Revision as of 17:43, 2 December 2007

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Current issues

A bot problem

I think that BetacommandBot is acting up. I'm pretty sure it placed a deletion temp when it shouldn't have. I don't know if one mess up is grounds for blocking it, but thought you should know. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a ":" missing in the article title in the fair use rationale because the page was moved back in August. The bot wasn't wrong; it was just useless. I've added the ":". GRBerry 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't know it would be so technical and mark it because of a missing ":". Happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not resolved ... BetacommandBot is tagging logo images WITH existing Fair Use Rationales for all articles where the image is used. An example is :this. Apparently, BetacommandBot can't figure out that an article has been removed to a new title since the rationale was provided, and assumes that there is no rationale.

Betacommand needs to test his bot before unleashing it in Misplaced Pages. --Ragib (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I request a temporary block of BetacommandBot until Betacommand figures out how to fix this "can't read simple redirects"-Bot. --Ragib (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot tagged the image and a human fixed it. That is not useless, now the image is tagged right. That is the use of it. This is a good thing, we now have a properly tagged image. If the time it takes to fix it is to much for you, then you do not have to do it. It cannot follow redirects as it does not know if the redirect is accurate for the rational as written. 1 != 2 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is proper behavior. If the rationale does not list the exact correct article name, the image is in violation and should be tagged. Whoever moved the page should have fixed the redirects. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's plainly ridiculous. Just because someone hasn't bothered to fix all redirects during page move would cause an FU-image with proper rationale to be deleted? I don't see any justification in this argument ... this is causing a lot of images with proper rationales provided in their description pages, to be removed. This is in no way proper behavior ... Betacommandbot can't be so DUMB to be unable to check for this scenario. --Ragib (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(ecx2)The FU image must link directly to article it is used in as part of the rationale. Anything else is a copyvio. Your issue is with the person who moved the article and didn't check the image links, not with BcommandBot. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(ecx4) Who on earth thought up that "rule"? That's just plain silly, and has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And there is an obviously superior form for the bot's activity to take instead of what it is doing now. When there is a rationale for a redirect to the page the image is used, post a specialized note indicating that 1) the rationale applies to a redirect to where the image is used and 2) the rationale needs to be checked for applicability to the redirect target. A lot of the noise about this bot would be eliminated if the coder applied sound judgment. GRBerry 21:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If only I had a nickel for everytime someone made a forceful statement confusing copyright law with wiki policy... Written rationales are not required for fair use to legally apply. Links certainly aren't required by any copyright law. These are entirely inventions of Misplaced Pages's non-free content policies. Their presence or absense is entirely irrelevant to the legal question of whether or not the image would be a copyright violation. Dragons flight (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Huhh, if I had a (GB pound/Euro/AUS dollar/NZ dollar/sheckel/groat/goat/camel/US dollar...etc) for every misplaced complaint against BCBot, I'd have enough for a skinny Mocha. A gallon or two of the stuff. Come on people, read the small print. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Having the bot follow redirects to check if an article has been moved is a no-brainer, in fact it is typical bot-work. It's also what Betacommand claims the bot does. Haukur (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another bit which doesn't work as advertised is this: "if you feel that this bot is malfunctioning or isn't running correctly follow this link to shut it down. Any user can force the bot to stop." The fact that this doesn't actually work forces us to block the bot all the time... Haukur (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked Betacommand for an explanation 20 minutes ago. He has not responded and the bot is still going strong. I recommend a block until Betacommand can clear this up. Haukur (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A block based on what? It is doing what it should. What kind of clearing up do you need? It did not mention the article it was a rational for, it was marked, and it has been fixed. What basis would this block have? 1 != 2 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the bot operator has been asked to make the bot follow redirects, has agreed that the bot should follow redirects, has said that it now does follow redirects and in this current run it doesn't actually follow redirects. Haukur (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't the bot just fix the title of the article in the rationale to point to the correct one, if there's a redirect? Wouldn't that make everyone happy? Grandmasterka 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a great idea. --Masamage ♫ 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How can a bot fix the title? That would involve knowing what title it should point to, computers are not humans and things that seem obvious to humans are almost impossible for bots. It marked it to be fixed, and it was fixed. 1 != 2 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Simple, BCBot has a list of places the image is used. It checks that each of these are referenced in rationales. If one is missing, but there appear to be "extra" rationales, then it would be desirable for it to also check to see whether any of the extras reference titles that redirect to the page it was looking for. If so, it can simply replace such redirect page titles with the actual page titles. Dragons flight (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another set of logic: for each link: if the link is a redirect and the "linkshere" for the image includes the redirect target, then substitute the target for the redirect. This would catch most of the simple "page has moved" cases and lessen the fuss. It won't work, of course, when the page is moved and the original becomes a dab page, but that's where a human should look anyway. Gimmetrow 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

1!==2, did you actually look at the image in question? It had a rationale, and it blue-linked to the article. The only problem was that the page was later moved (to include an extra ':'), and the bot didn't follow the redirect, despite BC's assertions that it does so (the last time this came up). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's lazy to expect the bot to the job of the uploader. Uploaders should provide the correct FU rationale or else expect their image to be deleted. Simple as. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Can we have a requirement that you actually have to look at the issue before commenting? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus, redirect or no redirect (and in most cases it isn't a redirect, just lazy rationale), it's no BIG DEAL for uploaders to modify their rationale whenever BCBot comes calling. Spend the time correcting the rationale rather than just whining about BCBot. Funny thing is, does anyone really think Betacommand does this for kicks? Come on. Oh, and if you want to know where to read about the issue, please read WP:FU. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is, in your words "no BIG DEAL for uploaders to modify their rationale whenever BCBot comes calling" then why are confused people coming in hard and fast on BetacommandBot's talk page? Perhaps because the message the bot leaves on people's talk page is very unhelpful? Haukur (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What TRM said. And also Misplaced Pages:Don't shoot the messenger, from my fingers to editors' eyes. And I don't even charge. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The image had a correct rationale. Someone moved the target page. After renaming a page, do you routinely check all of its images to ensure that any fair use rationales are updated to point to the new page name? I know I sure don't. Please stop engaging in fair-use-rationale paranoia and realize that a rationale for a page that was renamed doesn't magically stop being a reasonable rationale. It's a trivial issue that should be handled automatically rather than creating make work for others. Dragons flight (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, how long does it take? This is pathetic. The bot is NOT responsible for fair use rationales, it's just doing it's job. If someone moves your target page and you get the message then do the business. It doesn't take as long to correct as it does to get all hot under the collar and all hissy. Fix the issues. Once again, let me ask, do you really believe Betacommand is doing this for laughs? I don't think so. If you have a better bot then roll it out. If not, get on with correcting the problems on the odd occasion you're asked to act. It's not going to break the bank is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's not about us. We understand the issue, we can jump through whatever loops some bot throws at us. But that's because we're admin wonks who've been here for years. The normal editors out there are having major problems jumping through those unnecessary hoops when we want them to have a pleasant experience so they can contribute useful content. Haukur (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well what do you suggest? The uploaders are carefully sent to policy.. Bear in mind the bot has to deal with thousands of mis-licensed images. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the bot do what the bot operator has already agreed it should do - check for redirects. I'm also suggesting that the bot should leave specific messages for each case, i.e. if an image fails 10c then the bot should tell the relevant person about 10c and explain how it works - not post a template about fair use in general. That would be carefully sending people to policy. Haukur (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Programs have bugs. In general, that's nobody's fault. However, when you find a bug, the correct response is: "Okay, how do we fix the program" and not "Well that's okay, we'll just have everyone else cleanup for it all the time". The suggestion that the burden of fixing the problem ought to lie on the uploaders and other editors is silly. Dragons flight (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Um, the uploaders _did_ provide a correct rationale. Then the article got moved out from under them. I log on often enough to catch the notifications: how many people don't?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

All the bot does is provide a notification. It's up to an admin to act and delete the images. The notifications allow plenty of time to make that (one edit) adjustment. No big deal. 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that BCB is doing a thankless task (good thing as a bot it doesn't expect thanks), and most of the complaints about it are spurious. However, there also seem to be many complaints that are based on a misunderstanding of what BCB does, either because (a) people don't know how it works (e.g. the need for a link to the article in the FUR), or because (b) it isn't quite working as it's supposed to (e.g. this redirect issue). Perhaps if the bots tasks were listed clearly on a subpage (rather than links to cluttered bot request pages), explicitly stating what it's looking for and what it does when it finds things a certain way, then people will actually know when it's doing something wrong, and there won't be so many accusations of wrong-doing. (Will post same suggestion on BC's talk page.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And again... Why can't the bot just change the links if there's a redirect? This is a manual, repetitive task, just the perfect thing for a bot to do. It would save a lot of grief. Grandmasterka 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody, bot or human, should even need to do that. A page is unambiguously identified by referring it by a redirect. We talk about pages by using redirect titles all the time. That's what redirects are for. Saying "This image is used under FU on page X", where X is a redirect to Y, is just as valid a statement as "We are discussing this at WP:ANI" or "I'll take this to WP:RFAR". Also, a person who moves a page is not responsible for changing links to that page; the system is supposed to take care of that, exactly by providing the redirect. That's why we have them. Demanding that in this particular function redirects mustn't be used is simply bizarre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this right, Betacommand has stated that his bot should and does follow redirects as evidenced above. There is nothing in the law to say that fair use rationales cannot be linked to the article in question via a redirect, yet some people believe that every time a page gets moved, the page mover should correct all links to fair use rationales on image pages. If this is the case, why isn't there a set of instructions to do this (and how) for the page mover. It is incredibly easy to move a page, I've moved dozens yet never recieved warnings that all of the images could get deleted, just that I should fix double-redirects. What if the image uploader has left wikipedia? Does the image just get binned if no-one fixes the redirect? If people feel so strongly that the bot shouldn't be programmed to fix redirects, I consider it entirely necessary that anyone moving a page should be warned that their actions could inadvertently lead to the deletion of the pages images, and given advice on how to fix the problem. Still all of this would be unnecessary if the bot could follow simple redirects. King of the NorthEast 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure that the bot's tagging of Image:The Amityville Curse 1990 DVD Cover.JPG was incorrect in terms of wikipedia policy or the guideline at Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline. While the template for fair use rationale had not been used, the rationale had been provided although without the link to the movie, the movie was implicitly mentioned ("In the article about this movie") and the image name contained the movie title plus it is all over the image - any human could have seen that and the intent of the guideline had been clearly met.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Another problem which can't be solved by the bot simply "following redirects" is when a page is renamed and the redirect is replaced with a disambiguation page. For example, the image Image:KNUJ.png was used in KNUJ, which was then moved to KNUJ (AM) and KNUJ was made a disambiguation page. This bot, for example, needs to check the edit history of the article (either the one in which it is used, or the one which is named in the use rationale) to determine if a rename occurred, (or even simpler, just check for a link in the current page, as would exist in a disambiguation or a summary style content split), and either leave the image alone or fix the article name in the image description. It is unreasonable to expect everyone who does page moves and disambiguations to update fair use rationales as well. This is what bots are for, fixing (alleged) problems, instead of deleting things for minor technical violations of an already contentious policy. DHowell (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's really quite simple: Links to pages from fair use rationales are no different from all other links on Misplaced Pages. If a target page is simply moved, the automatic redirects work just fine, thus there should be no problem to fix, for either a bot or a human. If the redirect eventually gets overwritten by a new page, as you describe, then it is the responsibility of the person who does it to check all incoming links and correct them as necessary - which is something they need to do anyway, independently of whether the links come from article space or from fair use rationales or from wherever else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Except that normally if one creates a disambiguation page and forgets to update incoming links, that doesn't result in a bot tagging an article for deletion in 7 days. Eventually, a human will notice the link to a disambiguation page and fix the link. On the other hand, fair use rationales are typically never noticed by humans until a bot complains, then humans are forced to please the bot by fixing a "problem" which is not really a problem. Bots should be here to serve the community, not to force the community to serve them. DHowell (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest that the bot use a different tag than "disputed", since there really is no dispute over the image (and there can be no dispute when a bot is simply tagging), but simply a technical problem. Perhaps Category:Non-free images without proper article name? DHowell (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• See here for a similar move that caused problems. Instead of a missing colon, it is a set of extra spaces. Some articles get involved in move wars, and switch back and forth between titles. Fixing the links in fair-use rationales while that goes on could be, well, tiresome. Maybe that is another reason to discourage potentially controversial moves without discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And then wheeeeeeeee all the bot's talk page gets archived while Betacommand still hasn't dignified any of the redirect questions with an answer. Haukur (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, they get reposted to Betacommand's own talk page. I suppose that's somewhat logical though rather unexpected. Haukur (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is all ridiculous, people keep requesting BetacommandBot be blocked without ever giving the name of a policy it has violated. Please, please just give us the link to the policy (or guideline) and paste the relevant sentence here so we can see exactly what you are on about. OK I will do it for you WP:FU The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, there is no violation of this policy! Can people actually stop and read this sentence for one minute and understand each word, "name" does not mean "link", article does not mean article which redirects to the article in which fair use is claimed. The name of the article on this video game is Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion not Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion, the later is the name of an article containing only a redirect. If the policy is silly, if you don't like it propose a change, but it's unlikely people will agree with you on this one, it's illogical to use a redirect instead of the real article name. Only request a block when a user or bot is violating policy. And if I were Betacommand I wouldn't feel inclined to answer constant accusations either, especially when you fail to mention which policy he is violating. Also as far as the occasional error goes, has any one of you made over 400,000 edits only to uphold fair-use policy ? No I didn't think so. Of course it's not perfect, none of you are either, and it's only a computer program. How would you feel if a whole bunch of people starting requesting you be blocked at every minor error. Should everyone who's AfD nomination closes as keep be blocked? Seriously ... Jackaranga (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Everyone complains that the bot isn't doing its job, when in fact it IS doing its job. Just because everyone HATES what it's doing doesn't mean it's doing anything wrong. JPG-GR (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This bot is violating Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy: "ules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." This bot is enforcing rules against community consensus, invalidating images based on procedural errors, ignoring the spirit of NFCC while enforcing its letter, preventing people from improving the encyclopedia by forcing editors to focus on rules-compliance rather than content, and not participating in discussions in order to resolve disagreements; violating nearly every principle of "Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy", in both spirit and letter. DHowell (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is quite a difference between blocking a user for "every minor error" and blocking a bot for hundreds of "minor errors". No one is requesting the user Betacommand be blocked, just the bot BetacommandBot, until its problems are fixed to the satisfaction of the community. According to bot policy, the burden of proof is on a bot owner to prove that its edits are "harmless and useful". There are sufficient allegations and evidence presented here that the edits are both harmful and useless, to require that something be done about it. DHowell (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

FU rules are different then all others. There are legal issues here, not policy issues. JPG-GR (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely wrong. There is nothing in copyright law that demands fair-use rationales in whatever form, according to whatever formalism, so the "legal issues" are a red herring. Fair-use rationales are purely a self-imposed measure of Misplaced Pages-internal communication. As such, they work according to the same logic as all other Misplaced Pages-internal communication. In that context, "name of an article" obviously includes "aliases of an article", because that's how we do things in Misplaced Pages and that's why we have these aliases. Jackaranga's distinction between "article" and "redirect" above is an absurd piece of bureaucratic formalism for formalism's sake, with no practical value whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe that people are defending a clear malfunction due to shoddy coding. This issue already came up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive103#BetacommandBot.27s notices becoming more difficult to parse, and BCB was actually blocked for it at the time. There are plenty of times when redirects are wholly appropriate: the use of macrons and other characters difficult to type on standard keyboards, for one. Normal page moves are another (as noted, page moves followed by replacing by a disambig page are tougher and would be a reasonable mistake). Merges are a very notable case, especially in the case of {{R with possibilities}}; a book merged to its author page, for instance, might well be expanded back into an article on the book eventually. Having the rationale reference the book title, though it is currently a redirect to the author page, is entirely appropriate; that way, it will be correct even should the article be restored. Three legitimate reasons to use redirects aside from simple mistakes seems like a very strong reason to respect redirects in rationales. SnowFire (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I got an idea....block the bot and fix it...or...don't and move on to something else. Otherwise we are going around and around in circles and no one is getting anything done. - NeutralHomer 03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which would be following the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Bot policy which says, "Administrators should block bots if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously." (Emphasis mine.) Bc said "BCBot does now see redirects and follows them", if it doesn't do that, end of story, block away as desired. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The redirect issue ought to be fixed. Were the bot actively making bad edits, a block under WP:BOT would be OK, but this last block was handed out about 30 minutes after the bot stopped editing. Not necessary. Betacommand is more responsive to issues than might be apparent; in my experience, when issues arise he's adjusting the code rather than responding to every AN/I post.

Oh, for stats, I spot checked about 100 images tagged by BCBot, and 5 had the redirect issue. That's a pretty high rate considering the drama these tend to cause. A few more had {{Non-free use rationale}} but curiously lacked the "Article" field entirely. Gimmetrow 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

By my count, BCBot has tagged about 2500 images since the beginning of this thread. At a 5% error rate, that's potentially 125 images wrongly tagged during the course of this thread alone. Is BCBot going to go through and find these 125 or so images and untag them before they get deleted? DHowell (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DHowell's got a point. Is BCBot going to correct it's mistakes?...and the answer is, probably not, but I have an idea. Why don't we find the mistake the bot has made and make Betacommand himself fix them. His bot, his bot's mistakes, he should correct them, manually. Maybe after that he will put his bot in to "spit shine" working order so he doesn't have it do it again. Just a thought, couldn't hurt. - NeutralHomer 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And my point is: the bot should either not tag images with only the redirect issue, or fix the redirects as it finds them if that's considered important. This would eliminate a big chunk of the drama. Then it might be nice for a bot to check images with {{Non-free use rationale}}, without an "Article" field, and used only once in article space, and maybe fill in that Article field. Together these two checks could reduce by as much as 8% the number of images tagged for admin review. Gimmetrow 04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha. BCB's job is, essentially, to find and point out the mistakes of thousands of users improperly tagging images. So, when BCB makes hundreds of mistakes, it's STILL it's job to fix them? I'd like to see more of the community do it right the first time so BCB can't make the mistakes in the first place. JPG-GR (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to make mistakes. Bots are not, at least not without taking the responsibility to fix their mistakes. DHowell (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

in a perfect world there would be no need for BCBot, as for redirects BCBot normally follows them. Due to a API error it failed today. β 06:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In a "perfect" world, we wouldn't have to deal with the headache of this damned thing every couple days. I think you need to take a nice, long look at the bot and correct the problems that people have addressed (hey, it would make other happy).

I would, though, like to get everyone's opinion on something.....

I think if you own a bot and the bot screws up, the bot's owner should have the bot blocked (while it is fixed) and then the bot owner should have to manually correct all the mistakes made by the bot before the bot is unblocked. Think of it as a tough punishment. Since bots can tag, post, correct, etc. a couple hundred of things every couple minutes, if it screws up, I think the bot owner should have to clean it up....by himself. Bot owners would keep an eye on their bots and mistakes wouldn't happen.

That's just this editor's opinion, what do you all think? - NeutralHomer 07:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that 99% of the time, the complains re: this bot are because the complaining user isn't fully versed in WP:FURG. Mistakes happen from time to time. Just because BCB's edits are greater and its function is more visible does it get complained about. JPG-GR (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the 1% (probably even more like 0.01%, to be honest - we never hear about the times where it tags an image correctly and the user never complains, so the statistics will be skewed towards cases where someone complained, legitimately or not) gets overlooked. Look how long it took in this case, where BC did ultimately acknowledge the bot had (once again) screwed up. The mass of bad complaints makes people too quick to dismiss legitimate complaints, too quick to unblock the bot, etc. —Random832 14:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not base my error stats on complaints. I have an IRC logging bot so that when ever the bot's name is used in an edit summary I know about that, and I look into as many of those as I can. (Most of those are reverions of proper taggings, or are vandalism reverts) some I retag and others I can fix myself. Issues that are brought to my attention are less than 1/3 of my total numbers, I also do random sampling that is part of my normal MO. there have been a few issues never brought up, that I have found and addressed and added that into the bots error rate which at .1% is still better than any four humans. β 15:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to concur and expand on Newtralhomer's comment. Whenever a bot error is found (which happens fairly frequently, because of the number of different tasks it runs, and the number of non-free images which are not properly tagged), βcommand himself must verify the last two runs of that task that all such errors are repaired, and the bot remains blocked until that verification is done. (If he would separate the tasks, or be more communicative than the bot, we could accept his word that he would not run that task until the reported errors are fixed.) This example (not following redirects) is a bot error, even if βcommand's statement that it was caused by an API error is precisely correct.

In fact, NFCC#10c is not clear on the issue whether redirects should be followed in the justifications. Furthermore, the instructions for article movers only specifies that double-redirects should be fixed, not image justifications.

Move vandalism could easily cause non-fair use images to be deleted, which is contrary to common sense, and not required by law, although it appears to be required by NFCC. It's possible that detailed instructions for the admin reviewing the bot tags could result in more of the bot errors being caught, but they are still bot errors.

And, in response to some legal issues above, WP:NFCC is a Foundation directive, so that it needs to be followed, unless it's illegal. Whether there is an underlying law requiring it (the law clearly requires some policy, but this is probably more strict than necessary) is irrelevant.

I concur with the block, although it should probably be lifted now if βcommand asserts that it's fixed and that he's repaired the previous occurances. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To clear up a common misconception, WP:NFCC is not a Foundation directive, but English Misplaced Pages's current interpretation of the actual Foundation resoultion. Note that the Foundation resolution says nothing about article names being required in the image description or rationale. In fact, as one board member stated, "The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to set policy that way." That's Kat Walsh, posting to foundation-l. DHowell (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed that one of the bot's tasks is to remove non-coforming, but plausible, fair use justifications, and another task is to tag the image for not having a fair use justification. If the bot doesn't put a tag on the image and notify the uploader and recent editors on the first edit, and wait at least 48 hours before adding the speedy deletion tag, this is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot does not remove anything from image description pages, Im not sure where your getting your facts. β 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with its temporary block. As It malfunctioned several times (one recent example here), even after getting warning from other users.--NAHID 21:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I just got a warning about an orphaned image in a non-orphaned one of mine. --~~

The bot claimed Image:Ephraim Katzir.jpg is an orphan. It is not, and has been in Image:Ephraim Katzir.jpg continuously since September. Superm401 - Talk 23:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, looks like the bot did screw up there, I did not look too closely though. However that image has its own problems. That image is a replacable fair use image, as its a picture of a living person. We don't allow that. Secondly its being used in an article (President of Israel not directly about the subject. In addition, its being used on the talk page of President of Israel (Talk:President of Israel), which is definatly not allowed. Non-free images are only to be used in mainspace. My two cents ;) —— Eagle101 19:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Joejoebilly

Look at that. And his contribs! The has repetedly recreated Pandapede and has been warned for it. User should be blocked. —Coastergeekperson04@11/27/2007 04:18

User:Pegasus got him. east.718 at 04:34, November 27, 2007

Swalwell, Alberta

The talk page of this article says I have to ask here why it is protected. So I'm asking? Giano (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is due to the fact that the article namespace has been used for trolling harassment of an editor here.--Isotope23 17:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Look up above; it's already being discussed on this page. --jpgordon 19:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, yeah.--Isotope23 19:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I think it says to ask here for edits, not for reasons. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• • It does. For some reason the talk page is full protected as well. I don't see the edits that would cause that (the article seems to be consistently deleted and recreated though). Just passed an AFD too. Odd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's a good reason. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Private" Checkuser use

Template:RFCpolicy

I have sent this to a Checkuser ombudsman and the Stewards:

"In regards to:http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:CHECKUSER

'Privacy violation? If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission.'

Please note that so-called "private" uses of check user are occurring as seen here. How can someone report a privacy violation if they do not know that checkuser has been used?

How widespread is this so-called "private" misuse of Checkuser? 64.229.31.192 (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the policy, notification of the check to the community is not mandatory. Checkuser activities are logged, and it is possible to know which checkuser performed which check. -- lucasbfr 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That assumes that private use is misuse -- policy as it stands currently makes no such statement or implication that I'm aware of. The much greater concern has always been release of private data. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

See also this statement by recently-retired Ombudsman Commission member, Arbitration Committee member and checkuser UninvitedCompany (talk). Daniel 22:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of checks are run following talk page, email or IRC requests to the checkusers. WP:RFCU is a backup; its use is not mandatory. The checkusers are supposed to follow the policy and turn down improper requests, and all checks are logged so there is a record of who checked whom. If someone is blocked and no reason is given, then it will be disputed and possibly overturned. If checkuser is given as the reason, then any other checkuser can look at the log to see who ran the check and then ask them why. Thatcher131 04:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this process is acceptable and I have also alerted the Wikimedia Foundation. It's silly to pretend(as does the wording atWP:RFCU) that there is a method for the Targeted User to report a privacy abuse (which could mean simply the unwarranted use of Checkuser) if the process can be done without the Target's knowledge, PLUS it is deceitful to the public to even have WP:RFCU if it's being regularly circumvented via backroom conversation on IRC followed by a "private" Checkuser use. This is quite disappointing and clearly an abuse of the power to invade Users' privacy. From the comments above it does appear this practice is rampant and from what Thatcher is saying, it appears that if the "private" Checkuser results are in the Target's favor then the Target may never know it was even used. Think about the type of political systems that employ such "private" personal background checks? "Private" Checkuser usage is clearly a disappointing, unethical and deceptive process and I wonder what % of Misplaced Pages Users know that it is happening. 64.229.30.210 (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, in my opinion, publicizing Checkuser results leads to a bigger privacy violation (when the result is negative, or inconclusive) than when they are kept private. And you wouldn't know that a check has been done on you if you weren't monitoring WP:RFCU.  CheckUser is not for fishing and checkusers only do checks when there is sufficient concerns, onwiki ot not) (funnily enough since you are not logged in, a checkuser might help understanding what is the matter here ;)) -- lucasbfr 12:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A:What is the objection to requiring informing the User when Checkuser is used on their account? B:Why need there be WP:RFCU at all if it is not necessary? C:Should Checkuser requests be processed within IRC conversation? 64.229.30.210 13:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of checkuser requests I put in, the user does get notified. {{sockpuppet}} and {{indefblockeduser}} are the most usual notifications. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting - can anyone who is knowledgeable (checkusers or devs, respectively for each issue) discuss whether it would be reasonable / possible to allow each user access to the checkuser logs for their own account? It doesn't seem like it would be a privacy problem - the only privacy problem I've heard for releasing checkuser logs in general is that people would be able to correlate what names and what IPs are examined in a given time period to figure out what someone's IP is indirectly, and that wouldn't apply if each user only has access to their own data. —Random832 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable, but I don't think this is a good idea. When you have a shared IP (like, e.g. apparently half of Qatar), it would not be good if one user could learn this way who are the other users on this IP address. Privacy, security (on-line, but in some countries certainly also offline), ... may be in danger. I may be overreacting, but at first glance this looks to be a potential big problem. Fram 14:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't reveal _anything_ concerning any other username. Just list, to User:Example, A) when a checkuser was run on User:Example B) when an IP check was run that resulted in a hit on User:Example. Absolutely no other usernames (except the checkusers who ran the check) would be disclosed. Any IPs disclosed would be IPs that the account had logged in from. —Random832 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It occured to me that a compromised account could be an issue, but someone who compromises an account could (hypothetical method not revealed in public per WP:BEANS, but they definitely could find out the user's IP via other means without raising any suspicion) - but anyway, if that is a concern, simply don't reveal the IPs. —Random832 19:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this isn't possible on a technical level. I once asked for a searching feature (so you can extract logs for specific wikis), and I was informed that due to the nature of the log, it is not feasable to implement search functions, which would mean there's no way to give people the ability to only track the log on their own account. --Deskana (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can certainly find all checks on a given IP or username (though it will be on all wikis), which can be useful for checkusers looking to see if a check was performed earlier and/or elsewhere. There's really no need to post anything at all about it unless the results are both positive and needed as evidence.

Running the checks isn't really the issue with the privacy policy. Publishing the checks is definitely an issue, which is why only checkusers can see checkuser logs. In fact, the best way to protect privacy might be to get rid of WP:RFCU alltogether, and limit requests to email.--SB_Johnny | 13:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think another primary issue is whether the User checked should always be advised that a Checkuser check was or is being run. I think the answer to that is an obvious "yes". Mentoring07 15:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (original nominator of this topic).

There are privacy problems inherent to that, too, though. "Hey, I checked you." "Why?" "Well, uh, this other disruptive guy is on the same university IP as you." -- any conversation of that nature will inherently risk revealing private information about another user, any conversation which lacks that sort of information strikes me as probably less than useless. Open to ideas, but it seems like a tricky problem to get past. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Since I was blocked by Durova, in error, and then again, in error by "FloNight" as if she had checkuser status, when she clearly did not, I concur with the statement above.(by Mentoring07) JzG, blocked Once and Forever with no evidence and then I was blocked as a sock of Once and Forever. (Once and Forever is an established user? The evidence I presented at Durova's Arbcom. hearing is proof that "Flonight" did not have checkuser status but claimed to have "access" to same. This is not ending here, right? It is clear that the privacy claimed by someone like "FloNight" is clearly not in keeping with a transparent system. I want to see the evidence that was used against me. Everyone is entitled to that much clarity, I think. User: Songgarden. 70.253.99.219 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Most CheckUser requests do not go through RFCU, FloNight knows enough CheckUsers that it's far from implausible. CheckUser is not 100% reliable, it links edits to IPs, IPs can be dynamic. It's an inexact science. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a WikiMedia Foundation matter. It doesn't much make sense to discuss such policy at this level. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony you seem to be everywhere at the moment commenting very authoritatively. Could you just confirm are you an admin, a 'Crat or an Arb? In what capacity are you making these statements. Giano 17:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom?

I received an email from a Steward suggesting "Arbcom" would be an appropriate way to address this issue. I am not acquainted at all with the Arbcom process. What do others think? Mentoring07 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)(original nominator of this topic)

Talk:Martin Luther King

Hi, I don't want to engage an anon IP so am asking for someone else to address this post at least for civility. I think the user could potentially be encourage to contribute but maybe needs a bit of Miss Manner's tips for playing nice on talk pages. Thank you. Benjiboi 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks a lot more like trolling than like anything that needs to be paid attention. Natalie 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Seicer

Every edit I make User:Seicer has to change it. He constantly keeps bothering and intimidating me. He acts like he is god. Seicer has constantly been in numerous disputes with other users. It must stop. Jdlddw (

You should take this to WP:ANI instead. Also, please provide diffs when you do. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not this again. This is already at ANI, and was on my talk page and at Guy's, and this case is pretty much resolved. It's an editor that clearly inserts uncited and originally researched materials, violates MOS and conducts page moves without consensus (and to the wrong names, which must then be reverted). It's no figure that this now-disruptive editor is only canvassing local boards trying to drum up support. I've noted his errors on his talk page numerous times, as has Guy, and based on this comment, he's only 12. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Human trafficking in Angeles City

please also see COI report susanbryce conflict of interest. user susanbryce is edit warring in the Human trafficking in Angeles City article. she continues to insert irrelevant and false information into an article she has a documented conflict of interest in. she is the founder of a women's activist group and is campaigning for her cause. she continually and repeatedly inserts information into the article which is not Human Trafficking as evidence human trafficking is occuring in Angeles City. she repeatedly inserts information accusing Angeles City police of corruption while citing statistics irrelevant to angeles city. any attempt to remove her edits results in accusations of "attacking" her. there has not been one verifiable case of human trafficking occuring in angeles. as i am sure you know, verifiability is the standard wikipedia requires. this is an ongoing problem since this article was originally written by her.

oddly enough, the conflict of interest report resulted in accusations of an attack by me and the conflict of interest was never addressed. RodentofDeath 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown

The dropdown list for deletion reasons can be edited - I've added CSD links for the default three, more should be added. Obviously some shouldn't appear in the dropdown (e.g. XFD closure and probably CSD-G4 should have an XFD link) —Random832 17:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:^demon/csd.js may be helpful.—Random832 17:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, why was this not available before? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added some more, I don't think all CSD should be included so as to avoid making the list too long. GDonato (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Breaking news on hostage situation

Where do we post notices about breaking news, which may have long-term import? I noted a breaking story about the current hostage crisis and bomb threat here. Bearian 19:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It'll probably end up being it's own article. Just watch and make sure there are reliable sources. John Reaves 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the naming convention? Bearian 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There's already one: Clinton campaign office hostage crisis. Acroterion _(talk) 19:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll merge Clinton hostage situation into Clinton campaign office hostage crisis. Bearian 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this on Misplaced Pages, when there's Wikinews for things just like this? Serious question, not rhetorical, I may have a major misunderstanding of WP:NOTE. Can't we wait 2 days to determine if this is actually going to be a notable event or not? Does every incident that is covered in the media now deserve its own article? --barneca 20:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, generally, but this is the sort of story that sticks. I wanted to post it to WikiNews, but I could not do it. Bearian 20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's one small town office, not even the state hq. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:67.135.49.177 violating 3RR

Can someone help?--Filll 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page to stop the warring. John Reaves 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:68.15.221.17

This IP has been used for some vandalism, though there appear to be no blocks. A post from this IP indicates that the IP is assigned to an elementary school, and requests that anonymous editing be blocked for that IP, though logged-in users would still like to edit. The post is signed as "IT Guy", indicating that it is a staff member of the school. The IP does not resolve to a school district, but to Cox Communications. I'm going to WP:AGF, so I'm looking into it for him/her. Are IPs blocked pre-emptively in this manner? If so, where should I direct this inquiry? Is there an e-mail address to which I could direct this IT staffer? Thanks, ZZ ~ Evidence 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The usual response to such requests is that the school should implement their own restrictions on editing, though that way it might not be possible to allow logged-in users to edit. There isn't enough activity to justify a long-term block. Hut 8.5 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll so inform them, and recommend the use of the {{sharedIPEDU}} template, allowing them to identify their school. Thanks! ZZ ~ Evidence 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bbabybear02

• Bbabybear02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This one is ringing bells in the back of my mind. Loads of edits to radio station articles, plus a mass of images with improper licensing. This reminds me of someone I thought we showed the door a while back, but I can't remember who. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think WAVY 10 dealt with him before. It could have been TV stations and he was adding wildly improper information spryde | talk 20:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

El Jigue redux

I would like some input on a page protection/ban issue. Despite his lengthy block, the POV pusher "El Jigue" has been using his user talk page to complain about edits he disagrees with. Background and the original block discussion can be found here. After being blocked, El Jigue made posts to his talk page such as a threat to contact the press and this extreme misrepresentation of this talk page post. I attempted to explain what the problem was here, which was read but obviously not understood, as he continued to make rather reaching claims about another editor in his response. I gave him a final warning about his talk page here, to which he responded with more paranoid ranting. So I've protected the page for the length of the block.

I would like confirmation from other administrators that I've understood the blocking policy correctly - blocked users can only edit their own talk page and then only to contest their block. As El Jigue is not using his talk page in the manner he's permitted to, my understanding is he's no longer permitted to edit it. The user and usertakl page are fully protected because there are some other non-admin editors that have been conversing with him, and I don't want to set up a situation where other people can taunt him and he cannot answer. I've also left my email address in the event that he wants to contest the block. I will not, obviously, make the unblock decision myself, but will post here or contact some random admin to make the actual unblock decision.

I'd also like some more people to weigh in on whether or not this is considered a ban. Ryulong said as much in his original blocking, and I think that is a reasonable measure, but I would feel more comfortable if their were more voices in this discussion. Natalie 20:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, there's been some brief discussion on unblock-en-l. Nothing particularly relevant here, I think. Anyway, I concur that the talk page was being abused. I am unsure whether or not the block was a ban. In any case, it's probably time for this person to contact an WP:ARBCOM member given that the unblock reviews have happened. Or accept the decision and refrain from further editing. --Yamla 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I handed him a long block about a year ago and his response was pretty similar. There doesn't seem to be any learning curve going on here. I tried to engage him in a discussion of core policies, but he had it in his head that I'm a Russian communist who blocked him for political reasons (boggle). No objection to banning on my side: this is more than POV pushing, it's also a lot of dubious OR. Durova 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Another backlog growing...

80 pages currently in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and it's starting to increase. I would appreciate a hand on this, particularly on the unclear A7s which I tend to leave alone. Spebi 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It'll be wiped out in five minutes. east.718 at 22:19, November 30, 2007

Eric Van

Will someone please take a look at this?

I chanced upon the article 'Eric Van'.

Here is a and the current one. They are very different.

I freely admit I don't know anything about the subject, but my impression from reading either of these versions is that they are pure "hoax". They are certainly extremely unencyclopedic. I would appreciate another opinion and advice of what if anything to do about this.

Wanderer57 23:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources, and discussion in three AfD's , indicate that at least it isn't a hoax. --barneca 23:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

If anyone hasn't noticed, WP:RfA is now completely empty. And now the beans shall come. Will 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't really draw a conclusion from this; I thought this would signify or highlight something but nothing springs to mind. Deciding to postpone anon. page creation likely means that the admin-rush is no longer necessary and it has, in fact, turned into a slowdown. GDonato (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because of the page creation issue, it was packed for a while, so it makes sense that the available candidates, for now, have been spent. It will even out in time. Chick Bowen 04:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it wasn't page creation. Three times a year it slows down, all seem to revolve around the educational system. Exams April/May is the end of the school year (American), August is the beginning, and December is mid-terms/finals. Since it is my perception that a majority of the admincorps is collegiate, this makes sense. Keegan 06:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Except your perception is flawed. December 2005 was tied (with October 2005) for the most new admins in any month. Dragons flight 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Keeping a blank description page for an image on the commons

Hello, I was wondering if someone could explain what is the advantage of keeping a blank image description page for an image that is on the commons ? I thought normally they could be speedy deleted, so I had tagged one but the tag was removed. So I started an IfD (here), but it turns out consensus was to keep the blank description page, however users kept giving reasons such as the image is very nice, or things like that, so I don't understand ? I thought it was a pretty common task, and the page only existed because of an error, also the person who blanked it after the error, wants to keep it!? Please can someone explain ? He says he wants to keep the blank page because he will upload a new version soon, but is crushing a commons image like this a good idea ? Why not choose a different title ? Anyway if someone who knows more about this can explain thanks.

PS. Also is it normal for an IfD discussion to not be closed after this length of time? Jackaranga 03:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... personally, I don't see any valid reason to keep a blank page. Usually you upload the image locally and lock it when it goes to the main page, and I have seen some people creating a local image page to categorize the image, but I don't see any reason to keep it. It is my belief that they thought you wanted to delete the description and/or the image, and they did not understand that the description would be picked directly from Commons in that case. -- ReyBrujo 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- a lot of people don't understand that deleting the blank description page on Misplaced Pages doesn't do a thing. Its easiest to try educating people about how the Commons pass-through works and show them that yes, our page really doesn't have anything on it. Shell 04:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on RodentofDeath

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As described on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath, RodentofDeath operates a single purpose account for the purpose of editing Angeles City and prostitution-related pages, and has engaged in repeated, blatant WP:NPOV violations, contentious editing, edit warring, and personal attacks. Furthermore, I regard RodentofDeath's username as inappropriate and threatening. Since many established users at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath have described RodentofDeath's behavior as highly disruptive, and since there are no statements favorable to RodentofDeath endorsed by anyone except RodentofDeath himself, it appears that this user's disruption can be quickly and uncontroversially ended with a community ban, avoiding lengthy arbitration proceedings. John254 05:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have informed this user of the discussion here. John254 05:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC

sorry i dont have time to edit more articles. i dont see what this has to do with banning but if u feel the need to ban me for that then so be it. this whole thing could be settled easily if the lies about angeles were removed from the wikipedia articles. instead of taking time to ban me i suggest you go through the articles and try to verify any of the information there. for instance, right now susanbryce has inserted a quote of a judge that says bribes are paid to city officials. if you read the citation the judge says no such thing. go through just about any other edit and they all have similar problems. i can make the same argument for susanbryce being a one purpose account to run a smear campaign against the philippines. i am sure there would be no problem proving that since the Senate of the Philippines has also accused her of the same thing. she has a clear and documented conflict of interest that for some reason nobody seems willing to address. RodentofDeath 16:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question after 5 seconds of investigation: He has one entry in his block log. How disruptive could he be? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of RodentofDeath's activities have received little administrative attention. For instance, this edit constitutes a severe personal attack and a serious WP:BLP violation, which in light of RodentofDeath's preceding personal attack on the same user coupled with a severe WP:NPOV violation , and the warning he recieved, would furnish grounds for a block of an appropriate length. That a block was never actually placed on his account does not imply that RodentofDeath's behavior was acceptable. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath contains extensive evidence of such disruption by RodentofDeath. John254 16:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Might be best to note here that this was archived by the filer with the comment "this isn't going to happen". Also this issue is being discussed at both an RfC and an RFArb. Probably premature to seek a community ban before those two processes finish. Any ongoing clear disruption can be dealt with by a block now, but content disputes need to work their way through dispute resolution. Carcharoth 11:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Question on tag for image.

I am about to upload an image of a billboard for Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2. I took it using my cellphone camera. But I don't know which tag I will use: "free image" or "fair use"? BTW, I haven't uploaded the image yet. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 05:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you retaining ownership of the image, or releasing it into the public domain? If you wish to donate your work, you could use {{PD-self}} or one of the {{GFDL}} license templates such as {{GFDL-self}} or {{GFDL-user}}. If your picture is copyrighted and uploaded as a fair use image, please note that it may be tagged as {{Replaceable fair use}} and later replaced with a free photo. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why is 31 hours one of the default lengths for blocks? I understand the "15 minutes," "1, 24, 48 hours... etc." But why 31 hours? Not that this is important, but I have always wondered. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the idea is to break patterns. Someone who edits at the same time each day will be much more inconvenienced by a 31 hour block than by a 24 hour one.-gadfium 05:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and partly because of tradition. See this MediaWiki talk page for more info. Graham87 05:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked the same question before here. bibliomaniac15 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Socks on a Plane

Would it be inappropriate to block Socks on a Plane (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) for racist vandalism () without issuing a final/only warning? The user's actions are perfectly described by the first sentence of Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Disruption.

There are only two reasons for my hesitation. First, the user has made a few minor constructive edits (). Second, the user has not yet received a single warning (then again, one shouldn't have to be warned not to do certain things...). – Black Falcon 07:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest a temporary block, with a warning that while constructive edits are welcome, more of the inappropriate edits can result in a long term block. -- Infrogmation 07:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, on second thought after looking at the user's edits, many of which are particularly vile, I am going ahead and blocking them myself. -- Infrogmation 07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, good. I agree that a warning would not be useful in this case. Thanks, Black Falcon 07:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting community ban for IP 67.53.130.69 and User:EverybodyHatesChris

67.53.130.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - requesting permanent and community-wide block and ban of this IP. The IP is currently blocked for one month as the source for the indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer EverybodyHatesChris. However, the IP is now abusively attacking several editors (myself included) on other sites while blocked on Misplaced Pages. My page on Wikinews was vandalized here, as well as by a new account suspected of being that same user. HiDrNick's page on Commons was vandalized repeatedly here, here, here, here, here and here. The IP has now been blocked for one month on Commons and for six months on Misplaced Pages, but the edit history suggests that may not resolve the issue. --Ckatz_spy 10:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

EverybodyHatesChris has a significant sock history here. I can support a ban on him and a block of the IP forhowever long the community feels is warranted. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

EHC can troll my talk pages all he wants, I just want him to stay away from the articles. We still haven't cleaned them all up. I figured after all the mess before he was de-facto banned, but if formalizing it like this makes it easier for me to go to an administrator and say "please block this community banned user" without having to whip out 20 diff ands a request for checkuser, then I support a formalized siteban. ➪HiDrNick! 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just realized I'd not explained why I've requested this step. I understand that this action is not a trivial matter, nor is it something to be taken lightly. However, EHC's actions clearly demonstrate a disregard for Misplaced Pages's community spirit and a lack of desire to work cooperatively within that community. Furthermore, the sockpuppets, evasion of blocks, trolling, and now the personal threats suggest that he is not willing to change his behaviour. --Ckatz_spy 21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How to protect from fabrication?

Yeongeunmun Gate. some Japanese user edit like this. I find This edit by Nightshadow28 edited list. It's Totally Fiction. It's purely fabricated edit. cite is nothing,too. see discussion page. nobody prove it. And see article history. some korean correct rightly, Japanese Pushing POV trolls continuously revert it, too. I'm very supprised this fabrication. How can i protect from fabrication? and How can i protect this from continuously revert? I can request to protect template. but, it is not eternal. and i want report POV trolls as Vandalsim. Can i report Nightshadow28 as vandalism? I'm a beginner of wikipedia. Please understand my worry. i need help. 774townsclear

Hello administrator, I thank you for all of your works. Well, This article is a honey pot for Bason0 (talk · contribs) and his/her sockpuppets simply. Now, I and him is talking it in WP:SSP.

• ("Obvious anons of Bason0" section)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Bason0

Thanks. --Nightshadow28 12:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sockpuppets. I'm not same man with him/her. and even if I am a sockpuppets, this is not matter of this fact. your edit is totally fiction. i just asked to admin, How to protect article from fabrication? I'm very suprised from your fabrication. 774townsclear 12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a new RFCU relating to this case, puppetmaster is Bason0, see RFCU. The SSP will be awaiting the RFCU results. Quite a bit seems to be going on here. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have found a new RFCU filed by Rlevse. I am sorry for doing yada yada in unsuitable place. Thanks. --Nightshadow28 12:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not sockpuppets matter issue. i did not make any disruptive edit war by multiple accounts. I want know How to protect from this hoax edit. 774townsclear 13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

774townsclear and Cause5stage have been blocked by FutPerf under WP:DUCK. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That said, I'll just note that the version of the article that everybody except Bason is reverting to is nevertheless an abomination of silly POV writing. For chrissake, will nobody show some mercy and write a decently sourced non-copyvio stub there? That's the sad thing about chronic sockpuppetry cases, often the socks have some core of a legitimate concern that just won't get addressed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment of beginning work, I noticed that "he" (Peasreach5 (talk · contribs)) has been born again... Is management of this issue suitable in this place? Or is it better to move to ANI? --Nightshadow28 19:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Some advice on talkpage deletion, please

Recently Law Lord placed a {{db-userreq}} on their talk page archive at User talk:Law Lord/Archive 1, claiming that Content is often being used for invasion of privacy, libel and slander in my home country. Since this section of WP:UP states As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons I placed a {{hangon}} on the archive page, and opened a discussion on Law Lord's talkpage. The only information I can see on there that an editor might wish to have removed from public sight is the fact that he was blocked back in April, requested an unblock (which was declined) and was unblocked in August. Law Lord is now claiming that someone off-wiki is "libelling" him with this information (and claiming that the fact that it is true is irrelevant under Danish law, where LL is based). Am I right in declining to delete this archive page, given that it's an important historical record of LL's prior use of Misplaced Pages? Advice here or on my talkpage would be appreciated! Tonywalton  | Talk 14:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the talk page archive will not delete the information from his talk page history, unless he creates archives my moving the actual page. So if the only problem is the archived page, and the history is preserved in his regular talk page, deleting it would be fine. If the problem, however, is some edits in the history I'm not sure what the appropriate step would be. It would depend on what the edits were, and when they were made. Natalie 14:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

His ip address is revealed there. I have advised him to blank his own page and email oversight. - JodyB _talk 19:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me go a little further here. The ip address was revealed in a request for unblock. I tried to do the delete-selective revision thing but was unsucessful. Now, I am not sure what exactly is causing the libel but that is the only thing I saw there of a private nature. - JodyB _talk 19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice. The edits regarding the block and unblock have been blanked by LL himself, so this one's now moot, I guess. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown 2

With the advent of this new page and feature, all admins are given a drop-down list for the most common delete reasons, functionality previously achieved using the JavaScript WP:CSDAR (for those who chose to install it). Since this is a new feature, input on how we admins want to set it up would be appreciated (even from those not endowed with a mop :) ). Specifically, which reasons and subreasons to include (or not) is up for discussion.

The discussion is at MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown. Nihiltres 14:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see the section with the same name above. :) GDonato (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked the table of contents before starting this thread, I don't know how I could have missed that. Oops... Nihiltres 17:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following remedies:

• Durova (talk · contribs) is admonished to exercise greater care when issuing blocks.
• participants in the various discussions regarding this matter are admonished to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama.
• Durova (talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels.
• Giano II (talk · contribs) is reminded that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and that he work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions.
• !! (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Misplaced Pages under the account name of his choice.

Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Potential "crap" 3

I've regenerated the list of crap pages. We have over 6,000 pages that fit into this category. I'd ask that admins and users continue to go through the now updated list and remove/fix articles. Some of them simply need a fixing up to get them out of this category. Cleanup involves mainly wikilinking and perhaps finding a reference or two. While others just simply need to see dev/null ;). Get them there by either WP:CSD or WP:PROD. More information is given on the page, please discuss below any suggestions for improvement, etc. When this list gets down to a reasonable level (500 to 1,000), I'll publish a new list based on some different criteria, which will require the same attention as this one. (probably potential crap 4 or 5 or something like that ;) ). Cheers all! —— Eagle101 18:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've forgotten to post the list in the original post, its now inline with "list of crap-pages". The list is at User:Eagle 101/potential crap 3. —— Eagle101 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Also in addition, though its not exactly requiring admin attention, I'd ask that you all allow me to draw your attention to User:Eagle_101/linkfarms. This is a list of pages with more then 20 external links in the == External links == section. This list contains 2,000 entries (out of 2,006,000). These can probably do with some pruning. The format of the list is "# Current Page (revid that the program saw) external links: ##. Please before telling me the list is inaccurate check the revid that the program saw ;), they may have been fixed already! (perhaps those working on this list can mark these entries off as they fix them). —— Eagle101 18:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been progress on the linkfarm list, to answer any questions about how to mark them off, either strike them out or remove the whole line. This applies to both the list of potential crap and the linkfarms. In addition non-admins can assist in the potential crap items, just simply tag with WP:CSD or WP:PROD tags, and or cleanup to an acceptable standard. How to do that is described on the page. Please feel free to discus more below, as these get done, I'll publish more lists. :) —— Eagle101 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad image

Image:Penisfrenulum.jpg should be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list, to avoid its use in vandalism. Thanks. John254 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Y done. SkierRMH (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

SUGGESTIONS: (In light of Durova case) Congressional Edit Case & Misplaced Pages Needs COI Warnings

Unreferenced personal attack on a Wikipedian removed per BLP. If you have a case, prepare the evidence as diffs, and take it to ArbCom. Any violators of BLP will be blocked. Thank you. Crum375 23:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more of a personal attack then a biographies of living persons issue ;) But yes correct on both accounts, continued personal attacks should result in blocking. —— Eagle101 23:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Who was the editor being attacked. Giano 16:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote

Shouldn't this page be fully protected until the time of the elections in order to prevent early votes? I'm suggesting this only because I think it's a similar situation to how Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements was fully protected to prevent any candidates after the deadline. Let me know what you think. Icestorm815 23:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I saw the actual voting pages were protected. Icestorm815 23:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:146.115.43.96 continues censoring wikipedia in numerous edits

Many of his edits relate removing cited information on negative receptions that a band he likes has gotten.

He has been warned numerous times against doing this. Hoponpop69 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that, rather than characterising the editor's edits as censorship or vandalism, we should view this situation as a content dispute. I for one have issues with the text, but this noticeboard would not be the correct place to raise them or to draft new suggestions - the talk page would be the correct place. As this is very likely a content dispute, I would object to the IP address being blocked. I will go to the talk page to post my thoughts. --Iamunknown 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Help at Special:Newpages appreciated

I'm starting @ article 250 and am working upwards - but I started at 180ish... LessHeard vanU 00:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing to be patrolled (I just took care of a huge number). Now we just need the CSD people to do their job :-D spryde | talk 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was still checking in the 240 numbers? Oh, well, that's me done for the night! LessHeard vanU 01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of marked patrolling is that we can fall a few hundred behind without missing anything. 02:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Can I please have a copy of the deleted articles Underwater Otter and Silly Mongoose. Thanks. Sir Mr. Mo Gooder 02:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll post the content to your talk page. John Reaves 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mouldy copyvios from February

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

Can anyone give this user's contribs and especially uploads a once-over? Misbah Iqbal, Image:Misbah Iqbal 3.jpg and Image:Misbah Iqbal 2.JPG are all copyvios and I'd suspect that the rest of the uploads, given their professional nature, are as well. Thanks. MER-C 02:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's clearly all of them. Image:Sehr 2.jpg is visible here, for example. Chick Bowen 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Attention needed

I don't believe this qualifies as vandalism so thought this is appropriate venue to post it.

I removed this material

Ahern had a relationship with Cecilia Larkin for several years. A previous Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, Charles Haughey had a mistress, http://www.ireland.com/focus/haughey/ITstories/story13.htm Terry Keane - A very public affair.

pointing out that the reference had nothing to do with Ahern and also this POV material

At the Mahon Tribunal on 20 September 2007, Ahern said in the style of Homer Simpson
..the reason I probably can't give you a better reflection of what I was doing on the 19th of January is because I didn't do it.

which is still in the article in this form

At the Mahon Tribunal on 20 September 2007, Ahern said
..the reason I probably can't give you a better reflection of what I was doing on the 19th of January is because I didn't do it.

at this article on Dec 1st 2007 pointing that the reference provided had nothing to do with the subject and also that I was removing a version of a duplicate item.

This IP reinserted it 3 times and I removed it again 3 times for the stated reasons so we are both at 3RR each now .Then account Aristottle reverted to reinserted the reference and also the POV duplicate item.

Since I can't do anything without violating 3RR I thought it best to bring it to your attention to do as you see fit .Garda40 03:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to cleaning up vandalism. Just to let you know. -Goodshoped 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

See the first sentence of the users' message — "I don't believe this qualifies as vandalism". Daniel 03:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Orkut forum and meatpuppetry

Ezhava again. This follows from my question about handling Vvmundakkal (result: looks like content dispute). Frankly, I find someone saying they are planning on contacting a federal minister way beyond a content dispute and a WP:LEGAL issue. Still, basically a user (now a number of users) are trying to insert some language into Ezhava that is not only unsourced but all an complete misrepresentation of the sources, and keep recreating the unsourced (twice AFDs to redirects) List of Notable Ezhavas. First, it was Vvmundakkal, then User:123.236.218.13 and then User:125.99.225.216, who informed me that the "issue is being discussed there among 1000s of members in the forum....I have edited as per the request from forum moderator.". I have asked everyone to stop simply reinserting the test but I don't know what to do other than semi-protect all the articles and try to force discussion. The article was fully protected for a month but none of the edit warriors wanted to comment on it (even went to their talk pages to warn them that I knew they weren't even trying to discuss), so I fear that removing the protection will just be more of the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there's also a content fork being created at Thiyya, using an old badly sourced version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That now redirects to Ezhava and is protected at that. Can anyone think of an appropriate dispute resolution process here? Or should we just topic-ban the POV pushers? Guy (Help!) 11:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Nase

User:Daniel.nase has created two articles (AMTECH Thermonuclear Converter and The Light Transistor) and edited several other articles (Harvard Business School, Artificial intelligence and others) suggesting that he is among the greatest inventors of our time. However, a google search of his name and any of his inventions gives at most 4 hits, all of them self-created. What do we do? I haven't dealt with this kind of thing before. ---- CharlesGillingham 08:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please let us know if he does not respond to the message you left him on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you point me to a guideline, or something, tells me step by step what I should and shouldn't do here? Oh wait a minute, I just noticed that you deleted the articles. Fair enough. Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham 09:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's one more article I should have mentioned: Photonic Computer. See what you think. Thanks again. ---- CharlesGillingham 09:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• You need to contact the user and see whether this is cluelessness or deliberate vanity. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting other user's Warning

Hello, Administrators. Jjk82 is silly POV pusher. many user warning at his talk page. but Aranherunar delete this. I revert it. I suspected Aranherunar and Jjk82 are same guy. Aranherunar's behavior is vandalism, right? He has no authorized delete other user's warning. GoodfaithBadfith 09:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

AGF. Aranherunar has been here since May 2006; I doubt he's related to the guy who's been here a few weeks POV-pushing. It would be odd since he's never even edited anywhere in the same universe of articles. I don't really mind that he removed them (his reasoning being they are all content disputes is a little odd) since he put a note explaining to the editor. I do find that Jjk82 not using talk pages (and you should suggest for him to do so) is not encouraging. I would suggest having an actual discussion on his talk page (telling that using Flickr as a source is OR, and comments like "If they have a negative tone, blame them for being anti-Korean) aren't helpful to having a discussion) instead of just templating him all day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GoodfaithBadfith, I have removed your report from WP:AIV. It is inappropriate to use different avenues in pursuit of remedy. This matter is being dealt with here. LessHeard vanU 10:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I request you to cease your personal attacks and baseless and thoughtless accusations of sockpuppets. My reasoning given for the removal is clear, valid, and I see only bad faith in how you naming me as a vandal and a sockpuppet without much consideration. I have made over 4000 edits in Misplaced Pages and I assure you, and everybody else here, plainly, that I have nothing at all to do with Jjk82. I do not agree with his edits - as I have stated (e.g. in this edit) that they do not conform to Wiki policies. But however POV-pushing this person is, this has nothing at all to do with vandalism. Vandalism is behavior aimed clearly at disrupting Misplaced Pages - this user, silly or not, clearly cited his sources , and actually helped out in various parts of the articles . I stress, I do NOT agree with this users' edits, and I would have reverted them myself. But I would never call this user a vandal and leave a vandalism template on his user talk page, and calling him names.

As for the warnings, yes, there is no such thing as "authorization" to delete warnings given by other users, but there is such thing as removing bad-faith warnings and personal attacks. My removal of the warnings is a symbolic gesture to attempt to let the user participate in the community and in the discussion. I believe every user deserves a chance.

I would also be glad if you could at least notify me of your report in the AN and the AVI. Thanks to User:Ricky81682 for the notification.

In conclusion, I ask for the administrators to ignore this baseless report. Aran|heru|nar 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Privatemusings is now limited to using one, single account to edit Misplaced Pages, and must obtain the Arbitration Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account. Furthermore, Privatemusings is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely: he is prohibited from editing any article that is substantially a biography of a living person. Details of the enforcement regarding these Remedies is detailed here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 13:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The 90 day remedy was left out. I've added it and blocked. It is available at the link above. Nathan 15:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I had raised this with the closing clerk - User_talk:AGK#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPrivatemusings, but Anthøny must have gone offline before my response. KTC 15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be in order, but it would be as well to flag this at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard as a secondary check. I'll do so. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/72.240.85.245 suspected vandalism

I suspect all 6 edits by this IP to be vandalism. Only the first & last edits have been reverted yet. I'd like some hand-holding to know how to respond. I know how to do the reverts, just want to know what to put on talk page... (which doesn't yet exist). Can I assume bad intent based on the grouping of edits with similar content (i.e. "Godspeed You! Black Emperor")? Thanks for any help JohnI 15:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Educational, generic template messages may be found at WP:UTM. Since I know nothing about the topic, I did the google test on and got a whopping zero results. Searching WP:UTM, "introducing deliberate factual errors" sounds like the perfect description of the situation, so after reverting the edit, I added a "your test worked" message to the IP's talk page with a {{uw-error1}} warning (using the parameters specified on WP:UTM). Hope that helps! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughs and ideas?

How would you go about handling this? Smoking and Tobacco smoking seem to be pretty much the same thing. Do we really need 2 articles about the same thing? -- ALLSTARecho 17:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Transcript 20 September, page 138 D'oh!

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards