Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:46, 3 January 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Edit war at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

There seems to be an edit war, that has lasted several days now and counting, going on between Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) at the above article. Would someone who doesn't mind dealing with these things look to see if protection and or some user warnings are warranted? Kelly 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Endemic" is the proper word. "Several days" understates how this article has been handled for several months now. Collect (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my good lord. Is this still going on? I propose a topic ban on both editors. // roux   19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, I just looked at the history. Yeesh. Enough. How about this:

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned from the article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 for a mininum of three months. They may use the talk page to discuss proposed changes. This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Misplaced Pages policies. SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The debate is like the hot-stove league, debating how someone's favorite team could have won the pennant if only thus-and-so hadn't happened. Content disputes, like they can somehow change the election results if they just get the article "right". Baseball Bugs 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I'd expand that to each other's talkpages, Joe the Plumber, William Timmons, and List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, based on editing intersections for the past couple of months. Send them back to their separate corners. // roux   20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If only McCovey had just hit that ball 3 feet higher! Baseball Bugs 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

BB, you just made me cry. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, We can simply make and related pages part of any topic ban to cover that, I think, but I agree that we need to keep them from interacting with each other. (and Bugs, or a more recent version, why the )!@*@+$*@_$ did Grady leave Pedro in so long! :D) SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Unbelievable. Endorse community topic ban with respect to pages related to the 2008 U.S. presidential election for at least 3 months. This may give them something more productive to do. Will notify the two.  Sandstein  20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse the expanded community topic ban. Suggest that 'related' include any person related to the 2008 campaign, to the extent of any congressional figure NOT representing the two editors' directly, Foreign personalities commenting on the matter, State races in which either candidate was endorsed by either presidential race, any article on any interaction between any candidates, and so on... Can we just ban one to articles on insects and the other to articles on french cars, ensuring ZERO communication? ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hell yes. This has gone on way too long. McCain campaign and related articles, broadly construed, and if we have to bang heads together to make it stick then let's just do that. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• YES! It's way over due. See my comments here and here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanded version based on comments:

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned for a minimum of three months from:

• any articles related to the 2008 US Presidential election, broadly construed for a mininum of three months
• Each other's talkpages, with the sole exception of any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads. Users are required to keep such notices brief, formal, and polite.
• They may use the talk pages of articles to discuss proposed changes.
• This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Misplaced Pages policies.

Seem about right? // roux   20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the summary. That's about right.  Sandstein  20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is Bob Hope coming to mind just now? :) Baseball Bugs 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A topic ban as worded above by Roux seems logical and fair. To be definite, I suggest that the topic ban expire on 30 March 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• uninvolved support - three months to do something else is a good starting point. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from Amwestover. Whoa! I do not think this is a fair characterization of the dispute at all. I have made numerous attempts to reach compromise on the World opinion section of this article, and I have plenty of diffs to prove this effort. This is part of the editing process, and I don't think I should be punished for it even if it has taken what some would consider a long time. In the past few weeks, every time I'd address one of csloat's concerns, however, he'd raise a new one -- this is part of the reason that this has gone on for the length of time it has. So eventually on the suggestion of another editor after I'd lost all patience with csloat, I went with the simplest version of the section possible hoping that this would finally end it all. That was wishful thinking cuz it didn't. So now the dispute is over material that was removed which I think is non-notable and is being given undue weight. Instead of giving evidence of notability and relevance, he has refused to do so. Instead, he has decided to claim that his version of the edit is the "consensus" version (he has quite a history of this...), and that past consensus is immutable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the debate over just that paragraph about the alleged al-Qaeda "endorsement" of McCain, or is that only one of many content disputes? Baseball Bugs 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I am satisfied with all of the content in the article, except for the al-Qaeda content which I believe has no place in the article. I can't speak for csloat, though. I honestly have no idea what he's come up with, but I do know that he'll claim whatever version he supports is the "consensus" version. You could count the number of times he's done that in his edit summaries with your fingers and toes and you'd still run out. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Seems appropriate. — neuro 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Proposed addition to topic ban - in addition, the two users should refrain from talking about each other anywhere on-wiki. Leave each other alone, period, is kinda the point here. // roux   00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps inferences should be added to this too. — neuro 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Anything that stops this sort of absolute buloney is a Good Thing! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Or... You could all try and put this into some sort of context instead of !voting. Maybe even contribute an opinion on the matter since uninvolved opinions have been needed for a while. I hope this isn't how all admin action discussed. There was an RFC like two weeks ago, and now we're blowing past all other forms of dispute resolution (if you can call this proposed action that) right to blocking? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Seems pretty extreme to me for a content dispute. The only issue is with the McCain campaign article and it's the al-Qaeda paragraph; every other editor on the page has seemed ok with keeping some version of the paragraph in except Amwestover. I'm willing to compromise and I'm willing to go along with whatever version of that paragraph the consensus supports, and I'm certainly willing to not touch the page until a consensus emerges on that paragraph, whether the "wrong version" is in place or not. Hopefully some sort of voluntary solution such as that is preferable to a mutual topic ban? csloat (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Change bullet 2 to read any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads would be better. (Can't exactly run RFAR without RFC/Mediation these days.) - Penwhale | 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Amended & slightly expanded. Do we have consensus on this and is there an admin who would like to notify both users on their talk pages? // roux   09:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I could notify them... - Penwhale | 10:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support just wanted to note that I also support this proposal. I've seen this user Commodore Sloat edit on other articles before resulting in similar issues with disruptive edit warring.--Jersey Devil (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Wow. Three months topic ban for having a strong opinion about including a single paragraph on a page. And with no due process whatsoever or even an attempt to look at non-punitive means of dispute resolution. Happy new year, Misplaced Pages. csloat (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh come off it. You two have been fighting for ages. This is the clearest way to make the disruption stop. // roux   18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Penwhale left a notice of an alleged topic ban on my user page and I've discussed (and may be continuing to discuss) the notice. The topic of discussion has been mainly this: where anywhere in Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines does it state that an editing restriction can be imposed by anyone other than the Arbitration Committee? I've thoroughly searched the policies to the best of my ability and haven't been able to find anything that gives authority to administrators or the uninvolved community to spontaneously impose an editing restriction on any single user without due process. So this discussion of a topic ban whose terms were suggested by SirFozzie and which were blown way out of scope by roux are nonconstructive and not appreciated.
  Now, if anyone would like to offer an uninvolved third opinion on the matter, which some editors already have done and what has been needed for a long time, then you are more then welcome and encouraged to do so if you desire. Advice on further steps in resolution are appreciated too, however I'm not sure if they'll be necessary. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion You were both out of line and over the top. Let it go. Gerardw (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually got here via the appeal on WP:AN - reviewing the edits in question, all I can say is, wow. I think an enforced break from editing in these areas and squabbling with each other is entirely warranted. Orderinchaos 03:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At WP:AN, both editors contend the edit war is continuing. An examination of the talk page and article history shows this is not the case; in fact, the talk page shows numerous voices opposed to inclusion, and no new voices for it. As such, I've again removed the section. ThuranX (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

fellow admins, what would you do?

I know this issue doesnt concern English WP, and is therefore probably not the place to post, but I am very interested to know the input of english wp admins (since you have the most experience):

I'm one of the admins on Persian wikipedia.

Recently, a report on Radiofree Europe mentioned plans of "Baseej" groups (semi-government paramilitary groups in Iran) for mass mobilizing online presences to "bring back Islamic values to the internet" and mass filter "problematic sites on the web". Many of our pages are already filtered inside Iran.

However, lately, we have noticed a massive flux of peculiar users (who seem to know their way around well despite their new accounts), and who have caused chaos on fa:wp

Some have uploaded an anti-Israeli flag and have used it on their userpages to declare their hatred to Israel. Others (such as this user who warned of "washing away Israel with a bucket of water" are even proud to display their intentions on their user pages, proudly depicting "our long-range missiles during operation the holy prophet"). They even proudly profess being members of the "baseej".

These users constantly use ad hominems but are evasive in their edits. They're net (overall) presence is highly disruptive, and have stirred up unrest in our AN/I and village pump.

Our sysops are often absent from all the management, maybe because I am omnipresently dealing with them, or maybe because they do not wish to get involved, as the "Zionist" and "Israel" issue is a sensitive one, and is off limits to many users (for fear of being tracked down inside Iran).

The problem is, the wave of anti-semitism and disruptive editing is turning out to be overwhelming. My job has now become debating them 24 hours a day about this or that law, and its interpretation. As if they intentionally wish to erode the rule of law and the people enforcing it. They are literally turing wa:fp into a battlefield of good vs evil, and they keep using every seeming loophole they can find (wiki-lawyering) to justify their edits and position. They go around creating pages with titles like "Imam Khamenei issues a Jihad to help Gaza" (even though there was no official declaration of Jihad), and spend hours and hours of everyone's time endlessly debating all the sensational news they put in it (like "students in so and so cities have signed up for suicide bombing Israel"), and ridiculous crap like that. And they object when I tell them such crap is not encyclopedic.

We are way past the "discuss" stage. It is a massive recurrence now. Do I block these people for displaying rhetoric and polemic material on their user pages? What if they keep refusing? How much of a free hand do I have in restoring order and the constructive flow of a proper encyclopedia back? What do I do if they keep throwing "This is an Iranian wikipedia. and therefore we have a consensus to do this and that." ("we" meaning the 10-15 new users who in unison seem to be causing havoc everyhere)? Is taking a more heavy-handed position acceptable for me (as an admin), in order to bring back order? Is adopting more stiff and strict policing methods (and I hate the word policing) acceptable, inorder to stop these people from gaming the system with their agenda? Theyve even accused me of being "an Israeili agent", for trying to stop anti-semitism on fa:wp.

What would you do, and how would you do it? I'm just interested to know ideas and some general tips on what other experienced admins would do.--زرشک (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Giving a distinctly non-administrative opinion, but speaking as a experienced editor, I would note that Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view is a foundation-level policy for all Wikipedias. As use of the Persian-language Misplaced Pages as a forum for the advocacy of antisemitism is incompatible with this policy, editors who seek to subvert the encyclopedia in this manner may correctly be blocked. Furthermore, the use of any Misplaced Pages as a forum for antisemitic propaganda has the potential to bring the entire project into disrepute. Therefore, should remedying the situation exceed the capacity of local administrators, it would be appropriate to contact User:Jimbo Wales or an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation for further assistance. John254 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, Jimbo exercises very little special authority outside en-wiki. See Misplaced Pages:Role of Jimmy Wales. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While decisions made at en: are not binding anywhere else in the Wikimedia universe, there are several ArbCom decisions which make it clear what standard procedure in this sort of situation. I would take this before whatever equivalent of ArbCom is at fa: (if there is one) or propose something at the fa: equivalent of this message board, and propose a "warn once and block immediately afterwards" for actions that appear to be part of these semi-coordinated attacks. Also, you may want to find ways to get some more admins up and running at fa:, you could probably use the added help! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like some of the nationalism issues that we have here on en, issues that regrettably we have been unable to deal with decisively so far. I'm not sure whether fa.wiki has an ArbCom or similar body, but you could try opening a case there and get some solid injunctions against the sorts of pages and edits they're making. Failing that, if I had a free hand, I'd adopt a "one warning, then indef block" policy to get rid of them (assuming they're not contributing anything of value in the midst of their disruption). Note that NPOV is mandated across all language versions of WP, so they cannot possibly have a consensus to engage in the sort of blatant anti-Israel polemic that they appear to be engaged in.

However you choose to deal with it, good luck! Lankiveil 04:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC).

Concur with Lankiveil that taking the hard line is probably best with a "one warning, then indef block" dictum if that's within the scope of your responsibilities. For one, I'd delete the anti-Israel image and for all users who have anti-Israel polemics on their user pages, warn them once to remove the material. If they refuse, block them. — sephiroth bcr 05:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the advice given above. I don't know if there are any Farsi encyclopedia projects that do allow POV (something like the Jihadist equivalent of Conservapedia?) that such disruptive users might be told to contribute to, rather than Misplaced Pages. You might also want to work on expanding the Farsi admin corps with people that do not have to fear persecution in Iran, such as Iranians abroad, to help you out.

Given that NPOV is Foundation-level policy, the Foundation might eventually be forced to close down the Farsi Misplaced Pages (or to restart it from scratch) if it becomes apparent that its community is, for one reason or another, unable to adhere to NPOV and that this Misplaced Pages is instead systematically used as a vehicle for political and religious advocacy. You certainly have my thanks in your efforts to prevent this, and I wish you the best of luck.  Sandstein  07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Sandstein; Wikia is not permitted to host a biased wiki, and may need close any that is being conducted outside the terms of service. This may not stop a wiki (which is a concept) being created and hosted elsewhere with much the same bias, but it will not be part of this family. How this helps our Iranian colleagues I am not sure, as it appears that zealots often would prefer to bring the edifice down around their own ears than have viewpoints that differ from theirs allowed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I too echo the sentiments of others in thanking you for taking the stand. First, since I don't see anyone else saying it, I'd like to respond to your comment that they say "This is an Iranian wikipedia". It is not. It is part of the Wikimedia project, and thus is it a U.S.-based non-profit organization. It is subject to foundation-wide policies, specifically NPOV, and it is subject to U.S. law, not islamic law. You are entirely within your right to warn once then block. In some cases, just as it is here, sometimes even a warning is too lenient, block on sight (such as we do with aggregeous vandal-only accounts and sockpuppets) If there are especially problematic pages, protect them. And if you're worried about being too drastic, maybe it's time to start the Farsi equivalent of the Order of the Rouge Admins. AKRadecki 03:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• As an aside, a Commons admin might like to have a look at commons:File:No_Israel.svg, I am pretty sure that racist polemic is outside the mission of Commons. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• The history at Commons:File_talk:No_Israel.svg indicates that it was already deleted and then undeleted - through what seems a not entirely transparent process - and would presumably need a new discussion, probably together with several others from Commons:Category:Anti logos.  Sandstein  12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Not having read the deletion and undeletion dialog, I see that flag as no more or less problematic than a Nazi flag flying over the Reichstag or the same flag being burned in protest. Having such material on the commons can useful for documenting historical events and pro- and anti-whatever organizations in an NPOV manner. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is a crossed out Israeli flag racist? I'm certain the other stuff is no good, but I'm not sure the tern racist applies to a crossed out flag. In fact, a sysop is using it here ] Die4Dixie (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI, User:OsamaK is not a sysop on the English Misplaced Pages or Commons. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • We Americans have tried to cross out the Union Jack for over 200 years, but it has no effect. Baseball Bugs 13:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I am not an admin, but I would have ZERO tolerance for "folks" who would try to "take over" any of "our" foreign wikis in order to push ANY agenda. I would drop nukes on them(block), pardon the pun, like no tomorrow until they ran back under the rocks from where they came. NPOV and non agenda pushing are our equivalent of star trek's prime directive. Bets of luck since it sounds like you will need it. --Tom 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is exactly like the Prime Directive; it is something we talk about all the time but have great trouble actually implementing. Jon513 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, everybody. Israel crossed flag issue, which is related to me, is a clear one: we discussed it more than once at Wikimedia Commons, and finally, with supports of many admins at Commons, it has been kept: fairly after discussions. So please let's never file this issue in a place where it's not helpful.. The issue must take its size, it has nothing to do with NPOF (which is fully respected), fawp (where I haven't work before) or the "Islamisation web group" (No Israel flag shouldn't be understood as a religious matter). If I expressed my (and hundreds of millions' on the real life) opposite of Israel, as long as it is in the user free space: his or her user page, and without attacking our contributors, then it shouldn't affect the project at all. So please never link anti-things in user pages with NPOV, a contributor's nationality or religion has never affect my judgment while building our great encyclopedia.--OsamaK 07:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Israeli flag people do not equal racist. They just don't like Israeli flags. We all need to assume good faith here. Is it ok here too?Die4Dixie (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if fa.wiki has an arbcom. If it doesn't, you can only do what's in your power. What's in your power and rights is to clear all such people away with blocks, i.e. ideologue crazies who've got no intention of respecting the spirit of an openly edited encyclopedia. If the admin community there is viable it can decide if this was the correct thing. If it's not viable, then you got nothing more to worry about and should clear them as you please. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying people who don't like the Israeli flag should be banned? Does not liking the flag=racist? I'm academically curious.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For your academic curiosity, I said that people who've got no intention of respecting the spirit of an openly edited encyclopedia should be banned. Banning is a purely practical solution to a wikiproblem; so long as no policy violations or disruption is happening or likely to happen, no-one need ever be banned, and that's whether they burn Israeli flags in private or worship them as deities. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do see your point; however, does a crossed Israeli flag in and of itsself rise to the threshold to which you refer?Die4Dixie (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for (short) editorials here if they are not helpful to the case.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. I have responded on your talk page.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Which was the right place. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the wondrful responses. Our ArbCom is practically non-functioning, and we only have 7 admins, 1 crat, with 110,000 registered users. The place is practically being run amok with "jihadist" ideaologues and their edit wars and disputes and eroding tactics and wiki-lawyerings. We are practically unable to successfully admit any new crats or admins, due to the inability to reach any consensus from the pro-Islamic users and the more moderate ones. I squeezed by, thanks to the intervention of the stewards. My greatest achievement was nominating and supervising the admission of our first and only female admin. And that took my time for an entire month. Sysoping Persian wikipedia is one hell of a daunting task. Please wish me luck.--زرشک (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish you as much luck as you need. Unfortunately we are not "in charge" of the Persian wikipedia thus our hands are tied up in either direction.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Lightbot Problem

Resolved – BOT operating correctly.

Lightbot has been removing delinking "meters" in the infoboxes of most television stations and has now started on the radio stations. Also is delinking "Square Miles" and "Kilometers" in city/county/state pages, among other forms of measurement. Should this be stopped, should I revert, what should be done? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:36

I have blocked LightBot

Lightbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is it supposed to be unlinking hundreds and hundreds of units of measurement? J.delanoy_adds 18:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Lightmouse about this, but recieved no response. It looks like Lightbot was operating by itself. Are bots supposed to operate without someone to make sure it doesn't go all haywire? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:43

Per Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3, it is supposed to act like that. As for NeutralHomer's question, many bots are completely automated, so the botop does not approve the edits manually. Maxim_(talk) 18:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted some of Lightbot's edits (ones that popped up on my Watchlist...please see my contribs), should I self-revert to Lightbot's edit? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:49

I would advise yes, and I've saved you the trouble of clicking undo again by simply rollbacking them myself. Maxim_(talk) 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I will check to make sure you got them all. I did that when I wasn't sure if the bot should be doing that, but we took care of that here. Thanks for the input and the rollbacks :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:54

Well, it seemed out of its mind to me. Sorry for the mess won't be blocking bots again in the near future. J.delanoy_adds 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when does approval to use a bot mean that anything the bot does is okay? If fact, even when people tried to indicate support of his actions, they were shot down in those discussions.

Furthermore, approval of such a vague request, with no real guidelines and pretty much open-ended as to what the bot does, is something that should be reviewable either here or somewhere else outside the bot requests. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing out of the ordinary here. The bot is simply bringing dates and units into compliance with the WP:MOS, specifically WP:OVERLINK and WP:MOSNUM. I will look into its edits in more detail, but as far as I can tell, its doing basically mundane repetive MOS compliance. I see nothing controversial here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:MOSNUM says "the first occurrence of each unit should be linked". It looks to be delinking ALL occurances of units. I will be reblocking, since it looks to be working somewhat out of compliance with the MOS. Its probably a minor glitch. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What should happen to all edits it has already made? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 19:34

There was, in fact, nothing in the bot approval to keep him from unlinking whatever he chooses to unlink. That is not in accordance with those pages. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I figured out the confusion. WP:MOSNUM says "the first occurrence of each unit should be linked", however WP:OVERLINK says "It is generally not necessary to link... Plain English words, including common units of measurement". We have battling guidelines. One or the other needs to be fixed so that the two guidelines aren't saying the opposite thing!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I gotta run for like an hour or so. If anyone thinks I fucked up royally here, please feel free to re-unblock the bot. I just want to resolve the problem with the two guidelines, so that we can be certain there is no ambiguity on what is to be done with the linking of units. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That "plain English words" part is bothering me, because the bot is changing "meters" to "m". Some people may not know that m=meters. Should the bot delink and change to the "plain English words" not the abbreviation? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 19:42

The bot is not designed to change the text that the reader sees. Thus it should not change "meters" to "m". If you give me examples, I can investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Common" is a subjective term that we should not leave to Lightbot's handler's disgression. Anything the bot does needs to be explicitly spelled out.

There are in fact actually at least a half-dozen or more different places in the MOS saying that various units of measurement should be linked. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard wrote

• "Common" is a subjective term that we should not leave to Lightbot's handler's disgression

'Common' is indeed subjective, but the guidance provides explicit examples. Please click on the at the end of the guidance at Misplaced Pages:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_not_be_linked. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If I ran programs that run as sloppily and destructively as these bots are allowed to, I'd have been fired long ago. Baseball Bugs 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You say that as if anyone here is more than a volunteer. As my grandma oft said, "you get what you paid for." --Kralizec! (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That was going to be my next comment. But being paid nothing is no excuse. No one is forced to do this work. If they can't do it properly, they should go away and let someone else try it. Baseball Bugs 19:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue here is with the somewhat fuzzy constraints the bot is operating under. All of its edits appear to be kosher as per the WP:OVERLINK guideline ... but unfortunately that guideline appears to be contradicted by the WP:MOSNUM guideline. While I personally tend to like the WP:MOSNUM rules where only the first usage is linked, I have to feel for Lightmouse (who is generally very responsive to detailed trouble reports) because you cannot make anyone happy when our guidelines appear to contradict each other. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Then he should do some investigation first and ask some questions. Baseball Bugs 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The last time I counted, we had approximately 256 guidelines and 127 official policies ... with many of them contradicting each other. Would we have any bots if they all had to fully comply with this byzantine collection of rules first? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is, what, the 25th AN/I thread on WP:MOSNUM? Why do we even have this nonsense if all it does is result in endless arguments? *** Crotalus *** 22:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What should the guidelines say?

So here is the crux of the problem. There is no issue with any editor bringing any article into compliance with Misplaced Pages guidelines. By extension, there should also be no problem with an editor using an approved bot to do the same; as long as the bot is making edits that someone using Firefox and a keyboard would be expected to make, there is no issue. So let me make clear that my recent block of the bot is not because I have anything wrong with the bot per se. However, before the bot is to continue doing its good work, we should establish exactly what the guidelines should say. There is a clear conflict between at least two three guidelines:

• WP:MOSNUM states clearly that units should be linked at their first occurance in an article only, and not at further occurances.
• WP:OVERLINK states clearly that units should not normally be linked, falling explicitly under the category of "plain English words".
• WP:MOSLINK states "In tables and infoboxes, units should not be internally linked to Misplaced Pages pages" but says nothing about article body text on the issue.
• <please add additional guidelines here as needed>

Mr. Nygaard notes that there are a half-dozen or so guidelines that also deal with this, I have left a place for the list above to be expanded, please do so.

As far as Baseball Bugs's concern; it appears that Lightbot was exactly in compliance with WP:OVERLINK and the bot was not slopily programed; it is not unreasonable to think that our guidelines would be consistant! That they are not is something that needs to be addressed. Given that this is likely a problem spread across several pages; I think we need a centralized discussion. If there is enough interest here, I will start an RFC to provide that centralized discussion. What does everyone think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The crux of the issue appears to be the inexact definition of "plain English words" in WP:OVERLINK. So while I may have a good idea as to what a square mile is, my wife would not have a clue . Likewise while my daughter may understand metres, my son has not yet reached that stage of school . If we do not want to make any assumptions regarding exactly which units of measure are "plain English" for our readers, then we should stick to WP:MOSNUM's recommendation to link the "first occurrence" only. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in this, maybe also see this, where there is a discussion about whether to link nationalities in the lead section of bios. Again, the MOS or policy is sort of open to interpratation. Thanks, --Tom 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot's present tear has been unlinking square kilometers. Even in that context there is a big difference between removing the link from:

• 18.4 ]s → 18.4 square kilometers, or
• 18.4 ]s → 18.4 square kilometres

on the one hand, and from unlinking the symbol in

• 18.4 ] → 18.4 km²

Why is there a difference? Because many of the rules of our Manual of Style are built on the premise (an ill-founded one, in my opinion, but nobody listens to me) that English-speakers are too stupid to know what the superscript means in that symbol, so the MoS gives us rules actually prohibiting the use of commonly used symbols such as ft³ and mi². Fortunately, the innumerate people writing our rules don't often venture out into the real world of the articles where people actually use them anyway. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Gene, those symbols are advised against because they are harder to read. Relevant quote: "Avoid the unicode characters ² and ³. They are harder to read on small displays, and are not aligned with superscript characters (see x1x²x³x4 vs. x1x2x3x4). Instead, use superscript markup, created with ." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have started an RFC for a centralized discussion of the issue of linking units in articles. I arbitrarily chose the talk page of WP:MOSNUM, but I am also leaving notices on as many relevent talk pages as possible to attract centralized attention to this. See Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Centralized discussion for linking of units of measurement. Please carry on all further discussion at that location. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Kralizec wrote that wp:overlink had an inexact definition of common units. Please look again, wp:overlink provides an exact definition by giving examples. Just click on the at the end of the guidance at Misplaced Pages:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_not_be_linked. Feet and metres are the most commonly linked items on Misplaced Pages, so most of this discussion is about those. We don't link plain english terms like river even the first time it appears. Similarly we don't need to link feet or metre even the first time it appears on a page about the height of a mountain or a person. If a conversion is provided, that is double the reason not to link. Lightmouse (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we link river? Shouldn't we say "The Mississippi River is a river in the United States?" --NE2 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a valid link in a definition article. We don't link plain english terms elsewhere. Lightmouse (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat made by Carolrubensteinesq

User:Carolrubensteinesq has made a legal threat on this User Talk page threatening to subpoena Misplaced Pages for my information in a civil suit. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for making a straightforward legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Better be careful, that one is "a member of the New York, Michigan and California Bars". In fact, there's a good chance the user is in one of those Bars right now, this being New Year's. Baseball Bugs 06:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Next stop Trenton, NJ. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Or another Jersey city whose name illustrates what is done with vandals: Hack 'n Sack. Baseball Bugs 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: The article in question has been recreated at the unsalted page Scott walterschied. Requested CSD-G4. 78.34.151.178 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Done And... gone. 78.34.151.178 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SPA account

WhoWatches (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This appears to be a clear SPA account only used to comment at the AdminWatch proposal located here. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like its only purpose is disruption. You could try at WP:AIV unless someone blocks it here first. Baseball Bugs 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to call the Watchmen. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go to AIV, but it's not vandalism, hence why I've brought it to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You might have considered informing me you were discussing me, or talking to me perhaps. I am clearly NOT being either disruptive or vandalizing anything, and I am completely within my rights to communicate WP:Sock#Legit as per Segregation and Security, section 3 to avoid being the target of harassing emails or phone calls merely for entering into discussion with other Misplaced Pages editors. I will thank you to cease threatening me. WhoWatches (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is so ironic as to verge on rustiness; Why didn't you just copy over what I said to you when I found that I had been casually accused of "admin abuse" by you, without bothering to let me know? Oh, that would be because I'm an abusive admin, wouldn't it?

nb. Yeah, this account is not violating policy (well, WP:CIVIL a little maybe...) so fine - but it is making what may have been a good sounding board for highlighting problems with some sysops into an irrelavent admin hate mongering page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I know users that disclose alternative accounts yes, but you haven't done that. For all we know, you could be an abusive sockpuppet. (I'm not saying you are, but you could be) D.M.N. (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no policies being breached. Tan | 39 19:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Equally, I don't see how the account passes WP:SOCK#LEGIT as it claims. Black Kite 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Who was harrasing you with emails or phone calls under your other account? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• So long as WhoWatches restricts himself to commenting on the talkpage of Tony's user subpage for Adminwatch, there is not a major concern, I think. I agree though that this is not a legitimate use of a sock under Segregation and security, point 3. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There are people who commented in the AdminWatch MFD who know both my email address and phone number, I consider them within my social/professional circles (thankfully not family at least) and have no desire to deal with any emails/phone calls related to this discussion. I do not have to have already received such to be justifiably worried about receiving them.WhoWatches (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even have ever bothered commenting to WP:ANI, except that someone put this discussion here and couldn't even be civil enough to speak with me first via my talkpage, nor civil enough to inform me I was being discussed. WhoWatches (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering your rather aggressive attitude towards all editors at Misplaced Pages, and not just admins, I can't say I blame people for not wanting to contact you on your talk page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I neither know nor care who WW is a sock of, I don't understand the issue here or what this pointless thread is doing on ANI. The account's sole contributions (with the exception of one post to a user talk page, and replies on this thread) have been in Tony's userspace. If Tony thinks he's being disruptive, Tony is more than capable of telling him to stop (as he's already started to do), and/or complaining himself. Otherwise, what's the problem? – iridescent 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think there would be a problem if the account was making his points in a reasonably civil manner, and refraining from throwing around the phrases "admin abuse" and "corruption" like confetti. Apart from anything else, he's not exactly helping his own credibility. And as LHVU says above, he's degenerating a pretty good discussion on the premise of AdminWatch into a slanging match with such claims. Black Kite 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't exactly call it pointless. If this user had another account with adminstrator privilages, then I would understand possible need for a alternative account for article-related activities, but this user hasn't disclosed details of his other accounts, privately to any admins. I'm not sure whether to leave it (in case this may be a sock field), or whether a private checkuser is required. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked the disruptive WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor has now requested unblocking under the following rationale: "This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in." — neuro 09:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock declined. Tan | 39 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are two issues here: firstly, there is the alleged inappropriate use of a sockpuppet, then there is the issue of WW's disruptiveness. While I believe that the use of the account is not within the accepted framework of alternate accounts, and the initial exchanges were certainly lacking in incivility, they were bordering on the disruptive with repeated insistence on undeleting the extremely negative comments deleted by Tony and by me. I think the penny dropped that no-one wanted to hear his rants, and so the exchanges within the last 24 hours or so have become much more moderate and are probably not what I would consider disruptive any more. Angry yes, disruptive no. Certainly, the edit he made just minutes before he was blocked was a 'hypothetical' situation which certainly appears to be written calmly, lucidly and probably "autobiographically", in that I believe it describes his state of mind at present (just before the block). While xhe remains distrusting of Admins, his exchanges were boring as he was unable to offer concrete examples of 'abuse'. What xhe said rested entirely hypothetical because of his/her paranoia of revealing his/her alter-ego. However, I imagine that Admins who really want to know would have already performed checkuser by now. I believe the block may not have been too well-timed, IMHO. Unfortunately, I am pretty certain that if you unblock him/her now, xhe will be back in the $&^%#$# mode he was in 2 to 3 days ago. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I wonder if this user is any relation to IRDT (talk · contribs)...they remind me of each other... --Smashville 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Interesting point - making a big thing out of some alleged and unspecified threats. Baseball Bugs 17:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If it was IRDT the sock would be block-evading regardless; I think it is a alternate account of a different (non-blocked) editor, but per AGF I'm not going to speculate. Black Kite 17:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If CU was given out with adminininiship I was in the wrong queue... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Per practice and the decision of the AC on it, I've upgraded the language on the Sockpuppetry policy to reflect practice here. rootology (C)(T) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At an absolute loss

For the past month, I've been involved in a dispute at Threshold (online game), Frogdice and Michael Hartman with an editor or small cluster of editors, at least one of which has a COI. contributions (which resolves to a webserver operated by the subject) began to revert my edits to that group of articles blindly and with offensive edit summaries (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The redir soon got full protection (per AfD results), and the two articles got semi'd to encourage discussion. Well, a user, contributions, showed up at Talk:Threshold (online game), where he began to make repeated unsubstantiated accusations that I'm a "disgruntled banned player", which he later admits are without actual evidence. Throughout, Cambios also performed repeated reverts with edit summaries along the same lines of the IP, which is one sign that suggests to me that they are one and the same.

I've sought outside assistance from several venues (WP:COIN, WP:EAR and other users who had shown interest in the article previously); this has gotten me some help (the earlier protections) and advice (see here). However, even when applying the advice, Cambios has reverted blindly (see here, and here where even trivial changes to the infobox get reverted). While I'd rather not drive away someone knowledgeable about the game, he's continued to make it very clear that he opposes any changes made by me on a personal basis. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've reverted Frogdice to the less spammy version, after all we aren't an advertising concern, and watchlisted the affected pages. Black Kite 19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite. It also appears that I owe Cameron Scott and Patton123 thanks for helping out at Threshold (online game)... though a new IP has come in and reverted one of the latter user's edits without comment. But that revert is more a content dispute. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv has not been completely honest with you folks. Mendaliv is a former player of Threshold who for some reason is disgruntled with the game, and has chosen Misplaced Pages as the form for taking out his anger. He has repeatedly engaged in edit wars with legitimate editors because of his personal animosities towards the game. Obviously, that is not the appropriate way for people to behave on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not the place for someone to further a personal vendetta against a game they are mad at. That is why people who actually KNOW about Threshold have been working on the entry and have been removing Mendaliv's vandalism. Cambios (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of brevity, I'll just say that we've already had this discussion, ad nauseam, at Talk:Threshold (online game). I will however mention that you are still blindly reverting my every edit there, while making other trivial/promotional contributions in the same edits to justify deceptive edit summaries. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 09:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been going through this and removing what doesn't belong, which is frankly most of it. This mud was apparently covered as part of a larger article on mmos a few years ago (possibly to the tune of a name drop and not much else, someone would have to get a hold of the issue) and little else. The company itself hasn't received any coverage that has been provided and this article is written almost entirely on primary sources. The whole lot of it looks like promotion to me.--Crossmr (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly this reeks of WP:OWN .--Crossmr (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice, Cambios just undid all edits by Mendaliv, Cameron Scott, Rosuav and Crossmr, stating: "Please let people who actually UNDERSTAND the topic work on the page. Having to constantly start over because people hack away without a faint inkling about the subject matter wastes time.". (diff). --aktsu  11:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And was blocked edit warring over it. --aktsu  11:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And came back with User:Nizevyn, also blocked, have hardblocked the IP mentioned above for a month and semi'd the article for a week. We did try, but some users refuse to Get The Point, sadly. Resolved. Black Kite 19:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over copied passages at Earthquake engineering

I'm having some trouble with User:Shustov at Earthquake engineering.

Useful links:

• Shustov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Earthquake engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Earthquake engineering#Plagiarism
• User talk:Shustov#USGS info in Earthquake engineering

The article came to my attention on 28 December through a thread started by Shustov on WP:AN on a matter (not related to content or user conduct): Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180#Blocking Misplaced Pages article by Google. I glanced at the article and noted some passages which seemed...out of place. A quick Google search revealed that the bulk of phrases and passages in the article section on Failure modes were copied from United States Geological Survey (USGS) documents. I reported this problem on the article talk page () and watchlisted the article. (Since the USGS is a US goverment agency, its reports are generally in the public domain; the issue here is one of plagiarism rather than of copyright violation.)

On 29 December, I had a brief look at the article history. It's quite thick, as Shustov had a habit of making many, many, many rapid-fire minor edits with few edit summaries. Nevertheless, I surmised that the passages I was concerned about had been added by Shustov, so I dropped him a note about the problem on his talk page, and encouraged him to review and correct his contributions: .

Over the following couple of days things took a turn for the worse. Shustov repeatedly denied () any problem with the passages in question, despite several attempts to explain both the problem and how to fix it: , , . His responses became mocking and derisive (, ). I eventually removed the offending text to the article talk page, and explained the problem (again). He has reverted this removal three times now (once while logged in, and twice more while logged out as confirmed (, ) by Checkuser), and I'm afraid that I don't have any other ideas what to do here.

He has some sort of academic credentials, but seems to be unfamiliar with normal academic standards for verbatim copying of other authors' writing. I'm not getting through, and I fear there may be a language barrier issue at work. In any case, I'm out of ideas. As I've gotten closely involved in this mess, I'd like another admin to have a look at what's going on, and to issue a final warning or block as necessary – or to protect the article (sans plagiarism) until Shustov or another editor can rewrite or properly cite the section in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Shustov has already reverted some of his inadequately-cited material back in after the problem was pointed out to him. That is not compliant with the WP:BRD cycle. Still, I had trouble finding an exact match for anything plagiarized. (I did Google searches on some of the material but only found hits on Misplaced Pages). For the rules on plagiarism of material out of copyright, see the appropriate section of WP:Copyright problems. That section asserts that Editors engaged in ongoing plagiarism who do not respond to polite requests may be blocked from editing. No block should be issued until it can be determined precisely where some of his reverted material came from. Shustov has been around since September 2007, and seems to have done reasonable work on articles. His use of sockpuppets and his mocking responses in the dialog with TenOfAllTrades don't inspire confidence. He also restored a bunch of links to the article which had been removed by JzG. Possibly a case of my work is perfect, don't try to improve it?. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now done a non-exhaustive side-by-side comparison of the article section to a number of USGS (and, worryingly, non-USGS) documents. I can't guarantee that the list I've provided is complete, as I'm not prepared to do Google searches on every fragment of text there.

Nevertheless, I think that the word-for-word copying of a number of passages is quite apparent. See Talk:Earthquake engineering#Comparison. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Google gives us a pretty good idea who he is, and his concern over the Google ranking indicates that he is perhaps trying to boost his reputation. I am concerned that he is trying to use Misplaced Pages as a means of publishing his own work. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Teledildonix314

Teledildonix314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After he made an uncivil commentt on Talk:Rick Warren, I warned him for the attack using HG. Then he went onto my editor review and said that was "no way for an adult to behave" (for those of you keeping score at home, I'm 15). Anyone have an opinion on what to do here? PXK /_C 00:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Another user who has found the "Truth"(TM). Protonk (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

True.:) He's received two warnings after a final warning User_talk:Teledildonix314#January_2009 with the warnings coming from several different editors. After a final warning plus more acting up, the next step is usually a block of some kind. Sticky Parkin 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• My read is that the original comment, while wild eyed and somewhat antagonistic, wasn't too bad but that the comment made to your editor review was pretty well unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out what kind of "love toy" a "teledildo" would be. Baseball Bugs 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's Teledildonics, according to a user (a wikipedia user, not a Teledildonics user). Baseball Bugs 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• To me, the user appears to be completely tone-deaf to all aspects of Misplaced Pages culture and policy. I am not in a hurry to see this user blocked - given the most recent edit, perhaps my lengthy engagement to try to educate him might have had some positive effect. His inability to understand what constitutes a BLP violation versus his insertion of defamatory material into an article I find most troubling and certainly solid grounds for a block if he puts it back in. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Tone-deaf? Maybe the Teledildonics are drowning out the sound. Baseball Bugs 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of- is there any way we can topic ban him from me? He sent me another tone deaf message on my talk. PXK /_C 00:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Guess I should retract my second sentence above, eh? Mike Doughney (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think someone needs to adopt him. But it sure as hell isn't gonna be me. PXK /_C 01:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I had to revert his edits on my editor review page because of his nonsense. His smearing of my reputation literally hurt my feelings. Willking1979 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What the actual fuck? Is this guy some kind of idiot savant? (serious, not a personal attack) PXK /_C 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Given this last edit to which I think you're referring it sounds to me like it's time for a block. Throwing around all kinds of accusations of threats for simply warning a user about their behavior, after a final warning, is clearly grounds for a block. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now he's gone on my ER again and called me a bully for performing normal tasks. This really needs to end. Where are the damn admins? PXK /_C 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

They all went to a Julian Year's Eve party and found themselves several days in the future. We'll have to wait. Baseball Bugs 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Report at WP:AIV has been removed, the issue has been thrown back here. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought about keeping Teledildonix314's edits on my talk page, but I decided to revert his senseless, baseless comments. Something must be done soon. Willking1979 (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Another editor, Manutdglory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at this article (Rick Warren) who also exhibits a bit of tone-deafness to Misplaced Pages procedure, culture and policy has been falsely accusing others of vandalism and making other inflammatory comments about other editors, in particular Teledildonix314, in talk here and here, and in edit summaries here and here. He has returned from a bit of a hiatus with another edit with an edit summary claiming he's fixing vandalism by other editors when clearly that is not true. This will only serve to inflame the situation surrounding this article. I have final warned Manutdglory regarding his abusive comments ; if this behavior continues I'll be back to open another incident here. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike, even comparing an established, veteran editor like me to someone like User:Teledildonix314 is a complete joke, and you know it. "Falsely accusing others?" First of all, why are you asking for administrative action to be taken against User:Teledildonix314 if he is innocent? We all know he is guilty. Secondly, "others" - ah, the only person I accused of vandalism is User:Teledildonix314 and I only started criticizing you when you admitted your personal disdain for Rick Warren (he referred to him as a "thuggish slimy weasel" see here), yet still felt compelled to edit his article despite your bias, so where were you going with that comment? And your argument that you could still be an objective editor despite your personal bias was negated when you defended some of User:Teledildonix314's hateful diatribe. Also, I wasn't aware that removing unsourced personal editorials that the user repeatedly reposted (which you yourself did to User:Teledildonix314) from an article qualified as edit-warring - in fact, I believe that is what our goal as legitimate editors is. My objective input is clearly needed in the Warren article to offset your and Teledildonix314's obvious bias. Manutdglory (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to come across an edit that Manutdglory made to the article which removed sourced information, and reverted the edit, then told him on his Talk page that he should discuss such edits on the Talk page before making them. In response, he deleted my comments from his Talk page without discussion. That doesn't sound like somebody who's interested in collegial editing. Note that I have no prior interest in the article. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That is obvious, because if you had simply glanced at the article's history or discussion page, you would have seen that I have been attempting to restore the article from User:Teledildonix314's illegitimate comments for 4 days now - you know, the user who this entire report was created for. Manutdglory (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not obtained consensus for your edits, or even agreement by one other editor. They will be reverted, by me or others, because you have not obtained consensus, and since you're proposing removing sourced material, that consensus won't be forthcoming. Pasting the same comments into multiple threads here, including the comments of others (mine and Little Red, which you copied from the incident report on me you added below), isn't going to help your case. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My case? What planet are you living on? The only legitimate evidence of "name-calling" is you referring to me. see here Manutdglory (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing a user with some issues, like his WP:AGF detector turned off, but nothing blockable. What kind of admin action are you guys expecting? I hate to send you to yet another forum, but at the time being, it looks like a WP:WQA issue. I actually don't see any personal attacks...we don't block people for feeling overly antagonized... --Smashville 17:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Put yourself in somebody else's shoes for a second

Straight Edge PXK wrote: "What the actual fuck? Is this guy some kind of idiot savant? (serious, not a personal attack)"

If somebody said that about you, how would you feel? Would you feel like they were really trying to give everybody in the situation an equal opportunity to be treated with respect and civility?

I was informed that PXK is only fifteen years old. I'm sorry, i forgetfully assumed they were an adult. Given their age, and a willingness to admit that i was very uncertain about respect and civility when *i* was fifteen, i see now that i should just get over it, forget about such remarks, and avoid lashing back at people in the future (regardless of whether they are fifteen, fifty-five, or one hundred five).

Mike Doughney wrote : "Your regurgitation of what I suppose is Marxist terminology is quite quaint. Again, let me say this very slowly and in small words in a short sentence so perhaps this time you'll understand what I'm saying."

When somebody says something like that to _you_, do you think, "This person is trying to help me"? or do you think, "This person is belittling me!"?

When somebody says your honest efforts to write with civility on a subject which feels very inflammatory is a "regurgitation" of a "quaint" terminology, i wonder how you feel. I wonder whether you would say, "This person is trying to help me, they are concerned for the good of everyone in this situation, they are very friendly."

When somebody tells you that small words and short sentences are necessary, although you were trying very hard to be civil and open to criticism, would you feel like that person was really trying to help you? Do you think that person truly respects you at all?

Manutdglory wrote : "Mike, even comparing an established, veteran editor like me to someone like User:Teledildonix314 is a complete joke, and you know it."

That type of remark almost automatically causes a person to feel as though you are not able to give respect and Assume Good Faith. That sort of remark about a total stranger sounds insulting, and a put-down only serves to antagonize the subject of that insult, rather than causing them to want to proceed peacefully with you toward a polite and civil goal. They might seem like very innocent words which you quickly and probably rather unthinkingly wrote in a moment's haste, but i hope you will see how they make other people feel, and i hope you will understand why i was so immediately provoked to feel hostile toward you.

You called me a 'vandal' repeatedly, you reverted my edits without asking anybody else for consensus, and you implied to other editors that it would be a joke to respect my literacy skills as you would have them respect yours.

I understand that you will probably remove this text from the page, and i would probably feel like doing the same thing upon my initial embarrassment. But maybe if you leave it here for a little while, and it reminds you of how your words affect other people's feelings, it will be useful. Thank you for bothering to read this at all, i know you don't like to hear anything from me. I know you don't want to believe there could be anything respectable about what i say or write, but i am a human being in this world just like you, with a viewpoint and a bit of a need to feel as though it deserved at least the most minimal amount of respect before being dismissed and villified.

I am posting in this thread with my remarks directed to all three of you editors at the same time-- the first three people with whom i have really had any extensive interaction at Misplaced Pages-- because i feel like it's the only way i can show you some respect and civility while speaking about my frustration and anger. I'm sure i could learn from the mistakes i have made with the three of you this week. I hope you won't just delete this without giving it a moment of consideration.

Teledildonix314 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

An unprotected image is displayed on the main page -- this really has to stop

File:Moet and glass.jpg is currently displayed on the main page, and is not locally uploaded or protected at the Wikimedia Commons. Administrative assistance is requested in uploading the file locally (which cannot be effectuated by non-admins due to a conflict with the filename at the commons and cascading protection for the main page) or protecting the image at the commons. Additionally, it would be useful to more forcefully inform the administrators updating template:did you know of the need to ensure that images are correctly protected before placing them on the main page -- while the edit window for Template:Did you know/Next update contains specific instructions to this effect, they apparently are insufficiently compelling. John254 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I told the admins hanging out at IRC; both the wp and commons versions are protected. We need a proper way to handle this though. NuclearWarfare _{My work} 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Bots/Requests for flags/LinkFA-Bot may be of interest. Apparently the bot automates such protection in a rather ingenious manner, exploiting parserfunctions, inclusion & cascading protection.  — Mike.lifeguard |  03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversion, reversion, edit, revert, edit, revert, revert, edit....

Can an admin protect the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names) from editing for a while, preferably at an older version before the changes started? A group of editors disagrees strongly with the naming guidelines for article titles in plants and performed some 117 edits to the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora) page over the month of December. When this page, the flora naming guidelines, was protected from editing, the editors moved on to the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names) page. It would be easier for other Wikipedians using these guidelines, if they guidelines were not the targets of an edit war. And, it would not be much of a burden for the editors concerned to gain concensus, propose the change, then ask an admin to allow the change or do the change. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked specifically for an older version to do away with the undiscussed changed made by this group of editors, which, will, of course, leave it at a bad version, but all of their changes should have been discussed first. --KP Botany (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:PROTECT and m:The wrong version. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not necessary, my comment alluded to the fact that I am aware of these essays. The content of my post was intended to make that clear, and it did. I am discussing policies and guidelines and this inane referring of editors to generally badly written essays never helps. I have no idea why you referred me to WP:PROTECT. --KP Botany (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OKBot

Is OKBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) supposed to do things like this? See it's contribs. --aktsu  03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a standard (seemingly correct) addition of an interwiki link... is that a problem?  — Mike.lifeguard |  03:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To policies I can understand, but in the middle of discussions here (diff above) and at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention? --aktsu  03:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Bots should not be adding interwiki links to talk pages. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a talk page, it's a project page. Furthermore, the two pages are analogous - the interwiki is correct AFAICT.  — Mike.lifeguard |  05:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So it won't be archived along with the discussion? Just asking because I can't see any other interwikilinks here, and on the other pages in question. --aktsu  05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, it will archive it. I can't think how the archival bot will know the difference, unless it is programmed to notice common features not to archive at the end of the page (I don't know about the latter). — neuro 09:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Was my thoughts as well, so I pointed it out here not completely sure if it was an error or not. Anyway, I notified OsamaK (talk · contribs) and he'll probably take a look at it. As the bot probably doesn't need to be blocked (which was my initial concern), should this be marked as "resolved"? --aktsu  09:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Woh, Slow it down :), Bots don't get blocked for an edit. This mistake came from fawp, since they're using the wrong interwiki, I noted them here. Anyway, interwiki bots are working using a standard program, any programming problem should be directly reported to the pywikipedia team, mostly not the operator. Thank you for noting aktsu, keep going!--OsamaK 13:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Was just concerned when it suddenly started editing a lot of other Misplaced Pages:X-pages after the one here, without really investigating if those edits were OK or not :) Anyway, glad to help. --aktsu  13:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Slow reverts and probable Ownership issues in Bukidnon State University

I request for your opinions and neccessary actions in the artcle Bukidnon State University which has been the subject of reverts since October 2008. Another concernced user, Kleomarlo (talk · contribs), and I already went to WP:RFPP on seperate occassions but declined since the reverts are too slow. The problems are with Tomorts (talk · contribs) and his anons who re-adds unsourced cheerdance competition data and removes sourced sections and image with appropriate FUR (Although it needs some help in reducing the image size. It would be great if anyone can help with that too). I believe his motivations are this is my work do not ruined it.... which translates to Ownership issues. I already talked to him in my edit summaries and here but judging from his talkpage, I think the discussion is getting nowhere.--Lenticel 03:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image resized. From his talk page and his article creations (another one of which needs CSDing), it seems like he/she is likely a student having trouble maintaining a neutral point of view and is mostly here to self-promo his/her own group and the school to a lesser degree. I'd revert with progressive warnings and if he keeps up, send to AI/V for blocking. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks.--Lenticel 04:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An admin may want to check his image uploads...seems like he's uploading his personal graphic images for the school that he then created articles for the primary purpose of showing off his images?? Not sure that's against any policies or guidelines, but seems like a waste of space. I've CSDed all the "articles" I found, which weren't articles at all, just a text line then his images. They aren't good redirects as they are very general and not just fitting to that school. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Improperly listed AfD

The AfD on the Centrist Party article doesn't appear to have been listed properly. I would fix it, but it's several days old now, so I'm not sure if it's okay to just list it on the current day's crop, or if it needs to be completely redone or whatever. It's not my AfD, so any advice or help to the editor who added it would be appreciated. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd just list it on today's crop, leaving a note to explain on both the AfD and the nominator's talk page. Reyk _YO! 05:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think it's listed okay now. Cross your fingers that all of Misplaced Pages doesn't grind to a halt after whatever edits I made filter through the system... it seems to be okay now I think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Farah and 24.160.240.250

24.160.240.250 is having WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues with Talk:Joseph Farah. Basically, he wants to hold a discussion about a controversial claim about Farah based on no evidence whatsoever. He has reverted a number of editors who have blanked the discussion in accordance with WP:BLP. Though I considered making a block myself, since I have been discussing the issue with him, I felt it better to recuse myself from it and bring it here. --B (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I was coming here to post the same. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I contend that my edits don't violate the Talk Page provisions of BLP. I further contend that they certainly don't now that there's another citation of the same issue. I commend you both for recusing yourselves, though. However, accusing me of "having WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues" at the same time that you're removing my responses from the talk page is disengenuous. I wouldn't have to revert your blanking of my comments if you'd discuss the issue at hand, rather than blanking me. I'm feeling a lack of WP:AGF and WP:No Personal Attacks comming from your direction. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You reverted multiple times to insert a libelous statement on the talk page of a BLP, against policy and the reverts of several other editors. On at least one occasion, I removed comments of yours because they were inserted with the libelous statement, as if to make a point. I'd think invoking WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT would actually be a good thing here, since it assumes you weren't violating policy on purpose.

To the admin who looks into this case, the IP has also been very uncivil on ] page, telling him to "grow a pair" and calling him arrogant and condescending . Dayewalker (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. We'll see what happens next. Jclemens (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dharmasthala

Can an admin check http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dharmasthala&action=history I have given an offer to discuss at Talk:Dharmasthala, but the other user refuses to discuss and keeps on reverting. Thanks, Kensplanet_C 07:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is completely nonsense. the above user is trying to advertise his language in Dharmasthala article. Dharmasthala is temple for Lingayats(kannadigas). C21K 07:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry..it's not my language. As a Wikipedian, I just want accuracy in articles Kensplanet_C 07:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. You are both to blame, you should both know better than to make silly comments like "revert..If you do not discuss this won't Stop.No admin will block me since I have goven an offer to discuss..I may be wrong..I accept but U have to discuss" and... well, in C21K's case, making almost no comment at all. As for C21K's threat to "start adding kannada script to all churces located in karnataka"... yes, you are both to blame. Just stop edit warring, and if C21K does not respond (which appears not to be the case) it is possible that both of you will be blocked for edit warring. Just stop the edit warring, since I have currently only just woken up I don't know about what I think the best way to go about resolving the nondiscussion issue is. — neuro 08:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Manutdglory - another issue of bad editor behavior connected with the Rick Warren article

Related to the User:Teledildonix314 incident above, another editor, Manutdglory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in recent days has been falsely accusing others of vandalism and making other inflammatory comments about other editors, in particular Teledildonix314, in talk here and here, and in edit summaries here and here. He has returned from a bit of a hiatus with another edit with an edit summary claiming he's fixing vandalism by other editors when clearly that is not true. This will only serve to inflame the situation surrounding this article.

After a series of warnings (here and here), I've final warned Manutdglory regarding his abusive comments ; in response, I received this rather uncivil comment in my talk that among other things accuses me of making threats. His sole action thus far has been this message left for one administrator; he appears to be rather tone-deaf to Misplaced Pages culture and policy as well as the usual methods and procedures to deal with conflicts and vandalism, even after I've pointed them out to him. Given that we now have two editors on this article that seem to be feeding off this conflict, I would suggest that some admin action be taken. Perhaps both these editors, who have both continued abusive behavior after final warnings, should be blocked for some period of time. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike, even comparing an established, veteran editor like me to someone like User:Teledildonix314 is a complete joke, and you know it. "Falsely accusing others?" First of all, why are you asking for administrative action to be taken against User:Teledildonix314 if he is innocent? We all know he is guilty. Secondly, "others" - ah, the only person I accused of vandalism is User:Teledildonix314 and I only started criticizing you when you admitted your personal disdain for Rick Warren (he referred to him as a "thuggish slimy weasel" see here), yet still felt compelled to edit his article despite your bias, so where were you going with that comment? And your argument that you could still be an objective editor despite your personal bias was negated when you defended some of User:Teledildonix314's hateful diatribe. Also, I wasn't aware that removing unsourced personal editorials that the user repeatedly reposted (which you yourself did to User:Teledildonix314) from an article qualified as edit-warring - in fact, I believe that is what our goal as legitimate editors is. My objective input is clearly needed in the Warren article to offset your and Teledildonix314's obvious bias. Manutdglory (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/User:CABlankenship

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/User:CABlankenship

This is a relatively more active SSP case, and the case page is getting a bit active and heated. Could use some more eyes. (As usual it is always appreciated to have more admin attention to the WP:SSP backlog in general as well.) Thank you, Cirt (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Offensive edit summary

Should we be worried about this edit summary? Reyk _YO! 10:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know about worried it's offensive and what-not, but I'm not sure what we would do. We could RBI but that IP hasn't edited in 4 hours, it may be assigned to someone else by now. Protonk (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  The users 'retirement' implies it isn't going to be an issue. The only way to remove it would be oversight, and this isn't something serious enough for that tool to be used. We cannot guarantee any warning will get to the user involved; another person may be assigned the IP. All-in-all I'd recommend leaving it. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  You can actually delete single revisions. You delete the whole page and restore every revision but the offending one. No oversight needed. Pretty soon admins will be able to delete individual revisions without taking the whole page down in the interim. Protonk (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  Oh rly? Didn't know that. I guess Oversight just removes it from the eyes of everyone including admins, then. Do that if you feel it is necessary. Ironholds (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  Not really, but I also don't even think we should bother deleting it. If this were on an article or project page I would feel differently, but as it stands a vanishingly small number of people will see that history page and all they are likely to draw from it is the exactly what LHvU did. Protonk (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone else savouring the irony of an anti-Semitic sentiment decrying the influence of Jews upon "knoledge"; proof that you really do need to be that stupid to harbour hatred toward another group. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• You don't have to be that stupid, it just helps a lot. Protonk (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's also the "should of". Reminds me of the idiot in Porky's who thought the slur for Jews was "Kites". Aryan supremacy. Yah, shoor, yoo betcha. Baseball Bugs 11:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Using "should of" or "would of" needs to be written into WP:BLOCK as a perfectly good reason for blocking. Spelling mistakes can be forgiven, but not that. Black Kite 11:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely. -- The Grammar Police 13:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Assemblies of Yahweh

A admin called Ricky81682 has latly been removing a lot of images, paragraphs and formats from pages such as Dalet School and Obadiah School of the Bible saying images arent relevant! He has been covering this up by putting

“clean up”

in the edit summary box, but really he is simply ruining the whole article. Also see WMLK article where he removed a lot of words for no good reason at all. I feel sorry for the people putting effort in to these articles only to have them ruined by users like ricky claiming they are

“a mess”

as one edit summary said, and then just removing a whole lot of information that makes the article organised in the first place! Anyway i dont see any justification for much of his edits other than to prevent these articles from achieving a high quality standard. 212.103.241.89 (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only diff you cite shows Ricky removing a lot of extraneous line breaks, unbolding "Crayola Curriculum" (which is what he said he was doing in the edit summary), and changing the lead to be a little more grammatically correct. There is one image near the bottom that he removed, but it did nothing but clutter up the bottom of the page. You will need to cite exact diffs where Ricky did what you say he did. Hermione1980 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and I see that the diff actually incorporates several edits. The edit summary that I saw describes exactly what he did in that edit. I don't really see what the problem is with his edits; he removed no substantive text (that I can tell), he removed two images that relate only tangentially to the article itself, and he made the lead sound better. If you can provide diffs that show otherwise, I'm open to persuasion, but ATM I don't see a problem. Hermione1980 13:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, one more update. Pictures are supposed to illustrate the content of the article. A picture of a book with the caption "Obadiahs value study", which was located in both Dalet School and Obadiah School of the Bible, fails to do this. If Ricky were removing a picture of the actual school, that would be one thing. All he is doing is removing pictures that do not relate to the article content. Also, as far as I can tell (and this is not my area of expertise, I'm just going off what the diffs show me) Ricky has not removed massive amounts of text; if this is not the case, show me a diff that says otherwise. Hermione1980 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Spot the difference

1. In Cites

2. Rickys

1.In Cites 2. Rickys

1. previous 2.

Spot the difference? Rickys edits are drastically worsening the articles and I dont think its fair on all the users who have been trying so hard to improve them. I tried to reverse his changes but all I get is a warning that if I do it again I will get a penalty. Not very proper for a admin is it? A image of a Bible is allowed to be shown about a school that studies the Bible. A image of a Dalet is allowed to be shown on a school whose name is Dalet school etc. There is nothing wrong wih the images - until someone uploads some beter ones, these will make do. It isnt contravening any rules 212.103.241.89 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a "drastic worsening" of the article quality. In fact, the content edits (text only, not pictures) that Ricky has done have improved the quality of the writing. As for the pictures—I suppose I see your argument about how a school that studies the Bible could show a picture of the Bible, but the books that were shown were just random books. There is still (IIRC) a picture of a Dalet on the Dalet School article; there just aren't three of them anymore. Hermione1980 14:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:212.103.241.89's edits

Could an outside admin please inform User:212.103.241.89 that attacks like at Talk:Assemblies_of_Yahweh#Ricky_not_helping, Talk:Jacob_O._Meyer, Talk:WMLK, Talk:Obadiah_School_of_the_Bible and Talk:Dalet_School are inappropriate? I really don't think that any of my changes could be considered "ghastly" (let alone the incorrect claim that I'm a Christian) and I would hope someone would remove them but I'd like an outsider's opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Cut and page moves

Could someone uninvolved please tell User:Secisek about page move rules, particularly cut and paste (see Archbishop of Armagh and Archbishop of Armagh (Roman Catholic)). I pointed this out but user insists on edit-warring over it anyway. I reverted him twice, but don't wanna look like I'm "edit warring" 'cause you just never know what will happen. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. --Moonriddengirl 14:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Have explained, briefly but hopefully satisfactorily. I am watchlisting the contributor's page in case further discussion is necessary. I see that User:Wknight94 has corrected the c&p move and protected the articles pending consensus. --Moonriddengirl 14:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved

This user despite continued notifications continues to (sprinkled among some apparent good faith edits) continues to make major alterations to film article budgets and grosses without sourcing or edit summary. I can no longer keep up with the articles. The user hasn't used a summary once in their history or cited a source in their prolific editing. I'm concerned about the integrity of all these film article across the board as this user has changed a lot of information on Wp without any explanation. Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also this user had his user page deleted for continuing to post improper content after being notified twice. Mjpresson (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at a couple of examples, and have to say that the lack of communication is a problem - they do seem to place a couple of sources at the end of the "rewrite", but it is difficult to say that they cover all the changes. I am going to drop a couple of warning templates on their page and ask that they respond to the concerns raised. We will then take if from there if needs be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Another issue you may not have seen is inserting text into already cited statements. Mjpresson (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the assessment. I've tried to communicate with the editor about removing {{defaultsort}} and non-breaking spaces from articles as well as re-sorting articles' categories in a non-alphabetical way. A lot of the edits are beneficial, but there are so many changes in an edit without a summary that it is difficult to review the changes (especially when sections are shuffled). It would be nice to actually initiate a conversation with the editor and communicate what changes work and what changes don't. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Orange bar woes

Anyone else experiencing a problem with the orange new message notification? It keeps popping up for me without any new messages actually posted to my talk page. Tan | 39 16:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And now my talk page history isn't showing two diffs I recently made. Weirdness. Tan | 39 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it is related, but the past couple days I have had people post to my talk page, but no orange bar shows up, another user had the same problem. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 2, 2009 @ 16:54

It has showed up for me quite a few times when I don't have any messages as well. Nice to know it's not just me. J.delanoy_adds 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is related either, but sometimes I get the orange bar (correctly) but it isn't clickable... Black Kite 16:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The non-clickable bar has been happening to me intermittantly for a couple of weeks now. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yesterday, the bar (blue for me, due to customised CSS) popped up once, and I ignored it until I'd finished what I was doing, but as soon as I loaded a new page, it disappeared - that is not normal behaviour, and I , too, would be interested in what causes these problems. Dendodge Talk 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's weird for you. This section is appearing in my watchlist, and appearing when I click "edit this page" but it's not appearing if you just go right to WP:ANI or if you look at the page history. Some bizarre goings on... either way (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, after I posted that, everything was a-okay. either way (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I was seeing that too, and it seems OK now. Baseball Bugs 17:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's still going on, as my entry above is not in the article's edit history at the moment. Baseball Bugs 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

?action=purge is your friend. – iridescent 17:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ran into that a second ago on AIV...couldn't see the vandalism edits because they weren't in the history... --Smashville 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the servers may be out of sync which is causing all kinds of problems. See also: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#You_have_new_messages_bar_sticking, Misplaced Pages:Help_desk#Servers_getting_out_of_sync. Icewedge (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've never seen any bar pop up when someone posts a new message to my talk page. Just a * next to the My talk link. Do you need to turn that on somewhere or something?--Atlan (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's no longer happening for me, so it's hopefully going to be (or already) fixed now. SchfiftyThree 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Runtshit

Most admins will be familiar with the long history of disruption caused by this vandal. Most such edits are apparently carried out using proxies and anonymisers. However, following the recent blocking of several more socks, Nishkid64 carried out a checkuser, as a result of which s/he blocked additional sleepers and IPs. The blocked IPs were on the University of Haifa network; presumably the blocked accounts were from these same IPs. Could a note be sent to the university regarding this misuse of their equipment? Since the university should keep a record of who has been allocated these IPs at the relevant times, is there any way in which this could be used to put a stop to this ongoing vandalism? RolandR (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

I sent an e-mail to the University of Haifa helpdesk (in English). You might want to do the same. helpdesk at univ.haifa.ac.il Avruch 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think further discussion also belongs at Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports (by IP address), which I assume would be the noticeboard for abuse reports. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of banned user Hkelkar

Hkelkar sparked a huge edit war by pushing a anti-Pakistani point of view yesterday as sockpuppet User:Ontopofcosts. Now, User:Panunkashmir has edited Kashmir conflict (which is what got User:Ontopofcosts blocked yesterday) pushing a pro-Indian point of view, which so I hear is characteristic of User:Hkelkar, as the accounts sole edits. Could somebody look into this? Regards, Inferno, Lord of Penguins 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Panunkashmir is  Unrelated to Hkelkar. Different country entirely. I'll keep tabs on this editor, though. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin - article probation?

• Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is currently fully protected by Kylu (talk · contribs). The only admin, it seems, that is currently willing to deal with POV-pushing and other problems at the article is KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs). I like Puppy, but this is not an ideal situation because she had been involved with some of the more contentious content disputes at the article in the past. I'd like to propose article probation, similar to what we have at Barack Obama.

On a related note, there are several {{editprotected}} requests at that article that haven't been dealt with for a while. Kelly 19:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try a hand at it. (And does anyone know a good .cs hack for monobook to get rid of the gray text on dirty-pink field when editing a protected page? Not nice to the eyes!) --SB_Johnny | 19:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be an over-kill and too much of a bureaucracy placing her article(s) on probation since the election is over and she's not a main focus in the media (and of most editors) anymore. I'd rather would like to see tight (admin) hands dealing with disruptive and edit warring editors and have the article semi-protected till things calm down. So if let's say 2 uninvolved admins would be willing to deal with it for a certain time it would be a better handling and choice to ease the "problem(s)".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but this article is controversial enough that it's been the subject of an ArbCom case. Kelly 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That case was closed in October.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sarah Palin article has a higher admin burnout rate than most (myself included), so unless a decent amount admin support materializes, a general sanction may be needed. I haven't looked into the recent behavior myself recently, but the fact is there are still people arguing about it at all - and most of those people are by nature going to be partisans and/or very stubborn.--Tznkai (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

They're certainly feisty on the talk page... protection for a while is probably better IMO, so long as a couple admins keep an eye out for {{editprotected}} requests. Relatively low-stress for me after some adventures in outer wikimedia, so I'll keep an eye on the discussions for a stint. --SB_Johnny | 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for you. Let's see how long you can take it  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of probation. Maybe one way to make the probation more palatable would be to say that the probation will only last six months at most unless there's an active decision to renew it. Andjam (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to "convert" you but I keep on speaking my mind.

Gosh, nothing against Palin but she had her "15 minutes of fame" and they where extended but how long will it last? So I stick to my opinion above unless she gets a live span of fame in politics. Remember, that most of us didn't know anything about her before here nomination as vice-President. I'm just sticking here to the "cruel" facts and give my opinion with those in mind.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin probation proposal

Based on the decision at Barack Obama, I propose the following identical proposal:

Pages related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation:

• Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
  • Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Palin pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
• Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
• Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.
• All sanctions imposed are to be logged (propose creating Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for this purpose).

Kelly 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PEP10 aka PARARUBBAS (anonymous disruptive editing)

Dear WIKIPEDIA admins,

I have been following, alongside user BANRAY (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:BanRay) and user/admin SATORI SON (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Satori_Son), the case of a disruptive editor, whom registered twice, under the aforementioned accounts (when one was blocked, they created the other - block request situation seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pep10). Their modus operandi consisted in gluing all sentences into one but, much much worse, removing all links and references, as well as other stuff. An example is posted here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=V%C3%ADtor_Gomes&diff=253363654&oldid=243133713)

After both accounts were banned indefinitely (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Pararubbas#Blocked and here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Pep10#December_2008), the "contributor" still edits anonymously from time to time, and i now found another 4 new IP for PEP10 aka PARARUBBAS: (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/92.6.202.44) (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/92.3.180.254) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/82.154.136.129) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/82.155.99.187) which i duly report. Mr. SATORI and Mr. BANRAY have also been notified.

Not hoping to get many help here, since most of the times i report vandals, questions/phrases like "Don't know what you are after with this" or "Cool it, both of you (meaning me and the vandal)", but the case is duly reported and clarified with proper situation links. The rest, not up to me...

Sincerely, from PORTUGAL, wishing a pleasant 2009,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Horrible BLP violation, further action needed at Ona Zee

There has been an unsourced claim in this article identifying the subject as a realtor of similar name/appearance. It was originally added by an SPA. The account's only edit. The edit included a link giving the subject's (supposedly) current workplace address, workplace phone, cell phone, etc. A few weeks ago, User:Epbr123 changed the article to make the privacy violating information more prominent and the workplace link more conspicuous. Although he did remove other unsourced statements. The named realtor whether or not she is this porn star has no notability as a realtor. There is no justification for including personal information like this. Either the bad edits should be oversighted or the article should be deleted and recreated to make this violation inaccessible. I deleted the info and link but it still sits in the article history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed, should be oversighted straight away. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and recreated it minus all revisions from January 8, 2008 to today. Hard to believe this had been in the article a whole year and no one caught it. Blueboy96 21:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It can happen with low traffic articles. On an obscure bio a while back, the hatnote was found to describe someone with a similar name - who had an article too - as a "child molestor". That'd been there for 18 months too. Black Kite 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:H5+R1A and User:H5andh5

H5+R1A (talk · contribs) and H5andh5 (talk · contribs) If you look at the recent history (today) of Solutrean hypothesis and Pre-Siberian American Aborigines - these two editors (are they 2?) have deleted the same sourced text. H5+R1A (talk · contribs) also edited H5andh5 (talk · contribs)'s page a while ago as though it was his own. I suspect they are the same editor. dougweller (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There's another user found on the page history that has a username which is almost like the first one mentioned and their userpage states that they "maintain these User ships: H5+R1A and H5andh5". H5andh5 has been on Misplaced Pages longer than the other two users; it could be likely. SchfiftyThree 21:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SSP is down the hall to your left. Hermione1980 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller did so here. --barneca (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:ArabKh

Is it appropriate for a user to call another user a "kike" and a "yid" on their Talk page, as is done at User talk:ArabKh? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Algebraist 21:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the page is protected, so only an admin can fix it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Namecalling removed. --barneca (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly, that isn't what he was blocked for - and only 24 hours, at that. Avruch 22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, because (due to the annoying server synchrowhatchamacallit problem) I keep getting different versions of the block log even when I purge the cache, but VegaDark actually re-blocked indef an hour or so ago. --barneca (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew edit war

Red-link user trying to narrow the focus of the term to something having to do with Israel. I'm not Jewish, but I don't know that that's the point of the concept. In any case, edit war going on and some kind of assistance is needed to put a stop to it. Baseball Bugs 21:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The redlink user is discussing on the article's Talk page and on other Users' pages, but they are continuing to edit war. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have referenced this discussion on the article talk page. Baseball Bugs 21:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I had moved the disputed material to the talk page, but Untwirl keeps returning it to the article. I do not understand why the rush to get it in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is he editing anything at all, besides this one article? Baseball Bugs 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mostly this article, or User talk page messages related to it. — ] (] · ]) 21:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly encourage everyone to keep this on the article talk page, and close down all the ancilliary threads at ANI/3RR/EAR/etc. The editor appears to have stopped edit warring, so I don't think admin action is required. If they resume edit warring, a block is in order; 3RR has been explained. Also, while I'm here, "red link user" is essentially a way of saying "new user" in a derogatory way, and there is nothing inherently wrong with being an WP:SPA; it's the disruption that's usually the problem, not the single purposeness. If the edit warring stops, then they may (or may not) have something worth listening to on the talk page. --barneca (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case "red link user" may have a different meaning. This user seems to understand how WP works better than I do now, much less my clueless state when I first started to edit -- when I did not understand even how to sign my user name. (Of course, I admit to being one what may be the most computer illiterate users here.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you give examples of this wiki mastery that Untwirl is demonstrating? If you can substantiate it, then we have a serious concern that should be looked into. If you can't, then your comment kind of borders on unfair gossip, doesn't it? You could be right, you could be wrong, but until you do something beyond vague hints of possible misbehavior, I think we've pretty much agreed by now that shouting "possible sock puppet" at those we disagree with is uncool. I have to say, I've taken a cursory glance, and their edits from October and November have a couple of minor errors. I don't see anything suspicious. If you do, please show me. If not, please consider retracting. --barneca (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimate threats and name-calling by User:Mike Doughney

Regarding the situation on the Rick Warren article above by User:Teledildonix314, User:Mike Doughney has repeatedly used personally demeaning language towards me this edit, yet more offensive are his repeated hypocritical threats towards me. He claims that by identifying the person responsible for the situation discussed above as a "vandal" (and I would claim accurately, given the situation) I was "name-calling" (after both he and User:Teledildonix314 had repeatedly called me names) and he has threatened to have me blocked (he seems to believe that it is solely his purgative whom to block). This, despite the fact that he himself is requesting action to be taken against User:Teledildonix314 (see above)! His most recent message to me is posted below.

Now I realize this all sounds rather juvenile, but I assure you that he is the one doing it - I could care less if he calls me names and I have no desire to have him blocked. What ticks me off are the threats - please tell him to stop. Just investigate his comments on the Rick Warren discussion page, along with mine and his for the evidence. I'm sure you will come to a logical and fair resolution. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Rick Warren, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You have been warned by me twice to cease making abusive comments to other editors in your edit summaries and falsely accusing editors of vandalism. This is your final warning. Stop. Your previous warnings were here and here. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to come across an edit that Manutdglory made to the article which removed sourced information, and reverted the edit, then told him on his Talk page that he should discuss such edits on the Talk page before making them. In response, he deleted my comments from his Talk page without discussion. That doesn't sound like somebody who's interested in collegial editing. Note that I have no prior interest in the article. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I should first mention, in agreement with Little Red, that Manutdglory is apparently initiating an edit war on this article by repeatedly removing sourced information without any discussion whatsoever, and then again removing the same material about seven minutes later, which I then restored. . Earlier edits by this user removed the same material. Open incidents at WP:ANI regarding these matters exist above here and here. Last time I checked, making false accusations of vandalism, personal attacks, and general incivility were at least cumulatively grounds for blocking, hence my series of warnings and final warning as detailed at WP:ANI. The accusation of name-calling directed at me seems to be centered on this edit and frankly, it does appear to me that Manutdglory cannot and will not accept the fact that the personal views of an editor are separate from their edits. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike, even using someone that clearly has no clue what's going on with the Warren article, like NurseryRhyme is pathetic and immature and you know it. All he had to do was check the history page to see what was going on. "Falsely accusing others?" First of all, why are you asking for administrative action to be taken against User:Teledildonix314 if he is innocent? We all know he is guilty. Secondly, "others" - ah, the only person I accused of vandalism is User:Teledildonix314 and I only started criticizing you when you admitted your personal disdain for Rick Warren, yet still felt compelled to edit his article despite your bias, so where were you going with that comment? And your argument that you could still be an objective editor despite your personal bias was negated when you defended some of User:Teledildonix314's hateful diatribe. Also, I wasn't aware that removing unsourced personal editorials that the user repeatedly reposted (which you yourself did to User:Teledildonix314) from an article qualified as edit-warring - in fact, I believe that is what our goal as legitimate editors is. My objective input is clearly needed in the Warren article to offset your and Teledildonix314's obvious bias. And as you have freely admitted, the only legitimate evidence of "name-calling" (I feel like I'm a 15 year old kid) is you referring to me see here. Manutdglory (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Florentino Velasquez Floro

I just stumbled upon this account while checking WhatLinksHere on an image and blocked it indefinitely as a sock of Florentino floro (talk · contribs). I seem to recall this "case" being treated with somewhat unusual deference (perhaps not the right word) due to BLP concerns, so if anything should be done about the userpage/Talk page (protection, courtesy blanking, deletion etc.) please feel free to do it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing image

Can anyone see File:Ivytree.jpg, because I can't seem to see the photo with my computer. If anyone can see the photo, please leave a message on my talk page. Otherwise, I will contact OTRS to get details of the photo's permissions and re-upload the photo. Thanks. miranda 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't see it. It looks like there wasn't ever a file there either. Or at Commons. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Locally, there was never any such file according to the logs. What seems to be the problem? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't be looking for this file, would you? I can't find any record of File:Ivytree.jpg in your Commons upload log either. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for File:Ivyleaf.jpg? It would seem so. — neuro 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also known as Alpha Kappa Alpha. Baseball Bugs 01:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

GOL (groan out load). That one was painful, Bugs. --barneca (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks very much. Found the pic that I was looking for. Thanks everyone. miranda 03:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Request reality check re: User:75.89.46.45

75.89.46.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone please take a look at this editor's contributions? There aren't all that many of them, but as far as I can tell, none of them are good: badly formatted, badly written, inappropriately placed, and so on. I believe I've reverted most, if not all, of the edits, but what I can't figure out is whether the badness is deliberate, and therefore vandalism, or simply an editor who just needs more time to assimilate the right way to edit Misplaced Pages. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stereotypes of Jews

I need a sanity check here, and I'm clearly involved and biased. This article was recently nominated for deletion, though the nomination was just withdrawn. A list of mostly unfavorable and completely unsourced stereotypes was the main body of the article prior to some major trimming as seen here. The list was then moved to the article talk page, with the rationale that it might be useful. Do we keep random, unsourced, largely derogatory lists generated by one user on article talk pages just because they might have the potential to be useful? If I'm being reasonable by removing the list from the talk page, I'd really appreciate another administrator coming in to help. AniMate 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a terrible list. And I am not sexually frustrated. LOL. Seriously, it's not sourced, it's like a random list generated from the mind of DCvoice. It's not like it's very useful. Hell, I could create a much better list, without thinking. OrangeMarlin 02:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:3RR is where this should be as User:Deeceevoice has reverted the removal or attempt to collapse the list four times now. . He's also aware of this thread. AniMate 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me about the list is that appears to be something a 10 year old would create. For example, financial stereotypes aren't even addressed, which is one stereotype that probably has 2000 years of history and is quite notable. I find it offensive, but it is easily sourced. Nappy hair? Give me a break. Deeceevoice ought to be embarrassed. OrangeMarlin 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The only way I'd be embarrassed is if I believed all that crap. And, yeah. I said it: nappy hair. And financial stereotypes are addressed. But if you see something I left out, feel free to add it. As I said before, the list was stream-of-conscious and meant solely to start the ball rolling for an article. That's what it's there for. And while you're at it, go back to the article talk page and read my comments there as well. You might learn something. Oh, yeah. And while you're at it, if you're really interested in writing a decent article, you might also consult some of the sources I've posted. If you guys spent more time writing the article instead of worrying about someone improperly "editing" my talk page comments, it would be a hell of a lot further along right now.deeceevoice (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive the discussion and if people want to discuss each individual stereotype they can create new sections for each individual one. There's no point to a "here's twenty items, let's discuss them all at once" strategy. It's repetitive but it'll keep later conversations clear. Debate the sources at each one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has just begun and doesn't require/merit archiving. The list stands as a suggested list of what to include in the article -- as is commonly done with the framing of any article on any other subject. It's perfectly legitimate -- and useful. If I, as an African-American, can write articles on Blackface dealing with "coons," "darkies," etc., or contribute to articles treating subject matter like Nigger, Mammy, lynchings, etc., then other people ought to be able to stomach dispassionate discussion about the subject matter at hand. If not, then I suggest they simply move on to something less upsetting. deeceevoice (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a compromise with the nominator to close the AfD. Can I reopen the existing AfD, or create a new one, asking for this page to be deleted? This editors behavior has been so toxic, I regret ever helping her.travb (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Toxic"? That's funny. I've merely stood my ground and justifiably objected to your repeated and unwarranted editing/hiding of my talk page contributions. I haven't done anything like, say, oh, visit your talk page and threaten you (as you User: travb did mine) -- have I? And whatever you may think of me -- I simply couldn't care less. It's not important. The fact is the article has merit. Need I remind you? This is about the project. deeceevoice (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wow, big surprise, your block log is even longer than my rich block history.

Again, can I reopen the AfD, or create a new one? travb (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant -- and ancient history. Again, this is about the project. Try to focus, Inclusionist. deeceevoice (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards