he objected to the IFD closes. He's even used the word "trawl". Perhaps the tone of my comment was a little off, fair enough, I'll apologise for that, but contentwise I believe it says no more than what Future Perfect has accepted.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should point that I was involved in the IFD whose closure brought this on and in the discussion surrounding his speedy deletion of Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg, an image uploaded and defended by a user arguing the other side in that IFD, part way through that IFD. If nothing else, both that case and the one being discussed - particularly when put together - create the impression that these actions are retaliatory. And this creates a very bad atmosphere.

Should we be keeping copyvios? Of course not. Is it an issue if an admin uploads copyvios? Of course. But I think Future Perfect does need to be rather more careful than he has been in cases where he is already in dispute with someone - and if a case is as obvious as he says (and it may well be) then there should be no issue with allowing one of the other 1600-odd admins to handle the deletion. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First my apologies to everyone for this problem, had I not just given a knee-jerk reaction to Future Perfect's first post and truly examined the images, this whole thing may have been nipped in the bud. Can't make too many excuses, but we were having the full effects of a tropical storm and I admit that my patience, attention span, and electricity were short yesterday. No pun intended. However, after taking the time to more fully review the images and consider their circumstances, FP is correct, they're not what I remembered them being.

As I've already admitted, the 2001 image version I ultimately posted wasn't my all-original one I thought it was, but it was a different one that contained copyrighted images. I did a bunch of different versions, and emailed them around for opinions, and that was the one everyone liked - they were all very similar, and I thought it was the one of my own "creation" (though it's still derivative, which I didn't fully understand at the time). My mistake. It certainly wasn't a "sustained, systematic effort at deception", just a simple misunderstanding. Basicallly, I uploaded the wrong image, thinking it was one that I created – and never re-examined it, even when it was tagged in May, until FP deleted it. Heck, I was moving at the time, packing boxes everywhere, so my attention wasn't fully on the task at hand.

As for the sword, I was pretty sure the one I originally posted for use on my user subpage was the one I drew years ago, but I was fiddling around with a bunch of different images and it may actually be one that I modified from the original. Looking at it, it looked like one of the copies I drew, but on closer examinination, it does appear to be just be a photoshopped copy of the original. Hard to tell, as I said, it was purposely made to look as much like the original as possible. I went through a phase in the early '80s, not only collecting comics (over 4k of them!), but seeing if I could actually draw the things. Didn't work out, but I do have a stack of copies that came out...well..interestingly... :)

So, no I'm not lying. If I were going to lie about it, I'd have just said I was wrong about all the images, they weren't what I initially remembered having posted.

I did not object to FP’s deletions of these images, once he brought them to my attention, I recognized the copyright problems with them, whether I created them from scratch or not. I’ve learned a lot about image policy since that time, heck I’m still learning.

I can make the following promises, not to upload any further self-created or modified images without approval from other image admins; and if my Conqueror IFD closing is found to be faulty, I will not close any contested IFD’s for one year - until I've had lots more experience at IFD. I have no objection to Conqueror being taken to DRV, I welcome it.

Beyond that, I can only humbly apologize for my error with the sword and 2001 images, I truly thought what I was saying at the time was true. I certainly hope the community hasn't lost faith in me over this mistake, I feel terrible about it. Dreadstar † 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at Dreadstar's talk page . Short version, I have strong reasons to believe this is still not the truth. The timing doesn't add up. Dreadstar uploaded the final 2001 version at a time he must have known it was a copied version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dreadstar made multiple versions, some with copyrighted elements and some without, and he uploaded the wrong one. At some point the error was called to his attention. Did he defend his images as free even after the error was pointed out to him, and has he done this on more than just these two images? Thatcher 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He certainly repeated the assertion that they were his own free work several times after being pointed to the self-evident fact that these were photographs/screenshots. , ], etc., and he also repeatedly defended his sword image on commons after being asked about its source. (On that one, I can't point to the actual source, which might actually be a free one, but I find it suspicious that he has never so much as acknowledged that there's something to be explained about it, as it very obviously contains photographic material.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: compliance with our policy concerning images, and Dreadstar's character. I am not an expert on images (as is the person who womments in the section below) but I am satisfied by Dreadstar's comment here, on 13:37, 21 August 2008, that he respects our policies and understands he made mistakes and regrets them. What more can we want? Everyone makes mistakes, and editors in good faith can easily, and thus often do, get involved in prolonged misunderstandings. I see Dreadstar trying to clear this up and people who have a good grasp on our image policies can obviously work with him in reaching a quick resolution. But FP is taking an aggressive and hostile stance that seems unwarrented based on the evidence - I do not see a larger pattern of subversion of our policies. I have had encounters with Dreadstar a number of times and he has always struck me as a serious, well-intentioned, hard-working editor. I am certain he acted in good faith and will in the future. I see no need to impugn his character and find it unnecessary and sad. Let's just tone down the histrionics and maybe people can accept Dreadstar's acknowledgment of his own mistakes, and move forward. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein stated this very well, and I concur with his comment in full. After reviewing this thread, the linked user talk page and IFDs, there is no indication that Dreadstar did anything wrong other than making a couple mistakes that could happen to anyone. He's acknowledged and apologized for the mistakes and has offered a strong plan for avoiding similar errors in the future. I've seen Dreadstar's actions and words in various areas and always found him to be an excellent contributor and in his admin roles, a positive influence on the process of collaboration. There does not appear to be any continuing problem here at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well spoken, Slrubenstein. Dreadstar made a mistake, fessed up to it, and is agreeing to stay away from controversial image closings for a year. I think that is more than acceptable in this case for Dreadstar. As for FPAS, see comment in the section Olive started. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He did not "fess up". His very apology here contained a continuation of his lies. And I haven't seen him make a binding commitment to stay away from image-related admin work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Olive regarding Dreadstar

I came upon FP accusations yesterday and find this offensive and inappropriate for any editor let alone an admin. . "Serial" in the title of this discussion has obvious, highly inappropriate connotations. His continued comments could be construed as harassment and lead me to question FP’s motives in dealing with this issue. I have no reason to judge FP on any other issues so want to make clear this comment is about this issue alone.

• Background: I have a terminal degree in fine art, (MFA), in painting and drawing and have taught art to university students at both the graduate and undergraduate level

• I’m not sure what FP’s issues are with the images he is comparing. A quick visual scan of the “fetus” images (Examine the lips closely. They are quite different), indicates they are not the same, although the layouts used in the overall images are very similar. There are other differences. The two swords pictured are also not the same, although quite similar. One visually scans the shapes around the objects rather than the objects themselves to create accurate representational work. Note that the white shapes below the sword are different in size. There are also other more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships. The circular “Hal’s eyes” images would seem to be identical.

• Could Dreadstar have drawn some of this. Sure. Non-artists are often astounded by what can be drawn. Drawing is a fundamental technical skill that can be developed, and of course many people are genetically endowed with the ability to draw what they see, easily even if they aren’t practicing artists. I am always astounded by someone saying, oh that can’t be done, or so and so couldn’t have done that. As well drawings by even high school students can look more real than photographs. In the art world this kind of art is called Photorealism or Super realism. I have no idea what Dreadstar’s skill level is, and neither does anyone else. Further he is not required to somehow prove his drawing skill. Good grief!

• As a general comment, I can draw just about anything, but my ability to manipulate a computer and collage in an elegant way is just about zero. Those skills do not overlap, but are largely technical and require practice. So someone could easily draw very well, especially if they’ve been doing it for a long time but could be somewhat more awkward in manipulating images on a computer. And of course drawing on a computer is more difficult than drawing be hand.

• More to the point: What is this about. Dreadstar seems unclear about what happened, fair enough. He, without argument, advised deletion of the images, the appropriate response under the circumstances. and has apologized for the situation. Anyone who has watched the creation of, or themselves created computer collaged images knows that multiple images are created that can combine multiple techniques. What happened in which image is pretty hard to remember unless one is specifically trying to create a process that can be repeated and especially if one is emailing images back and forth. Art as well has been copied since the beginning of time. It’s a legitimate way of creating art and of learning certain skills. I am surprised to learn that copyright on Misplaced Pages seems different than in the art world itself. It’s a cloudy issue. That is, what’s a copyright violation and where are the boundaries between what is original, and what is a violation are not intuitive, but have to be learned probably through experience. Dreadstar is an admin with an excellent reputation among editors, large number of contributions, of being helpful beyond the call of duty, evenness of temper, clear thinking, a sense of humor and guess what? No instances at all of lying in any of his other admin duties. Why would that kind of person decide to lie here?

This is a place where good faith must come into play. Ultimately, we can’t prove or disprove any of the things being said. We have to take Dreadstar’s word on this issue, an act of good faith based on his past. His well-established reputation as an admin and editor deserves nothing less than that.(olive (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

• Said well (far better than I could have), and should be the last word on this issue. Fut Per should assume good faith, retract the accusations of seriality, and move on with working on the project. Dreadstar has indicated his remorse for the mistake he made, and I doubt (given his character) that he will make the same mistake again. _D.D.J.Jameson 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Olive, your defense of Dreadstar would have gained a lot in credibility if you hadn't attempted to defend the indefensible by trying to deny the obvious fact of the copying. All the high-faluting art jargon you mix in there cannot hide the fact that your arguments here are just specious. The lips of the baby are different? No, they are not, they are identical down to the tiniest, single-pixel sized details of contours and shades, except for colouring and contrast artefacts that are due to the fact that his immediate source may well have been a slightly different electronic web copy of the same movie poster than the one I found, plus the fact that obviously the lower lips together with everything else at the left margin was just mechanically cut off and replaced by a rectangle of dark blue background. "The white shapes below the sword are different in size"? Nothing that's not the result of crude electronic retouching, or an artifact of separate jpg rastering after an act of mechanical copying in the electronic medium. There are "more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships"? No, there are not, you can overlay the two images one over the other and they match down to single pixels, everywhere. Don't bullshit us.

The fact remains, Dreadstar didn't make a "mistake"; he knew exactly that he wasn't supposed to copy those elements, but he copied them, and he spent a lot of energy thinking up lies to cover the fact. For several months, again and again, until and including today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FP. My comments are and were honest.Using the simplest language in my field to try and explain what I am seeing is not high- faluting langauge, and no I wasn't "bull shitting" you. Just doing my best to be honest as I see it. Sorry you see it otherwise. I stick by my "specious" arguments.(olive (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Ignoring tone for a moment, FP's point was that the images in question are clearly Photoshopped versions of copyrighted originals. The 2001 pic contains repeated patterns of stars in the extreme right and lower right (compare to this, for example) where the "2001" was covered and the picture was extended. The sword has the same pixel patterns as the original. Both pictures are modified from the original, yes, but were not redrawn from whole cloth as you suggest is possible. And, in any case, Dreadstar seems to have admitted the Photoshopping. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

he knew exactly that, so when did psychic abilities become part of the administrators toolset?

Whilst Dreadstar may or may not have consciously uploaded images and came up with an elaborate series of explanations, the fact remains that you cannot determine what his thought processes may or may not have been either at the time or in dialogue about them.

By the same token I can't determine if this is a witch-hunt based on the decision to close a hotly contested IFD in a way which contradicted your initial raising of the image.

fwiw I see no reason from a review of input to artificially constrain Dreadstar, the same cannot be said of others involved in this issue.

ALR (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"He knew exactly that"? Yes, of course he did. Because he said so himself at the time, as you would know had you read the evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an issue of interpretation of the statement made. We can choose to disagree, feel free to hound me now as well if you wish, for daring to disagree with you (a second time).

ALR (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Olive. Dreadstar has admitted his error (see my post in above section). I think desyssoped and a total ban from image closing is excessive. I'm ok with his commitment. However, let's not forget the other side of this issue, FPAS's behavior in the area of images. Others have already alluded to this here in this thread. FPAS seems to have a genuine problem in dealing with those who disagree with him in image cases. I'll admit he knows policy well, but his following people around, rigid inability to accept dissenting opinion, lack of AGF, and obnoxious behavior are unacceptable in an admin. Just from looking at FPAS's current talk page and July 31 image delete logs, I found these threads (note he often doesn't respond or dismisses concerns, and there's much more similar behavior in image debates): User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Falklands_War_Montage, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Bouboulina, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:SanJuanPotters.jpeg, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#My_new_Project, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Himar.C3.AB, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Comment, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Your_comments, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Gian_Maria_Volont.C3.A8, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Epirus_map, and from the image delete page on Jul 31: calling an opposed a vandal, disruptive, and having bad faith-which someone called “shocking”, accuses people of lazy writing-which someone called snarky and a ""heads you win, tells I lose"" and "a game whereby no one could possibly satisfy your interpretation of that NFCC languag" situation by FPAS. This is just from two pages. It even appears he follows them around to check their images--would this be stalking? I feel an RFC on admin conduct is in order for FPAS as many users are concerned about his behavior and treatment of others. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over Dreadstar's image past, he has 32 uploads total according to the edit counter and not much experience in image work. Even as someone who has over 6,000 image edits, I still seek guidance from others and mess up on occasion. AFAIK, the other images Dreadstar uploaded included proper non-free licenses, etc, so I would be surprised that he would pick this single image to lie on and certainly do not see it as a long term (serial) pattern of behavior. Since he has admitted fault and agreed to stay away from IfDs and seek guidance from others on images, I think we can wrap this one up as good faith random variance.

As to FutPerf, just looking at his last several edits I see some things that strongly concern me, for instance:

Also, your English is too poor. This is the English-speaking Misplaced Pages and it is really only for people who have some good working knowledge of English. You cannot really participate on such a difficult topic if you can't write well.

What ever happened to not biting the newbies and open editing for all? I agree with Sumo that this needs further investigation. MBisanz 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, I explained that one to you yesterday on IRC. Bringing this up here again in the context of an entirely unrelated matter is, well, just low. This posting to the newbie was a good-faith attempt at communicating with a person who evidently knew so little English anything more complex or more polite would likely not have been understood. And Sumoeagle with his list of talk page links above is evidently already practicing for the favourite sport of abusive RFC/U and Arbcom accusers: filling "evidence" sections with quantities of unrelated material in the hope that some dirt will stick. Guys, if you want my head, go straight to Arbcom, you won't get it any cheaper than that. With these "evidence" pieces here you have already shown the intellectual level of the attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think someone needs to remember that people in glass houses should not start burning witches. Or something. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• This has to stop. My own personal interactions with FP have been mixed, at best. I've tried to always be civil to him, but there are times when he makes that extremely difficult. Anyone who disagrees with his views on image policy is, well, harangued and belittled. It really does have to stop. I don't know if I support an RfC or not, but this is certainly not a non-issue. I've severely curtailed my activity on IfDs, mainly because of the tack that FP (as well as a couple other regulars who nearly always recommend deletion) have taken. Misplaced Pages is a hobby to me--a source of pleasure and relaxation at the end of a day. I work hard at it, but I don't need the grief, and as such I've cut back on IfD work, which is an areas that I greatly enjoy. The always found the investigation that I put into my recommendations quite interesting. Anyways, I apologize for my wordiness, I just felt that someone needed to point out that FP's behavior problems are not a non-issue. _D.D.J.Jameson 05:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  See here for a diff that illustrates my concern. He reverts two good-faith users' attempts to communicate with him as "badgering." _D.D.J.Jameson 05:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that having butted heads with FuturePerfect, I have concerns that some of his behaviours cast doubt upon his suitability to be an admin. I have no doubt that his intentions are for the benefit of Misplaced Pages as a project, however, his attitude to fellow editors that disagree with him leaves a lot to be desired and some of the tactics that he employs I find questionable.

I first became aware of his actions when I checked my watchlist and noticed changes to the article British naval forces in the Falklands War, to remove the image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg see . Assuming that this was a good faith edit of someone not familiar with the history of the conflict I edited with a comment "rs iconic image of RN". FuturePerfect immediately reverts . Again I revert "rv see talk page, an iconic image of the only nuclear submarine to sink a warship in a conflict, in a well know incident adds to understanding see talk page". I make a post on the talk page inviting to discuss. Instead of engaging on the talk page to discuss a content dispute, FuturePerfect immediately reverts . What concerned me at the time was the comment "rv, image *will* be deleted". Not wanting to persist in an edit war, I place a comment on the Talk Page indicating my intention to do no further reverts .

My first concern, an administrator should not be initiating an edit war, which is effectively what FuturePerfect did. If an edit war was initiated an admin should have been the one bringing it to an end not an editor. Finally, when an effort to head off an edit war is made an a Talk Page it should have been an admin making that move first. None of this occurred here.

There are other things troubling me about this. FuturePerfect removed this image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg from a number of pages:

• British naval forces in the Falklands War,
• Royal Navy Submarine Service
• Churchill class submarine
• HMS Conqueror (S48)

He then declares the image to be an orphan and a candidate for speedy deletion. This seems to be an abuse of process to me, deliberately orphaning an image to then delete it via a speed deletion process. It seems deliberately designed to avoid going through an WP:IFD and a proper debate on the fair use rationale.

The comments on the talk page to me indicated that FuturePerfect intended to go through a speedy deletion process despite strong objections from 3 editors. It is my belief that the only reason an WP:IFD was proposed is because PfainukRyan4314 asked for an WP:RFC. Incidentally FuturePerfect didn't notify others involved in disputing the deletion call after the WP:IFD was opened, that was left to Pfainuk.

Several editors mention the fact that FuturePerfect appears to be browbeating editors on the WP:IFD Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 12#Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg. Some notable comments:

I'll repeat this until people finally understand it: Saying so don't make it so. You wont't get away that easily: I'll repeat this until you finally understand it: Oh, and please, spare yourself the ad-homs and personal attacks, I'm rather tired of those and they do get boring after a while. Yet another voter who doesn't get the difference between the notability of an event and the usefulness of a picture of that event. If you can't see that, you have a reading problem

I could go on but these are only a sample.

His conduct thereafter does smack of retaliation, proceeding to go through my image uploads. He picked up on Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg in which I'd used a Fair Use image and recommended it for speedy deletion disputing the fair use rationale. Now when I created the montage, I was careful to seek advice about the use of the image in question, the consensus at the time was it was OK. It would appear that the advice I was given was wrong but I politely asked that a non-involved admin look at the speedy . However, that suggestion was dismissed out of sight with the comment that heI was trying to shut him out of his turf. As a tangent, FuturePerfect indicated he would allow me time to make a replacement but went on to delete the image before I could upload it.

I have a few articles in preparation on my user page, I will freely admit that the idea for the new article User:Justin A Kuntz/Iconic photographs of the Falklands War was inspired by comments in the deletion review. However, on User talk:Justin A Kuntz#Your sandbox page intimates that before the article is even written it is destined for WP:AFD.

Not only did he go through my image uploads but other editors who voted keep in the deletion review.

Once the deletion review was complete, he then appears to have continued browbeating other editors involved. He posted on Dreadstar's page with a posting that is not only uncivil but seriously lacking in WP:AGF. The nomination here calling for Dreadstar to be desyopped appears yet more retaliation and worse intimidation.

As with other comments here, I'm not the only to have noticed a pattern of incivility. Here, Rlevse comments on insulting comments. FuturePerfect responds with more incivility.

So in summary of my comments, I have noticed:

• FuturePerfect has some serious issues with incivility.
  
• FuturePerfect is an admin and should not be initiating edit wars.
  
• FuturePerfect has circumvented policies by deliberately orphaning images to then use a speedy deletion process rather than IFD.
  
• FuturePerfect has browbeat and retaliated against editors that disagree with him.

My own personal interpretation of this is that FuturePerfect feels he is working for the good of the project. However, his methods are counterproductive and leading him into conflict with other editors. I have a serious concern that he just simply doesn't see that he is at fault here and that his confrontational attitude is causing friction. I do believe that he has become mission-orientated and is not treating cases on an individual basis but feels he has a mission to expunge none free images from wikipedia.

For the record I don't see my own conduct as beyond reproach, I know I can be a cantankerous old git and I can be very mission-orientated myself. I know I can be confrontational and in your face but I do try to stop those tendencies and I will listen to others. Justin talk 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also had that i hope Dreadstar does not recuse himself from deletion decisions, none of the deletion decisions above are a bad call. He made a mistake, he admitted it, he's apologised that should be the end of ot. I don't think deletion decisions should be limited to those with a very narrow interpretation of policy and more importantly we should back up admins making those calls. If it is a mistake that is why we have WP:DRV. Justin talk

A minor correction, it was User:Ryan4314 who initiated the RFC, not me. I can see how it looks like that from the talk page though.

To my mind it was not so much the removal of the Conqueror image from all articles and then tagging as orphaned that was an issue as much as the edit warring to keep the image off any articles, coupled with the declarations that the "image *will* be deleted". Given that he didn't use any admin tools to do this, and that admins are supposed to be just editors with extra tools, I just wonder how you guys would have reacted to me if I'd done that. Not well, I would imagine. If there is dispute as to whether the image should be included on a page (as to whether it meets the NFCC) then surely speedy deletion as orphaned is inappropriate. It seems also perhaps fair to say that, while it's the obvious conclusion when you look at this talk page, there may have been no connection between Ryan's decision to take it to RFC and Future Perfect's decision to go to IFD less than two hours later. The IFD was closed as "keep" by User:Dreadstar, and at this point, Future Perfect went to Dreadstar's talk page to demand a retraction and bring up the issue that brought us here.

So this case was very badly handled by Future Perfect. I was hoping that it would blow over, as process was eventually done - that's why I didn't bring this up here at the time - but the closure of that IFD is inevitably caught up in the issue discussed here, and this particular issue should be placed in the context of the ongoing issues that I and other editors have brought up.

I've mentioned the Falklands War Montage deletion earlier but I might as well say again that Future Perfect, the nominator of the IFD, unilaterally speedy deleted an image uploaded and defended (on policy grounds) by one of those actively disputing Future Perfect's position in that IFD. He had to be persuaded to tell us which speedy criterion he was contending it met (see Talk:Falklands War). I think this is not the sort of conduct one expects of an admin. If the case was clear-cut enough for CSD, then another admin could have reviewed the case and pushed the delete button just as easily as Future Perfect. That's basically all that was requested of him.

On Dreadstar, he's admitted and apologised his mistake, and I don't think he'll make it again. I think that issue is basically done. Pfainuk talk 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As a final remark in a larger context: I wanted to say that the issue here isn't whether the images I looked at are identical or not. Visually scanning them they aren't. A machine maybe shows something different. Nor is the issue whether someone can draw well or not, or if these images could have been drawn. They could have. My comments from the perspective of my field were a neutral response to accusations. The real issue is, whether on Misplaced Pages do we "hang" people for mistakes, or do we attempt to provide an environment where editors can function at an optimal level, a consideration at the heart of Misplaced Pages as a collaborative community. If an editor demonstrates consistent patterns of high quality work, honesty, evenness, maturity, and at some point this kind mistake is made, support, not should be, but must given, consistent with the very nature of what Misplaced Pages is. As others have said, a clear apology for whatever happened, and none of us knows what that is, demonstrates good faith, and a responsibly mature editor, behaviour consistent with his history. Our response must be a good faith one as well. That is the essence of Misplaced Pages. Sorry if I sound preachy . Maybe I've been working too long on the Civility Policy article.(olive (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Here's another choice one from FPAS: User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 13#IFD discussion concern. His reply to Olive at here in this thread furnishes further proof against himself of his general attitude of incivility and failure to observe AGF. As Dreadstar has banned himself from controversial IFDs for a year and apologized, I consider that closed. But for FPAS, he shows no limits in his ill behavior at IFD and it's been long term and involved multiple cases and users; plus he refuses to acknowledge the issues with himself, so I think he should be banned from IFDs until an RFC and/or arbcom is completed.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

See ANI detailing other instances. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

As closure, I concur with Sumoeagle179's proposed acceptance of Dreadstar's 1-yr. self-ban at IFD. This essentially meets Fut.Perf's call for Dreadstar's recusal from admin actions at IFD. But Fut.Perf's repeated abrasiveness and his consistently displayed holier-than-thou approach with fellow editors is out of line and also needs to be addressed. The fact that he didn't even deign to reply to my gentle suggestion here, regarding his outrageous remarks vented at IFD towards another editor, is telling. He should also be banned at IFD pending a RFC/U JGHowes - 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that both incivility and lack of appropriate communication are becoming an issue. I'm willing to assume it is simply a case of "admin burnout" where someone has been doing admin tasks too consistently and develops an insular view of being on a crusade against evil which must be stopped at *all* costs, even if it means violating policy to do so. Yes, it sounds terrible, but it does happen. Not only have I seen signs of an early stage of it within myself at various times but also within friends who usually find the need to take a wikibreak to regain their perspective. However, good faith only goes so far and, especially with the bitey responses to newbies and the galling accusations made in the heading of this thread towards a good faith admin who apparently made a few (non-systematic) mistakes with image uploads, it is getting to a point where some sort of action may well be needed. I would say if it hits AN or AN/I one more time there would be grounds for an RfC/U on conduct. For now I support any bid to temporarily evacuate them from IfD so the damage cannot persist. Orderinchaos 18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar only banned if Conquereor was overturned. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Further clarification: "and if my Conqueror IFD closing is found to be faulty, I will not close any contested IFD’s for one year - until I've had lots more experience at IFD. I have no objection to Conqueror being taken to DRV, I welcome it." Quote Dreadstar. (olive (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

As I commented earlier I don't think you should be recusing yourself at all, we have DRV to allow mistakes to be rectified. We shouldn't allow a situation to develop where admins are reluctant to make difficult decisions. The only time there should be action taken is when an egregiously outrageous decision is made in clear contravention of consensus. Justin talk 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments

The Arbitration Committee is currently looking to appoint new CheckUsers. For more information on the application process, please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments August 2008.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk)

• Adding a new (fake) timestamp so this announcement does not get archived until the application period is over. Thatcher

• Or you can just remove the timestamps outright... Maxim (☎)

Why does the notice list criteria that does not appear on the WP:Checkuser page or the subpage Misplaced Pages:CheckUser/Appointments? --167.181.12.95 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The only criterion not listed at the Wikimedia (meta) page is that the applicant must be an active administrator on English Misplaced Pages. The other criteria (age 18+, an adult in the place of residence, and willing to identify to the Foundation) are overarching requirements that apply to all projects. Is there really a concern here? Risker (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just making sure we don't have policy creep going on outside of policy pages. If there are age requirements per ] it should be listed on the Checkuser policy page along with a link. Why is adminship being stated as a criterion if it is not a specific requirement for checkuser access? --167.181.12.95 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Because Arbcom sets the local Checkuser criteria, and as long as their criteria are not broader than the Foundation's, anything goes. MBisanz 20:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that 'common sense' should be a sufficient answer, but in case it is not I will offer two solid reasons. The RfA process focuses intense attention on the candidate's conduct; an individual who passes an RfA has the trust of some reasonably large fraction of the community, and will have had his/her contributions closely examined for signs of poor judgement. The scrutiny of an RfA is almost certainly going to be more thorough than the ArbCom could carry out on their own – with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow – and the community would almost certainly object to Checkuser permissions being granted to someone who could not pass an RfA. (A Checkuser cannot function effectively without community trust.)

From a purely practical standpoint, many of a Checkuser's duties are difficult or impossible to carry out without admin privileges. Without admin privileges Checkusers cannot block sockpuppets, nor can they review information from deleted pages and page revisions. While in principle a non-admin Checkuser could forward requests for these actions to other admins, in practice it would be a waste of time for all involved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) 'Common sense' is never a sufficient answer when there are gaps between perceived policy and actual policy. While I'll agree that RFA's are a fine method of vetting users, any numbers (or estimations of a large fraction) require a more finite definition of community. Additionally, there is no reason a RFA styled request can not be conducted solely for checkuser access. A simple note at the top of the page would suffice.

While checkusers may function more quickly if they also possess admin rights, this is neither policy, nor is it universally needed. Often RFCU happen after a user has already been blocked; other times another admin will block after the checkuser has found additional socks. To state it is a 'waste of time' suggests an extreme urgency with socks that can not already be resolved with the current array of coordinating tools such as IRC or Skype. This urgency is unfounded and false. Furthermore, having third opinion prevents and resolves issues with involved parties, provides for separation of powers and due process. Similarly, the use of a clerk is a useful function, with a separation of duties and is not a waste of time.

To say that Arbcom reviews and selects applicants for checkuser, determining who has met criteria and who is deemed trustworthy is correct, but to say that it sets the criteria for selection is false. The criteria is governed by policy and policy is set by the community (or some large fraction of it). Arbcom only makes binding decisions when the community unable to do so or when there is sensitive user related information that would prevent the community from knowing the full issue. To date, in no way has Arbcom made a statement about adminship being a requirement nor has it stated its belief that the community is unable or willing to rule on the issue.

All arguments aside, all requirements for access levels need to be explicitly stated in policy. Its a documentation thing.--167.181.12.95 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's quite unlikely that the committee would grant the checkuser bit to anyone who has not been granted the admin bit by the community. I certainly wouldn't make such a selection myself. --jpgordon 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting a notice Be Issued to Tvoz and Plushpuffin to Respect the Neutral Point of View and Good Faith Policies (moved from talk)

Tvoz is failing to respect the good faith policy on the Bill Clinton page. His erase of reliable facts I have presented are unacceptable and complete out of line in terms of good faith. The user has already confessed to being a loyal supporter of the Republican Party. I'm not speaking as a Democrat when I say WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL PROPAGANDA. I also don't care if Tvoz has received a good amount of Barnstars, because he still needs to accept the fact that Misplaced Pages is neutral and requires good faith among other users. Not to brag, but I also received a barnstar myself and I still know that Misplaced Pages policies must be respected.

I have no special privileges, and neither should anybody else on Misplaced Pages as well. Plushpuffin has also been doing the same. The user has not been willing, AT LEAST FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN, to respect the neutral point of view policy on the Bill Clinton page either. To me, opinions need to be kept to themselves UNLESS THEY ARE PRESENTED AS RELIABLE FACTS. I am willing to respect Misplaced Pages policies, and so should. Also, I only have capitalized some of the words in my statement not as a form of rage, BUT RATHER AS A FORM OF HIGHLIGHTING WORDS I THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT. I don't intend to be uncivil in anyway, if anybody reading this gets that idea.Kevin j (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please present diffs of offending edits by the users that you have called into question? Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the request user Ioeth. The difference in our two revisions is that the user Tvoz, at least from my opinion, erased my contributions to the Clinton page to keep a large amount of people online from finding out the flaws of the Sally Perdue case. Misplaced Pages has now become not only the Internet's top enclycopedia page, BUT ALSO ONE OF THE TOP WEBSITES SEARCHED ON THE INTERNET TOO. Some Republican strategists, which Tvoz has presented him/herself on through his/her talkpage, can easily make edits to the pages as a political strategy. This is in clear violation of the good faith policy, and Tvoz needs to know that you can't violate the policy or get any special privileges in anyway. - - Plushpuffin has also been stubborn to me, and the user seems to think that only his/her opinions matter the most. I keep telling the user I am respecting the neutral point of view policy and that have reliable resources to back my claims. However, THE USER HAS ERASED MY CONTENT ON THE BILL CLINTON PAGE REPEATEDLY AND HAS TRIED TO LABEL ME AS A VIOLATOR OF THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY. THAT IS AN ACTUAL VIOLATION OF THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY RIGHT THERE. I don't mean to uncivil in anyway either.Kevin j (talk)

Kevin j, I'm afraid you're a little too worked up to edit constructively right now; your posts on the talk pages of Tvoz, Ricky81682, and Plushpuffin are too far over the top, and your edit summaries during your edit warring at Bill Clinton (apparently now stopped, thank you) all seem to indicate that you aren't acting calmly. Please trust me when I say no one is going to sanction Tvoz for anything he did at that article so far. also notice how I used italics, instead of all caps, to emphasize something. Finally, I note you've made zero edits to Talk:Bill Clinton. Talk pages are where we work out questions about reliable sources, not edit summaries and reports to WP:AN. You've been here a long time; I'm surprised you forgot that. I very strongly suggest that you don't re-add that paragraph to the article tomorrow (as your last edit summary there suggested you were going to) without consensus on the talk page first; at this point, I would consider that edit warring, whether you violate WP:3RR or not, and it could get you blocked again. --barneca (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for sanctions. I ASKED FOR A WARNING TO BE ISSUED TO THESE USERS TO RESPECT THE POLICIES. If they continue to violate this, THEN I WILL REQUEST A BLOCK. WARNINGS CAN BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE. Also, I AM NOT TRYING TO LOOSE MY TEMPER IN ANYWAY, IN CASE YOU THAT IDEA, AND I AM TRYING TO BE CIVILKevin j (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(multiple e/c, inserted after 2 comments below) Tvoz and Plushpuffin have not violated any policies. They've removed something they think violates WP:BLP; negative info from a source they do not consider reliable. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page. If a consensus developes in your favor about the reliability of the source, then re-add the info. if it doesn't, then don't. A reliable source is a reliable source because consensus and policy say so, not because you say so. Make your case (not here; on the article talk page). At this time, there is no reason to warn either one, and there is no way they are going to be blocked if they continue to revert your addition of BLP material if there isn't a talk page consensus that your source is reliable. --barneca (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You should probably follow the good advice Barneca offered above, as if you keep following this path, I have no doubt that someone will get blocked, but I suspect it will not be Tvoz. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not capitalize my important words OUT OF UNCIVIL RAGE. Slander me again, like the way you did on the notice board, AND I WILL HAVE YOU REQUESTED FOR A BLOCK. Respect the good faith policy.

Stop typing in capital letters, please. As for the debate over your edits on Bill Clinton, I looked at Capitol Hill Blue, and see the tag line "Because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe when Congress is in session or the White House is occupied" under the headline. That suggests rather frankly that there is a problem with the site - that it carries a specific point of view. The article you were trying to link to has a disclaimer that "mainstream media" wouldn't publish it. Please take a look at the reliable sources guidelines - I think you'll see that the article in question doesn't meet them. Finally, in future, please take these issues to the talk page first - discussion is a better approach than immediately making complaints about other editors who disagree with you. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream media statement is only an advertisement I'm afraid. It's no different than Fox New's "fair and balanced" or CNN's "most trusted name in news" mottos. You also did not read the article clearly, BECAUSE IT DOES BACK MY CLAIMS. Capitol Hill Blue is a very reliable resource with good debators.Kevin j (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a disclaimer indicating that it was published there because the MSM wouldn't publish it. The site is not reliable, as it is blatantly slanted - its tag line indicates that quite strongly. I suggest again that you read the reliable sources guidelines and seek out other sources with strong and neutral editorial oversight to source your edits to. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I'm afraid that's only your opinion. Advertising is a common thing to do The website promotes itself as neutral with that claim. Do you also really would they insult themselves and damage their business by saying that the mainstream media would reject them because they are unreliable? Keep your opinions to yourself.Kevin j (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

*facepalm* I tried. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Kevin J's edit on the Bill Clinton article (here) back to the original form of the sentence, in which two (somewhat conflicting) statements were originally written as "She alleged the affair took place in 1983 during her second divorce, but she did not begin divorce proceedings until later." Kevin J had rewritten the sentence to say "She alleged the affair took place in 1983, but she was discredited...," which I thought was original research and injected POV into the article.

I also reverted Kevin J's edit to Bill Clinton (here) because he added some random irrelevant fact about CNN supposedly supporting Bush in the 2000 elections as a way of calling into question the credibility of a poll on Clinton's popularity at the end of his term. I considered it irrelevant and misleading, and I noted as such on the Talk:Bill Clinton page.

Tvoz reverted Kevin J's reversion of my reversion, as well as removing what she considered unreliable information about Sally Perdue in accordance with the policy on biographies of living persons.

It is important to note that Kevin J had pretty much the same edits reverted by the administrator User:Ricky81682 only three weeks ago: (here on Bill Clinton) and (here on Sally Perdue): at the time, Kevin J had written it as "Sally Perdue's arguments were also flawed, as she stated that she began her 1983 affair with while going through her second divorce..." Two days ago he took it upon himself to revert the administrator's edits and re-add the information and language which Ricky81682 deemed inappropriate.

I reported him three weeks ago for his behavior and properly notified him of such on his talk page (note that he did not do the same for me today). I did not think he would benefit from arbitration, considering the enormous number of complaints against him on his talk page. I still believe I was right to get an administrator involved from the start. Throughout this affair, Kevin J has consistently acted irrationally and uncivilly (see User talk:Plushpuffin and User talk:Tvoz), has refused to engage in debate regarding the merits of his edits, and has begun an edit war on the affected articles. Tvoz and I did not scheme together to revert his edits; rather, we both felt (independently) that the content and language changes that Kevin J was making to the articles were of extremely poor quality, especially considering that Bill Clinton is/was a "good quality" article. -- plushpuffin (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I responded and nobody blocked me Again, I am warning you to keep your unsourced opinions to yourself and respect Misplaced Pages's policies. The statement you have provided is POV based, and that is not acceptable to request somebody is violating a policy just because they disagree with you. Don't like it? Tough.

I also never said that either of you two schemed together, and I am now using Italics to highlight my important words. You both were out of line. Stop this nonsenseKevin j (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use a colon to indent your replies. I've fixed the above two for you. -- plushpuffin (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User Kevin J should be blocked imho. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done nothing to get myself blocked, and I even reverted the edits I made to the Clinton page to respect the three-revert 24 hour rule. Is this Tvoz trying to diguise themselves with their IP address by chance? I myself have learned well about the strategy you are trying to use to get me blocked, by disgusing yourself as another user and making look like more people are defending your claim. It's really not fooling me.Kevin j (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, clearly the polite, word-to-the-wise appeal to reason is not working here. Kevin j, neither Tvoz nor Plushpuffin has done anything to warrant a warning, much less a block. Even if they had, who would know? You haven't provided any diffs or evidence of any kind. You appear to be running from talk page to noticeboard to talk page leaving a trail of angry threats, poorly informed accusations, and vitriol. I'm asking you to drop this. It should be apparent by now that no admin is going to warn or sanction Tvoz or Plushpuffin. If you continue badgering them and everyone else who comments here, and edit-warring to insert poorly sourced material into biographies of living people, then you will be blocked. MastCell  17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, you are not thinking the facts right. I'm afraid I have just told a lot of differences and you need to act more mature. I do not appreciate these childish, personal attacksKevin j (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Tvoz/talk 01:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

re-opening section

Tvoz is an extremely disruptive and confrontational user. Tvoz gets support from admin because of strong anti-Republican Party POV. While some people are happy to support this, this behavior is very harmful to Misplaced Pages. In contrast, I am not a Republican nor a Democrat. I do like Oprah. I have stopped editing just because of users like Tvoz. That's one way how Tvoz damages and disrupts Misplaced Pages.

Tvoz got me banned even though the checkuser proved me innocent. It wasn't until later that some independent admin unblocked me. However, the bitter taste results in me not putting a lot of my knowledge and knowledge of where to find reliable sources for hard to find info in Misplaced Pages. By posting here, I predict Tvoz will try to get me banned again. In contrast, Tvoz should be banned and I have the evidence why (but I will not waste my time on a freak and POV pusher like Tvoz). Oprahwasontv (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you came here to notify us that you have a grudge against Tvoz, to make a few personal attacks, and then to point out that you can't be bothered to produce the evidence? Your prediction is more like a self-fulfilling prophecy. MastCell  18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Okay... Anyone care to explain how a sockpuppet of Dereks1x/Archtransit was unblocked without a notification of some sort on AN or AN/I? While a RFCU on Oprahwasontv came up empty, behavioral evidence is pretty strong that Oprah is a sock and they were blocked on that grounds. See my previous AN/I report back in August 2007 for more information. --Bobblehead 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead has created socks but when a checkuser was requested, Bobblehead (in panic) got me banned so that he could say the checkuser request on him could be withdrawn because the requestor was blocked. If he were innocent, he would just let the checkuser be run but he was afraid that his scheme would be revealed. Proof that Bobblehead has socks. Oprahwasontv (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You have me confused now.. Did I have you banned, or did Tvoz have you banned? You really need to keep your story straight. You haven't provided any evidence that I have any sockpuppets other than a completely unsupported conspiracy theory. If you can actually provide some evidence of me running a sockfarm and that I have done so disruptively, I'm sure a checkuser would be more than willing to run a check on me. --Bobblehead 01:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an extremely good question. The above post really leans into the Dereks1x MO... Tony Fox (arf!) 18:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To Mast Cell, Tvoz is guilty of massive COI (creating an article about her company and having her sockpuppet husband also edit that article.). Bobblehead's behavioral evidence used is one of trying to manipulate an article by saying anyone who opposes POV is a sock of all other editors who support NPOV. Bobblehead and Tvoz are very much POV pushers trying to slant articles of American Democratic Party politicians. Misplaced Pages is not a campaign tool. Oprahwasontv (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing

The Arbitration Committee has become aware that Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) (not an administrator) has accessed and used the accounts of two administrators, Chet B Long (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). We also believe that Chet B Long and PeterSymonds may have accessed Steve Crossin's account too. In the case of Chet B Long, we believe that Steve Crossin encouraged the exchange, and Chet B Long in an act of exceedingly poor judgement sought not to let him down. In the case of PeterSymonds, we believe that he accidentally revealed his password, which prompted Steve Crossin to try accessing his account. Steve then told Peter that he knew his password, and Peter allowed his password to stand unchanged. Steve used Peter's account to perform non-controversial administrative actions, but without the approval and trust of the community, and in PeterSymonds' name. Such behaviour is outside the standards that administrators are expected to follow in keeping their accounts secure, and the Arbitration Committee considers this grossly inappropriate conduct.

While we have no evidence pointing to inappropriate administrator actions being carried out by Steve Crossin while accessing these accounts, there is still an issue of trust here. In addition, we have been informed by multiple people that Steve Crossin has been sharing chat logs of a private communication between himself and other users, including Arbitrator Deskana.

All parties made a full admission of fact, and both Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have already voluntarily resigned their adminships. Given the information above, it is clear Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have retired "under a cloud", and as such, should only have their administrator access granted again via application to the Arbitration Committee. Whilst all three are valued editors, their actions were grossly poor in judgement. We are considering Steve Crossin's position, but do not feel any other sanctions are necessary in respect of the two administrators at this time. The community may wish to discuss their own sanctions, if appropriate.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I missed all this drama... Pity about all this... Steve: Hope you got some good understanding and learnings from all this. Take care, kiddo and thanks for your help during mediation. A Lesson Is Learned But The Damage Is Irreversible ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

The Committee and Steve Crossin have been in considerable dialog this last week. It is mutually agreed that a long term break by Steve from editing would give him a chance to reflect on matters, and the Community a chance to do likewise.

Accordingly Steve has agreed to a formal long-term break, with strict conditions, following which at his request the Committee will consider whether he might resume editing. He and his wife have agreed that neither will resume editing or other significant involvement, whether with existing or new accounts, without the agreement of the committee, and that the Committee's decision may be to ask the community. He is aware that any breach of the agreed conditions will result in enforcement by blocking.

FT2  13:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

List of satanic ritual abuse allegations/SRA in the Netherlands

Criminologist1963 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account dedicated to getting a separate page about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. S/he has created several pages for this purpose (Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands and some redirects for spelling). I became aware of the page and wikified it; ultimately there wasn't much there, so I redirected to list of satanic ritual abuse allegations#the Netherlands. C1963's contribution history is a series of page blanks, reverts, and basically a concerted effort to have an unnecesary separate article. The discussion at Talk:List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#The Netherlands has been less than productive. I have dealt with this a while, but now I'm thinking perhaps the community might want to comment. WLU (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since October 2007 I contribute to Misplaced Pages. From the first moment on I have been harassed, threatened and insulted. Biaothanatoi e.g. implied that I would be a pedophile, because I knew some personal information about the author Benjamin Rossen (that was in the Dutch newspapers), but for Biaothanatoi who did not know that it was enough to compare me with a pedophile. Rossen wrote critically about the debauchery scandal in Oude Pekela and people who strongly believe that children were ritually abused by satanists in Oude Pekela circulated rumours that Rossen was a pedophile. Until then I contributed on the satanic ritual abuse page. After the insult of Biaothanatoi and the fact that he obviously was not open for reasonable arguments, I decided to make a separate page about Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Biaothanatoi harassed me there a few times, but since January 2008 I have never heard from him again.

However, August 2008 WLU eliminated my whole contribution on the page Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, replaced it by his own point of view and redirected the page to the Satanic ritual abuse page. Because I noticed that the version of WLU was not an accurate and neutral report of the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, I undid his contribution and tried to explain why people who read his contribution would be misinformed. He replied with new redirections of the page after he again replaced my contribution with his own point of view, with three strike warnings and with threats of blocking me from Misplaced Pages.

I do not mind where the information on the Netherlands is placed (on a separate page or integrated in the main page on satanic ritual abuse, but I do mind what the content is, because I want that the people who read the information will be informed about this matter correctly. Since I am doing research into satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands for more than a decade now, I am very familiair with the situation in this country. Based on my research, I can proof that the information WLU is providing is wrong. Criminologist1963 (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crim1963's complaint about Biaothanatoi's "pedophile" accusations on the authors of some RS, as you can see in this ongoing discussion. —Cesar Tort 14:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The content I worked with to produce the section of list of satanic ritual abuse allegations#the Netherlands is what Criminologist1963 placed on the various original pages s/he has created or reverted to. My actions were to wikify, link, use citation templates, re-word, condense references using the ref name tags, and generally manipulate the same text to say the same thing in a manner that was neutral, did not venture a position or opinion, and was of the appropriate tone. C1963 pointed out where the text was in error, I edited accordingly and suggested s/he could edit in the same fashion (i.e. rather than reverting wholesale). I have pointed out the flaws in the original text to C1963 several times, as well as the disclaimer that everyone agrees to have their text mercilessly re-edited, as well as the policy and guideline origins of my contributions and the reasons behind my edits. Several admins have weighed in, including User:Orangemike and User:Dbachmann (dab). It seems like a pretty clear case of ownership and a complete unwillingness to even read, let alone edit, according to wikipedia's policies. I've been accused of hiding behind anonymity, not knowing the sources (despite working with the sources and text provided by C1963), vandalism, and assertions that C1963 is the only person smart and knowledgeable enough to edit the page. And now we're here, because all of my assertions and wikilinks to policies have not had a dent. I don't care what Biaothanatoi did a year ago, Biaothanatoi has not been involved in the recent discussion and is completely irrelevant to the current one. Anyone interested in the guts of the debate can read Talk:List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations#The_Netherlands and this version of his/her talk page. WLU (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently SRA in The Netherlands is blank, SRA in the Netherlands is a content fork with the section list of SRA allegations#The Netherlands (), and I'm getting a headache. WLU (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I already asked Crim1963 to revert the blanking. Cheers. —Cesar Tort 16:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that I blanked Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands and Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands is that one page dedicated to the situation in the Netherlands is enough. Remember that the reason to make those similar pages earlier, was due avoid to the vandalizing on the original page. Biaothanatoi did not find the alternative page, but WLU did. When he started to destroy both that page and the original page, I had to make a third page, which was destroyed almost immediately by WLU.

By the way, I just saw that Misplaced Pages says that it does not have an article with the exact name Satanic ritual abuse and the Netherlands and that is fine with me. I hope that the one who did that, could do the same with the page Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands, because that page again has been redirected to the main article about satanic ritual abuse and replaced with the biased text of WLU. As said before, one page on the situation in the Netherlands is enough: Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Criminologist1963 (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to verify the information I have provided in the article on the page Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, you can contact the people mentioned in this article. If necessary, I can give you their email addresses and telephone numbers. They all speak and understand English. I also can scan some of the articles, but most of them are in Dutch. Criminologist1963 (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You can not verify the information on a page by talking to a person. Verifiability is ensured by the use of reliable sources. The sources are not the problem with the page. The problem is the continued reverting to content forks on multiple pages. The problem is this and this request for deletion which is inappropriate (the redirect to the list is appropriate). The problem is not verification with reliable sources, it is the tone, original research, promotion of a conclusion and content forking. Multiple contributors have redirected to a variety of different pages, and you have never discussed why. Lid, Aecis, Eleland, Daniel Santos, Moreschi, me, Cesar Tort, Sceptre, TexasAndroid, Malcolmxl5, Woody and Orangemike have reverted or redirected your original text to either the satanic ritual abuse page, or the list of allegations. You have yet to justify any of your edits based on the policies and guidelines I am citing. The problem is not verification, it never has been verification, and I have never pointed to WP:V as a policy to worry about. The problems are WP:TONE, WP:SS, WP:CFORK, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and now WP:3RR. WLU (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Now a 3RR report. WLU (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policies are not the issue. The issue is that your version of the discussion in the Netherlands is not accurate and that the people who read it are misinformed! Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an internet encyclopedia and people must have to be sure that the information in this encyclopedia is correct.

Therefore again, do not destroy my contributions, because they are an accurate version of the discussion. If you do not believe me, contact the Dutch people named in my contribution. Some of them are mpd therapists, others are critics of them, but I am 100 percent convinced that they all will confirm that the information I have provided is correct and that your information is wrong!

By the way, if I knew how to report you WLU, I would do the same with you. Criminologist1963 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's policies are the issue. If the information in the list is factually incorrect, I am willing to correct it and have done so in the past. Your contributions have never been "destroyed", they have been modified to be in line with the policies and guidelines to ensure information is of a uniform high standard. You are missing the point, suggesting I contact the researchers is a red herring and indicates fundamental flaw in your understanding of wikipedia. You are free to report me, but you appear to have absolutely no idea what I should be reported for. WLU (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean that you contact those researchers. I meant that an objective arbiter from Misplaced Pages contact these researchers.

The policies are not the issue and you know that. The issue is that people are not informed correctly about the discussion in the Netherlands when they read your text. That is a very serious matter.

Since a few months, the objectivity and neutrality of Misplaced Pages is questioned in articles in Dutch newspapers, such as NRC Handelsblad. The authors say that many of the articles in Misplaced Pages have incorrect information and when they try to correct the articles they are confronted with laymen on Misplaced Pages who eliminate their contributions, saying that it did not fit the policies of Misplaced Pages. When I read this, I thought 'hey, where have I heard this before?'. I hope you understand that such articles in national newspapers are killing for the reputation of Misplaced Pages as an objective encyclopedia. The only reason those articles are published is because of you and other laymen at Misplaced Pages, who are not open for arguments from experts when they tell you that your texts are factually incorrect. Criminologist1963 (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So, did we figure out what to do about Calton?

Did we agree to anything here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 or are we going to? It sounded like we were headed towards some kind of serious sanction against Calton, but we never finalized the decision that I could tell. Leaving this hanging will just make the problem worse.--Doug. 15:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? What "problem" are you claiming? Missing some opportunity to throw your weight around? Not being able to punish someone who didn't stand up and salute you and other self-assuming authority figures just because you demand it? Or maybe it's that by-God some spam pages might be deleted and spammers blocked without being coddled.

So be specific: what ACTUAL "worse problem" are you talking about? Hint: not saluting when someone cries "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!" is not an actual problem, no matter how you spin it. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That response alone illustrates the problem with how you interact with other editors, Calton. It's already been established that Calton will be blocked for retagging denied speedies, and I'd support a civility restriction. - auburnpilot talk 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a substantive reply, not vague handwaving, nose-sniffing, and authoritative threats. Try again. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What "worse" would that be, Deputy Doug? Hrm, the constant edit warring with other editors because you think that your judgment is the only one that matters? –xeno (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked for two weeks for incivility. Tan ǀ 39 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

His comments were apparently a somewhat slow response to my removing his rollbacker privilege. I had given them to him early this year based on his experience but cautioned him about my concerns that I'd seen complaints of possible edit warring. I don't know that he ever used the privilege but I was away for a while and when I came back I noted the 0RR restriction - noted in the recently archived thread I referenced above. I told him that I was revoking his rollbacker simply because it was inconsistent with a 0RR restriction and not because of any misconduct. Everything is on his talk page, and there's plenty there if anyone is interested.--Doug. 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• So, my understanding is that Calton's formal restrictions are as follows:

1. 0RR restriction previously imposed (anyone got a link for that?)

2. Indefinite prohibition on edits to any user pages except his own other than reasonable CSD and MFD nominations. Per the above referenced AN thread, archived yesterday.

3. A two week block for incivility per Tan above.

4. We were discussing whether there should be some sort of civility restriction particularly with respect to user talk pages and/or unreasonable tagging of user or usertalk pages with G11.

We need to give him notice of his editing restrictions so we ought to decide what we're going to do here and I'd like some confirmation of the above restrictions.--Doug. 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• You could always try treating him as an adult, that might help. There is absolutely nothing wrong with tagging a user page as WP:CSD#G11 if it is an advertisement, WP:NOT includes "Misplaced Pages is not a free web host". Obviously a link or two to people's own projects is not advertising, but several user pages are blatant advertisements either created in userspace or moved there from mainspace. And now I suggest you go and talk to user:Geogre about the utter irredeemable stupidity of issuing two-week retaliatory blocks for "incivility" which is, in fact, merely a spirited defence against what looks suspiciously like pushing a grudge. And I mean that, talk to Geogre and if after a considered exchange of views (i.e. where you listen to him) you still feel that blocking Calton would achieve anything other than drama and making us all look like idiots, feel free to sugfgest it again. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The problem lies in that he will "spiritly defend" any of his actions, through edit warring or incivility. I don't doubt that he does identify pages that do need to go - but when someone disagrees with his assessment it would be best if he just walked on. I don't see how Doug could be pushing a grudge, because he's the uninvolved admin who granted him rollback a while back. –xeno (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Guy, if you really believe that it would be possible to have a "considered exchange of views" with Calton over issues such as this, you have a very poor sense of pattern recognition. Giving Calton an umpteenth chance and leaving him unblocked is the thing that causes drama and makes us look like idiots. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I said Geogre not Calton. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not that this is going to make much of a difference, but I feel compelled to add my two cents... I haven't had a run in with Calton in over a year, but that run-in, or more correctly his behaviour during that time, is scorched into my memory. Very rarely have I encountered such an abrasive Wikipedian, who enjoyed baiting his "opponents" and in fact blatantly stated that he was doing just that. I obviously have no comment on his recent actions, but perhaps it should be kept in mind that this sort of behaviour has been going on for at least a year (and in terms of full disclosure, I was probably no angel myself, but Calton's uncivil behaviour was honestly quite unlike the vast majority of Wikipedian's I have dealt with). PageantUpdater talk • contribs 02:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hear, hear! Grandmasterka 02:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Calton, please

Calton has made exactly three edits today: , , . For this he was blocked for two weeks for incivility. Sorry, but I don't think that s even remotely proportionate to the offence, if offence it was (which I'd dispute). There's clearly some bad blood here, the best thing would have been for Doug not to even start this conversation, since Calton had not even edited since 17 August, we have a whole host of dispute resolution processes, but here we have blocked someone who's been with the project for over three years, has thousands of edits, and whose only offence appears, at least to some interpretations, to be a refusal to be sufficiently deferential to an admin. Surely we have some real problems to fix here rather than spanking Calton? Guy (Help!) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy, sorry to say this, but I don't think you're a very good judge of civility, given your previous use of profanity and blatantly sexist slurs. Kelly 21:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexist? When? Guy (Help!) 21:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just remember evidence of you using the terms "twat" or "cunt" towards other editors. Which was it (or was it both)? Do you really want me to go find the diffs? Kelly 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it took about 30 seconds of searching. "Cunt" and "Twat". Also "Fuck off". Need more? Kelly 21:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not sexist, it is British English invective. And given that the user in question had just taunted me about the then very recent death of my sister, I think that it was if not appropriate then certainly wholly understandable. Do you have any idea just how vile that particular user's behaviour was? To taunt someone who had recently watched a sibling die in agony is not exactly pleasant, as the subsequent arbitration noted. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The British English thing won't cut it (I've lived there and know perfectly well that you don't call people "cunt" in normal discourse), neither will the "victim card". You've explained one instance that I can sympathize with. How about the others? Is it normal in Britain to tell people to fuck off? (Clue - it's not.) Would you like me to bring some more diffs here? There are dozens, if not hundreds, in your RfC and Arbitration cases. You are no judge of civility, Guy, It's best that you go write some article, if you know how, and leave the judging of civility to civil people. With respect - Kelly 21:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, that particular user was one of the most vile trolls I have ever come across, and I think most of those who remember him would concur with that judgement. See Bainer's evidence in arbitration. I said nothing to him that I would not have said to his face, always assuming I didn't deck him instead. That does not mean I am proud of it, but neither does it make it "sexist". I will put my hands up to being extremely rude on occasion, though not I think recently, but I do not believe I am prone to gender bias. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't buy the whole "not sexist" thing. In African-American culture, it's acceptable to use the term "nigger" to one's peers. A white editor here is not free to call a black editor a "nigger" just because it may be acceptable somewhere. Similarly, just because you may call your friends "cunt" or "twat" does not mean you should feel free to offend women here by throwing those terms around - they are among the most offensive terms you can use in the presence of a woman, and sensible people are perfectly aware of this - even in Britain. That you feel undeterred by this tells me that you are not a very good judge of civility (and possibly reactionary in regards to women's rights, though that is really irrelevant). Kelly 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You have my full permission to consider me sexist, just be aware that I dispute that label and would challenge you to find any credible evidence for it outside of my occasionally ill-judged choice of cuss-words. I'll not link the words in question, but would point out that we discuss them in some detail and don't make any assertion in those articles that their use is considered evidence of sexism. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have, to my knowledge, never been involved with Calton or Doug. I have no grudge, and no prior history with this editor. There was no "bad blood" and the block wasn't simply for his three edits today. A "spanking" would have been the usual 24 hour wristslap (aka "cooldown block"). This one was for two weeks because I will not tolerate his behavior here, and if it occurs again after the block expires, the next block will be for a lot longer. Tan ǀ 39 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't do punishment blocks, we do blocks for prevention. What problem are you preventing by blocking Calton for two weeks? I'm not looking for a fight here, but I think this was not a good idea. And I'd like an answer from Alison to the question above as well, please. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy, which question would that be, please? Looks like I'm joining the party late here .... - Alison 09:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am preventing him from being incivil to editors on Misplaced Pages. I'm also done arguing with you; your attitude/record predicts your responses. Tan ǀ 39 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know, if the editor with whom he is in apparent dispute had not started this thread then I don't believe he'd have said a thing. Doesn't that inform the issue in any way? Did anyone try discussing this with Calton and trying to broker peace or calm him down or get him to disengage or drop it? And since my attitude/record predicts my response, perhaps you could tell me what my next response will be. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug is not engaged in a dispute with Calton. All of this could have been completely avoided by Calton agreeing not to edit war (and trying not to be so "spiritful" in defense of his actions). –xeno (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A two week block on the basis of those three edits would have been excissive. A 2 week block on the basis of the recent attitude displayed is reasonable. Viridae 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the block is reasonable in light of the pattern of behaviour displayed over a sustained period of time. The responses he made in the section above were just the straw that broke the 's back. naerii 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

/me wanders off to document the all-new WP:BADATTITUDE policy which allows for two-week blocks for surliness. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Er, have to agree with JzG. The comments seem mildly heated, arguably uncivil but not blockworthy. And a two-week block? C'mon. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG, don't waste your time; we already have that policy. It's called WP:CIVIL. Calton has been an uncivil editor for a very long time. He's received plenty of warning and has been the subject of many AN/ANI discussions. The block duration may be a bit long (no real opinion on that) but the block itself was warranted. - auburnpilot talk 22:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the recent edits and the block history, I am fine with a block that escalates from the past level but 2 weeks is too long - one week at most seems like a fair length. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd just like to be clear here, I am not saying that he is a saint or that he did nothing wrong, only that the remedy is disproportionate and - more importantly - very unlikely to produce the desired result (unless, I guess, the desired result is to hound him out). I think the problem here for me is that we don't seem to have learned anything from Giano. I really do not think that civility blocks have any positive effect on long-standing contributors with attitude issues. I'm not saying the issues don't need to be fixed somehow, just that this does not seem to be, from past experience, an effective way of going about it. What Calton needs may be a "critical friend" he can trust, or some firm advice from an arbiotrator in private or something, but right now the comments and the block seem calculated to wound his pride, and since it's his pride which seems to be the cause of the problem I don't see how further wounding it is going to help. Sorry, I'm not saying this especially well as it;s much more nuanced than that, and I'm really not having a go at anyone, I just think that we need to find a better (read: effective) way of dealing wiht this kind of thing. Geogre says it far better than I do, which is why I urge people to read his talk page, comments and archives. The Geogre is wise in the ways of human nature. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Support unblocking. Too much emphasis is placed on 'civility', a highly subjective and over used excuse for blocking. --Duk 22:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Block shortened

As said above, there was no call for a two-week block; I shortened it to 72 hours. If consensus develops here to unblock earlier than that, that's fine with me too, but I felt action was necessary on the block length. Chick Bowen 00:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you look over the previous incidents involving Calton before you made this decision? Did you consult the blocking admin? Is it really worth wheel-warring to defend Calton? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear--I am not defending Calton; I think his comments today were designed to inflame the situation, and that's unacceptable. My shortening the block does not in the least undo it--it merely puts it into the realm supported by the block reason given by the original blocker. To call this wheel-warring is to misunderstand what wheel-warring is. Chick Bowen 01:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I have a strong urge to be uncivil myself here. That block change was way, way out of line, Chick. Tan ǀ 39 01:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good change, blocks are not punishment. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A two-week block is more appropriate given Calton's long-term pattern of behavior, but maybe three days will have an effect on him. When the block expires, let's have a clear consensus that future incivility will result in progressively longer blocks. And please, let's not reduce the length of the current block any further. Everyking (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously I support this, but it is not going to fix anything without some work in the background. We need to find someone who Calton trusts and is prepared to work with, who can help Calton to curb his aggression. I would really like to hear from anyone who thinks they could fulfil that role. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks was quite disproportionate. 72 hours seems like a reasonable warning shot. Nandesuka (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think he considers himself warned? Right now he's arguing for an even shorter block because admins are "overweening" and "stupid" and because he "did nothing wrong". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A little background

It was commented above that I never should have started this thread. I just want to make sure everyone is clear that all I intended was to ask whether we had actually come to any conclusion in the previous thread that archived yesterday. I had made the last comment there in which were discussing significant sanctions and then no one responded so the discussion passed into the black hole that is the AN archive. I am not totally uninvolved in that my name does show up several times on Calton's talk page and in the discussion earlier this year about his use of {{temporary userpage}}, which was solved by other means (deleting the template among other things). --Doug. 01:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you have a philosophical dispute over whether spam is userspace is speedily deletable as spam under WP:CSD#G11 then I would suggest taking it to WT:CSD, but it has always been my understanding that blatant advertising meant just that: blatant advertising, wherever it appears. Maybe the consensus view these days is that the community wants to spend five days discussing the deletion of pages where Misplaced Pages is being used for free webhosting to promote commercial entities, that is quite possible, but I'd say that trying to fix it by stopping one person from so tagging userpages is not the best way of dealing with it. Some examples would be good as part of that debate, most of the G11 tagged userpages I've seen have been ones where I completely agree that it's an advert and needs gone, but of course I am a heartless deletionist and my dislike of spammers is well known. There are certainly other issues, but I don't see how they can easily be rolled into one with this specific point, which is a matter for legitimate disagreement between good-faith users. So: separate it out and see what people think? If you like we could use User:SpeakerBoxLLC (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a case study. Calton is not involved there at all. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not about CSD G11, I am not aware of any issues with Calton misusing CSD G11, if you have read the earlier thread, the consensus seemed to be drifting towards allowing Calton to use CSD rather than simply a community limited ban against any userpage editing (aside from his own). He had been most recently blanking pages. Please read the earlier thread. It's on the most recent archive and it's linked above. If it hadn't archived, my position would be a little clearer maybe. Thanks.--Doug. 13:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The link again was Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 and the mention was of any CSD, the example used there was U2, not G11. The issue is that Calton has shown historically that he just finds another way to do what he wants. After {{temporary userpage}} was eliminated he used the cat, then he was told not to use the cat, I think that was after another AN, and he eventually went away for a while and then came back using PROD, at some point that I wasn't even watching, he got a 0RR restriction, and he most recently has been blanking userpages that he personally believes are either advertising or worse "non-existent" (his shorthand for gone and not coming back) only sometimes they do come back. Read the prior thread and you'll see what I'm talking about. Ryan actually started this thread and I've only revived it since we never settled on the final sanctions (but seemed to settle that there would be sanctions) So I felt we needed to resolve it.--Doug. 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's clearer to me now thanks, I can perhaps try to have a discussion offline about this as I think that particular problem is fixable. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So the question remains

Have we settled on what we're going to do? Guy wants to try to address the issue offline, but we seemed to have an agreement at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 to sanction Calton in the ways I've noted above. Additionally, we noted an earlier 0RR sanction but there is no mention of it on his talk page. Do we have a link to the earlier discussion that contained this sanction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug (talk • contribs) 13:01, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

The 0RR restriction was never actually decided on because he simply stopped editing during the AN discussion. Someone needs to determine if there was consensus for 0RR and then formally inform him of it. –xeno (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is something he has had a tendency to do in each of the prior discussions.--Doug. 22:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't a party to the 0RR discussion, so I'm not sure what led to it. Can anyone help?--Doug. 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty clear at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive164#Calton_.28again.29 that we were at least prohibiting any edits to userpages (other than his own), with the exception of nominations for CSD or MFD. In other words, no more page blanking. The discussion there certainly seemed to suggest an earlier 0RR had been agreed upon.--Doug. 22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But that would stop him from tagging blatant spam in user space. I still think that dialogue is likely to be more effective than symptom-fixing. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to stop the good spamfighting work he does, just the edit warring when someone comes along and decides that a particular bit isn't delete-worthy. –xeno (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I feel like I'm in a completely different forum. In the prior discussion one of the big issues, probably the biggest, was his incessant blanking of userpages with an edit summary of "nonexistent user".--Doug. 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, shouldn't the outcome be :

1. No edits to other users' userpages other than to tag them for CSD or MfD - this allows him to carry on with his G11 work, but stops the "blanking non-user's page" he's engaged in in the past.
2. If CSD is declined, either by another editor removing the tag or an admin declining speedy, his only recourse is to tag it for MfD - retagging it for CSD would be expressly prohibited (although this wouldn't apply if the tag is removed by the user whose userpage it is).
3. If a report to UAA is declined he can discuss it with the declining admin (subject to the below), to outline his reasons, but relisting it at UAA is expressly prohibited.
4. In any discussions with any user he disagrees with, no matter how much he may feel that his intelligence is being insulted, he adheres strictly to WP:CIVIL and acknowledges that there are mechanisms to find a resolution to the dispute (ie. if there's a disputed CSD tag, MfD will resolve whether the page stays or goes) that don't have to involve hectoring and wiki-lawyering with everyone who disagrees with him.

And...forgive me if I'm wrong...but aren't those basically the rules that apply to everyone anyway? _Gb 07:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop making sense right this very minute Gb. You're ruining the drama. I still have half a bowl of popcorn. Keeper ǀ 76 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Salt? Or sweet? _Gb 20:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Popcorn was never meant to be anything other than salty. Anything else is just unnatural. Keeper ǀ 76 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Support community ban of Calton. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Range block on Soccermeko

Soccermeko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't let up one bit on his disruptive editing since he was banned in March. Since then he's been the subject of three Checkuser requests and 13 SSP cases (latest one here). He edits primarily from two dialup ranges in Atlanta, so it would seem that Kww's proposal for a rangeblock would be a no-brainer.

The only thing that gives me pause is that his IP is Level 3. Although from what Kww told me only five edits out of the last 200,000 from those two ranges are constructive, the fact this is a major backbone provider is the only thing that kept me from softblocking those ranges immediately.

I believe, however, that considering the negligible number of constructive edits, it's worth the risk of collateral damage. I thus propose that the ranges be softblocked for at least two months. Thoughts? Blueboy96 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what I meant: I scanned the last 200000 anonymous edits (about 3 days), and 5 of them were valid edits from that range. I don't have the ability to scan the last 200000 edits from a particular range. I think a couple month's softblock on two /16s is quite reasonable, still.
Kww (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

sound of crickets chirping
At the very least, it looks like there won't be a vast upwelling of opposition if you put the blocks in place, Blueboy96.
Kww (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And today, a fresh sign of an absolute lack of remorse.Kww (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith, you try to prove the impossible. Besides a probability of similiar edits, you cannot think of any other reasons why I should be block. I can edits and if you don't like then worry about somebody else. The rules of sockpuppetry do not apply to me due the fact of me not having a sockpuppet. However it may apply to you because User:Kww and User:Blueboy96 could be sockpuppets, you already make similiar edits. 4.154.4.169 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Soccermeko. You've just made our case for us. Ranges 4.154.0.0/16 and 4.129.0.0/16 are now softblocked for 2 months. Blueboy96 18:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've narrowed the block to 4.129.64.0/21 and 4.154.0.0/21. Based on Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Soccermeko, nearly every IP falls within there. If there's still substantial disruption, then I think we can consider extending the ranges. Spellcast (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship on Bigfoot article, even Bigfoot Talk page was reverted

I'm here to report that there is someone on here who is censoring certain things about Bigfoot, claiming that I'm someone else and that people who shoot at Bigfoot is pure silliness, spam, worse. The links provided prove that there are people out there who will shoot anything that moves, which could get someone killed. Links are http://www.lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/bigfootshootings.aspx and http://www.highdesertbigfoot.com/Shooting-Cases.htm Because I'm here, it is a good chance that I may end up harassed, blocked for reporting this censorship. Someone I know gave me the links and told me what has been going on here. One of the reverted "silliness", "spam" links was a hunting/gun magazine that had asked its subscribers if they would really shoot at a bigfoot, while other reverted "silliness" reported that police officers have shot at Bigfoot. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• ZOMG! Censorship! Suppression! Oh, wait, it's just another lame edit war. As you were, then. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in no "edit war" at all, thus is why I came here. Seems the proper thing to do. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me those links are not to reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I present this one: http://www.wtvynews4.com/news/headlines/12443276.html - TV News: Teen dresses up as Bigfoot, nearly gets SHOT! Really appreciate the help. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC) :)

The recent hoax in Georgia (US Georgia) has got people asking about other people shooting at Bigfoot. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The OP is engaged in a novel synthesis from (unreliable) sources. No problem, though, I'm sure discussion will help him to understand our views on this, we'll see how we get on from there. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The two of us is discussing this matter. Again, thanks for the help. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

horns.aiff Jtrainor (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What is "horns.aiff" ? Going now to Endorse Misplaced Pages. You guys earned it.205.240.146.233 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-GaXa8tSBE Jtrainor (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• BIGFOOT IS REAL--MONGO 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Invalid fair use of stamps: Admin/bot action required

The category: Category:Fair use stamp images has bee flooded with stamp images that do not qualify as fair use. In particular, many of these stamps are being used to illustrate the subject rather than the stamp. The fair use criteria prohibits such use. I raised the issue last year (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59#Fair_use stamps: revisitied ...), and the category was cleaned up of invalidly licensed stamps. However, over the last year, many more stamps have been added to illustrate the subject of the stamp, rather than the stamp itself.

Note that, a one liner about "In so and so year, govt of so and so released a stamp to commemorate so and so" cannot be used as a sneaky way to bypass the FU criteria.

Examples of invalid fair use claims are:

• Image:Singapore stamps festival.jpg - stamp used to illustrate Culture of Singapore, rather than the stamp.
• Image:Kipling nobel fdc1967.gif used in the biography of Rudyard Kipling
• Image:Sello Mexicano de Lola la Grande.jpg used in the article Ranchera
• Image:Liu Hui stamp.jpg used in biography of Liu Hui

Amazingly, I picked 4 stamps in the category at random, and all 4 turned out to be fake fair use claims. None of thees articles are on the stamps.

So, a massive cleanup is required for this entire copyvio category. Perhaps like the last time, a bot can be used to remove all these images from the articles, and later process them. It seems that only a few of the stamps in this 200+ images are real fair uses (i.e. used in articles on those stamps), almost all of them are actually fake claims of fair use. --Ragib (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I have scores of valid fair uses of stamp images, I'm not keen on the idea of a bot deleting all those and making me restore them manually or some such. Part of the problem is that for many people, "released a stamp" is a significant event, they not realizing how many such stamps are issued year in and year out. So we need to specify better just what it is about a non-free stamp that makes it a valid fair usage in articles about the stamp's subject. A great many of the stamp in this category are Scouting-related, and the Scouting fans fight deletions vigorously, in some claiming the stamp is "evidence for Scouting in that country" (which it's not, many countries issue Scouting-related stamps purely to sell to gullible collectors). In any case, mass deletion is not the solution. Stan (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with the stamps on a one by one basis. The third and fourth stamps I have an issue with; the Mexican stamp was decoration. The article already had 3 images, plus this woman was only mentioned in the context of the caption. The stamp wasn't even used in the article on her. The stamp about Liu Hui, there are some drawings of him online, but I am not able to determine the age of the drawings. User:Zscout370 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the drawing of the Liu Hui stamp may be old and in PD, but the stamp is a 2002 release, and certainly copyrighted by PRC govt/post. So, no matter how old the drawing is, we can't use the stamp image to illustrate the subject. A quick Google image search shows many other drawings/images of the subject, so the use of the copyrighted stamp cannot be defended at all. --Ragib (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"maybe be old and in the PD" isn't good enough for Wikimedia. We need to know for certain if the work is in the public domain before I start to push for the removal of the stamp image. I am not sure how others feel, but I personally go by this: unless proven otherwise, the media file is unfree. I am going to try and look more, but I got work soon. User:Zscout370 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I totally agree with your first comment. But the the stamp usage violates the basic criteria used in the Fair use notice in the stamp page, namely,

"This image is of a postage stamp. The copyright for it may be owned by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction. It is believed that the use of postage stamps

• to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)

So, doesn't matter that there may not be other images of Liu Hui ... as long as you are not writing about the stamp itself, you can't get a free ride on Fair use claims by using a stamp to show his likeness in his biography. This is the main misunderstanding about Fair use that made so many people violate copyright of stamp images in the first place. --Ragib (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this needs to be resolved ... as some editors consider a mere one liner mention of the stamp to be in compliance with the Fair use requirements "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)". My recent removal of a stamp from Scouts of Syria showing scouting in UAR was reverted by User:Kintetsubuffalo claiming this somehow "shows continuity" (amazingly, the text doesn't even mention the stamp, and there should reasonably be no dearth of images of scouts in Syria that would require a fair use image to begin with). So, we need a discussion on this massive copyright violation. --Ragib (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• oppose use of bot, and I am totally claiming bad faith on User:Ragib. First, the tag say "may be a copyright violation", not is. Second, ragib's smearing of me personally for a single reversion shows ragib's low character. Third, ragib's use of massive to describe a single, perceived copyright violation shows that ragib has no sense of proportion. I'd really like an admin to weigh in on this. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing!! You picked a copyrighted stamp from your album (as mentioned in the image page), scanned it, and added that NOT to the article on the stamp, but on an article related to things depicted on the stamp. What part of your argument satisfies illustration of the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamps design)???

As for the "massive" comment, that clearly doesn't apply to your copyright violation. Rather, as discussed at the start of this thread, this applies to the 200+ copyrighted stamps falsely used with fake fair use claims. --Ragib (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the copyright issue, you yourself know pretty well that this is a copyrighted image (as you used the fair use claim), so using it without satisfying the fair use criteria at all *is* a copyright violation. Let's get back to the massive copyvio of the 200+ falsely claimed fair use stamps. --Ragib (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do believe the only course is to look at the images one by one, as what I am doing. No bot will work, since a bot cannot really check if the rationales are good or not. It is going to take a while, but I am going to weed out the non-hackers from the articles and arrange them for deletion. User:Zscout370 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for helping. If some more eyes can look into the problematic stamp images, we will be able to root out the copyvios quickly. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ragib, they are not copyvios. Copyvio is when someone just claims the stamps as theirs or lies about the license. This isn't the case here, just some misunderstanding on how fair use works. User:Zscout370 06:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Zscout370, while you're at it, can you teach ragib some manners? His snideness and sarcasm do not help the situation. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Chris, isn't this a personal attack? Where above, or elsewhere, did I misbehaved with you? Provide the diffs, or otherwise, please don't make any personal attacks. We all need to keep Misplaced Pages a free repository of knowledge, and misusing "Fair Use" certainly isn't a good idea at all. --Ragib (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You two stop, now. Chris, you know where to find me and I will try and help sort this out with you. User:Zscout370 06:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A bot doing this is not appropriate at all. Bots can not make the FU decisions that need to be made by a human. Zscout370 seems to be willing to work with both sides here so I suggest both sides use that opportunity. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is believed that the use of postage stamps

• to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)

Ragib, when a stamp is used , correctly or not, it inherently illustrates it's own image, so the only way to totally satisfy that criteria is to have a picture of stamp with a blurred out image. (just my opinion) KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 11:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to use of a bot. Each FUR for these images needs to be carefully examined — individually — by human eyes to determine compliance with our NFCC policy. Also, starting off a thread here at AN with such inflammatory words as "sneaky" and "fake" is at variance with AGF. Especially for a long-established, respected editor such as Chris/Kintetsubuffalo. JGHowes - 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, did I "start off a thread here" with "sneaky" comments against Chris? He himself kept violating the terms of use, and showed a poor understanding of FUC, besides launching a personal attack. And "longstanding" means nothing in case of copyright violations, and false use of "fair use" tags. Chris/Kinketsbuffalo clearly knows that the image was scanned from his album and is not a PD/free image, and also has been informed of the invalidity of the fair use claim. Without showing any proof why the stamp would still be used, he and you are rather shooting the messenger. --Ragib (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's get to the point

Here are the main points:

• Stamp images, which are copyrighted by the copyright holder (postal departments/govts), cannot be used in Misplaced Pages in any manner other than fair use claims.
• Even if used under "fair use" claims, the tag specifically mentions that the image can ONLY be used "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)".

So, using a stamp in an article to use as a substitute of a photo depicting the subject is NOT allowed in any case. So, what exactly is the argument favoring the usage of such images? Contrary to Zscout's comment above, this IS a copyright violation. --Ragib (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As I told you, it will be a fair use violation. Copyvio is a different can of worms, as I told you. Now, I am trying to deal with some of the stamp images and I have been reverted at the Ranchera article. As I have told the user, the women on the stamp isn't discussed at all in the article in any sort of length. She just has a link and that is it in 3 places, including the stamp caption. That is an example of what is not fair use. I also began to look at the stamp used by Canada with regards to "In Flander's Field." The text of the poem is public domain by law and the text appears in several places. So some uses of that stamp are no-go, but one place might be able to use it. User:Zscout370 04:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser

I'm not really sure where to post this, but I figured AN was a good, noticeable spot with lots of knowledgeable users.

I was just about to send an e-mail to another user when I saw this message for the first time:

A (non-public) log of this action will be kept for abuse prevention purposes via the Checkuser function. The log entry for an email does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the email. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia server administrators ("developers") can verify the recipient account, which CheckUsers can only see in hashed form

Was this always the case? Is this a new change? I've gotta say, I'm a bit upset about this. Why on earth does a checkuser need access to this information, and where was it documented that they would get access to this? -- Ned Scott 07:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this yesterday - I guess/suspect it only records the fact that X sent an email to Y, at D time rather than anything more specific. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, but I don't see how that would help a checkuser. And to correct/clarify my original message, I would say I'm less upset and more.. confused and concerned. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The message says that the recipient, title, and contents aren't visible to CUs, but I suppose date/time, user, IP, and browser information would be. WODUP 08:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The information is user-so-and-so sent an email at such time to a user -- we see a hash of the username so that we can identify multiple emails to the same account, which could be indicative of abuse. We don't see identities, content or subject of the email or any other information that we wouldn't see when looking at a user's edit to a page. Sam Korn 08:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's alright.. -- Ned Scott 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It may have some utility to detect (or verify claims of) email harassment/bombing, though honestly I'm not sure how often that would come up. I don't think there's too much cause for concern until/unless the content or subject of the email become accessible to other users (hashing the recipient's name is a nice touch, though). – Luna Santin (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See bug 15103. MER-C 08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I would hope everyone already knew better than to use Special:Emailuser for "private" communication. — CharlotteWebb 14:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

How else are you supposed to communicate with another editor if you don't know their email address? Corvus cornix_talk 20:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Their user talk page? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Having seen this somewhere else, I'd suggest emailusering them saying "Please email me back, I'd like to discuss something" since once one is out of the WP system, MW can't track it. MBisanz 02:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice

We need small advice. On talk page of article Talk:World War II persecution of Serbs user Kirker has writen comments about non-existing edit warring or better to say about edits of banned user which has been reverted. I have deleted comments of Kirker from talk page because of Misplaced Pages:Banning policy (it is not possible to comment edits which do no exist), but other user has reverted my deleting. Agreement is to ask administrator comment if my deleting is OK because of Misplaced Pages:Banning policy or his revert of my deleting is OK because of Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. We all will accept administrator decision ! --Rjecina (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Put a little more simply, is it acceptable to comment on changes suggested by a banned user? If not, should comments by editors in good standing be removed? AniMate 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally, comments shouldn't be removed if somebody has replied to them (not unless they are patently offensive in some other way) and nobody is obligated to enforce a ban by removing comments. If the end result of the discussion is improvement of the article, this outweighs other considerations (most of the time). — CharlotteWebb 20:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What makes the attempted removal frustrating is that Rjecina is removing the comments of an editor in good standing who is discussing issues raised by the banned user. Apparently, his view is that if the sockpuppeteer raised the issue we are no longer allowed to discuss it. AniMate 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor in good standing :)))) He is your wiki friend with who you are editing articles.

He is not discussing issues raised by the banned user which in 9 months before ban has not raised this issue but only after ban but writing false comments about edit warring.

My points is: We are having article with which everybody is happy until user banning. After banning this user is writing provocations and wise users are falling in trap to start edit warring and nationalistic heated debates. Bravo

Second point is: Kirker has been very clear:

"Adding and removing "genocide" from the title are NOT minor changes. I would suggest that the edit-warring on this subject be suspended while consensus is sought...."

Because there is no "Adding and removing genocide" or "edit-warring" his comments of banned user action need to be deleted.--Rjecina (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that it doesn't matter what a banned user says, since their edits are likely to be reverted on sight. Another user can make exactly the same edits, but everyone takes responsibililty for their own actions. Therefore it doesn't matter whether or not a banned user has made a suggestion on a Talk page. Any non-banned user can make any suggestion or proposal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why The Hell Has Somebody Blocked Kevin J For Adding Accurate Facts to The Bill Clinton Page?

I looked at his facts about Sally Perdue and Bill Clinton, and they were very much accurate. They didn't violate any BLP policy and had a reliable source. When I went to the user's talk page, I also saw that he had been blocked. It seemed like the user blocked him for nonsense. Telling people to lay off is not harrassment in anyway. Harrassment is when you intentionally annoy somebody and continue to write on their page. From what I saw, this user did no harrassment and it was immoral to block them. If I had a Misplaced Pages account, which I don't desire to have at the moment, I would add this uer's facts back to the Clinton page in a heartbeat.

I am requesting a block for the rude harrassers who personally attacked the user's talk page and got away with it: Bercude (whatever their name is) and Keeper 76. From what I have seen, THE USER DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. BERCUDE AND KEEPER 76 WEREN'T BLOCKED FOR BEING RUDE AND BIAS, YET YOU STILL WOULD BE WILLING TO BLOCK THIS RELIABLE USER FOR NONSENSE? YOU PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.233.213 (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't put my finger on it, perhaps just a sixth sense or something, but SOMETHING TELLS ME THIS IS KEVIN J EVADING HIS BLOCK. --barneca (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC) (aka (evidently) Bercude)

Indef block for User:Kevin j?

Actually, this might have been a tactical mistake on Kevin's part; a look thru the contribution history of this IP address shows it's been "backing up" Kevin j in content disputes, requests to desysop other admins that have crossed Kevin's path, and complaining about Kevin's blocks since December 10, 2006. Indeed, every single one of the IP's edits is backing up Kevin j Sorry, I exeggerated here; don't want this to be a loophole --barneca (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC), and on talk pages he always pretends not to be Kevin. As long as 1 year ago, the IP was patiently explaining HOW USING ALL CAPS DID NOT MEAN HE WAS ANGRY, JUST THAT HE WAS EMPHASISING SOMETHING.

I'd like input from others first, but based on this pathetically obvious sockpuppetry, Friday's ridiculous AN thread (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#I'm requesting a notice Be Issued to Tvoz and Plushpuffin to Respect the Neutral Point of View and Good Faith Policies (moved from talk)), and Kevin's previous history of rabidly attacking every single editor who disagrees with him about anything, I'm proposing an escalation of the 1 week block to indef, and blocking the apparently static IP address for, say, 6 months or a year. He's here to fight, he's been doing it for a year and a half, and I don't see what good a "final" chance is going to do. Anyone object? --barneca (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. Tan ǀ 39 00:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - Seems the only way forward. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support indef block on Kevin j. A lengthy block on the IP address may be in order, as well, based on the contribution history. Horologium (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support, Kevin J's hostile and uncivil behaviour warrant at least a lengthy block for him. As the IP address also seems to be wholly used by him, a comparable block on that seems logical. ~ mazca 00:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - I hope non-sysops are allowed to !vote here! John Sloan (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) I'm too involved! John Sloan (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Absolutely 100% no offense intended (I'm sort of one too sometimes), but we probably ought to make sure to get some input from people that aren't stalkers of Keeper's talk page too, to make sure this is completely on the up and up (and, as well, make sure it looks like it's on the up and up.) --barneca (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

One more comment then I'm going away. I'm about to go offline. I'm not on Keeper's talk page quite often enough to identify all the usual suspects; I think Shoemaker's Holiday and Horologium are independent, outside opinion; I think I've seen the rest of us on Keeper's talk page often enough to qualify. I just suggest an admin who is definitely not one of the "gang" take an independant look at this, and if you agree, please change my block of his account to indef, and change my block of his IP to a nice long block consistent with what appears to be a static IP. --barneca (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, I've never interacted with this user. It might be best to get a quick checkuser on the IP, but, frankly, it's really obvious from even a brief analysis of Kevin j's talk page that the writing styles between him and the IP are identical. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be around for awhile, taking a look now. Kevin (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the users contribs, and behavior here and elsewhere I have reblocked indefinitely, and blocked the IP for 6 months. I'm definitely uninvolved, despite the similar username. Kevin (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is hilariously disingenuous, especially considering Kevin j's earlier edit to the AN (above), accusing Tvoz of sockpuppetry. Sorry, I don't mean to gloat (too much), but this user has wasted a lot of my time (and my patience) recently. -- plushpuffin (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Allow stewards to deadmin based on community consensus

See here. (crossposting across noticeboards). NuclearWarfare _{My work} 23:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. I will take part in that discussion. It will be an important discussion. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Griot

User talk:Griot needs to be restored. It was mistakenly included in the temp user category. -- Ned Scott 23:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The full history, that is. -- Ned Scott 23:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Ned Scott 00:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel seriously attacked by admin Majorly

Sorry, but is this normal admin behaviour? That she doesn't agree with me, fine, but saying I'm clueless, prejudiced, warped, and abusing the RfA process... I can do without personal attacks.    SIS  02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly is always like that. Jumping on people once in a while. OhanaUnited 02:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think it was too bad at all - it was a strong comment in a discussion. He didn't say anything that crossed the line into incivilty. Certainly no more than most other comments in that venue. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is totally normal stuff. She's always been on that side of the argument over age and adminship.--Xp54321 02:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh jeez. Move along, nothing to see here. Tan ǀ 39 02:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thanks.    SIS  03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no crisp line between personal attack, mere incivility, and legitimate criticism. However, had Majorly, in a single comment, said, about the editor, "clueless, prejudiced, warped, and abusing the RfA process," I'd say that it would have been uncivil, for sure, and "clueless" could cross the line into personal attack. However, in context the comments were legitimate criticism, my judgment. --Abd (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're overreacting. It is rather ironic that you are opposing a candidate for "immaturity" when you can't take genuine (if forceful) criticism of your opinion. The best way to respond to criticism of that nature is to address it, rather than running away at the first sign of negativity. — Werdna • talk 02:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with Majorly disagreeing with my opinion. And I'd say I addressed virtually everything she said, so I'm not running away at first sign either. It's the insults I find offensive. Unless 'prejudiced' and 'warped' aren't insults in your universe.    SIS  02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well opposing someone based on age can be considered prejudice. Simply being young doesn't mean they are not qualified for adminship Alexfusco 03:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not start that discussion here as well.    SIS  03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We must distinguish adjectives that say things we don't like about our opinions, and adjectives which are offensive. "Prejudicial" is an adjective which describes an opinion. "Warped" is a synonym for "wrong", and can be legitimately used to describe an opinion. Majorly is quite correctly addressing your opinion, and not you as a person. — Werdna • talk 03:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look again. Oh and I specifically stated I did NOT oppose for immaturity in the first place.    SIS  03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. All I can say is that in my opinion it's high time that WP:CIVIL got updated. It seems to be seriously out of touch with what apparently is considered to be an acceptable attitude by the admins. It's also an attitude I don't appreciate. I find Majorly's comments rude and needlessly aggressive. If that's considered normal than I have no wish to stay here.    SIS  03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bye then. If you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. seicer | talk | contribs 04:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See now, I find Seicer's comment above to be needlessly rude. But Majorly's comments I don't see as particularly problematic. Heated, yes. But rude and aggressive? They don't strike me that way. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad. There is not a day that goes by without someone complaining about an administrator's actions or behaviors or comments in a way that is entirely distorted or overly-exaggerated. It either ends with the following: "I'm taking my ball and going elsewhere," or "I want this administrator de-sysoped." People that cry foul over comments like Majorly's may have a valid point, but when the OP goes all Emo on us and states that he'll quit the project because he didn't get the response he wanted, then that's a failure on his part, not mine, not Majorly's, not the other editors and administrators who commented. seicer | talk | contribs 04:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about all that, frankly. What I do care about was that your comment was bloody unhelpful and downright rude to someone not being particularly uncivil or tendentious. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is a ridiculous waste of time. This account is an obvious sockpuppet, who for whatever reason has tried to impose their controversial views on RfA. He or she couldn't even last three weeks before announcing they're leaving. Good riddance in my opinion. Majorly 04:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And now an accusation of sockpuppetry as well. Obvious, even. That's ridiculous. Good riddance? Thanks a lot, guys. Glad you appreciated my work on WP. I'm not leaving because I don't get my way, I'm leaving because I don't like the aggressive atmosphere here. My opinion, my view. No need for the backstabbing.    SIS  10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this thread is not a shining example of the Misplaced Pages community we wished we had. RfA should not be an adversarial process, and truly the uninvolved people who've posted to this thread could've done with a less aggressive tone. Majorly's defense of his nominee is also overly aggressive. We could do with a little more respect for differing opinions, and somewhat less derisive dismissal of people with legitimate complaints. Avruch 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the RfA, I think Majorly has indeed been badgering multiple editors, and has responded to criticism with "Please don't ask me not to "badger" you." There are similar complaints on the admins talk page about behavior during an ongoing RfB. The comment at the start of this discussion by OhanaUnited says it all " Majorly is always like that. Jumping on people once in a while. " That may have been intended as a defense of that admin. I regard it a cause for further action. Jumping on people every once in a while is improper admin behavior, and I do not think the long tenure of this admin should provide immunity--rather the opposite. DGG (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If people make questionable votes, they can expect to get questions asked to them. If I'm such a problem, where is my RFC? Where is my RfAr? Perhaps one needs to be started. Majorly 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One editor's badgering is another's "spirited discussion". People have strong feelings on RFA. We should try to have a thick skin. Friday (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree. While we should certainly insist that RFA discussion remain civil and avoid lapsing into ad hominem, we should also not discourage conversation and exchange of ideas. Firm but polite challenging of someone else's position is in fact the best way of respecting that position. Confrontational challenging of a position -- in a provocative style, without presenting clear counter-arguments or questions to be answered -- probably qualifies as 'badgering'. This is a subtle distinction, but I think it is vital to the success of the RFA process. If we begin to censure people for 'badgering', without first patiently encouraging them to make clear arguments and present them more civilly, then we will only confirm in the community consciousness the ridiculous idea that, no matter how indefensible your RFA standards might be, you have the right to hold on to them as dogma, and have everyone else leave you alone. — Dan | talk 16:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

read the RfA. Candidates should have a thick skin, but people without should be able to comment there without being attacked for it--and then attacked here when they complain. Whatever happens at RfA, no admin who is criticized here should be arrogant here. Its they who need to show tolerance. DGG (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And what "attack" is that? I see no such attack. seicer | talk | contribs 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly has been a bit belligerent, in particular with User:SandyGeorgia. But the punishment for this kind of immaturity is automatic, not something that needs to be imposed externally. This isn't the first time that Majorly's behavior at RfA has generated de novo opposition to his nominees. Either he'll recognize that pattern and behave better, or people will stop accepting his noms because of the negative baggage he's bringing to every RfA. MastCell  18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. However, responses in RfA are based on the strength of your argument, much like XfD. If your argument for holding a particular opinion is strong, you are much less likely to be challenged for it. If your argument is weak, you are much more likely to be challenged for holding an opinion based on it. In addition, I would not be surprised to find that heavily challenged arguments garner a lower than normal weighting when analysed by the closing bureacrat. While I agree that some of the challenges constructed can be more clinical in their approach, the overall concept is sound. Many thanks, Gazimoff 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If opposers made their reasoning clear, with sound reasoning for their votes, then they wouldn't need challenging. Until they do, they will continued to be questioned (badger is such a nasty word, I much prefer question) Majorly 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly has been involved in a number of contretemps in recent months. I have even seen discussions where he claimed that no one should be allowed to oppose people at RfA, and that each "oppose" is equivalent to harassment. Of course, he stated that this is only true if he "supports" the candidate; if he also opposes the candidate, then opposition is appropriate since it would meet with his approval. I detect an increasing difficulty in associating with others in a communal consensual environment on the part of Majorly. I do not understand what is driving this increasing hostility towards his fellow editors on Misplaced Pages. Majorly, I would invite you again to meet me for private voice discussions on Skype to see if some of this aggressive behavior can be understood and hopefully decreased.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The last time you tried to talk to me you were incredibly rude and I felt very uncomfortable talking. I'll be happy to chat if you can keep yourself civil. Majorly 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BITE Protonk (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avruch, Dan, Filll, and Avruch. Well said. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion that Misplaced Pages structure, such as it is, encourages editor burnout; some editors become increasingly cynical and ready to assume that newcomers or others are trolls and vandals and out to damage the project; as this increases, incivility increases and the editor encounters more confrontations, confirming the opinion, etc. I'm not familiar enough with Majorly to have much of an opinion about this specific editor; but comments here could indicate burnout. The original comments at the RfA were fairly mild, as such things go, but, as I noted above, I can also understand why a relative newcomer -- if the editor in question is such -- could take them as uncivil. Here, it got worse. I was recently blocked for expressing a milder suspicion of sock puppetry. The suspicion here was reasonable, but stating it as a conclusion, and tacking "good riddance" on was not. It's that impatience is characteristic of the burnout I'm talking about. It's not the individual editor so much as it is an abusive system. It might not be nearly as difficult to fix as we think, if we start looking at the situation with new eyes. The old ways of looking at it will simply reproduce what already doesn't work, long-term. --Abd (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, you were blocked, Abd? Given you apologised - of sorts - for your unfounded accusation, bringing it up here is totally irrelevant. Minkythecat (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder if the people who are defending Majorly actually read the RfA? Majorly or the links various people are providing? SIS isn't the only person whom he has badgered/attacked and this isn't an isolated incident. He's been at the heart of this type of behavior before and hasn't seemed to grow up afterwards. While I wouldn't have started an ANI report, it's not my style, I do think it is unfair and unwise to attack SIS for making a good faith report on an admin who is so clearly out of lines that his own nom has disapproves of his behavior. Telling SIS, that it is acceptable for Majorly, because "it's majorly" is not the proper response.---Balloonman 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• As an update, I also noticed that this Checkuser request for SIS was filed by majorly with pretty scant evidence. It is about to be unlisted or at least run privately but the damage has been done. Majorly went too far and drove a legitimate user from the project. We should be ashamed of her (his?) conduct. Protonk (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in this case, I wouldn't blame driving SIS off from the project on Majorly. While I think his behavior is overly aggressive and a little over the top, I don't blame him. Instead, I would blame this thread. A newbie came here seeking help with an admin that she felt was attacking her. Instead of getting support, or understanding, she was attacked by others. Personally, I find the response to her here, to be worse than anything Majorly did elsewhere (including the RFCU.)---Balloonman 19:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's probably fair. I had a one word comment above about this entire thread but figured the RFCU merited some specific mention. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The RFCU was made just in case. We can't be too careful. Majorly 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can. in the absence of disruption or harm to the project and the absence of an indicated puppet or master, we can easily not file an SSP or RFCU. An RFCU is about the most invasive sort of procedure we have on wikipedia and the threat one represents to an editor who shares an IP address with another in good faith is hard to overstate. Despite the acknowledged fact that CU's must be approved and identified by the foundation (As well as accepted as admins by the community), "outing" of an IP is a very real concern. No indication existed that the editor in question used multiple accounts to disrupt consensus building. Their involvement in that RFA did not represent an existential threat to the project. The RFCU filed against them was a fishing expedition and helped (along, as balloonman notes, with this thread) to drive that editor from the project. And the justification is that it was filed "just in case"? No. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I found their controversial views harmful. A 3 week old editor could very easily be a sockpuppet. I, for example, could create a new account, rack up a few thousand edits with Huggle, and start double voting on RfAs. I'll then claim my wife introduced me. No one would be able to tell. If this is the case here, no one would be able to tell either. If the user was double voting, what else am I supposed to do to ensure they aren't a sockpuppet, and lying to us? Majorly 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You could assume good faith. Or, failing that, not immediately initiate the most invasive investigative tool wikipedia has to offer. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- So it was a pre-emptive RFCU request, just in case at some point the editor might seem to be disruptive and based only on your opinion that her "controversial views" were harmful? Avruch 22:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat regarding a Lasik eye surgery group

In the past the article Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance has been a BLP problem, with partisans of the council or its adversaries wanting material to be included about their respective lawsuits. The war has involved addition of *external links* that would certainly be defamatory if the same material were included in the text of a Misplaced Pages article. Until now, the most recent uproar was the indefinite block in March, 2008 of the editor LasikFraud for statements you can still see linked on his Talk page. For example,

• ...will request that the victim add in Misplaced Pages editors as defendants. The same edit has the phrase, To this day, Misplaced Pages's editors have continued to serve as a mouthpiece for Glenn Hagele, by actively enabling him to post announcements of his lawsuits against his patients."

The page has been quiet for several months. But just today a new editor Brentahanson made this comment:

You may certainly complain to Wiki Administrators board. I hope that you will keep a written record of your complaint because this is precisely the information that is being sought in discovery for this lawsuit. http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/lauranell_burch/legal_docs/2008-07-July/burch-motion_to_compel_discovery_00.pdf

Suggesting to Misplaced Pages editors that they should keep records because what they do may be subpoenaed *does* sound like a legal threat. Brent Hanson is connected with the Lasik Fraud group, as you can determine from its web site. The Lasik Fraud group has been charging misbehavior by the eye surgery council which is the subject of this article, as well as its director. It is reasonable to believe that Brentahanson is a reincarnation of the indef-blocked LasikFraud account. I am planning to indef-block Brentahanson until such time as he withdraws his legal threat, but am offering the situation for review here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll block right now for the comment below mine, which on its face does sound like a threat against the community rather than an advisory. -Jéské 03:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just chiming in for the record. As far as WP:NLT goes, I think we traditionally treat "my friend/associate/whatever will sue you" as a legal threat, just as blockable as a more direct threat, as it seems to cause many of the same problems we wish to avoid. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Danke, Luna. -Jéské 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

BH

"Brent Hanson is connected with the Lasik Fraud group, as you can determine from its web site. The Lasik Fraud group" Ed, what is "The Lasik Fraud group"? Is that shorthand for "I don't know what's going on"?

With regard to your statement "I am planning to indef-block Brentahanson until such time as he withdraws his legal threat", well guess what? I'm not suing anyone. Dr. Lauranell Burch is the one who is suing Glenn Hagele and CRSQA. Your problem is going to be with her lawyer if she decides to go after Misplaced Pages. I certainly don't control, her, but if she asks my opinion, I would recommend that she name the editors of Misplaced Pages as defendants for all they have done to help out Glenn Hagele on his campaign of defamation against LASIK patients. I did make copies of a few pages on wikipedia and sent them over unsolicited to Dr. Burch's attorneys so that he can see the history of what's been going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentahanson (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about how others think, but i consider this a clear legal threat, worded so as not to literally appear to be a literal one, and good cause for an indef block. Anyway, WP keeps records of all edits and othr actions, so there's no need for any editor to be warned to preserve records, and I think further communication about this should go to the Foundation. DGG (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Good block. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Brent Hanson is named in the document he cites, as the one who allegedly revealed personal information about Hegele (instead of, as Hagele apparently claimed, the defendant, Burch), and his comment above seems a tad distorted. Burch is being sued by Hagele, but has countersued. I saw nothing in the document that indicated any hazard to Misplaced Pages, but it does indeed look like he's pushing or recommending inclusion of Misplaced Pages editors as defendants, so I agree with the classification of this as a legal threat. Hanson seems confused about our process. I rather doubt that Burch's lawyers would be so foolish.--Abd (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine

Hi, can we get a few admins watchlisting Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine? Per this source and this source, the singer and his attorney are pursuing legal action against people that are perhaps even discussing the incident, by the look of it, even getting Youtube videos of him outside the concert itself (i.e., fair use stuff, him interacting with fans outside the performance) pulled under legal threats. Someone at Richardcheese2 (talk · contribs) that may or may not be him has tried to remove references to the incident. The section was unsourced, so I just added the link to the source--given the legal hot tamale it may be admins should take over this and watchlist it. rootology (T) 04:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked user:Richardcheese2 per the username policy, pending OTRS verification. Interestingly, the same user both claims to be, and not to be, Richard Cheese. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The source might be a little thin; I'm not familiar with Geeknewscentral, so others will have to judge. The section heading could also use some work; maybe "controversy" or "Coverville 2008 performance" or some such. I added a properly formatted references section, which parsed the link Rootology added. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 05:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Geeknews may be on the thin side, but Techdirt I think was reputable. But I could be wrong. No opinion either way on the article or content. rootology (T) 05:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like user:Richardcheese2 may not be the man himself after all. User:76.124.169.190 has taken up the fight while he's blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also declined to unblock an IP caught up in an Autoblock of Richardcheese2. I added a ref to the article, but we're gonna need more on the incident in question if it is to stay. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

<--all seriousness aside, I'm profoundly disappointed that hot tamale is a redlink. Keeper ǀ 76 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(off-topic) Redlink fixed. Needs work, but it's a start. — Satori Son 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's beautiful, Satori Son! My work here is complete </offtopic> Keeper ǀ 76 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD question

Please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Public Service Announcement 2000. I was just wondering how did the closing editor come to the conclusion that the result of the discussion was to redirect when no one even mentioned it. Unless I missed something, the logic doesn't really make much sense, at least to me. (Yes, I know that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy.) Please note that I'm not looking for any kind of deletion review, rather opinions from admins, usually involved in closing AfDs. Thanks, Do U(knome)? _{or no} 05:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You should have brought this to the closing admins talk page first, if you wanted to know. Synergy 05:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's the usual thing to do when faced with a NN song which has a parent article. Yes, we could delete them, but someone might type in the title and why not redirect them to the album? Redirects are cheap. Still, If anyone wants to delete them instead, feel free. Black Kite 10:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this would normally a delete-and-redirect - the article is removed, as consensus in the AfD called for, then a redirect is created to assist people searching for the term in finding what they're looking for. In this case it was just redirected without actually deleting the history, but I don't see a problem with it as the overall outcome is basically the same. ~ mazca 13:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Local title blacklist exception

Template:" ' " needs to be a redirect to Template:Double single double (which is too long a name to be useful), to match {{" '}} (Template:Double single) and {{' "}} (Template:Single double). When I try to create the redir it says the following:

Unauthorized

The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse. If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.

If there's some form of actual abuse in the history of that page name, then it can simply be protected after being created.

The templates are pretty self-explanatory, but the short version is that the current revision of WP:MOS recommends using non-breaking spaces between adjacent quotation marks, and this is absolutely terrible advice, as it violates the semantic integrity of the page by mixing content and presentation, 1996-style. It really has to be done with CSS, and these templates do that. See the templates themselves for clear examples. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Precendent: {{!}}, etc. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, would you mind clarifying what you mean by "mixing content and presentation", and why it's a problem in this context? I have no problem with these templates, I'm just wondering what the actual reason is why a SPAN tag is superior to a nonbreaking space here given the identical appearance. Or if that discussion happened somewhere else, please point me to it if you like if it saves time. ~ mazca 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The character string "'" is not the same as " ' "; when visually spaced apart with CSS, the actual content remains, correctly, "'". See CSS and Semantic Web for more information on why something like this matters. Basically, this is needed for the same reason that CSS positioning is needed in lieu of HTML table-based layout of visual elements, and that old presentational (not content-related) HTML elements like <font> are deprecated in favor of handling presentation in CSS. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 12:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. ~ mazca 12:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done I don't see any problem with creating the redirect, feel free to slap me if I'm incorrect :) -- lucasbfr 09:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 12:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:YeaahMATE123

User talk:YeaahMATE123 looks like an attack on a person (or multiple people), but it's so incoherent that it's hard to tell. It is, however, the only edits of the User whose Talk page it is. Should this be deleted? Corvus cornix_talk 07:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of any merit on the page or in its history, deleted under G3. _Gb 08:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I just being paranoid (Copyright question)

I've posted this here since if I'm right the images in question may need to be retagged from free to fair-use, edited or deleted.

The images of the Melbourne Airport Terminal (Image:Melbairterm.png, Image:Melbairterm1111.png and Image:Melterm2.png) were uploaded by EuroKick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with the images classed as self made however the images used for the Airlines and Airport are copyrighted which means that the PD license on two of the older images are incorrect and the other doesn't have a license on it. Am I correct or incorrect? Bidgee (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly all three are problematic. The inclusion of various corporate logos in the lower right corner would make all of these images non-free to begin with, and given it is just a layout of an airport, would be easily fair use replaceable. Good find. MBisanz 14:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tiger Airways logo may attract copyright, but most of the rest probably don't. Logos, especially just text-y logos, are usually trademarked but not copyrighted. Here, though, it's probably sensible to overwrite all the names with plain text, since (at least one of) the logos are copyrighted. WilyD 14:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I'd say all but the International and SkyWest airlines are debatable as copyrighted, in any event, looking at EuroKid's talk page, he clearly does not understand our image policies or image licensing rules. I might support a prohibition from him uploading images for the time being. MBisanz 14:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I know that text (even colours) can be copyrighted (Here in Australia at least). I'll make a new image removing the need for logos. Also with the layout of the airport, does it mean that I can upload as a Free-use image or do I have to tag it as a fair-use?. Bidgee (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee, in the US the FAA releases a lot of free maps of airports that are used in most of our articles, is the Australian government has an equivalent system, that might be the best (and easiest) source. MBisanz 16:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not these are even self-made is questionable, has anyone checked the airport website to make sure these aren't copied? Mr.Z-man 15:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not on the website, but those images were uploaded in 2007, so the website may have been updated. I've tagged for CSD and we'll see if anyone objects. MBisanz 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org may help but ATM my internet connection is playing up Bidgee (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam or not?

I have a question. Isn't indiscriminate copy-pasting of non-English material ( and dozens of other examples), on talk pages a violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY? Aren't talk pages for discussions? If everybody would be copy-pasting entire sections of outdated foreign language material soon talk pages would become useless mirror of Wikisource?M0RD00R (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it spam, but I wouldn't call it a correct use of the talk page either. If Piotrus (talk · contribs) wants to translate information for an article, I'd suggest using a subpage within his/her userspace. - auburnpilot talk 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained by WP:TALK guideline, talk pages primary uses are sharing information and proposing changes. Pasting in old but highly relevant public domain text in Polish and suggesting its translation seems perfectly reasonable to me. And yes, I support moving this to wikisource and linking from the mainspace - but I object to simple removal of potentially useful information.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By sharing I think it is meant, sharing links, references etc, and not copy pasting entire sections of non-English books, that look like simple gibberish to most en-wiki users. Anyway AFAIK WP:NOTREPOSITORY is not cancelled yet, so if you find this stuff useful please move there it where might belong (Wikisource). The number of public domain foreign language texts is close to infinity and I don't think we would like to see every article to be spammed with "sources for translation" (translation that likely would never happen like in this case, it was cluttering talk page for more than two years without any use). M0RD00R (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy you cite is related to mainspace, not talkspace; I cited the relevant policy for that. We allow non-English sources, and requests for translation are a part of our normal working process. Instead of accusing others of spamming and removing useful info and suggestions from the talk, why won't you move the text from talkpages to wikisource, leaving a link to its new location on them? There already is a good start here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How long should we wait for translation? In this case this stuff was cluttering talk pages for almost 4 years I think. So how many more years should we wait - 10, 20, 100? And IMHO WP:NOTREPOSITORY, as all Wiki policies do, applies not only to main space but to talk pages as well. M0RD00R (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We will wait as long as it takes for a volunteer to translate this PD text. And it will be a longer wait if you remove the text without leaving any trace.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If community consensus will allow it, sure we can wait for another 5 or 10 or whatever more years. But so far you've been the only one who insists on keeping this clutter against WP:NOTREPOSITORY policy. So I'll just wait for more opinions of uninvolved editors and see where do we go from here. M0RD00R (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning a user I don't particularly like: review invited

I've warned Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), someone of whom I'm not terribly fond, about disrupting AFD again, this time with inserting a gigantic inline image into AFDs (example diff). I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Was it done multiple times, or just the one time? If it was just the one time, I'm not sure what you're wanting; ask Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles not to do it again and move on. It's certainly not block worthy. - auburnpilot talk 18:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He replaced it after removal several times, and this isn't the first time people have asked him to stop disrupting AFD in other ways. There was a fairly lengthy ANI thread recently - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was merely following the example of another editor at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media who was not reverted. If it is okay in one instance, then it seems odd to suddenly go after someone else elsewhere. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I found it obnoxious in the Catsuit AfD -- and that's, I think, where Le Grand picked it up. No one pulled it then; I don't see a reason to give him a hard time about putting it up *in the first place* in that other AfD. As for continuing to restore it when two users removed it and it wasn't, ya know, essential to any sort of argument . . . that's kind of a pain in the neck. Le Grand has a trigger finger for Undo when people with whom he often disagrees removes/alters his content -- Kamino, Thumperward's talk page, this AfD... Meh. --EEMIV (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose, I believe added it there, and given the precedent, i.e. lack of confrontation and in fact that that discussion did not close as delete, it seemed okay. Given that as admitted above, A Man In Black does not like me, I found his reverting it to be in bad faith/conflict of interest. Now if someone neutral like a Wizardman or DGG said it was unhelpful, then I would be okay with that. The bottom line is I found the nomination and argument in this particular discussion outright confusing given that we are talking about characters who appear in games, manga, and anime, who are mentioned in both published guides (reliable primary sources) and the occasional review, and for which the article provides out of universe information about who voiced them for example. I agree that the article should be referenced better, but is clearly discriminate and covers fictional characters that are notable by appearing in mutiple different kinds of works of fiction and for which we can verify the information. Now I cannot always make such claims in these fiction discussions, such as a number of the recent Warhammer ones; however, as I can this time, it just struck me as taking the whole deletion of fictional character articles too far and what I am saying is that if we do not delete articles for which we already had a clear keep close, then I am going to be willing to concede some of those Warhammer like ones. It is meant as a wake up call that it is time we all come to our senses and start working out compromises in these discussions and maybe even come to a means of making an actually passable fiction guideline. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is rather the sort of conduct I'm meaning, as Le Roi is saying here that he was right to put a giant picture of a fish in the middle of an AFD argument (or otherwise disrupt AFDs) because his argument in the AFD was right, and only people who agree with his AFD argument are allowed to criticize his conduct, with the implied accusation that the criticism of his conduct is a trick to try and undermine his argument. It's a distraction tactic, and a particularly effective one, given the fact that people's eyes tend to glaze over when they see what looks like another inclusionist/deletionist fight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so, the fish sucks ;-). Frankly, I think more disruptive was his return to the "copy-and-paste-but-change-some-words-to-reverse-what-you-said" nonsense, which he's been repeatedly asked not to do. Or restoring the fish when it was deleted. But for the first fish itself, he was just aping another editor who wasn't warned for an image that wasn't removed. --EEMIV (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think renominating an article for deletion that closed as a clear keep or editing someone else's posts is more disruptive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"I think is even more disruptive, so it's license for me to be as disruptive as I want as long as it's less disruptive than !"

This is tiring, and I don't see a clear way to put a stop to it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The way is for all of us to stop assuming bad faith and making pointed accusations against each other and actually focus on the articles under discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you did not oppose it (remove it and warn Father Goose) in the previous discussion, suddenly going after me is hypocritical. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And my example diff was totally wrong anyhoo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)

As I said on your talk page, I do not see how posts like this or this (scroll down) are somehow actually constructive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks more like two editors who should actively try to stay away from each other than anything else. Seems a bit petty. - auburnpilot talk 18:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors who have decided that it's best to try to stay away from LGR. Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Count me as one of them. He's fine to work with outside deletion debates, but inside them he behaves in a pretty unproductive fashion. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The below is exactly why nothing has come of this to date. Le Roi derails any conversation of his conduct with a conversation on his beliefs, and deflects any criticism of his conduct as ideological disagreement. Any attempt to engage him ideologically is derailed by his empty reversals or repetitive filibustering. It's exceedingly frustrating to deal with him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black, I will try to discuss with you at User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#Disrupting_AFD. If nothing comes of it, then I will happily stay awar from him and hope that he will do the same. My actual hope, however, is that as I indicated there, all of us on the various sides of these debates can finally come to our senses and begin working out a real and good faith compromise regarding these fiction articles. Let us finally put an end to the back and forth in these debates and see where we can actually agree to something. I have faith that on the inclusionist side DGG and I are ready to do that, and I think Judgesurreal777 and Protonk and possibly EEMIV can do so on the deletion side. Here is what I propose as my threshold for notability. It is fait accompli that a large segment of our community comes here for articles on fictional characters, locations, and weapons. A sizable segment of these readers also create and contribute to these articles. Therefore, a fictional topic (character, location, weapon, etc.) is notable and at least worthy of a redirect without deleting the edit history if it meets under any of the following:

Look, I'm not interested in arguing with you here about notability. Nobody is.

Your conduct in service of your ideological goals is disruptive. The problem is not the goals, it is the conduct. Specifically, one of the major parts of that conduct is derailing any discussion of your conduct with discussion of your ideology.

Edit warring to force discussion of your ideology here is exactly the problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated thread about notability

A Man In Black, I will try to discuss with you at User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#Disrupting_AFD. If nothing comes of it, then I will happily stay awar from him and hope that he will do the same. My actual hope, however, is that as I indicated there, all of us on the various sides of these debates can finally come to our senses and begin working out a real and good faith compromise regarding these fiction articles. Let us finally put an end to the back and forth in these debates and see where we can actually agree to something. I have faith that on the inclusionist side DGG and I are ready to do that, and I think Judgesurreal777 and Protonk and possibly EEMIV can do so on the deletion side. Here is what I propose as my threshold for notability. It is fait accompli that a large segment of our community comes here for articles on fictional characters, locations, and weapons. A sizable segment of these readers also create and contribute to these articles. Therefore, a fictional topic (character, location, weapon, etc.) is notable and at least worthy of a redirect without deleting the edit history if it meets under any of the following:

1. Appears in multiple major works of fiction, i.e. a character, location, or weapon that appears in a game, comic, film, television series, novel, and/or toy is notable as of the millions of fictional characters, locations, and weapons only a fraction also appear in other adaptations of the story. Only so many video game characters have been made into action figures; only so many video game weapons have been made into life size replicas.

2. Is a main protagonist or antagonist or is titular in nature, i.e. Soul Calibur the sword in the game Soul Calbur or Mad Max the character in the movie Mad Max.

3. Appears in a published encyclopedia. Only a handful of fictional franchises have achieved such a degree of notability that published encyclopedias exist specific to those franchises, although general fictional character encyclopedias also exist for the really notable fictional characters. Anything suitable for a paper encyclopedia, even if technically a primary source is technically encyclopedic and therefore suitable for the paperless encyclopedia that purports to be the ultimate general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedia, and almanac.

4. Lists of characters, locations, and weapons for which the individual characters and weapons may not be notable enough for their own articles but provide collective notability and serve as a compromise for those who want articles on these characters and those who do not should be acceptable as lists of characters, locations, and weapons are to fiction articles what the periodic table of elements is to the article on elements or a list of Academy Award winners is to an article on the Oscars.

5. Lists, including the "in popular culture" ones, provide a navigational function similar to a category.

6. In all of the above, so long as the material is verifiable in either although preferably both reliable primary and secondary sources, the topic is worthy of inclusion in some capacity if even only as a redirect. Multiple novels and published encyclopedias constitute considerable coverage in reliable primary sources. Usually reviews exist for such works that contain at least some mention of the fictional characters, locations, and weapons. As spinoff or sub-articles, dissertations need not be written on these specific aspects of the work of fiction to justify inclusion. Blogs and web-forums do NOT constitute reliable sources.

7. If a fictional topic is in an article title for which something with greater real world notability exists, rather than deletion editors should boldly write an article on the subject with greater real world notability and possibly move/merge the fictional content elsewhere, i.e. the example of Arathi, Abhuman, and Commander Dante.

The above would mean that Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Horus_Heresy would be kept, but Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/High_Lords_of_Terra would not be. I would be amendable to a compromise whereby something like Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_minor_characters_in_Xenosaga_(2nd_nomination) is kept as it is covered in published strategy guides, the first discussion closed as "keep," the characters are mentioned in reviews, and the characters appear in games, anime, and manga, but something like Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Marneus_Calgar is not as I cannot make such claims for that article. So, any wording that would allow for the above would be acceptable to me. So, I will see if I can get anywhere with A Man In Black, if I can't so be it, but otherwise, it is time we all sit down and see if we can come to a real and honest consensus regarding these fiction articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This content, while exhaustive, is very much misplaced here. Take it to WT:N, WT:FICT. This is not the forum to hash out and seek approval of your definition of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what we need to be doing negotiating on Notability and Fiction. It is time we all actually start to have the constructive discussions and stop the unproductive ad hominem approach. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So do it. Rather than wasting your time and our having the same fights every day on random AfDs because the guidelines say something that you don't agree with, argue to get the guidelines changed in the proper forum before there's any more bad blood. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is what I am trying to get others onboard to have that discussion rather than wasting all of our times with nominating AfDs that just turn into "fights" rather than arguments, i.e. instead of going back and forth unproductively in AfDs, let us pause from that and focus our efforts finally on ironing out a legitimate compromise on fiction that we can all live with. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be an excellent debate to have elsewhere, but, for the third time, this is a wholly inappropriate forum for it. — Satori Son 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Time_to_compromise and Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Time_to_compromise where this discussion may continue. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OuijaBoardOuijaBoard

I wonder if he saw that coming? Keeper ǀ 76 14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at the contributions of OuijaBoardOuijaBoard (talk · contribs)? Besides occasional bouts of vandalism, he/she has created a TON of fake flag images and is playing some sort of game in his/her user space. Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL?? You backstabbers! Now you must apoligise!! NOW --OuijaBoardOuijaBoard (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... this guy needs to be blocked. His contributions indicate that the vast majority of his edits have been to sub-pages of his own user page, which he's using for who knows what most likely disallowed reason. His other edits have included removing well-cited information against consensus and then complaining about his removals being reverted , and generally making a nuisance of himself. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What I do on my userpage is personal and private! What is wrong with it? I am not doing anything wrong on it! --OuijaBoardOuijaBoard (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking or memorial site. Misplaced Pages is not your web host. Corvus cornix_talk 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but since anyone can view or edit one's talk page, it's neither private or personal. You're going to need to go offsite for that. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not treating it as a webspace provder, blog or social website, I was just collecting results for a game for a future wikipedia article. --OuijaBoardOuijaBoard (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed several of OBOB's subpages, which were apparently dedicated to either playing some kind of game or to recording game statistics, and I have left notes on his talk page regarding tendentious editing and use of user pages. If he wishes to create an article, then he can go ahead and do so; he doesn't have to wait to have all the relevant information (and should note that articles should not be merely lists of statistics). Hopefully OBOB will take his concerns regarding article content to the appropriate article talk page(s) and settle in to contributing usefully. If he instead continues to be disruptive, he may be blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And I deleted the main userpage. Totally inappropriate usage of userspace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked indefinitely. Has anyone gone back and looked through his contribs? Obviously a disruptive editor and a serious negative for Misplaced Pages. Game over. Tan ǀ 39 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Block Endorse: I agree with What both Exploding Boy and EVula have said. This user clearly cant understand the policies of wikipedia and looking at the contributions hasnt really grasped the ideas of wikipedia. The contribs are mostly to his userpage and his user talkpage. Not many constructive edits looking at each individual contribution most of them have been vandalism. I say most because some have been on the border line between ok and vandalism BountyHunter2008 (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if one can stretch their good faith boundaries enough to include this user, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required pretty much sums this up. Tan ǀ 39 20:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are just a few of his stupid edits Removing basic english to make nonsense

Insulting a rock band aka Aerosmith Changing Olympic page creation of American Flag mixed with Iraq flag. Weird Island drawing of a flag. There are many many more contribs like this. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block Good job, Tan. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

William P Young vs. William P. Young

Need someone with more experience than me to sort out the link redirects on this one. William P Young and William P. Young both have pages. Not sure how to delete one of them to clear this up. Also not sure of Wiki standards for which one should be kept and which deleted. Thank you for you time. C. Williams (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

William P Young appears to be a redirect (created last month) to William P. Young...are you sure those are the two articles you were talking about? _Gb 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, William P Young is a redirect to William P. Young. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Although, that said, I've just noticed that Talk:William P Young didn't redirect to Talk:William P. Young, so perhaps that's where the confusion arises. It does now. _Gb 07:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

user:toppertoy

On RC patrol, I notice that toppertoy has filed a checkuser request (Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia) which shows substantial Misplaced Pages experience, even though the toppertoy account is only a few days old and has only a couple of contribs. Something doesn't smell right here. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm investigating it now, have blocked a whole host of accounts and will be commenting there as soon as I've finished. Sam Korn 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think a check request is suspicious, you can note it on the RFCU page. Toppertoy would not be the first person filing a CU who turned out to be a sock himself. Thatcher 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Smoddy's checking has turned up several sockpuppets, here. It looks like Toppertoy (talk · contribs), _Hippohitter (talk · contribs), and Hoppyginko (talk · contribs) have made some content edits. Several accounts were used for apparent vandalism/harassment, including _Pootle456 (talk · contribs), _Hottofu (talk · contribs), _Type3421 (talk · contribs), Werta45 (talk · contribs), and _Gyrocheck (talk · contribs). Several sleepers have also been blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, just coming in here and finding out I was accused of being a sock! I must admit I had been edititn a while as an IP and beame familiar with what DRV was, but that doesn't mean I was a sock of Kitia! S/he took the disruptive purpose to editing, while I try to be as civil as possible! I'm glad I cleared my name, at least. --I'm an Editorofthewiki 03:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that I make absolutely no comment about those allegations other than that it is not a question that CheckUser can answer. I don't wish to give the impression that I have "cleared your name" or taken a position either way on the allegations. Sam Korn 18:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of abusive sockpuppetry

who is the real parent account here?

Was the sockmaster account previously someone else we know? Kind of an odd first edit, they were after and knowing where to ask for Rollbacker after exactly one hour, and this is a heck of a defense for a simply new 2-week old user. Who is this really to merit such a defense? rootology (T) 13:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

She says she is 18 and edits in the nude... Since the comments on her talkpage mentions a college ip address, there is the possibility of there being some of her friends (especially the female ones) being persuaded to contribute to the encyclopedia under the same circumstances... Why shouldn't guys people wish to extend Good Faith? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Always AGF, certainly. But a new user within a day of their joining wading into asking for rights and helping on Arbitration in 48 hours?? This is just like User:Janeyryan, someone who has a history here. I was asking who the known parent was (if any) in this case since Crimp It! account was clearly troublemaking. rootology (T) 13:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My good faith doesn't extend to those who can weasel their way around WP in only a matter of hours. Even if they are 18. And in college. And female. seicer | talk | contribs 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

...and nude! LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

...and loves you! Mike R (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't safe to assume that "Kristen Eriksen" is female. Looie496 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So why are we blocking again? I think I missed it. seicer | talk | contribs 14:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See the Accusation of abusive sockpuppetry section above. Basically, "Kristen Eriksen" is suspected of creating a sock puppet named "Crimp it!", in order to attack User:Krimpet. Looie496 (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked, but the account Crimp It! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is and CU has determined a likely relationship between the two accounts. Kristen Eriksen has been asked to explain the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, but that does explain a lot. Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 15:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, most everyone missed the irony in every comment I have made in this section (excepting the previous one - and this one). There really does need to be a "caustic" icon... LessHeard vanU (talk)

Wait. You mean the "." symbol isn't commonly recognized as denoting irony? --CBD 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Fe"! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

<-Rootology, I checked this editor quite early, being suspicious that someone would target a new user for Grawp-like 4chan vandalism after less than 48 hours here. I think it is safe to say that there is no other identifiable account here. If there was, it would lend extra weight to the argument that Crimp It! was an abusive sockpuppet rather than a "friend/roommate/etc" at the same location. I personally think this person is trying to put one over on all of us (and succeeding quite nicely, too). Given the IP findings here, the middle road of blocking Crimp It! and asking for an explanation from Kristen seems most appropriate. Thatcher 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

I've been on the road the past couple days (making a pit stop at Starbucks as I type this, actually) and, erm, I don't understand why this ended up as a huge discussion here on AN. Everything pertinent has already been said above; I asked Lar to check out that account that was impersonating me, and he told me that this doppelgänger and Kristen were operating from public IPs from the same university, a conclusion I see other checkusers now agree with. I think this is clearly a pair of good hand/bad hand accounts intended to poke fun at those userboxes I deleted a few days ago (I'm almost 100% sure I know who's behind it, for that matter - the same upstanding citizen that created a page about me on Encyclopedia Dramatica). Barring some incredible explanation from "Kristen," I think we can safely say they've been caught, and the matter can be considered closed. krimpet✽ 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the userboxes... I think that's the final piece of the puzzle, then. John254, you've been duped. Let me paint a picture: Someone is annoyed about userboxes being deleted, user creates a sockpuppet to put (broadly) similar userboxes on their page, and creates a vandal (with a name based on the admin who deleted the userboxes) to attack them and their page with the userboxes. --Random832 (contribs) 16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The ED theory fits with the 4chan vandalism noted above as well. Thatcher 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at CAT:CSD again

Major backlog at CAT:CSD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Move protection for user pages which had been moved against the rules

After having done this a few times, I realized that it may be a good idea to ask whether it should be done. If a user moves his/her user page, talk page, or a user subpage, is it proper, after moving the page back, to move-protect the page? The alternative may end up being a user moving it again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do this usually, when a page is move-vandalized. SQL 11:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This particular case is not vandalism but a mistaken user who thinks moving the user page will rename the account (incidentally they forgot the "User:" namespace prefix). Best to direct them to Misplaced Pages:Changing username and let the bureaucrats handle this. — CharlotteWebb 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio - Permission granted issue

I'd be grateful if an admin would consider removing a copyvio notice placed on Wessex Institute of Technology. In short, there was on the face of it copyvio from the wessex.ac.uk website at the time the notice was placed ... wessex.ac.uk has now posted a GFDL permission for all text on its site, here. If there are further steps required by wessex (such as OTRS) then now would be a good time to surface them. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As the person who placed the copyvio tag, this all seems to have been sorted out now so I see no problem in the tag being removed if an administrator agrees (assuming the copyright notice is ok). Verbal chat 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice removed. nancy 14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

External link templates to (mainly) Wikia sites

I'm not sure how to proceed on this, and would like some feedback. Recently, I've come across Category:External link boxes. There are 18 templates in that category. Of those, all but two take the form of, for example {{BabylonProject}}. This creates a right justified box that is fairly similar to {{Commons}}. I'm troubled by this because this creates the false impression that Wikia projects are sister projects of Wikimedia projects. This is false. The actual sister projects are listed at Misplaced Pages:Wikimedia sister projects.

There's been some related prior discussion in templates for deletion. In particular, Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_16#Wikia_besed_and_other_template and Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_24#Template:Battlestar_Wiki_.26__Template:Memory_Alpha.

I think that, at a minimum, it would be appropriate to transform these templates into the form exhibited by {{Digimon Wiki}} and {{TardisIndexFile}}. This would break the false presentation that the Wikia projects are sister projects.

Still, I question whether these templates should exist at all. If the respective web sites being linked to are significant sources of secondary information, they would be useful. But, some wikis are little more than fan sites. Of the 18 sites referenced in Category:External link boxes, only two (near as I can tell) have links on the Meta:Interwiki map. Some of these Wikias are quite small. For example, Deckipedia has just 26 articles. Earl Wiki has 116.

Also of concern is the fact that at least one (and possibly more) of these sites have licenses incompatible with Misplaced Pages. I cite Memory Alpha in this case (see MemoryAlpha:Copyrights).

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that we shouldn't give the impression of sister sites. However, with the current prevailing approach that a lot of material is excessively inappropriate for wikipedia and the encouragement of transwiki to retail that information elsewhere, we really need to encourage that people use appropriate offsite wikis more and link these in from articles where the information has been taken from. Obviously this applies only to cases of GFDL-consistent wikis, but then in the case of something like Memory Alpha which is the primary source for Trek information, its hard to not suggest linking it in. At this point, it should come down to editor consensus if a site is sufficiently important as an EL to be linked regardless of license. --MASEM 16:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm troubled mainly by the impression of sister projects. I'd like to see the format of the templates change to move away from that impression. As to whether an external link is appropriate, I'm fine with there being consensus to include or not include a link to an external resource. I'm just thinking mainly that we need to do away with the right justified box format that looks perilously close to sister project boxes, like the ones for Wikiquote and Commons for example. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem like a matter that requires attention from administrators specifically. Admins have no special say or importance in developing policy. You may wish to raise this interesting and pertinent issue at WP:VPP or similar community noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.172.162 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm addressing administrators because they are frequently experienced in related matters. My posting was specifically targetted. Thanks for the suggestion all the same. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

However, with the current prevailing approach that a lot of material is excessively inappropriate for wikipedia and the encouragement of transwiki to retail that information elsewhere, we really need to encourage that people use appropriate offsite wikis more and link these in from articles where the information has been taken from. There are some concerns that occasionally get brought up that we're biased towards using Wikia in particular, rather than other appropriate (i.e. they accept the sort of content and use the GFDL) offsite wikis such as, say, Wikinfo or Mywikibiz. --Random832 (contribs) 19:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• While not endorsing the content of Wikia sites, or granting them any special status, there is the pragmatic point of ease of transwiki plus at least the goals of their umbrella organisation are not actively inimical to ours. Many of these sites are exactly what is needed to help fans hone their editing skills and exercise their enthusiasm for list of continuity errors featuring Tricorders in Star Trek the original series. Not just Wikia, of course, but most of the material in question is more likely to find a home there than Wikinfo, it tends to be a bit... specific. If you see what I mean. To the point that IIRC people have tried to bring stuff here that was rejected from Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia. So: I see this as harmless at worst and actually most likely actively beneficial. Usual caveats re editorial discretion, and careful wording on the templates, but let's see if we can't make good things from this. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• This has been extensively discussed at the root of the problem, template talk:FreeContentMeta. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OR?

The Anon IP keeps adding information which just goes to a flight page which I see as WP:OR since it's not a press release and just because there is more flights that you can chose from doesn't make it reliable since there is no press releases about the changes of flights. Bidgee (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of action

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

Consensus: Jenna did a good thing. MBisanz 20:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know what the community thinks of my recent change to the userrights of Coffee (talk · contribs · logs), formerly Chet B Long. He was granted rollback in January of this year (seen here). In February, his rights were changed from Rollbacker to Admin. Details noted in a section above, he recently resigned his admin rights under a cloud. By his request, I restored his rollback. Jennavecia 16:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Harmless action. MBisanz 16:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• No problem by my reckoning, unless the 'cloud' he'd resigned his adminship under had been something to do with edit-warring (the only thing rollback is generally misused for), which it wasn't. ~ mazca 16:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, Coffee/Long is a good editor, made a colossal political error. As far as I know, the enc. isn't broken, and rollback on his account surely won't be what breaks it. Would also support rollback restoration, if desired, for PS and SC. Keeper ǀ 76 17:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse He's done nothing to merit the loss of that particular tool. Hersfold 17:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Agree with Mazca (talk · contribs) and Hersfold (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support per MBisanz. This editor has clearly demonstrated a need to for this tool. I'm willing to overlook a low edit count to the mainspace just this once, but you might want to think about GA (just a thought). Overall I'd say this user was a net positive. Synergy 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I'm hoping to avoid a conflict of interest here because I do love a cup of java. Cheers.
• Endorse - No harm in doing so. Tiptoety 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• All users should have "rollback" (or at least those which are "autoconfirmed"), as "rollback" is nothing more than the most server-efficient way to do the exact same thing that dozens of javascript-based tools do. "Abuse" in this case is simply the failure to explain any non-obvious reason for reverting (either in the edit summary or on the talk page of whosever edits are being reverted). People who do this habitually can be blocked as needed. — CharlotteWebb 18:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• *coughs politely* Let's not start that discussion up again just now, please.... Hersfold 19:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I don't see a problem with this. SQL 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Good decision: no problems here. Acalamari 20:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr. B. R. Lang

I know we cut folks a lot of slack about userpages, but it seems to me that this is abusive use of Misplaced Pages as a webhost. Could some other editors check me on this one? I just reverted a highly POV edit of his, and don't want to risk even the appearance of an ideological agenda. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That is quite excessive. It looks like he intends to publish his entire Curriculum Vitae, and he's already got his supposed ancestry for a couple hundred years back. Sorry, that's not what userpages are intended for. Hersfold 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's got his history back to Fulk V (born between 1089 and 1092). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just looking down WP:UP#NOT, I think he's violating #2, 3, and 4. User guidelines also specifically say that mainspace categories should not be used on the userspace, and he has a long list of them. The paragraph about RU-486 certainly doesn't belong, WP:SOAP. A disclaimer at the top stating that this is a user page, not an article, would go a long way too. justinfr (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I posted on his talk page letting him know about this discussion. justinfr (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I could see removing the mainspace categories (and maybe templates, as well), but to trim the whole thing down is absurd. So what if it violates a bunch of so-called "rules" (that anyone who actually understands Misplaced Pages realizes are totally non-prescriptive and non-binding)? What good would it do for Misplaced Pages to risk upsetting a guy who is quite clearly a well-intentioned, knowledgeable, and productive contributor, when (except for the mainspace categories and, perhaps, the mainspace templates) his userpage as-is is totally harmless? Honestly, what else matters? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking more about this, I think you make a good point, for the most part. It's obvious that the author is a productive contributor. My big concern was the strongly resemblance to a mainspace. With the templates, it could easily be mistaken for one. Cheers.... justinfr (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sure his intentions are nothing but good, but the sort of self-promotion that he is engaged in isn't appropriate for userspace. He shouldn't be using Misplaced Pages server space to generate attention for himself or his run for the U.S. Senate. He's welcome to offer a paragraph or two about himself on his userpage, and provide a link to his campaign website or to whatever personal site he wishes, just like everyone else here. He shouldn't be creating pages that masquerade as Misplaced Pages articles. (Note that he's also keeping a copy of his autobiography at User talk:Dr. B. R. Lang/proposed article.) From the histories of those pages, it looks like he's been using his userspace for about two months now to do an end run around WP:NPOV, WP:AUTO, and our notability criteria.

While much of what he has done is productive, he's not shy about trying to promote himself in article space, too. In a series of eight edits to framing (social science), he added a whole block of text and images about his own research. (His intial stabs at an autobiographical article – the now-deleted Dr. Bruce Rusty Lang, M.D. and Bruce Rusty Lang – were to promote the same work.) He's also added a picture of himself to Christian Medical and Dental Associations.

The user page isn't appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I didn't notice that he was a candidate for the 2002 election, not this year's. I withdraw the suggestion that the editor was campaigning, but I still have reservations about the presence of an extensive autobiographical pseudo-article in userspace. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, and all interested. The Userpage in question here is mine. I sincerely appreciate your interest and input. Everything on the user page is valid information which serves a purpose as my personal User page and as a template, with alternate info boxes, for the proposed biographical article: (User talk:Dr. B. R. Lang/proposed article). I had posted photocopies I made of several different old pre-Internaet newspaper and medical journal articles, which another User deleted, with additional reference information germane to the proposed article. Like many other User pages, there's a lot of info posted there about myself which some people may not think is historically relevant. For example, I think the history of my distant ancestors, whom I know very little about, is interesting. The User talk:Dr. B. R. Lang/proposed article needs objective NPOV editing. Again, I appreciate your input and interest. Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but most of your uploads were claimed "I created this work entirely by myself" and listed as PD-self, even when this was obviously not the case. I've tried to explain that just because you scanned a newspaper or magazine it doesn't make you the author of that newspaper. You've also taken pictures from other people's websites and listed them as PD-self. Please don't upload scans newspaper and magazine articles and call them PD-self. Based on this history of claiming to be the author of images, I also wonder about the status of Image:Air America Porter.jpg and Image:Air America Porter 01.jpg. Are you the actual photographer of those images? --Dual Freq (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr. B. R. Lang/proposed article

This proposed article is about me. It needs objective NPOV editing. Please take a look at it and help make it conform to Misplaced Pages standards. I appreciate your input and interest. Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, it's a pretty well-written article. The biggest problem I see with it is a major one, though: there is no assertion of notability for its subject. On a personal level, I want to thank you for your military service, but there is no assertion of your notability in the article, and the references are thin. One of them does not refer to you at all, and two of them simply mention you as challenger to Cornyn in the Senate race. I am personally impressed, but these things don't appear to meet the requirements for notability on Misplaced Pages.  Frank  |  talk  19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Further review shows that some refs are malformed (they have links but the links don't actually go to what they are supposed to), and some are inappropriate. As the article now stands, the references are as follows:

1. Broken
2. OK (but merely shows you as a political candidate; does not confer notability)
3. OK (but merely shows you as a political candidate; does not confer notability)
4. Merely links to a group you claim membership in; does not mention you and is therefore not useful as a reference
5. Broken
6. In Spanish; I cannot gauge its usefulness
7. Is a usenet posting - not a reliable source
8. Not hyperlinked; cannot judge accurately, but it appears to be a link to an article you wrote, which does not confer notability
9. Not hyperlinked; cannot judge accurately
10. Link does not mention you
11. OK (but merely shows you as a political candidate; does not confer notability)
12. OK (but merely shows you as a political candidate; does not confer notability)
13. Ref is an editorial and does not mention you at all; it does set context for the rest of the paragraph but the subject is not encyclopedic. (Ref is also incorrect; the issue was June, not July)
14. Ref is a letter to the editor co-written by you; this is not a peer-reviewed piece that would be considered a reliable source (even if the journal it is published in is peer-reviewed)
15. Ref is the response of the author to your letter to the editor, published in the same issue

My point in evaluating all of these references is to show that while the article appears well-referenced, in fact there is not a single reference that asserts notability (with the possible exception of the one in Spanish). Please understand: I am making no comment about you as a person, as a physician, as a Misplaced Pages editor, or on any other level. I am commenting strictly on the content of the article in question. If I ran across it as an article in the main space, I would probably delete it as not asserting notability in any way. If I ran across it in an AfD discussion, I would enter a strong delete opinion on the grounds that it does not assert notability.  Frank  |  talk  20:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a Wikia site for genealogy and profiles of individuals within them, I think that's where this content belongs. I'm afraid it's not Misplaced Pages material. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts) Well written prose, nice formatting. If that goes to the mainspace, it will get deleted almost certainly in its current state as a vanity page. The huge sections about your genealogy, while perhaps interesting, are not approopriate and need to get deleted. Same with the "biographical timeline", that I believe you even call partial? Gots to go. Haven't looked much further than that - however I did notice that it is also very thin on sources as Frank points out. Keeper ǀ 76 19:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One additional issue has to do with the section on your letter to the editors of BioScience in 1991. It's no big deal on a userpage, where you have some latitude to say what you like, but in articlespace it would be problematic to feature a single 17-year-old letter to the editor as a prominent part of the abortion debate. Issues of undue weight and content forking come into play if it's moved to articlespace, where at a minimum much more context would be required. For example, you write that: "Ultimately Lang & Turner concluded that the previously published international RU-486 research literature has already clearly established that, "RU-486 is less safe, less effective, and more painful than vacuum aspiration abortion." I can't recall the state of evidence in 1991, but certainly in 2008 medical abortion (eg with RU-486) is considered safe and effective and is, in most cases, equivalent to surgical abortion. At the very least, the situation is much more complex than this section makes it sound. Again, I don't have a problem with it in userspace really, but articlespace would be a different matter. MastCell  20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, as described above in a previous thread, there are many categories listed on that page which include it in mainspace categories, which is inappropriate.  Frank  |  talk  20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Can we close this? It's obvious there is no realistic chance of this going into main space, and the userspace versions obviously need to be reduced to one and any mainspace cats and the like cleaned up (I commented some out). Over and above that are issues with undue weight in other articles. I hope someone can mentor the good Doctor? Guy (Help!) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  I don't mind closing this, and I don't disagree about the "cleanup" that is necessary. Are you volunteering to mentor, Guy? Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am not really a good choice, being both a bad example and philosophically opposed to some of the things the user advocates. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe mentoring this misunderstanding user would be a good stretch for you then? Not a challenge, per se, merely an idea. I respect your position, and at the same time, if someone that is "philosophically" in line with this user ends up a mentor, how will they be treated in the future? Go for it! (or at least offer....) Keeper ǀ 76 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/B. Rusty Lang. We've had this discussion before. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a clincher, the userpage is a runaround of a deleted self created bio article. In response to Kurt's comments way up top, I don't care for us treating "experts" differently to the kids who mistake this place for mySpace - indeed "experts" should be more aware of the conventions of staying within the parameters of any given environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:OuijaBoardOuijaBoard has turned out to be a troll

The indef. blocked User OuijaBoardOuijaBoard has turned out to be a troll. He's now trolling the Help Desk as OuijaBorn (talk · contribs), OuijaBland (talk · contribs) and LateKernelAmsterdam (talk · contribs). Just for future reference, or if anybody should happen to want to do an IP check ... Corvus cornix_talk 20:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Already done Woody (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Block Request For BACKINPACT

I am appaulled that this user block Kevin J indefinately. I know the guy personally, and he is very intelligent and very reliable. What Keeper 76 did was a clear violation of the good faith policies and was a form of abuse for disagreeing. Misplaced Pages is not a place were abuse of authority should take place. I also suggest you don't show any bias in favor Keeper76 for being an administrator.BACKINPACT (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do my eyes deceive me? Am I having déjà vu? Does anyone remember who this is, so he can get the appropriate sock tag? J.delanoy_adds 22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never blocked Kevin j. The blocklogs will prove it. I do, however, support the indef block of Kevin j, so be it...Keeper ǀ 76 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

BACKINPACT (talk · contribs) = Kevin j (talk · contribs), I imagine. Shall I block? And shall we consider this disruption as indicative of a user that needs banning? — Scientizzle 22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means, please do. Although, I'm rather biased. I left a very civil message on User talk:Kevin j, explaining his options. Apparently, I'm the bad guy here. Whatever. Do what you will, you'll never see my name in a blocklog or otherwise for any user "defending" Kevin j. Keeper ǀ 76 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Saw the message, and you're a poor liar Keeper76. The user is very reliable, and even once received a Barnstar. He didn't even intend to scream by capitalizing his letters. He just didn't use italics, like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BACKINPACT (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

sigh. and buh-bye...Keeper ǀ 76 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked BACKINPACT as a sock. You can take a breath now, Keeper. bibliomaniac15 23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)::I've blocked BACKINPACT as a sock. You can take a breath now, Keeper. bibliomaniac15 23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban. No reason Keeper should have to put up with this. Also, would any checkuser in the area care to take a peek or two? J.delanoy_adds 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards