Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 28 September 2006

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Jason Gastrich

Jason Gastrich has emailed me asking that his community ban be rescinded. He promises not to use sockpuppets and to serve out the term of his one-year arbcom ban, counted from the date of the last sock activity. Opinions? Stifle (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem was not in the main the sockpuppetry, although that was a massive problem in itself, the problem was his contempt for policy and consensus, his use of external sites to solicit support, and abnove all his apparnet desire to use Misplaced Pages first and foremost as a vehicle to promote his own agenda. Guy 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JzG's no. View the edits made at Louisiana Baptist University by new users. I strongly ask that his ban not be lifted. There is no compelling evidence his behavior has changed or will change.

During RfAR he didn't even bothering apologizing, admitting sock puppets, or coming to terms with his actions. He denied his actions, had contempt for other users and the rules. Arbusto 22:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Count it from the "last day of sock activity"? So yesterday? Shog5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made the same edits as a new user a few months ago. He is permantently banned from the Louisiana Baptist University article and it still gets hit. Here's a new user adding Gastrich's webpage to the article. Here's different a new user adding the same Gastrich page. Adding another Gastrich page.

The links added recently, go back to what he stated in the RfRA: "I disagree with JzG and Arbusto's viewpoint that a link to one of my web pages or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong." He was here to promote himself and his views no matter what the rules are. Arbusto 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions? Sure, I can do that. Here it is: No. --Sam Blanning 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the silly season. All the daft banned trolls are crawling back and asking to be given another chance. No. --Tony Sidaway04:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Not one of our prolific and disruptive biased sockpuppeteers. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty close to negotiating with terrorists. He promises if we let him back he won't use sockpuppets? Maybe when the LBU page isn't hit by him for a few months we could consider it possibly. That is not this point (we'd still have the problem that he had few if any productive edits). JoshuaZ 21:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich is the worst sockmaster I've ever dealt with. No. Mackensen (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Its also worth noting his presence on metawiki, where he plugs his goods. For fun, count how many times he refers to himself as "Dr", and count how many times he mentions that his doctorate is from an unaccredited, mail order "school". Arbusto 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Given his complete lack of any contributions whatsoever at meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jason_Gastrich) I see no reaosn why he should be allowed to use his page there to spam his websites and books. I'm all for giving people a second chance if I think there's a chance of redemption, but here? I see absolutely no hope that Gastrich will ever place policy and consensus above his own personal bias. Guy 22:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone want to go find somoene with some authority on Meta to go blank his userpage then? Otherwise I'll do it myself (yes I know the previous link is not a meta policy). JoshuaZ 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it already. JoshuaZ 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, is there even a question of this? No, no, and again no. KillerChihuahua 14:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

He's even got a sock puppet there. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/User:Ruth_Ginsling). Harvestdancer 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If Jason is genuine, then I would welcome him back - but he would have to make a full apology to the community. --LiverpoolCommander 09:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A full apology means admitting he did something wrong. The few apologies he's ever given have been to apologize for being misunderstood - for you misunderstanding him. You're chances of getting a real apology ... I'd support lifting the ban if he made a full apology, which means I'm not in favor of lifting the ban ever. Harvestdancer 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gastrich's inability to concede LBU's lack of meaningful accreditation as a problem because of x, y and z (for example, notable guest speakers at LBU); is an unfortunate indication he has firmly held POV's that aren't reconcilable with being a constructive Wikipedian. - RoyBoy 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks at google Arbusto 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And another sock: Special:Contributions/Hebrews102425. KillerChihuahua 00:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• The community might also want to consider this page, where we read, "spiritually, me and some other believers were becoming unequally yoked with unbelievers, having to form close relationships as we dredged over the minutia of each Christian entry and what should and shouldn't be included. In every case, the unbelievers wanted sensational, ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and in many cases incorrect information included and some others and I insisted on including the truth and excluding that nonsense. This opposition met us head on and I was eventually banned for one year. I don't see myself returning to Misplaced Pages because I have shaken the dust from my shoes. In fact, we even decided to end the Wiki4Christ.com web site that was sending Christians to Misplaced Pages. It is an awful place for Christians who sincerely want the truth fairly represented." All emphasis added was by me. So, if Misplaced Pages is an "awful place for Christians" such as Gastrich, why would he want to return? Notice that Gastrich implicitely denies using sockpuppets in the same commentary. Regardless, Gastrich has had a few unkind things to say about Misplaced Pages since his expulsion, and that includes recent comments. Those were certainly "sour grapes," but they're enough to bring his sincerity into question. WarriorScribe 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, wiki4christ.com now redirects to Jason's own ministry. Why am I not surprised. Such issues aside, one of the reasons I supported the final indef ban was the complete unacceptability of using an outside source to attempt to get outside help target and overwhelm articles here. If he has stopped doing so, for whatever reason, that is a good sign. Unfortunately, the reasons he gives for stopping in no way indicate he will be at all a helpful Wikipedian. JoshuaZ 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• During the discussion in arbitration, Gastrich wrote, "I'm going to avoid Misplaced Pages for awhile. However, I am going to encourage everyone I know to continue contributing. Therefore, don't expect to be hearing from me, but expect to be hearing from them ." The community certainly did hear from "them," didn't it? It might be especially noteworthy that Gastrich denied using sockpuppets during the arbitration discussion, and also on his "response" site, but then seems to tacitly admit doing them, according to what was related by Stifle at the beginning of this thread. This wouldn't be the first time that Gastrich has changed his story so that he might accomplish whatever it is that he wants to accomplish. What is clear is that he saw the problems at Misplaced Pages as being one of those who believe as he does being in battle with "unbelievers." He's posted that sort of commentary a few times since his expulsion, and it's clear from those comments that he still believes that. That should be taken into consideration during any discussion of a lifting of a ban that was imposed with good cause by the consideration of good evidence. WarriorScribe 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe Jason should undergo some form of mentorship, and agree not to edit the controversial Christian articles - is this a reasonable suggestion?? Also, he'd have to make a full apology to the community. --LiverpoolCommander 09:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  As I noted before, a full apology is unlikely because it means admitting he did something wrong. However if he were to do that, I'd be willing to accept the role of mentor, as unworthy as I am of it. Harvestdancer 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

LiverpoolCommander, Gastrich has been banned from the very articles that are getting hit right now with links to his websites. So what would asking him not to edit those articles do? Also go through his edit history. I have received two or three apologies from him. Yesterday, there was a personal attack on me and others posted on wikipedia and an off-site forum. Your two conditions for including have been met already, and he has not changed. Arbusto 16:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at yet? A request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist may be overdue. Guy 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Gastrich's back posting at meta wiki. See the AfD discussion for his comment on his behavior. Arbusto 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comedy: Gastrich uses puppets on this very page. The reason his "new user" signed up for an account he was angry at links like this being removed. In a strange twist, its Gatrich's page. Arbusto 01:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, "Rick56505" is Gastrich, as evidenced by the commentary and his edits, as well as the appearance of this article at Gastrich's stolen-domain-name group. Notice that this same material has appeared on Misplaced Pages, and Gastrich was outed as "Fraud Buster" long ago. I would submit that he's none too pleased that his efforts at reinstatement at Misplaced Pages have been rebuffed, and he's back in full-blown revenge mode. Remember, Gastrich sees this whole thing as a war of sorts between himself and "unbelievers." WarriorScribe 01:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• No way should he be allowed back to try and game the system. Something he is still doing. David D. (Talk) 15:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• No. Good grief. Even though I'm generally a lenient person and prone to wanting to believe second chances, the stir being created at meta (complete with TWO Uncle Daveys!) and of course his fameous "pruning" of his talk page shows not only a lack of repentance, but a lack of learning. The only way I'd change my mind is if he accepted a mentor - not one that he picks, but one picked by administrators. Harvestdancer 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  In addition to posting my real name often, now he's posted my address and phone number and encouraged people to contact me. Harvestdancer 18:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• He's spamming wikipedia with other websites too.Sept 12 Shuples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

adds "Dr. Jason Gastrich". Arbusto 01:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What we can read here is probably exactly the sort of thing Gastrich expected when he publicized another editor's address and phone number. WarriorScribe 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Slow moving revert war - Duck Hunt

Some guy with a dynamic IP keeps on trying to spam his webcomic there. Check the history to see what's going on. I can not be bothered to babysit this article, if some admin wants to shoot him down then that would be nice. - Hahnchen 15:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I"d love to ask for sprotection, but it looks so slow that I'm sure that the request will be denied. Hbdragon88 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sprotection (at WP:RFPP) or constant vigilance are the only two options available. I'm not an admin, but I'll keep the page on my ever-growing watchlist. I need to prune that soon... Captainktainer * Talk 21:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

there is another option. List the website on the spam blacklist. pschemp | talk 12:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

UCT causing some problems...

The University of Cape Town has a course called Eco3025: Applied International Trade Bargaining. It is a simulation of a WTO Doha Round negotiation (people are divided into countries and then compete with each other. A little bit like Model UN). (here's a link. I think this is last year's information, but you get the idea). It is a course I've done & tutored and it is extremely competitive (people have stormed out, ended friendships, punched each other etc.).

In any case, I was just chatting to a friend doing the course at the moment & she informs me at least one person (possibly more) have sneakily vandalised a number of countries' articles on Misplaced Pages in order to sabotage their competition (i.e. students rely on the information on Misplaced Pages, so some devious person has deliberately added FALSE information to gain a competitive edge). She adds this guy says the information has not yet been fixed and added that he claims to have edited all the top ten countries by GDP (see List of countries by GDP (PPP)). These edits began sometime in early August.

So... we're looking for anon edits to these articles since August that have altered economic or political aspects on the article of countries that are top ten by GDP. If it helps, I suspect most of these edits would have come from the UCT computer system. Here are some ips I know to originate from that system (as these were my ip edits when I edited from UCT): 155.232.250.19, 155.232.250.51, 155.232.250.35. -- Mikker 23:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

this and this edit to Economy of Germany and Economy of Japan, respectively, by Subordinate (talk · contribs) looks suspiciously like sneaky vandalism (compare and ). Although, both of these have been fixed as far as I can tell... Mikker 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's probably the leading edge of what will be a growing problem in the future... people vandalizing Misplaced Pages to try to gain an advantage in some competition or other that involves knowledge of facts or trivia. *Dan T.* 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable behavior of the worst sort. I would think this would be an excellent thing to make an example of by contacting the university in question and letting them know that such deliberate misinformation has occured and that we do not appreciated it. JoshuaZ 03:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Rodney Howard-Browne

Could someone please look at this article: different versions of it appear to either extol or condemn its subject, without any verifiable sources. I think some serious WP:BLP enforcement is needed here, but I'm not an expert on handling BLP problems... -- The Anome 13:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

After some digging, I've dealt with this by doing a bunch of reverts and issued a warning about NPOV and BLP to User:GEORGEWATTS. -- The Anome 13:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over the 9/11 set of articles

I'm not sure where to express my concerns, so am choosing here.

Inspection of the suite of articles showing the various theories, counter theories, conspiracy theories etc will show a hugely controversial area of accusations of propaganda, calls for the truth to be heard, and much "oddness" which is more of a discussion forum than an encyclopaedia.

Examples include:

• 911: In Plane Site
• Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center
• Misplaced Pages:Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors

and their corresponding deletion discussion pages.

To me it seems odd that this appears to be a partisan issue, human nature apart, since the various theories, counter theories and conspiracy theories are all a legitimate part of the same phenomenon, thus all within scope for encyclopaedic and neutral documentation.

I have no idea if there is a process for uninvolved admins to review both the actions of the participants and the various deletion review pages to ensure that guidance is given, where appropriate, to heavily involved editors on topics ranging from civility to editing and opining within the various Misplaced Pages policies, and also to ensuring that the closing admin (or admins) is (are) completely non-partisan in this set of issues when a deletion has been requested.

Fiddle Faddle 13:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This subject is understandably a contentious one and would benefit from some fresh participants, not involved in the existing confrontations, to help maintain policy and standards of behaviour. Tyrenius 02:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps ongoing administrator oversight would be helpful to ensure that no one is allowed to import any partisan or nationalistic edits to these articles? The edit histories as well as the comments on the various AfDs are littered with what appear to be extremely nationalistic reasonings, which have no place. · XP · 02:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious situation that I tried to do something about, it has created a huge mess. Something needs to be done and I'm afraid it is beyond the user level at this point. The whole situation involves multiple users including some admins and is in violation of almost every policy out there and makes Misplaced Pages as a whole worse off. Shortfuse 10:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to be very clear, here. In this issue I think neither "side" is blameless. Indeed some of us who have attempted simply to take a policy based and neutral view are probably not blameless either. By raising this here I have hoped to highlight this to our most experienced and impartial admins, knowing that I also may have made contentious comments. My entire point is that we must all be open to community scrutiny, and the article(s) are the better for it if we are correctly scrutinised.

I believe we have a large enough pool of admins who both have sufficient experience of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and who have absolutely no interest in the subject matter of these articles in order to bring some order to what is currently a battleground

The most important thing in this discussion is to take a step back and look at our own comments with care, despite what we may perceive as provocation. We have metrics to judge what should and should not be included, and I believe we must stick to the wholeheartedly. The current situation simply saddens me. Fiddle Faddle 12:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

These 9/11 articles are fought over between conspiracy people and people who are they complete opposite... maybe they believe there's no conspiracy... maybe they work for the government. All in all it's just point of view pushing both ways--the people who fight to have the information and those who don't have just want to push their POVs and they should be handled like that. It's not like the person who nominated the articles you listed above works for CIA or homeland security. Anomo 00:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What you and many others continue to miss is the mere inclusion of an article on a topic in and of itself does not constitute POV pushing. Using XfD to delete everything you disagree with, does. Its just that simple. --Shortfuse 00:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What the great majority of people appear to miss is that the documenting of the point of view of other people is not the same as documenting one's own point of view. And this is part of my concern.

As examples:

1. were I to say that, in my opinion all green haired people should be shot on sight, that is my point of view and I am pushing it.
2. However, if I were to say that, according to the following reputable sources, the following people, some of whom may and others of whom may not be notable in their own right, say that all green haired people should be shot on sight, then I create an article as part of a suite of articles on green haired people that is encyclopaedic.

The difference is very clear, and very simple to understand. Example 1 is meet for deletion, or editing to remove my personal viewpoint, arguably original research. Example 2 is probably controversial, but is factual, supportable by the facts, is notable and has its notability asserted by references. It should remain.

If a person argues for the deletion of example 2, especially if they do so vociferously, then it can be argued clearly that they are seeking to stifle genuine encyclopaedic work. An extension of this, assuming they have not simply made an error in understanding, is that they have their own agenda, which may be to remove all comments against green haired people.

I suppose I should state that I have occasionally used green hair gel and that I am not in any way opposed to green haired people, nor do I believe that they should be shot on sight. Fiddle Faddle 10:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In case it is not obvious, in Example 2, if any of the sources are not reputable, then those sources either should not be quoted as citations, or should be grouped as "sources which do not pass the reputability test, but which endorse this opinion". In other words, "Editing the article is ok". Fiddle Faddle 10:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So then there should be many conspiracy articles about 9/11 simply so a single article does not become too long. Anomo 10:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No. I have never said that and I will never say it.

There should be sufficient and correct documentation of this phenomenon, both the atrocity and the phenomenon of the conspiracy theories. But the cornerstone is that the material about any part of the 9/11 incidents should be verifiable, citable, and notable.

Where it is necessary to split an article because it is unwieldy and is suitable for splitting, that is a normal and healthy clerical process, and it is absolutely removed from any discussions about points of view. Fiddle Faddle 10:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

undelete article on schlogger

Please undelete the article on schlogger. It is much more noticable than some other sites on the list of social networking sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Romney (talk • contribs) .

I've discussed this with Romney on his user talk page, and pointed him to WP:DRV. FreplySpang 14:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Unclosed Vote for Deletion from November 2004

I happened to stumble upon the VfD for Chet Anekwe today. The concensus points to delete but it was never closed and deleted. Shoudl an admin carry out that concensus or should a new AfD be made? Metros232 14:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The article you linked to was created 17:05, July 23, 2005, after the VfD - I doubt the person who created it even knew the article was deleted. However, all of the arguments for deletion seem to still apply to the current article. In any case, I just redirected it to Dream Job. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh, that's odd, I didn't notice the creation date. I had looked in the deletion log and didn't see it in there. Are deletions from "way back when" not logged? Metros232 15:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats what it looks like. Syrthiss 15:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking back through the deletion logs of old VfDs that ended in "delete", it looks like the Deletion log goes back to sometime in December 2004. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no entries in Special:Log/delete for the page (log was introduced December 23, 2004), although there are four deleted edits which are listed at Special:Undelete/Chet Anekwe. A manual log was kept before the automatic log was introduced, that's archived at Misplaced Pages:Deletion log. --bainer (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anekwe has appeared recently in the lead in a Nigerian film called 30 Days, and has also appeared in a production of August Wilson's "Real Black Men Don't Sit Cross-legged on the Floor: A Collage in Blues", which was reviewed in the New York Times . The current redirect is fine but somebody might want to expand to a stub some time in the near future. --Tony Sidaway 16:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved in from WP:VPP

This was originally posted to WP:ANI, then moved to the Policy Pump. The discussion has grown markedly in the last day, and has involved many users.

Admins who don't edit articles

Removed cut+pasted discussion on this subject. Please keep the discussion in one place so that it doesn't develop forks. It is now at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Admins who don't edit articles, continuing into Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Some of the related ideas. FreplySpang 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(Situation resolved.) Korean War Article has been massivly vandalized.

Korean War

Please look this over and compair it to earlier edits. The entire top has been destroyed and the nice table that was on the right side is totally gone. I think this is a major priority for revert.

magnumserpentine9-24-06

So revert it. —Centrx→talk • 17:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

was not sure I had authorization to do so. But someone else has and all is well I apologize for any problems MagnumSerpentine 9-24-06

anyone whether logged in or not can revert in good faith obvious vandalism. Reverting content once is OK if that content is not supported by a reliable source or is otherwise unencyclopedic. However, please comply with ] as that is a blockable offense. Check out the for more tips. --Richard 17:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Trevor Saline

Trevor Saline (talk · contribs) has created a slew of sub-sub articles and is arguing at greatg lenght about their deletion at WP:DRV. Something about this behaviour feels familiar. Can anybody spot a parallel? Guy 21:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I was also about to leave a message regarding this. Before tempers start to fray from the frustration of dealing with this chap, it would be helpful if more people were to express their opinion. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 22. Thryduulf 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

He's nearly as bloody annoying as Jon Awbrey. We have many paragraphs and days of debate over a series of articles not one of which achieved the giddy heights of a second sentence. Guy 09:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Have I done something wrong here? These articles were deleted, as far as I can see, against the relevant policies. JzG and others have raised reasons for the deletions, and I have merely tried to debate those reasons (others have indicated that they believe tha deletions may not be valid and one article has already been recreated). Somebody else suggested that I should be blocked for "disruption". Is such debating not allowed, or is there a limit on debates? Do I just have to quietly accept a reason, when there appears to be very good grounds to question it? Trevor Saline 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Username blocks

Following a question on the reference desk by a user blocked for having a non-Latin-character username, can I remind admins to make the reason for blocks clear to the blocked user, to avoid biting the newbies. (In this particular case, the user was User:人, and the only information they were given as to why was the rather cryptic "user..." as the blocking reason.) Thanks. -- AJR | Talk 23:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP

I have no idea if this (link removed) information is true or not, but should the version be deleted from the history regardless? --After Midnight 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes, an Admin should delete. We also need to come up with a better procedure for dealing with this type of problem than posting to this board, as at the moment such posts, while necessary, wind up publicizing the existence of the very information that should be deleted. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight and Misplaced Pages:Oversight. It's handled by email to a list of trusted users. FreplySpang 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've sent it in. --After Midnight 00:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, FreplySpang. I was familiar with the existence of Oversight, but not that specific page. Newyorkbrad 01:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jessica Lee Rose

I'd appreciate it if an admin would take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jessica Lee Rose. This article was closed September 24 by CharlotteWebb, who is a non-admin. As the discussion had a relatively even number of "keep" and "merge" votes, I reopened the AfD so that an admin could make a decision between those two choices. CharlotteWebb has reacted unpleasantly to this, posting a profanity-laden demand for an explanation on the Afd's talk page (which I gave her, even though I clearly explained my reasoning in the AfD itself) and a statement at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#WP:AFD.2FJessica_Lee_Rose_.28talk.29 accusing me of "misus AFD to create a binding decision in a content dispute" and requesting that an admin take some sort of action against me. So, if anyone has the time, could you please: 1) Check the AfD and either give it a thumbs up for a few days' more discussion or make a decision and close it (it was originally listed September 20); and 2) Let me know whether I did the right thing here or not. If the closing admin says the decision is to "merge", then that's a binding decision, isn't it? And thus, by her closure, did she not nullify all the "merge" votes in that AfD out-of-process? Thanks, --Aaron 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I forgot to add: I voted merge in the original AfD and have made no edits to the article itself or the article to which the merger has been proposed. Also, I can find no evidence that CharlotteWebb was in any way involved in either article or the AfD, except to close it. --Aaron 01:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the main issue aside for a moment, my eyesight must be failing me - could you link to the "profanity-laden" demand from Charlotteweb? --Charlesknight 10:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For a low-moderate threshold of "profanity-laden": AnonEMouse 17:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting is an administrative process. Merging is an editorial process. AFD is designed to address an administrative question, namely "Should this article be deleted?" Merge decisions are not binding in AFD, simply because merge decisions are editorial rather than administrative, and AFD is not intended to address editorial questions. When I close AFD discussions which have a consensus of "Merge," my closing note is always something to the effect of "The consensus is to not delete this article. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge this article with any other relevant articles as the mood strikes them." or something of that nature. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's about what I was trying to explain. — CharlotteWebb 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Evrik

Alex Bakharev has blocked Evrik for removing warnings from his user page. I went through his contributions and he was not one engaging in personal attacks. I feel this is a case of mistaken identity. Can someone else check this and see if this user can be unblocked. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with unblock. I've left a message with Alex -- Samir धर्म 04:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with unblock as well. I was reviewing the AIV report and would have not have blocked Evrik. This issue would best have been reported on AN or ANI, not AIV. — ERcheck (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I have unblocked him. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason #736 to abolish that 'edit war to restore warnings' practice... even if it is used 'properly' all it accomplishes in most cases is to inflame the situation further. --CBD 13:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

New buttons in edit window?

What's up with all these new buttons in the edit window above the Subject/headline? Have I missed the discussion somewhere? I looked on the MediaWiki All pages list and couldn't find the place where these are added. Help would be appreciated! --Spangineer (háblame) 05:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Monobook.js / Mediawiki talk:Monobook.js is the place. Some of them may be useful but some also feel like overkill to me. For example, who really needs a button that adds "::"? Dragons flight 05:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of them have been removed already, including the "::" one. Perhaps a cache purge would do? Titoxd 05:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've come across a few places (, , ) where it seems users have hit the "insert gallery" button by accident and left the result there. In anycase it needs to use Image:Example.jpg rather than Image:FileName.jpg within the pasted text... /wangi 05:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we have the Sam Vaknin Wiki entry back please ?

Zeraeph is currently under suspension and will probably be permanently banned for constant Wiki violations and verbally attacking others. She has a long known history for persecuting and ridiculing experts. She herself is a malignant narcissist. She and her sockpuppets are very poisonous. She obviously worked Sam Vaknin up into a frenzy as he got to perceive Misplaced Pages in general in the same way as Zeraeph as for a while Zeraeph had full backing from Misplaced Pages.

I am not in Sam Vaknin's fan club. My website barely even mentions him. He is a self professed narcissist but not a malignant one. He still runs two support groups for victims of narcissism and is generally respected on the internet. Like him or loathe him he is an important authority in the field of narcissism. I am trying to make improvements to the Workplace Bullying and related Wiki entries. There are a variety of experts relevant to this but I really find it necessary to refer to Sam Vaknin's work as one such expert. To be consistent with the way the other experts are treated (such as Robert Hare, Heinz Leymann and Tim Field with their own Wiki entries) it is not consistent for Sam Vaknin not to have his own page. NPOV in itself would be enough reason for Sam Vaknin to have his page back.

Is any mention of Sam Vaknin automatically forbidden in a Wiki entry even if a reference to his work is justifed in context, say, in bullying or narcissism Wiki entries ?

Has no-one worked out yet that what Zeraeph claimed were Sam Vaknin's sockpuppets were most likely Zeraeph's own sockpuppets ? --Penbat 10:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The AfD is here Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sam Vaknin. And the page you want is deletion review, which is over there --->. Drop me a note on my Talk page if you have trouble working out how to ask for deletion review. Guy 15:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sponsored version of Misplaced Pages Italy?

It's right that it exists a sponsored version of wikipedia italy? I think it doesn't!!!

http://wikipedia.sapere.alice.it/wikipedia/index.html?pmk=HPcan

p.s sorry for my english...

The only problem I see with that mirror is they are using copyrighted Wimpedia/media logos. Using the content is fine because of our licences, see Misplaced Pages:Mirrors. In anycase this is the English language Misplaced Pages - this is an issue better suited to the Italian one. Thanks/wangi 13:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if they're using the logos without permission, it's a Foundation issue. I think there's a page on Meta for it, or you could try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly. --Carnildo 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Practical process

User:David Gerard/Process essay is nearly finished; probably to be moved to "Misplaced Pages:Practical process" fairly soon, relinquishing all ownership and leaving it to the community's tender mercies.

I'd most welcome you all looking over it and letting me know of:

1. Anything that's clearly missing from what it says about how to do process on Misplaced Pages. This is supposed to be a usable guide.
2. Anything that makes you cough up a hairball.
3. - and this is the good bit - anything you spot that you think will make any other particular editor cough up a hairball. It shouldn't actually piss people off.

Talk page or hack on the essay or email to me. Thank you! - David Gerard 17:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD needs closed

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jean-Paul Floru. Thanks! Stubbleboy 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Closed. Joelito (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator help needed

A complicated situation has arisen with Ian White which needs admin tools of deleting to sort out. See my talk page for the background, but basically what needs to be done is:

• Delete Ian White (Ice hockey player)
• Move Ian White (licensing agent) to Ian White (Ice hockey player)

Thanks. David | Talk 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Done. >Radiant< 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks Radiant. David | Talk 22:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Old Revision Of Image/Copyright Violation

I need help from an Admin. to delete the old revision of the image on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:UEIN_Crest.png

The current revision of the image is the correct crest for St. Christopher's Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, as can be seen on the school's main webpage: http://www.stchrisimd.com

The old revision was a prototype that was never authorized for release to the general public by its creator and isn’t nor ever was the school crest so the copyright status on the page doesn't cover that image. It was a privately commissioned work and I would like it to be removed from Misplaced Pages. SpikeyPsyche 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jkelly 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) SpikeyPsyche 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jkelly 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Herbert_Elwood_Gilliland_III

User:Nandesuka is posting this request here on behalf of the blocked user

Herbert_Elwood_Gilliland_III (talk · contribs) would like to be reinstated.

This user is being bothered by User:Nandesuka no matter what he says, does, contributes, adds, revises, changes. This user is forced to use sock puppets to return to and modify his user page. The user was, without trial, understanding, resolution of dispute, banned from Misplaced Pages by a sock-puppet using Administrator, User:Nandesuka who is User:Jlambert who is User:Ehheh. Thanks. OKmrGhey 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This user's massive fraud is outlined in painful detail at User:Nandesuka/Young_Zaphod_Sockpuppetry. I welcome any independent review of my actions in this matter. Herb Gilliland is welcome back as an editor at any time, as long as he promises to stop spamming Misplaced Pages with self-promoting (and inaccurate) material about himself. To date he has been unwilling to make such a commitment. I sincerely believe that preventing him from editing until such time as he is able to do so in a way that doesn't involve unhealthy and grandiose self-promotion is not merely in Misplaced Pages's best interests, but in this user's best interests as well. Nandesuka 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing the point, OKmrGhey, using sockpuppets to evade a ban is prohibited, so no one is forcing them to do that. There's proper channels to appeal a block and it's not using sockpuppets. Also, if you want any sympathy, accusing admins of sockpuppetry is not the way to go. If people act similarly, they're not neccesarily sockpuppets, they could also be (more likely in this case) all be looking out for Misplaced Pages's well-being. Also, there's the difference that Herbert's sockpuppetry was proven through technical means. - Mgm| 08:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hi guys! I just unblocked User:Miskin who recently received a 24 hour block from User:FayssalF for moving two pages without consensus. The discussion can be found here. I was first made aware of the incident on IRC in the #wikipedia channel when Mikskin, who goes as "dion" on IRC, asked for some admin help in the channel. He is not a vandal and he did not violate 3RR or anything while conducting page moves. The diff I provided shows that FayssallF might have been a bit misguided, as one doesn't need consensus to move a page. I'm aware that there's a dispute as to the page move, but Miskin seems to be very reasonable and let me know that he will attempt to work with his fellow Wikipedians on this. I just wanted to post here, as it's the first time I've undid another admin's actions and want to make sure that other admins have the opportunity to view the situation (also, feel free to revert me in this situation or in any other situation if you feel I've made a mistake). Cheers hoopydink 23:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you discuss the issue with User:FayssalF first? My first port of call would be with the blocking admin. Some moves can be part of an attempt to insert a POV, and some pages are subject to move warring. A look at User:Miskin's move logs show a lot of recent page moves , which do seem to give some cause for concern. Note that controversial moves do need to be requested at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Steve block Talk 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually this page was moved without consensus sometime ago and me and other 2 editors agreed to move it back, as per wp:name and related conventions. A specific user (whose name is of no importance) kept reverting and "removing" in a troll-like manner, and familiar with a trick which blocked a page once it had been moved (by inserting a tag or something like that). Once this was performed several times, we couldn't move the page back without an admin's assistance. The same person who was responsible for blocking all possible article names, reported the incident and the admin involved gave out blocks in a blind and irresponsible manner that I have never encountered before. There was no policy violated, no POV-pushing and definitely not vandalism involved (which was the actual accusation). You can verify all of the above for yourself. Regards. Miskin 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "recent page moves" being subject to concern. The few moves I have performed in 2 years have preserved the names I (slash consensus) gave them. This fact alone proves that the moves I have performed so far were actual contributions. This will soon become evident for the article in question as well. Miskin 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I was giving my comments on how to handle the situation to User:Hoopydink rather than commenting on your contributions. Your recent moving of pages over the last couple of weeks would have concerned me and therefore I would have investigated the reasons to ascertain any POV issues. As I am sure you can appreciate, the pages in question are related to what can be seen as sensitive issues. You seem to have taken offence at comments which were offered in a manner not intended to be judgemental to you but rather outline the thinking one would have to undertake when unblocking a user. I would hope you can appreciate almost every blocked editor requests to be unblocked, and so we need to be fully aware of why they were blocked. Page moving can sometimes lead to a block being issued. Blocked users will often describe blocks as being issued "in a blind and irresponsible manner". Steve block Talk 00:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You also judged my editing behaviour hence I was obliged to defend myself. Administrators are only privileged users, and like all users they have to follow rules, which can be familiar even to a common editor. What I know is that there was someone out there who did a move&lock pattern and was found "innocent", yet my logs are a subject of suspicion here. If you really continue to believe that this was a wise admin judgement, then I honestly have nothing more to say to you. Anything else stated in the defence of such an incident gives a bad image to the wikipedian administration. Miskin 01:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be misreading me completely. Hopefully you can accept that. I never questioned your editing history, I said your move logs gave cause for concern. I'm sorry if you see that as a statement on your editing, it was rather a statement on the moving of those pages and that there was an underlying issue which needing resolving, something with which you agree. At no point have I condoned the block you were given or defended this incident. I have rather outlined to User:Hoopydink some areas of investigation it may be wise to look at before repealing a block. I hope you can assume good faith in my intentions. Steve block Talk 15:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Both users are now unblocked. Please note that blocking users is not our objective. It is not executed just for the sake of blocking people. If the block was meant to sort an issue out than i believe that this was achieved in our case. With respect due to Miskin intentions and Hoopydink's unblocking, please note that unilateral moves (twice or threeshold) may not be considered vandalism but it deserves the block. The block was not misguided. I also share most of Steve's opinions. Cheers. -- Szvest 00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

What I know is this: There are two editors trying to move an article while a third editor is opposing them by applying a move&lock trick, forcing the two former to choose different names (actually my move was realised due to a typo), resulting on all possible names to be locked by him (except the one he wanted). Then it is required to ask for administrator assistance, and just because the third person happens to be the one who contacts User:FayssalF, he choses to block the two others without asking any questions. WP:NAME is a POLICY, and if you're not sure what the dispute is about, you don't have the right to give blocks around, let alone call it an act of "vandalism". Despite what you preach in here, what you did back there was nothing but plain irresponsibility and abuse of admin privileges. But what do I know, I'm just a simple editor. Miskin 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed at Talk:Oscar Nunez

If some uninvolved admins with a firm grasp of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability could take a look at Talk:Oscar Nunez, that would be swell.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}
02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is already listed at WP:RQM. --Asterion 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock locator

I'm having problems using the tool to find autoblocks. I've used this thing a hundred times before but now I can't find any blocks that I know to be operating. Is the autoblock locating tool lagging behind? Non-functional? Though the thing is really easy to use, I should note that I am suffering the tail end of a migraine and sometimes my brain doesn't work properly then. That said, I have been able to find old non-active autoblocks. --Yamla 03:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of downtime on the toolserver it wasn't updating until a few minutes ago when I restarted it. --pgk 06:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Laeding authorities

I have been asked by Leading_Authorities (talk · contribs) why I removed the links they added. I think that's pretty obvious from the contributions (I blocked the account a few days ago as a single purpose account and spammer). Several articles have links to leadingauthorities.com added by other editors, and I am removing them because these are not neutral biographies which can be cited as a source, they are promotional bios on a commercial website promoting the individuals as public speakers; as far as I am concerned this is not a reliable source and goes against the the external links guideline. I trust this is not controversial. Guy 08:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd even go so far as to say put it on the blacklist, but I'm a jack-booted squasher of spam links. - brenneman 08:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Jawohl, herr Oberlinkspammenenführer :-) Guy 09:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking persistant POV-pusher/sock?

I read on the signpost that two of the arbitrators on the ArbCom have resigned. This will probably slow the whole arbitration processes down. I want to ask the community, if someone can look through Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Kven/Evidence, an arbitration case against a user related to Kven-articles and his multiple socks? This user should perhaps have been blocked a long time ago, and should maybe not have gone to arbitration. One of his socks were actually blocked at one time: User:Digi Wiki. Note: in the arbitration case, the user has chosen not to respond.

Is it OK to block the user and all his socks indefinitely?

Fred-Chess 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the value of his long-standing contribution to the project (i.e. tons of disruption and nothing of any objective merit I can see) I support this. Guy 09:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:George Macaca Allen

I have several problems with this user. It mimics the name of a real living person, it appears to have the sole purpose of attacking this living person, and it has posted anti-semitic comments on the talk page of the article about said living person. , , edit history. Crockspot 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Already indefblocked. Syrthiss 14:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, forgot to check the block log. Crockspot 15:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

well to be fair, they weren't blocked when you made this note. ;) Syrthiss 15:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-admins closing AfD as "keep"

Malber (talk · contribs) brought it to my attention that non-admin Parsssseltongue (talk · contribs) closed Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Womyn as "keep." The deletion policy appears ambiguous as to whether a non-admin can close discussions as "keep." If Parssseltongue's closure of the discussion is improper, should the discussion simply be reopened? Thoughts are requested. --Nlu (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that non admins can close any non-contraversial discussion (as that one looks to be), and are only discouraged from closing afd's that end in delete because they don't have the way to follow through. Syrthiss 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm under the same impression as Syrthiss. In fact, I know that future admins are encouraged to gain experience by closing non-controversial AfD's (only "keeps", though). It should be noted that the closing remarks (citing WP:SNOW and the assumption of a bad faith nomination) are a bit concerning, but it seems to be a proper closing in that consensus was upheld. hoopydink 17:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have liked to see the discussion open at least one more day before assuming WP:SNOW. In the first day of an AfD you always get editors who have watchlisted the article and have an interest in voting keep. IMO the article has had issues with verifiability of the importance of the neologism since its creation, is a source of original research, and even if properly cleaned may never be more than a dictdef. It's not as if this isn't a controversial issue: the article itself claims the term is contraversial. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:DPR#Non-administrators closing discussions: Closing decisions are subject to review and may be reopened. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought. So if you're truly uncomfortable with the fast close, you can open it back up again. Just be sure to follow WP:DPR#Relisting_debates so the AfD logs don't get messed up. --Aaron 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have, but because there was an accusation of bad faith I didn't want to appear as if I was being disruptive. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:DPR#Non-administrators closing discussions. So long as he's making the call correctly, he's fine. --tjstrf 17:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can invoke the Snowball clause and anyone can close an obvious keeper as a keep. A bad SNOW call or a bad keep can be reversed. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and relisted it. Use of WP:SNOW in this case may be justified (no "votes" to delete other than the nominator); however the bad faith accusation on the part of the closing user (stating that Malber nominated the article in bad faith) was inappropriate. Also, the article was up for only 'bout a day. Still, I'm expecting a second SNOW keep soon. --EngineerScotty 18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• And you've got it. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Fast, friendly service.  :) --EngineerScotty 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what you always get at your fast, friendly, cheap Misplaced Pages. --Woohookitty 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I want a cookie. --Aaron 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin vs. Librarian

I just had this thought and would like some feedback. In the Spanish wiki, admins are called bibliotecarios, meaning "librarians". I somehow prefer the term Librarian over Administrator, as I associate the latter more with bureaucrat tasks than with working towards improving an encyclopedia by different means (fighting vandalism, safeguarding NPOV, etc). It is true that neither term is completely accurate, as librarian seems to exclude intrinsecally administrative tasks, emphasising the content management aspect instead. Personally, I find the idea of Librarian more profound and poetic. Do not understand this as a call to change policy or anything. It is just something that crossed my mind and wanted to know whether I am alone on this. Regards, Asterion 18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Librarian is a cool term for what we do...but...lots and lots of admins fight vandalism and safeguard NPOV too. --Woohookitty 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

May be a neat idea over at Wikibooks. Did anyone else think this thread was about a rogue admin blocking a library? Naconkantari 20:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Many aspects of Misplaced Pages involve editors contributing in a Librarian capacity; sourcing articles, providing references and checking facts. Other related tasks are putting the books in order on the shelves - i.e. categorising, stub sorting, etc. Editors and admins differ from Librarians in that they get involved with the data that they present to other users, whereas Librarians as impartial, fulfilling the requirements of the enquiry without bias and to the best of their ability. Librarian also connotes a professional relationship with information, one that requires a postgraduate degree/diploma in order to satify entry requirements in to bodies such as the ALA (American Library Association) and CILIP (Chartered Institute of Librarians and Information Professionals). To call admins Librarians may well be poetic but it isn't entirely fair to hang a professional tag on those who have not earned it in the same way as those who worked for their degrees in Information Science did. You can call me either, as I have both tags! Regards, (aeropagitica) 20:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I understand. Asterion 20:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone remember the rouge librarian from the "Name of the Rose"? 65.8.106.64 03:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be either Brother Jorge, who was librarian-like, or the true librarian Malachias. As for the actual term itself, (aeropagatica) put it best. Ourai _с 03:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Brother Jorge thought it to be his mission to protect the integrity of his library and the faith of the monks in the scriptorium. Maybe whoever coined the term in the Spanish daughter project was something of a BOFH. 65.8.106.64 03:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ook! Fram 09:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly spam/misuse?

I was using using Lupin's filter vandalism tool and I came across this page: User talk:Evilsai . I have no idea of what to do or how to approach this. It looks like the user and the IPs who are editing it use it like a noticeboard or chat site. Please reply here or on my talk page with some help or assistance on how to deal with this. I've asked Ta bu shi da yu about this, and he advised me to post here. Thanks -huntersquid 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

EngineerScotty's taken care of this. Ral315 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Huge image backlog - a cry for help

See this massive backlog. There are some entries in there that are almost two weeks old, when images in those categories should be deleted after a week. I'd like to get some admins that can help with this monstrosity. It's really not that difficult - all you need to do is make sure the uploader hasn't put the licensing or source on there and forgot to remove the tag. Using tabs in Firefox helps make the job quicker. Thanks! --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Two troublesome AfDs

Could an admin take a look at the AfDs for Waspard and Pet duel? The articles are pretty clear hoaxes, but two users, Jamesr84 (talk · contribs) and Jpcrayford (talk · contribs) are trying their damnest to keep these articles, promsing to supply reliable sources about the subjects and then making constant excuses when they don't deliver such sources; and (at least in the Pet duel discussion) are implying other editors are Nazis. Can we have someone come down and deal with these discussions and/or users? NeoChaosX 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I speedied the Pet duel mess. I hope that helps. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Why let the Waspard AfD run, though? NeoChaosX 22:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is a clear hoax... no reason to let it linger for a week or so. --EngineerScotty 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I closed waspard. JDoorjam Talk 22:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It seems Pet duel has been recreated by Jamesr84, though. NeoChaosX 22:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black closed and locked it. JDoorjam Talk 04:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make it perfectly clear that I did not imply that any editors were members of the German National Socialist party. This was an inference made by an editor whose rhetorical skills leave much to be desired. Jamesr84 10:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC) (Sorry about the incorrect time)

The user is now moving to vandalism see edit history plus stuff like this. --Charlesknight 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

James84 indefblocked by me. Syrthiss 12:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Username Tomzanzig posting attacks

User:Tomzanzig posted an attack page which I marked db-attack. I assume this isn't the _real_ Thomas Zanzig, an author. I guess the page should be deleted and the user banned per WP:LIBEL. 74.128.159.12 22:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Username / Libel block. The user has no contributions besides that attack page, and is most clearly not the author in question. 22:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tau Kappa Epsilon vandalism

Hi, I'm not an admin but I would like to bring attention to the fact that the Tau Kappa Epsilon has been vandalized nearly half a dozen times by the same IP address 131.118.85.28. The IP address has not contributed anything beneficial to Misplaced Pages. I don't want to break the 3RR so it would be helpful if someone can keep an eye out. Thanks --† Ðy§ep§ion † 22:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's been a few hours, so I'm leaving the IP alone for now. I'm watching this like a fly on my beer. Teke 02:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted an AfD page

I have got a request from a guy named Milhail Lebedev, who in strongest possible words asked to delete Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Lebedev as having a lot of negative and personal information about him. I looked through the AfD and indeed agree with this assessment. Thus, I was bold and deleted it. What do I have to do next? Put a short summary regarding the mater, instead of the AfD? Just keep it deleted? abakharev 22:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not supporting anything one way or another, but it seems that when Jimbo gets similar (at least on the surface) complaints, he simply blanks the page. Then, on google searches, after the bot has gone buy, rude things won't come up, but the AfD is still accessible in the history to non-admins. Mak (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Libel/personal info, etc., should be removed from the history as well, per WP:BLP. At least that is my understanding of it. Crockspot 23:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest at least replacing the red link with an abridged form of the discussion. Just summarize, chronologically, which points were raised by which users, with the attacks removed, and a note that the full history can be viewed by admins if needed. — CharlotteWebb 23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that if anyone doesn't want an AfD on their WP:AUTO, they shouldn't make the article in the first place -- Samir धर्म 00:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the last version of the page be gotten from the history by an admin (without restoring), that the objectionable parts be removed and that whatever is left be copied and pasted to the page without restoring the history. A note about what happened should be put on the page and possibly the edit summary. If there is not a lot of text to remove, it might be helpful to indicate on the page when it is removed. If there is a lot of text to remove, then it might be a lot of work to do that. Does he have any specific objections? I read some of it and it was mostly people talking about his work and whether it was notable enough to have an article on him. -- Kjkolb 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How's this? User:Zscout370 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, Zscout abakharev 08:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So will the Mikhail Lebedev article be salted then? I find it a bit problematic that the record on the reasons why the article has been deleted is being erased, while the article itself is still open for restoration. ~ trialsanderrors 19:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about starting over with a new account

Yshoulduknow (talk · contribs) uploaded several images under public domain claim, which were reported as unfree. He has decided to "start over" with a new account, YSHOULDUKNOW123 (talk · contribs). Should I (or anyone else, for that matter, I don't want him to think I am stalking him) inform him he needs to acknowledge the existence of his original account in the new one, or should an admin block either the original or the new one as sockpuppet? Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 00:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this a couple of times, the idea that someone should acknowledge their new identity. However I had a quick skim of WP:SOCK and it seems that unless the user is engaged in certain types of activity there is no onus on them to do so? --Charlesknight 08:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem with walking away from past transgressions under the circumstances, only if it happens again or if he tries to use more than one account at a time do we have a problem, I think. Guy 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandal / Useless page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Dfhioaesdhfja Members are taking the nonsense tag off. Dfhioaesdhfja has been deleted. — xaosflux 01:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker - User under arbitration engaging in total war

In the Encyclopaedia Metallum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, the user Deathrocker, who I beleive is still under arbitration, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker, has engaged in a total war against other users. Just look at Encyclopaedia Metallum's archive in the talk page, the current discussion and the discussion in Ours18's talk page. At least 5 users joined the discussion, while none supported him. I might also add that many of his posts were supported by ad hominem arguments, something that was about to make me attack him in response. I've pretty much lost any faith in discussing with him, but then I found out that he had already caused problems in Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Evenfiel 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Evenfiel blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Deathrocker blocked for 24 hours for violating his 1RR parole. Please adjust if you think it's appropriate. Thatcher131 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Xanon at Adolf Hitler

One User:Xanon recently appeared at Talk:Adolf Hitler, ostensibly concerned for alleged bias and NPOV, aggressively pushing his views on the talk page. But this is not what I want to report but the fact that he recently resorts to name calling and personal attacks, as in this case: . Str1977 07:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Warned with {{npa2}}. If it continues, list it at WP:PAIN AnnH ♫ 10:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Internet for Learning IP range.

Hi, I'd like to propose that this IP range be considered as an exceptional circumstance with regard to blocking edits.

Internet for Learning is an Internet provider that provides access for UK schools. As such all users on it are either school children or school staff in the UK. This means we have an IP range whose main users are schoolchidren and teenagers who basically have an anonymous way to post.

This IP range is, unsurprisingly, responsible for a large amount of vandalism and is regularly warned and blocked. However, warning an anonymous address used by thousands of children will have no effect whatsoever! A temporary block only temporarily solves the problem, as soon as the block is lifted, the vandalism restarts. This is, I woild say, fairly predictable.

Now that the software has been improved to ban only anonymous users, I would like to propose that the Internet for Learnig network be PERMANENTLY blocked for anonymous editing. So that teaching staff, support staff, and those pupils that wish to positively contribute to Misplaced Pages can still do so by siging up, but the vanmdalism is reduced.

I realise that such blocks are only used for exceptional circumstances, but would argue that this IP range IS an exceptional circumstance. Fork me 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

suggests such as this were why people were oposed to makeing it posible to block anons only. I think we have a block without warning template around which could be put on the talk pages if required.Geni 00:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a foundation issue. At present the only IPs that can be indefinitely blocked are open proxies. JoshuaZ 01:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

not quite true at least I don't think 64.228.30.0/24 is an open proxy.Geni 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What range is that? JoshuaZ 01:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Something to do with DW from way back. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Ipblocklist&dir=prev Geni 01:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a long email exchange between the net guy at IfL several months ago, in which he agreed that anons should be blocked. Unfortunately, I haven't kept the emails, I don't even remember the date range (surely last spring or early summer), but it was discussed either in WP:AN or WP:ANI at the time. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC) User:Zoe|(talk) 15:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

VoABot II

User:VoABot II now was some settings that any admin can set to help revert shared IP vandalism. Consider using this when vandalism levels start to increase if before using a block if possible. Thanks.Voice-of-All 17:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indef block

I blocked SpikeyPsyche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a reincarnation of indefinitely banned ParalelUni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka "Spike". Guy 21:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User strangeness

ok, User:Mystrian storys, User:Kino's acounts, User:Mystrian, and User:Chat room all are the same person using the sire as a social newtork, especially User:Chat room. I think someone should ask the user to pick one and ban the rest, as User:Mystrian storys is User:Mystrian, User:Kino's acounts is worthless, and User:Chat room is a violation of WP:NOT, but I have no clue. Anything? ST47Talk 23:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh has indefinitely blocked them all. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This type of thing has been happening a lot recently (relatively speaking). It's odd. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, wouldn't a warning to them have made some sense first? Especially since User chat room actually had an ok edit? JoshuaZ 01:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't username violators generally banned on site (and possibly warned after)? Having the username "Chat room" might be deserving of that. In any case, the one legit edit I can see is a minor typo fix; I've seen vandalish/etc. users use these before to legitimize their account's existence. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused and curious about this. I first thought "what kind of a name is User:Chat room?" and I noticed the accounts have no edits except kino in his talk pae and chat room fixing a typo. What is this "sire" you speak of? Anomo 13:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

request for user undeletion

An article I posted under the title "33.3" (no quotes) was deleted-- I'm not exactly sure what the reasoning was, but I'd like to rework it and re-submit. Could the contents of the deleted item be posted on my talk page so I can try to salvage it?

SetsofWaves 03:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored at User:SetsofWaves/33.3. I recommend making their notability clearer before moving it back into main article space. ;-) --Stormie 03:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Misplaced Pages Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Misplaced Pages rules. A diverse mix of blogs is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article. Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker - User under arbitration who keeps on using ad hominem arguments

In the Encyclopaedia Metallum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) talk page article, the user Deathrocker, who' still under arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocke and was just blocked for not following his parole, keeps on using ad hominem attacks against the other users. To him, those who don't agree with him are just kids, and he's there in order to counterbalance the opinion of poor kids who don't know anything about the subject. Just ctrl+f for "kid" in the article's talk page, archive and in user Ours18's talk page, and you'll see his attacks. Thanks.Evenfiel 14:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Evenfiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was just blocked for 24 hours, for violating the WP:3RR has been blanking large sections of work on the article Encyclopaedia Metallum. including 7 sources and four paragraphs.

I have told him before that article blanking falls under simple vandalism, which is a violation of Misplaced Pages editing policy and such edits are to be removed on site. Also it states in Misplaced Pages's official policy that removing simple vandalism such as page blanking does not count as an actual "revert". And as for the claims of leveling an "attack", I hardly see how refering to somebody who is a youngster as a "kid", falls under any form of "attack", its an everyday non offensive figure of speach.- Deathrocker 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How exactly this has anything to do with the ad hominem arguments that you have been using since the beginning of the discussion, almost three weeks ago?

As for my edits, I have only reverted the article to an edit which you had already agreed on.Evenfiel 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Evenfiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persited in his article blanking he has also blanked his talk page numerous times, including a block notice left by an admin Thatcher131 , this also includes messages from various users have attempted to help him with Misplaced Pages policy can somebody take a look at this please? A few days ago I even told the user about Misplaced Pages's archive system for talkpages, but this was blanked too.- Deathrocker 15:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker seems to be in a personal crusade against me, repeatedly calling me a vandal and a kid. According to the following link, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Talk_pages "Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them.". He has already reverted my own talk page a few times.Evenfiel 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You have vandalised articles by article blanking as I have explained to you, as have several admins, page blanking is vandalism. It isn't a "attack" if I can prove you have freely commited vandalism, even after having the policy explained to you. Which I can prove; Also nowhere have I directly refered to you as a kid, as you claim, not that the word kid is an attack anyway. Blanking administrative messages and warning tags (as you did) is not editing with etiquette. - Deathrocker 15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not on my main computer so this will be brief. If necessary I will return later. First, I don't really care if someone removes warnings without archiving them. There is a conflict between user talk page policy and the vandalism policy about this, which itself resulted in a recent edit war. My comment is in this history, and the edit summary is blocked which is hard to miss. Any other admin dealing with user complaints should check the history and block log, where the block is documented. (Archiving is nice and preferred by the commmunity, but I see little point in forcing such issues in most cases.) So Deathrocker should knock off the talk page fetishism. On ad hominem, I see your point but I don't think its actionable at the moment. Deathrocker should definitely explain his edits with reference to sources, not to his age and personal experience or other editors' youth and inexperience. So knock it off, ok? Finally, if he violates his revert parole again (1 per day, 2 per week), post it to Arb enforcement rather than escalating to a 3RR yourself. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 15:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (After edit conflict) to save Deathrocker posting the inevitable "I was reverting vandalism" defense, if a 1RR complaint is made at Arb enforcement, I will give you chance to offer an explanation, and I will check with other admins if things are unclear. Thatcher131 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Thatcher131.Evenfiel 16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Deathrocker should definitely explain his edits with reference to sources",

I do.. and have done, using sources such as BBC, VH1, Amazon, Walmart, The Guardian, Misplaced Pages, About.com, Quizilla, All Music Guide, iTunes, MTV, eMusic, AOL, Windows Media Player, Yahoo!, Musicmatch Jukebox and others... those are some of the sources Evenfiel blanked with over 30% of the article.

I try to make sure, not to violate any revert policies, and outside of it only remove edits which fall under simple vandalism such as article blanking.. which in the official editing policy is outlined as an exception and does not count as a revert, thanks for your time. - Deathrocker 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that what he's doing can be considered "blanking." There are some questions about the relevance of the information under debate to the article itself, from the looks of the discussion. As Evenfiel points out, it *does* give quite a bit of the article over to what's essentially a debate over whether Led Zeppelin is a heavy metal band. Having said that, can I suggest an article RFC to get some additional eyes on the material? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards