Revision as of 06:56, 16 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

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

Community ban of spammer

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek because this is 38kb of wikitext, 201kb post-expand, and literally half the rendered page.'

Executive summary: Webgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and numerous IPs added many links to sites apparently run by him. —Random832 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Futuristic timestamp to keep this from getting archived by the bot: 23:59, 31 December 2037 (UTC)

Rex Germanus

I'm getting quite fed up with User:Rex Germanus. Since I'm definitely not neutral on this (involved gradually in different editing disputes with him), I am bringing this here for general consideration (since the CSN board is closed down), to see what (if anything) should be done.

Since his return from a month long block on November 13, Rex has continued his disruptive behaviour, but is now supported by a number of IP adresses, including 145.93.125.93, 145.93.123.60, 145.93.126.83 and 145.93.124.84, all coming from Fontys Hogescholen. I have no idea if this is a sock- or meatpuppet, but it makes the situation even worse.

Problems are: asking for references without ever providing some themselves (e.g. on Dutchland, West Flemish, or Van Beethoven family). Instead of replacing German with Dutch, his new topic is replacing Flemish with Dutch, even when it is incorrect, as in Jean Bart. He moved Dunkirkers to Dunkirk Raiders, and was unwilling to consider that he was wrong even when presented with references, and (again) without presenting any counterreferences himself, only his assertions (see User Talk:Rex Germanus#Dunkirkers). In these and other discussions, his (and the IP's) discussion and edit summaries where very often uncivil and personal, and very rarely constructive. Talk:West Flemish#Y vs. IJ is a good illustration of this.

Finally, edits like this one are to me unacceptable.

This is a complicated situation in which I am a party, but I seriously doubt if Rex has changed a bit since his last block, and if he is beneficial to Misplaced Pages. I have not issued any formal warnings, since (coming from me) they would probably only inflame the situation, instead of helping. Fram (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Since he's been warned off editing German topics, Rex certainly seems to have acquired a bee in his bonnet about all things Flemish. The disruption is at a much lower intensity than before, but it's still there. --Folantin (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All edits made displayed here where either because I had (better) sources or because others lacked them. I stand by all of them.

'Disrupted Topic' according to Fram:

Jean Bart: Being Dutch-born, ethnic sense, (Dunkirk being almost completely etnically Dutch at the time of his birth) doesn't say anything about nationality; the source of your confusion as noted in your edits.

Dunkirkers: Explained at my talkpage, point of concern? 'Dunkirkers' also refers to people from Dunkirk in general. Simple as that.

Van Beethoven Family: In the Beethoven question, which I've dropped as announced on the talk page) I proved my point that Flemish meant Dutch in beethovens time (and his ancestors times). Fran/Folentin demanded something more specific (what could cover my point more I ask myself). If that's 'not ever providing sources' then I don't know what that is.

For example Another false accusation to add to my list. I do use sources, more than any of the people mentioned above. This report to me is just a clear example of how these people try to push their changes on wikipedia without referencing. A small step from unfounded opinions, to personal attacks and allegations and now ... and attempt to block or similar. Sad, if you think you're right, go to library and find out for sure.Rex (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I deny all accusations made by Erik Warmelink who accuses me of using sock/meatpuppets. I have never used them and never will. Just because an IP (I assume it is the same person) disagrees with you and supports me doesn't make it a sock, it just makes 2 vs 1.Rex (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, quote the starting 10 words of the entry on "beethof" on http://www.etymologie.nl/ (I get: Lemma niet gevonden! Dit deel van het Etymologisch Woordenboek van …, crude translation: Lemma not found! This part of the etymological glossary of …), give a reliable source that links "van Beethoven" with Beets or the Betuwe, give a source that "van Beethoven" was ever used as a familyname in the Netherlands, give a reliable source that "proves" that Flemish meant Dutch in Beethovens time. Just because several IPs agree with you, doesn't make them socks; if all they do is agreeing with you (even repeating your accusation that I would lie) and reverting to your versions (without interwiki's that were added and with spelling errors that were corrected), appearances are against you. Also explain this edit summary. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I invite everyone to look at the edits linked, and compare them with the actual statements by Rex Germanus. E.g. the Van Beethoven family edit I linked has nothing to do with the Flemish vs. Dutch dispute, and Rex Germanus ignores the other, more recent pages listed (e.g. Dutchland is a very nice example, and West Flemish, where Rex Germanus makes even this evening clearly invalid statements on the talk page). Perhaps Rex uses sources, but he certainly doesn't provide them. Fram (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not confuse yourself with me. I do provide sources. Look at Dutch people, over 110 references, nearly all added by me, I know how to reference.Rex (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided sources for any of the disputes mentioned here: I'm glad that you know how to do it, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour in the last month. Why do you say here that "some people love fights" while going from a more to a less correct page?. Why do you make such clearly invalid statements like this one? Why did you change from one unsourced spelling to another unsourced one, but then accuse me of OR when I provide an independent but unreliable source (which of course is not OR at all), while not providing any source at all to support your version? And why are you so uncivil in nearly all your edits and edit summaries (when you use them)? Fram (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What's less correct Fram? Explain that to me. That note on West Flemish is really a cry for help for your behavior. Your 'arguments' were/are completely discredited on talk and still you revert to your version. Also you did not, hence no links, in the entire West Flemish discussion provide any reference. So don't make it seem you did.Rex (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, are we still dealing with this guy? How many kilobytes of AN and ANI discussion have been devoted to his antics? When is enough provocation enough? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep your good griefs to yourself and focus on what's presented, not how many times a name comes up on a page you happen to watch.Rex (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd move for a ban to stop Rex wasting any more of our time. He's just a Dutch nationalist logic-chopper with a grudge against Germans and, now it seems, the Flemish. --Folantin (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You people can go on making more melodramatic comments here for as long as you want, in every case here I provided references, others did and an the contributions button will show anyone that Erik Warmelink started all this with his on purpose nonsense reverts. He even stated against an IP how much he hates me. Ridiculous. I'm off continuing referenced editing. Some of you ought to try that too sometimes.Rex (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting way to summarize I don't hate Rex Germanus and No, I don't hate Rex Germanus. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This really is nonsense. If someone askes references? or if he is a little bit nationalistic? Dit kinse toch neet meer geluive. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Rex I have met you editing for over a year now, and most of it you have been engaged in one or more disputes. Although I have had my own disputes in that time, and made a comparable number of edits as you in that year, I have never been accused of any gross violation, no official complaint was ever listed against me. It cannot be only other editors bad-faith towards you that cause you being involved in so many formal procedures; it can only mean you are doing something wrong. Please consider this. Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A clear cut example. The first adress of Erik Warmelink on talk was not a plea for his own version and why it was better, but a direct personal attack. A rant about how many blocks I've had. How do you see any good faith in that?Rex (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

From my POV, it started with this edit. My edit was after my additions to Talk:Van Beethoven family#Meertens reference, which Rex Germanus ignored. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

Last time we discussed Rex Germanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on October 13, I blocked him for one month and suggested that further disruption should result in an indefinite block. Rex Germanus' long block log is strong evidence that he has worn out the community's patience. Before placing an indefinite block, I would like to run a checkuser to see if there is any sockpuppetry involved, and I'd also like to see a concise list of diffs showing disruption since the most recent block. - Jehochman 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rex Germanus, and here is a set of diffs that demonstrate edit warring if these IP's are in fact Rex Germanus: -- If not, there may be other evidence sufficient to justify a community ban. - Jehochman 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wie een hond wil slaan, vindt licht een stok. Go find your stick Jehochman. Surprise me.Rex (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about the IP editor(s) who have been supporting you in these content disputes? - Jehochman 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly they/he/she must be insane, rude and nationalistic assholes. Why else would the IP(s) support me? I can't even comprehend that myself, I can only imagine how you felt in all your biased glory when you saw them! Poor you. Rex (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) The checkuser result is "Possible". Given the identical point of view of the IP's and Rex Germanus, and the lack of technical evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to accept the assertions made by Fram (talk · contribs). Rex Germanus has apparently returned to his previous editing style which has resulted in approximately 15 different blocks, placed by diverse members of the Misplaced Pages admin corps. I think Rex Germanus has expended the community's patience and the time has come to ask him, politely but firmly, to leave the project. (add) Rude comments won't help your cause, Rex Germanus. - Jehochman 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• This diff shows an IP removing properly sourced content, using an deceptive "Interwiki" edit summary: The IP is Rex Germanus: - Jehochman 22:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. And if that IP is Rex, we have at the very least a breach of the revert parole, as he repeated the same revert under his account the next day (, ). However, that IP is not from the same range as the others, from a university in Tilburg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Editing at home, school/work, and a cafe will result in different IPs. I think we should mainly consider the styles of editing, and the tone of Rex Germanus' comments on this very thread. - Jehochman 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC) (Keep thread open. 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

To be fair the editor was simply importing material from the Dutch version of the same page - summarizing this as "interwiki" might not have been entirely bad faith. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Rex was deleting material, and then as shown above, he subsequently repeated the edit with his own account the next day. This is evidence of gaming his revert parole. - Jehochman 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit didn't import, it reverted to a previous version by Rex Germanus and re-added cy:Ffleminiaid which was added by User:AlleborgoBot (AlleborgoBot did add in alfabetical order, though). Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've been asked to comment here. I haven't had time to look into this in detail, but there does appear to be a case here for an indefinite block. Before supporting that, I'd like to ask if there is any case for a repeated one month block, or a longer block (with people watching out for block evasion) or a topic ban? The evidence above that Rex has been evading his revert parole should also be followed up. I'd also urge Rex (and others) to speak up if any of these blocks were inappropriate. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Given the repeated incidents of revert warring and POV pushing, compounded by the use of IP accounts to evade scrutiny, proven in one case, and very likely in at least three other cases, plus incivility by Rex Germanus right here in this thread, I suggest a 1 year ban. We've had 15 prior blocks, but Rex Germanus hasn't gotten the message yet. It's time to protect our editors. - Jehochman 14:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jehochman. You can stop stalling the block/bann process in order to make it seem fair to outsiders, I've beaten you to it. Have a nice life, or whatever you call it.Rex (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for blocking indefinitely here. Rex is a long-term problem editor, who has had multiple last chances, has sockpuppeted to avoid his parole, and has a net negative effect on Misplaced Pages in general. Neıl ☎ 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've placed an indefinite block, and added the user account to Misplaced Pages:List of banned users#Banned by the Misplaced Pages community. If any administrator would like to refactor the block and ban, you have my permission to do so. - Jehochman 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. --Folantin (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Fram (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambivalent. --Van helsing (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambivalent too. Arnoutf (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, considering the absence of the entry "beethof" on etymology.nl. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in support of the ban. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I might be willing to unblock Rex after the new year, he's not community banned just yet. I will not unblock Rex without Jehochman's agreement, nor without Rex's agreement to a broad topic ban, &c. All purely hypothetical. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to support that solution. If Rex Germanus wishes to return, subject to editing restrictions that will keep him away from topics where he has had past problems, then he can be unblocked.- Jehochman 11:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of this is. The guy spent his credit here long, long ago. He's had umpteen chances already. He also claims to have left Misplaced Pages of his own accord. --Folantin (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Rex has both contributed positively and negatively to Misplaced Pages, with the former recently being more and more often overshadowed by the the latter. If Rex were willing to return, I'd strongly suggest a compulsory mentorship by an neutral and experienced administrator. His mentor then could help Rex reinforce his good behavior (i.e. his contributions) while providing an external check against the problematic one (i.e. POV and civility issues) - and, if necessary, in an emerging dispute, either support Rex and curb potential trolling and incivility or encourage Rex to back down (if he doesn't) - as this is Rex's weak point; his edits might be ok (even if not "correct") but instead of a quick and painless discussion, it quickly turns into a "my way or the highway" scenario where Rex won't accept that he might be wrong nor will back down. An experienced mentor with the power to repel trolls (he did manage to accumulate a number of enemies) might just help him get back and stay on the right path. CharonX/talk 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Rex has entirely exhausted my patience, and I suspect the community's as well. Ask yourselves - is this really an editor we need? For me, that's a resounding "NO". Moreschi 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Without making any comments on the rest of this section, I am willing to mentor Rex if he is allowed back (which I am not saying *should* happen - I'm staying neutral). I am a new adminsitrator, and I feel up to the challenge. JERRY _contribs 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam?

This cluster of editors, articles and websites involves multiple issues and the material added to Misplaced Pages may (or may not) be useful. Various aspects have been discussed ad hoc at different times but never all in one place. I'm consolidating links to various discussions and editors here in one place for review and consideration as a whole.

Articles

• Evisum -- previously proposed for deletion; PROD tag removed
• Virtualology
• Stanley L. Klos
  • Over 400 articles are internally linked to this page. For those search engines (Yahoo?) that ignore our nofollow tags, that sort of internal mega-linking would give this article and anything externally linked to it near-Death Star powers in search engine rankings.

That's up from about 250 a week or so ago. Only a small percentage of the links are added as a side-effect of adding content to the topics; and of those a large percentage are low-quality information expressing divergent views from more well-known resources. Tedickey (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Related editors (but not necessarily sockpuppets)

• 71.42.169.190 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.93.248.72 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 24.73.72.214 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 97.97.197.9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Cedarkey1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Pputter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Damslerset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Discussions

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#www.famousamericans.net & related
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#famousamericans.net
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam#famousamericans.net, Act II - Scene 3 (permanent link)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems#Virtualology (permanent link)
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography#Use of Appleton's and its derivative sites (permanent link)
• User talk:Damslerset

Domains added to Misplaced Pages

• Hundreds? Nobody knows exactly how many and Virtualology apparently own over 7500 domain names. See the 3 WikiProject Spam discussions for some that have been identified so far.

Also see

• Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography
• wikisource:Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography

--A. B. 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• SPAM - They are added indiscriminately, often to Reference sections where they are not a source, or just to the wrong person, like Francis Barber today, who (slightly comically) had added today, at the top of the list, natch. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In plain English

Tell me if I understand this right: some people have tried to revise a notoriously inaccurate reference source that's over 100 years old (the original contained over 200 fictitious biographies). The main individual involved in this effort has no academic or publishing credentials. Then this group of people have created countless domains to host parts of the "reference work" and cited Misplaced Pages articles that way, simultaneously sending hundreds of outgoing links to their domans and Wikilinks to the Misplaced Pages biography of one of this revised edition's principal editors? If that's an accurate summary, then the whole things fails WP:RS and is a massive case of spam. WMF ought to be notified, given the size of this problem. Durova 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, though rather than "tried to revise" I suspect "made sufficient changes to justify (they hope) slapping a copyright notice on" is more like it. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Smells like spam to me. I agree with Durova's suggestion. OhNoitsJamie 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If A. B. posted this here to get general consent for a campaign against the entire set of external and internal links, I would support that. This could potentially lead to a combined AfD against all the Klos articles, and could be contentious, but well-justified by policy. Is there any wider review that should be done before such a step is taken? Does anyone see anything of value in the Klos-related material that ought to be preserved? EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I posted it here not so much to get consent as to engender discussion this stuff's value. Since these links show up in references, I don't want to go off on a tear deleting citations and links the community finds useful, even if I don't like the way this stuff got added. --A. B. 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this could qualify under the standards Misplaced Pages normally applies. If the original source had been revised by an established publisher, using actual experts, then that might be a different matter. What we have here is self-published material and a staggering self-promotional campaign. The integrity of scores of important biographies may have been compromised. I want to be certain I understand this right before reaching a final conclusion, but if this really is a correct understanding then I'd not only endorse a combined AFD, I'd support a siteban and spam blacklisting along with a long term vandalism report. This behavior is a direct assault on Misplaced Pages's credibility: make absolutely certain you're on the mark first, then if everything checks out slash and burn. Durova 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If the stuff is not a reliable source, dump it. regardless of the collateral damage. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Modifying that: perhaps these people will be receptive to official contact from WMF and take it down themselves. Durova 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) (updated info here) The fact that these users edit to a point just short of being blocked & then reincarnate as a new user is a bit troubling. --Versageek 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that CheckUser has confirmed these 4 accounts as "related", can I ask an admin to block them as sockpuppets/meatpuppets:

• Cedarkey1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Pputter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Damslerset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Solknats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Thanks, --A. B. 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To help in investigating the many domains, I've set up a temporary user subpage listing the domains we know of. I'll be using the {{spamlink}} template links to try to figure out what other domains this person owns and may have spammed. --A. B. 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I see Virtuality as an honest attempt to do a good project, but based upon an extremely naive understanding of history and scholarship. I think he really does want to revise it--but he unfortunately picked something that should instead be replaced, as being fundamentally too weak for improvement. It hasn't helped that he has an idiosyncratic view of the relationship of the government under the Articles of Confederation with that under the Constitution, but I think has wider goals, which are not dishonourable. Just that he hasnt achieved them, and is not likely to--and the present state of the project is in fact dangerous. The proper use of Appleton's for WP is only as a suggestion of names upon which people might write proper WP articles. The best immediate thing is to remove the internal links as misleading and the external ones as unreliable. The sockpuppetry is simply someone continuing on a hobbyhorse, and willing to disregard our rules to do so--and of course must be blocked, to prevent further damage. DGG (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

the articles supported by cites from any version of appleton must be reviewed, not deleted altogether, as they can generally be edited to what can be documented elsewhere. Most of them can be expanded greatly if proper sources are used--appleton is not only incorrect but incomplete. If the appleton-based edits are recent, then it will be enough to revert them. This probably needs to be a formal or informal project. 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for your comments -- you've studied this site more closely than anyone else.

Here's another sockpuppet (based on edits, not checkuser):

• Natsnew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Can some admin block it? Thanks.

Also, it looks like this has been spammed crosswiki:

• wikisource:en:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9
• es:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9
• fr:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9
• it:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9
• pt:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9

Articles:

• es:Stanley L. Klos
• it:Stanley L. Klos

--A. B. 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! 1173 famousamericans.net links on this Misplaced Pages plus 200 to 250 more on other projects:

• de:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• fr:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• pl:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• ja:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• it:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• pt:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• sv:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• es:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• ru:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• zh:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• fi:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• no:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• sk:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• cs:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• tr:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• da:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• ro:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• ca:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• hu:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• he:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• id:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• sl:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• ko:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• hr:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• nn:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• el:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• vi:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• bs:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• simple:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• lb:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net
• la:Special:Linksearch/*.famousamericans.net

Here's another IP that was heavily used:

• 24.94.139.230 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

We've identified another about another 275 related domains, most of them for individual historical figures (abraham-lincoln.org, aaronburr.net, etc.). Based on a small sample, I'd say there are another 200 to 500 links to the domains on that list. --A. B. 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently an admin previously okayed the addition of these links. See these March 2007 discussions:

• User talk:MichaelBillington/Archive5#Appleton links
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject_U.S. Presidents#External links

--A. B. 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention there's banner ads and adsense too (pub-6719872942509405). It's spam. Can we start removing the links now? MER-C 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens banner ad/adsense issues too? By all means start deleting. That's my call anyway. Thank you so much for your diligence. Durova 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, Durova, I'm not sure banner ads and Google Adsense make a site inappropriate. You'll get ads on Globe and Mail and New York Times pages and you'll find Adsense ads at the bottom of Daily Telegraph articles. Legitimate content providers have to pay bills, too. --A. B. 02:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't make a site inappropriate in itself, I agree. If the site is already inappropriate as a reference, and if the same people are spamming it onto Misplaced Pages as if it were a reliable source, then what that amounts to is an attempt to skim profit off Misplaced Pages's massive traffic. That's a bit more predatory than ordinary spam, which (we hope) at least offers solid informational value and doesn't earn a direct profit from click-throughs. Bear in mind that New York Times citations aren't spam: it's a newspaper of record that thousands of people add to this site's pages as a reference. The danger of going to soft on pseudoreferencing is that we'd get overrun with junk. This isn't a small campaign of a dozen links; it's well developed and perpetuated through sockpuppetry. Yes, I do take a dim view. Durova 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The method followed here, which resulted in the deletion of in-line citations added in good faith to articles (including featured articles) and even user sandboxes, was unfortunate. Further discussion of the point is at Talk:History_of_Minnesota#Removal_of_famousamericans.net_link and the section immediately preceding it. Kablammo (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I should note that because of this discussion I have added famousamericans.net to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. If anyone feels this is inappropriate, please file a proposed removal at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. If an administrator deems, with good reason, that the addition of famousamericans.net to the spam blacklist was inappropriate, I have no problem with its removal without consulting me. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Next steps

Here's what I think needs to happen:

1. We should give this another day to let other chime in on the value of these links; from the WikiProject U.S. Presidents discussion at least one regular editor has expressed support for these links in the past.
2. An admin should block the accounts I've listed above. Even if some of these links turn out to be useful, they've been added by sock/meatpuppets uncontrollably and in spite of requests to stop
3. If there remains a strong consensus that all this stuff is junk, then I propose we start removing links here and on other Wikimedia projects.
4. Once the links are removed, I propose we blacklist these domains at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. Again, that assumes consensus here.
5. Articles:
   1. Evisum -- not notable; take to AfD
   2. Virtualology -- probably not notable; take to AfD for community discussion
   3. Stanley L. Klos -- notable. Article needs rewrite, however.

I estimate this cleanup may take 10 to 20 editor-hours.

Others thoughts? --A. B. 01:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd agree with that, but it doesn't cover DGG's point above: "the articles supported by cites from any version of appleton must be reviewed, not deleted altogether, as they can generally be edited to what can be documented elsewhere..." bearing in mind that many of these links seem to have been added as "references" (when there was no external links section) when they were not actually used to source the article. That could take a long time to cover. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to delete any historical articles. There are 100s of spam edits involved but none that I've sampled seem to be essential to any history articles' survival. I'm very much a historical inclusionist anyway; failure of an 18th century political figure to have his own web site doesn't mean there aren't a lot of references in the library. --A. B. 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Pputter has put a sort of explanation/justification for what he is up to at User talk:Pputter. I haven't examined the detail. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• I ran into User:Damslerset inserting links to a Klos book and website that assert that George Washington is really the 10th or 11th president of the United States. Damslerset was adding the link to every article on anything named for John Hancock (one of the earlier Presidents) s/he could find, so you might want to do a Google search for "Stanley L. Klos" just within Misplaced Pages to look for other links we've missed so far. I think I reverted all of Damsleret's edits at the time, but will double check tonight. I support blacklisting this site. Ruhrfisch _><>° 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• PS Just ran "Stanley L Klos" site:en.wikipedia.org on Google and found about 430 hits, Ruhrfisch _><>° 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

/me dusts off some old tools:

Total count: 1371 en: 1112 de: 125 ja: 29 fr: 32 pl: 7 it: 8 es: 32 pt: 17 zh: 3 fi: 2 no: 3 he: 1 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/CrossWiki

those are current numbers of links to famousamericans.net. Im removing those on en now. β 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth taking this to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography? They could set it up as a cleanup drive to review articles that cite Appleton's and/or Virtualology. Clearly a personal site containing personal edits to material sourced from an unreliable encyclopedia is not a RS, so there are good grounds for going through them systematically and checking them off - rather than simply deleting the links, which would leave articles with no indication of potential unreliability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Gordon.

In the meantime, I've started on cleaning up the 275 or so other domains besides famousamericans.net listed at User:A. B./Sandbox6. So far, most of the citations I've removed have been to Stanley L. Klos' self-published book and hyping his somewhat original researchish view that America had a number of other Presidents besides those that Started with George Washington. Technically this is true, but these Presidents of things like the Continental Congress were essentially chairmen, not major executive figures. I've felt little guilt in deleting them and the statements they've "supported". The more I look at this stuff, the less impressed I am. --A. B. 02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled back the ones I could (about -150 links). Let me know when the spam count on de and en have dropped to ~100 or so so I can run a spamsearch to check other projects and small wikis. MER-C 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

es:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9 is causing some damage again at es, by continuing the spam and recreating the article in the talk space.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to block any users or worry about deleting the links. Virtualology existed before Misplaced Pages and will continue with you blocking your users from referencing the site's online content. Just make sure you get all of them out and be sure to post a notice somewhere that you are banning the citation of all the Virtualology sites, a page on Virtualology, a page on Evisum and a page on Stanley L. Klos the founder.

We tried to clean-up the mess fairly and honestly with proper citations to our sites adding to your body of knowledge and by the way all these "death star links" links have netted the company a whopping $200 a month in Ad revenue and no Books sold as they sold out a year ago. We tried to follow an administrator's guidlines asking for help through several volunteer editors.

Additionally, Mr. Klos has reviewed this page, and although in complete disagreement with your historical assessment that 10 Presidents of the United States did NOT serve before George Washington he throws in the towel. He does suggest the next time you visit the the National Archives be sure to take notice of the Treaty of Paris that ended the War with Great Britain signed, Thomas Mifflin, President of the United States in 1784 which starts off their exhibit ( here is a direct link - http://images.virtualology.com/images/5068.jpg)or just go to the Journals of the Continental Congress online and search President of the United States and write off those hundreds of historical treaties, documents, letters and Proclamations signed President of the United States too! After all, freedom of speech was guarenteed under the Constitution of 1787 not the Constitution of 1777 (which created the Perpetual Union and these ten Presidents) in the "Bill of Rights" It is most appropriate you silence what the Lady from NJ calls, unimpressive work, which by the way is about to launch a new Presidential Musuem in Norwich Ct. honoring thezs forgotten Presidents from Misplaced Pages.

By the way A.B., did you know your State is the home of one of these President's of the United States who was held hostage along with the entire government of the United States in 1783 by its own military. The president called out the Pennsylvania Militia to free them but they refused to show. Another future President negotiated their release from Independence Hall and they fled to Nassau Hall in Princeton NJ never to return again. All the letters and documents reguarding this incident, including the order staying the execution of the mutineers, were signed President of the United State -- see EliasBoudinot.com But there were no Presidents of the United States before George Washington and Lincoln never used the Constitution of 1777 as the crux of his case on July 4, 1861 to wage war as the southern States broke the Perpetual Union ratified under the Articles of Confederation.

As for you burning the links, Mr. Klos has asked the volunteers to stop cleaning up the references to the sites (as explained on my user page)or adding any more improvements to wiki sites despite our protests and honest attempt to work with your team to insure both sides of the question be explored and biographies properly cited, Heil Wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

My "state", eh??

--A. B. 04:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Klos wants to know if Misplaced Pages would like a complete list of all the domains in the virtualology Project so you may completely blacklist all the company sites from your encyclopedia? One in particular

whose content is copied but that is not cited is the online Edited Version of Peter Force's American Archives. Please advise as he seeks only too cooperate with this remarkable educational endeavor even if it means being "black listed" for your hundreds of users citing his content over the last several years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

As one Florida Company and Resident to another Florida Company and resident Mr. Klos asked me to provide you with this first installment which is primarily historical.

andywarhol.org, aaronburr.net, abigailadams.net, abraham-lincoln.org, abrahamclark.com, airforce1.org, alexander-hamilton.org, alexandergrahambell.org, alexanderhamilton.org, alphonsecapone.com, americanarchives.net, andrewcarnegie.net, andrewjackson.net, andrewjackson.org, andrewjohnson.org, andrewmellon.org, anthonywayne.org, arthurmiddleton.com, arthurstclair.com, arthurstclair.org, articlesofconfederation.com, articlesofconfederation.org, babe-ruth.info, battleofantietam.org, battleofprinceton.com, battleofyorktown.com, benedictarnold.org, benjaminfranklin.org, benjaminharrison.org, benjaminrush.com, betsyross.org, bookertwashington.org, buttongwinnett.com, cabinetroom.com, caesarrodney.net, calvincoolidge.org, carterbraxton.net, catherinethegreat.org, charlescarroll.net, charleslindbergh.org, charlesthomson.com, chesterarthur.com, civilrightsmovement.com, clarabarton.org, clementcmoore.com, constitutionalconvention.net, csaconstitution.com, cyrusgriffin.com, danielboone.org, danielwebster.org, declarationofindependence.info, demosthenes.com, dolleymadison.org, dwighteisenhower.org, edmundrandolph.org, edwardrutledge.com, egyptianmummy.com, eisenhowerdollar.com, elbridgegerry.com, eleanorroosevelt.org, eliasboudinot.com, elizabethcadystanton.info, elizabethi.com, elizabethmonroe.org, emancipationproclamation.org, equalrightsamendment.net, ernesthemingway.org, fallofsaigon.com, famousamericans.net, federalistpapers.org, federaltaxreturn.com, ferdinandmagellan.com, fortduquesne.com, forthenry.net, fortnecessity.org, fortpitt.org, francislewis.com, francislightfootlee.com, francisscottkey.org, franklindroosevelt.org, franklinpierce.org, franklinroosevelt.org, frederick-douglass.info, frederickremington.com, frenchandindianwar.net, gaiusjuliuscaesar.com, galleryoffame.com, george-washington.org, georgeacuster.com, georgearmstrongcuster.com, georgeclymer.com, georgemarshall.org, georgemason.net, georgepatton.net, georgeread.org, georgeross.net, georgetaylor.net, georgewalton.com, georgewashingtoncarver.org, georgewythe.net, geraldrford.org, gettysburgaddress.org, gottliebdaimler.com, grovercleveland.org, harrietbeecherstowe.info, harrytruman.org, haymsalomon.org, henryclay.net, henryclayfrick.org, henryhudson.org, henrylaurens.com, henrymiddleton.com, herberthoover.org, himalayamountains.com, honuswagner.info, honuswagner.org, isocrates.com, jamesagarfield.com, jamesbuchanan.org, jamesecarter.net, jamesfenimorecooper.com, jamesgarfield.org, jameskpolk.org, jamesmadison.info, jamesmonroe.net, jameswilson.org, jeffersondavis.net, john-adams.org, john-marshall.org, johnadams.info, johnaudubon.com, johndrockefeller.org, johnfkennedy.org, johnhancock.org, johnhanson.net, johnhart.net, johnjay.net, johnmorton.net, johnpauljones.net, johnpenn.com, johnqadams.org, johnquincyadams.info, johntyler.org, johnwitherspoon.com, josephhewes.com, josephpulitzer.com, josephstalin.org, josephwarren.com, josiahbartlett.com, juliawardhowe.com, jumonvilleglen.com, karlbenz.com, kinggeorgeiii.com, lewismorris.com, louisiana-purchase.org, ludwigvanbeethoven.org, lyndonjohnson.org, manhattenproject.com, marquisdelafayette.net, marthawashington.org, martinlutherkingjr.info, martinvanburen.org, mayflowercompact.org, meriwetherlewis.org, millardfillmore.org, millennium911.com, monroedoctrine.net, museumofnaturalhistory.org, napoleonbonaparte.net, napoleonbonaparte.org, nathanielgorham.com, northwestordinance.org, notaxationwithoutrepresentation.com, oliverwolcott.com, peterstuyvesant.org, peytonrandolph.com, philiplivingston.com, pierrerenoir.com, plymouthrock.org, popepiusx.com, presidentiallibrary.org, rebelswithavision.com, richardhenrylee.org, richardnixon.org, richardstockton.net, robert-morris.com, robertelee.net, robertelee.org, robertfkennedy.org, robertfulton.org, robertlivingston.net, roberttreatpaine.com, rogersherman.net, rooseveltdime.com, rutherfordbhayes.org, rutherfordhayes.com, samueladams.net, samueladams.org, samuelclemens.org, samueldechamplain.com, samuelhuntington.org, sirwinstonchurchill.org, sittingbull.org, sojournertruth.com, stegosauria.com, stephenhopkins.com, stjoanofarc.info, susanbanthony.net, teddyroosevelt.net, thedeclarationofindependence.org, thelibertybell.org, theodoreroosevelt.net, thomas-jefferson.org, thomasaedison.org, thomasalvaedison.org, thomasheywardjr.com, thomaslynchjr.com, thomasmckean.com, thomasmifflin.com, thomaspaine.info, thomasstone.com, treatyofparis.com, treatyofparis.org, treatyofversailles.com, tyrannosaurusrex.org, ulyssessgrant.net, ulyssessgrant.org, undergroundraiload.com, unitednationscharter.com, unitedstatesconstitution.info, usbillofrights.com, usconstitution.info, uspresidency.com, vietnamwar.org, virginiaarchives.org, virginiadeclarationofrights.com, virginiadeclarationofrights.org, vladimirlenin.com, walteredisney.com, warmuseum.net, warof1812.net, warrengharding.org, williamclark.org, williamellery.com, williamfloyd.net, williamhenryharrison.org, williamhooper.org, williamhowardtaft.org, williamhtaft.org, williammckinley.net, williammckinley.org, williampaca.com, williampenn.org, williamtaft.org, williamwhipple.com, williamwilliams.com, wolfgangmozart.com, womansuffrage.com, woodrowwilson.net, worldwari.org, worldwarii.org, zacharytaylor.org, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

Here are my posts as discussed above

1. There are hundreds upon hundreds of citing of FamousAmericans.net and its subsidaries incorrectly over the years on Wikipeida by various authors. These need to be corrected to Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, edited by James Grant Wilson, John Fiske and Stanley L. Klos Six volumes, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887-1889 here are just a few examples at famousamericans.net:

William Tilghman

Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (194 words) - 22:48, 19 November 2007

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (I)

• http://www.famousamericans.net/luciusquintuscincinnatuslamar/

Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (223 words) - 06:24, 20 November 2007

Thomas Dale

• http://www.famousamericans.net/sirthomasdale/

Relevance: 77.5% - 8 KB (1150 words) - 10:53, 20 November 2007

James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier

• http://www.famousamericans.net/jamesgambier/

Relevance: 77.5% - 6 KB (829 words) - 17:05, 20 November 2007

Charles Manly

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (332 words) - 23:18, 20 November 2007

Civil War token

... the spot.". Virtual American Biographies at www.famousamericans.net. Retrieved June 23, 2006. The quote found its w...

Relevance: 77.5% - 9 KB (1325 words) - 11:44, 22 November 2007

George Baylor

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (473 words) - 03:25, 23 November 2007

Maria Zakrzewska

Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (302 words) - 16:36, 23 November 2007

Edmund Zalinski

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (418 words) - 20:40, 23 November 2007

Samuel Morris (Philadelphia, II)

Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (300 words) - 23:01, 24 November 2007

Samuel Morris (Philadelphia, I)

Relevance: 77.5% - 1 KB (201 words) - 23:02, 24 November 2007

John Morin Scott

Relevance: 77.5% - 4 KB (611 words) - 17:40, 25 November 2007

Roger Morris (British Army officer)

..., 1760 ending French rule in North America.http://famousamericans.net/rogermorris/

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (388 words) - 10:42, 26 November 2007

Thomas Penn

Relevance: 77.5% - 7 KB (1030 words) - 11:23, 26 November 2007

James Hall (paleontologist)

|url=http://www.famousamericans.net/jameshall1/

Relevance: 77.5% - 7 KB (1006 words) - 15:31, 26 November 2007

John Curtiss Underwood

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (419 words) - 01:40, 27 November 2007

Mary Clark Thompson

• http://www.famousamericans.net/myronholleyclark/

Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (463 words) - 21:28, 27 November 2007

John Trumbull

Relevance: 77.5% - 9 KB (1302 words) - 21:17, 27 November 2007

Noël Brûlart de Sillery

• Article, FamousAmericans.net

Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (352 words) - 10:07, 28 November 2007

Westerlo, New York

...is named after Rev. Eilardus Westerlo (http://www.famousamericans.net/eilarduswesterlo/).

Relevance: 77.5% - 6 KB (772 words) - 05:55, 30 November 2007

OR Like this - http://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofhistory/hallofwomen/MARIANANDERSON on Marian Anderson - Misplaced Pages, the 💕 -

or like this

http:// virtualology.com/apbaronstow/ on http://en.wikipedia.org/Baron_Stow

These references need to be be cited properly

2. There is use of sentences and paragraphs directly from Famous Americans.net and other Virtualology sites that are NOT cited with a "reference note" nor are there any references whatsoever to Appleton's or Virtualology so here we add it as a reference as a direct numerical citation unless the Article has no "footnoted" citations and only general references. Then I just add it to the list on references.

3. In terms how the reference is listed, if there is a "footnote" it shows in the order as it appears. If there is no "footnote: then it is listed alphabetically.

4. As for putting the wrong person in the reference, I will be sure to double check the names in the future.

Now I realize you and the other Wikipedians are doing a fabulous job on monitoring this thr project. Please advise how we may mutually correct this to everyone's satisfaction as it needs to be corrected. Thank you

From User talk:Pputter:

"Then, again - I'm curious what your figures for "relevance" are here:"

• ""
• "- wikipedia"

"Tedickey (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2007 :::::(UTC)"

It was an error at http://www.famousamericans.net/johnbanister/ which was the father in the first paragraph and the son in the 2nd who is the suject of the Wiki page. Agreed the Article should have been improved and properly linked -- Like I said we will double check in the future. The reference however added to the reads information not only on the subject but his father of the same name.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 06:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

Oh Yes as far as academic references you slighted above, well Mr. Klos' are meager but here they are:

BA - American Studies, MA – Communications and Ph.D. in Communications & Marketing at St. Peter's College, Idaho State University and The Pennsylvania State University respectively . MBA Adjunct Professor and Lecturer - MBA BUSINESS AND THE MEDIA, MBA EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP AND MBA ENTERPRENEURSHIP - Wheeling Jesuit University, WV; MARKETING & FINANCE, Georgian Court College, New Jersey; COMMUNICATIONS, The Pennsylvania State University; BUSINESS AND PROFESIONAL SPEAKING, Idaho State University. Director of Communications NASA's Classroom of the Future 1999 to 2004, West Virginia Independent College Board of Directors; Wheeling Jesuit University MBA Board of Directors & James Monroe Foundation National Advisory Board.

For the record I think what you are doing to this internet education pioneer is unjust. You should be helping him get the proper credit for the citing of his 8 years of internet education work and not blacklisting him. Mr. Klos, however, prefers peace over contention and asked me to handle this due to a personal challenges that have reset the bar on child custody law in Pennsylvania.

I am sorry Deb, myself and Donna didn't correct the links properly. We are merely volunteers, not paid who were just trying to clean-up the Virtuaology citings and give Mr. Klos proper credit for his work. We apologize for creating a death star (still not sure what that is) and will aide you in anyway to correct it. We do not have any way to help you with the hundreds of people who cited his work over the years, sorry. All he asks that if it is used on your site to please cite it properly or remove it.

Let me know if you want the other domains names. Keep up the good work, we use your site all the time especially with the kids homework. Pat PS - In May someone in your group told Donna to follow the find a grave system in citing and that is how all this started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) --Pputter (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

My concern is that this action wasn't put in front of MilHist or Bio projects for lengthy discussion. We could have created an efficient process. I have no doubt that removing spam is essential. I have no dispute with requiring a link directly to Appletons as opposed to the FamousAmericans.net site. Perhaps a few bad editors were making these links a career. But I was using FA.net as reference long before I was using en.wikipedia.org. I have some loyalties to what Mr. Klos (with whose name I was unfamiliar until this morning) has been doing for years. I just wish this self-described "death star" behavior had been preceded by a posted notice of intent and this discussion allowing the page editors to create their own solution affirmatively. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BusterD, I tried to spread as wide a net as I could, then centralize this discussion in one place. I left notices about this discussion on these pages:

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam
• Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject U.S. Presidents
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

I also left notes on the talk pages of the editors who had been most involved in discussion of these links.

While the famousamericans.net domain was blacklisted a day or so earlier than I would have preferred, I believe the very meat or sockpuppets who have complained so bitterly here somewhat forced our hand by increasing the pace of their link additions over time, notwithstanding requests otherwise. 1500 links across multiple projects and growing -- that's out of control.

Also, as noted here and on other noticeboards, there are reliability problems with this material. Certainly the links I removed were low quality and sometimes supported totally irrelevant, sometimes incorrect statements to articles added by the spammers.

I don't know what else to tell you. Ultimately, this is all about preserving the reliability and integrity of our encyclopedia in a collision between its goals and the desires of Mr. Klos' business. --A. B. 22:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I just left a belated note at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history#famousamericans.net and related links.

--A. B. 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It was our fault as voluntary editors to Virtualology since 2001 we saw the hundreds of links all throughout Misplaced Pages of famousamericans.net and they were listed incorrectly as references and external links. We started trying to seek them out but Donna got the idea to just go through the Appleton's content starting with the A's and add as external links where missing, change were they existed and add missing Famous Americans creating “stubs?” why Deb concentrated on the content taken from Mr. Klos’ book which sold out a while ago and he just decided to put it online - http://stanklos.com/chapter1/.

We got some conflicting advice early on from wiki monitors. First we were told no external links but use it as references. Then we were told we had to cite the actual reference sentence. Then we were told to add content and cite. Then we were told to not add original content but rewrite. Since the task was so daunting - 25,000 edited biographies we had other people help and the above was all mixed up as it came to different voluntary editors from different edits. You have to have this discussion somewhere, no? We do not have the coordination system you have.

Mr. Klos just wanted to make his sources available to Wiki users and we wanted them cited properly.

We are sorry for not following the protocol although we did list the revised Appleton's (many fictitious biographies were eliminated and others expanded by the way) as we get at least one or two emails like these below a day:

On John Penns Birth Date You Said he was born on Mary 17, 1741 is it supposed to be May?

Or

James G. Blaine was a Senator from Maine, not Massachusetts.

For years, as there are errors in this historic text and we research it and make corrections and admit we have a backlog of about 100 .

We did do, however, a source on the page directed to us by one of your administrators.

Finally, it is important to note that the bulk of the citations (which were all over the board due to urls that are so dynamic ie -- benjaminfranklin.org/susanbanthony.net/vietnamwar.org or alexanderhamilton.org/johfkennedy.org/vietnamwar.org all got to vietnamwar.org and the combinations are limitless so wiki users references were all over the board with our references.

It was an honest attempt to share information of the 25,000 biographies to Start, do proper references to what was already in your system for years and get some recognition for the Forgotten US Presidents which is Mr. Klos’ passion. We are sincerely sorry we made such a mess of this and caused all these very busy people so much trouble. Once again will cooperate in any cleanup efforts but ask that future use of the sites as references by your many wiki users be done properly. --Pputter (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
— Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

I see that URL-based links to Appleton's Cyclopedia are now blocked and are being mass-deleted. I became aware of this because Return J. Meigs, Sr. is on my watchlist. Appleton's Cyclopedia was a principal source for that article, cited in March 2006 by User:LeRoi, and removal of the reference to it left an error message in that article (and a void in the sourcing for the article). I've restored the citation, but without the URL. However, this is hardly the only article where this was used as a source. Is it reasonable to bar all good-faith references to Appleton's Cyclopedia because of the spam issue? --Orlady (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes -- it's always a bit daunting to frustrate probably our best editor in an editing dispute (not that she isn't always very gracious and easy to work with).

Orlady, you can request whitelisting of specific links (not the whole domain) at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Good faith requests from established editors such as yourself are routinely approved. --22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the whitelisting suggestion. (I'll try to ignore the "probably our best" comment...) --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is another problem though; Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography is known to include not less than 200 biographies of fictitious persons. So while it is a major source, it is also a very problematic source, and absent independent (contemporary or earlier) confirmation that a subject actually existed, we should not have article based principally on it. GRBerry 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, Return J. Meigs, Sr. is confirmed to have been a real person, and Appleton's is one of 4 separate sources cited in the short article about him. It happens to include some details that aren't in the other articles. That also seems to be the only article I've contributed to where the Appleton's citation was a valid good-faith reference. (I had been cognizant of the famousamericans/virtualology spam for some time...) --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Appleton's shouldn't be relied on as the only source for an article. I can even agree with removing the link to the virtuology spamfarm and with reverting the edits of COI editors. But I very strongly disagree with a blanket robotic removal of all references to Appleton's Cyclopedia -- especially in cases where there is information in the article that was based on that source. Wouldn't you want to know where the information came from? Robotic obfuscation of this source is unhelpful and even counterproductive. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography 1887-89.

Currently a user is deleting all references to Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, a contemporaneous source of information for 19th c. Americans much as Giorgio Vasari's encyclopedia is for 16th c. Italian artists. That is to say, it's not just some random website. Talking to the user produces this kind of response to others, so I've just left a brief note. I hope I may be spared any personal contact with this user. The damage being done is not minor. I'm struggling to insert the following footnote in the few little articles I watch: "Dates and other biographical information in this article are drawn from Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography 1887-89." The website with on-line text is spam-blocked here (no one need explain that to me, please). I am posting here because the user's boilerplate edit summary is "clean up, & remove link see WP:AN using AWB" ——but I see nothing here that would justify wholesale, unconsidered deletions; tomorrow another such a one will no doubt slap demands for references and citations on the same articles. At any rate I leave this in your capable hands. No need to involve me further, please. --Wetman (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(I have now amended Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, with published references, to bring its status more clearly into the open. That might have been the first administrative job; then based on it, discussion of effacing Appleton's from Misplaced Pages might have been opened. It's a matter of good administrative style, really. Over and out. --Wetman (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

Appleton's is not considered a reliable source; articles sourced to it are being gradually cleaned up and more reliable sources sought. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

absolutely so--notorious for inclusion of false biographies of non-existent people, see the article on it. This has been discussed here at some length. We are indeed removing all references to it, and all articles depending only on it for documentation will need to be carefully checked, and the facts in all articles using it as a source in any way re-verified elsewhere. DGG (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of this bot for Wetman. But what I dont understand how we are going to know that these are articles are unreliable once we have removed the references. As there is a real risk then why have we not added a warning template. We add a template for things like "lacks references" (as if readers cannot spot this). Surely this would be a good reason to add a subtle template (or better a ref that warns )that links to an explanation of the warning. I assume this has already been debated... Victuallers (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See above and sub-sections]]. However just removing them all in a bot sweep does create problems. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: as I said above, it would have been preferable to check them off individually via a cleanup project, so the action needed (trivial delink vs. rewrite due to Appleton's being a major content source) could be dealt with, rather than casting them adrift where we can't find them. Is there a listing anywhere? Or can the bot change be undone? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What would be ideal would be a listing of the 200 false entries, so we'd know the other 10,000 (or however many) entries can be used as sources. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. -- Kendrick7 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But the problem is that all of Appleton's is suspect. Those are the 200 known about, and the overall editorial standards weren't so brilliant. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I get your point and saw that source, it just seems pretty WP:Kettle-ish to be complaining about another encyclopedia's editorial standards. -- Kendrick7

I'm not sure I would have such a problem to using Appleton's itself, carefully, as a source. And I'm a bit worried that the supporters of this purge will go on to enact a pogrom against other, more-reliable but commercial sources, that are also linked from many Misplaced Pages articles because of their usefulness and reliability. But that's not what this discussion's about. Rather, it's about Klos and/or his followers spamming Misplaced Pages with links to a "revised" version of Appleton's, when we know Klos has an axe to grind about American history. I think we can safely rule such links as unreliable and remove them. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

David, as the person who first raised the issue of these links here (others had already questioned them many times on other talk pages and noticeboards), I just don't see much hunger for pogroms against other sources. As for more reliable "commercial sources", I see no problems with such sources. Most sources are ultimately commercial in some way when you get right down to it; .gov and .edu sites are just getting supported by tuition and taxes, not ads. Someone's got to pay the bill, after all. --A. B. 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please see my response above to similar concerns. I don't know about any bot removals -- if that's going on, it's a big mistake, I think. In my own case, I've been working on this list of 270+ other Klos domains besides famousamericans.net. In most cases, they've been added by single purpose accounts such as the much-aggrieved Pputter who complains so vociferously and bitterly above. 95% of the time, the citations I removed were supporting irrelevant, sometimes incorrect statements that appeared to have been added mainly as an excuse for a link. Feel free to step through my recent edit history to see the quality of the stuff I'm writing about. In a very few cases, I was concerned about removing the citation, so I left a {{fact}} tag to alert other editors. On the whole however, with >1000 of these links already in articles across multiple Wikipedias and 100s more added each month, I personally better off halting the problem then taking anything of value to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.

Again, if there are any bot-deletions going on, I think it's a mistake. These links have to be removed judiciously one at a time. --A. B. 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

think most links were added in a spammy way to figures where there are much better sources; many were added to the reference sections (if there was no external inks section), further confusing the situation. Some no doubt have been added as actual source references by serious editors, and these are the ones that should be identified & better sources used. I'm sure there is no-one for whom Appleton's is actually now the best source. That's a lot of work potentially though & needs to be done by people with good sources available. The links removed can be identified from the bot history. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec2x)Also, if citations to some parts of Appleton's Cyclopedia were allowable then we'd face a perpetual danger of those 200 fictitious biographies being reintroduced. WP:RS doesn't really have a clause for picking and choosing which parts of a reference to use. We might disallow a cite from The New York Times if the paper later ran a retraction on the story, since the retraction is documented. In order to use Appleton's Cyclopedia we'll basically have to wait for some reliable and vetted publisher to release a revised edition. Some people who lack proper qualifications have tried, but this website really shouldn't be referencing scores of important biographies that way. Durova 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, hold on here, there were thousands of Virtualology sites used as references before our volunteer editors began their efforts to clean-up a citation mess. The site has been up since 2000 and has been used as a reference and external link since Wiki began.

Additionally, no one, and I mean no work even in print layed out the birth of the US Presidency as Presidents of the Continental Congress of the United Colonies, Presidents of the Continental Congress of the United States and Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled until Mr. Klos started placing his research on line which was duplicated by your users from John Hanson not being the 1st President and the distinction between the Continental Congress and the United States in Congress Assembled. Most of this work was taken and never cited. Just review his book and web pages in Appleton’s on these men. Revisions abound there and elsewhere in the Appleton’s content.

Now you delete all the links and references most of which have been there for years, content that was taken and cited from the Virtualology Project and want to say your users have taken it from their personally owned 6 Volume 19th Century Leather Bound Appleton's? If you are going to blacklist Mr. Klos and his work on the internet in this field for the last 8 years then be sure to remove the content. Golaith is welcome to squash this small fry called Virtualology but do not take its content without properly referencing even if you deem him a poor scholar. PLEASE --97.97.197.9 (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
— 97.97.197.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

The FamousAmericans.net Biographies that were worked on the last few months were famousamericans.net/samuelaaron/ to Barbour, John Merrett and are listed alphabetically. Also Deb did the Presidents of the United States (both constitutions) and Signers of the Declaration of Independence. These represent about 95% of your contentions that occurred in the last 3 or 4 months. The rest began from Wiki's inception to date and less then .1% were done by Virtualology Voluntary Editors. Hope this helps --97.97.197.9 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

— 97.97.197.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

To the contrary, campaign-spamming of these domains were a concern in March 2007

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#www.famousamericans.net & related

--A. B. 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and Pat said May I believe that leaves your inception until March 2007. Additionally, you have the written record and can see not much occurred until recently. I have tried to giv you the major names that we edited but A.B. how many years was V's content used by Misplaced Pages without any incidents. To blacklist with notices on December 8 and done December 10th after all these years of sharing information was not judicious. Additionally the additions stopped as soon as one was challenged a couple days ago. If you take a hard look you will see the bulk of the infractions by the Voluntary Editors occurred on the names listed above in Appleton's and the Presidents and Signers. For this we are truly sorry -- it was errors of ignorance on what was permitted and correcting links not greed. additionally there are over 25,000 Biographies in Appleton's and this 200 number or .0008 is no reason to dismiss this as a reliable source. What is your ratio? Once again we remained under the same company and owners since 1999, to Blacklist over this and not remove the content with the references is also a wrong and two wrongs do not make a left. Once again we apologize --97.97.197.9 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean no personal disrespect toward Mr. Klos or his labor. The duration of his site is not relevant here. His work simply doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's reliable sources guideline because he is not a recognized expert in the field of history. I have a degree from an Ivy League university in history, but I'm not an expert either, and it wouldn't matter whether I had started a website on the subject fifteen years ago or today. Editors sometimes make a mistake and try to cite something that fails to satisfy WP:RS. This website's standards do not endorse a response of leave the citation until a better replacement can be found. Instead we take out the unsatisfactory source as soon as we identify it as such. We'll supply replacements when we can. Durova 01:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To dismiss Appleton's is a mistake and any good scholar knows it. Additionally, Wiki has been using and citing this content since its inception. The only reason why it is being blacklisted now was its content was fed to Wiki these last few months incorrectly (with snow shovels to boot).

This probably would never have occurred if Mr. Klos was not embroiled in personal challenges and took his eye off this Virtualology endeavor. He asked us to work with Misplaced Pages to “fix it”, if possible, but protect the proprietary content. For Wiki to use Virtualology and the edited Appleton's Content without the proper citation is wrong. To justify this action after four years of deeming the content an appropriate reference is also wrong. What percentage of Wiki content is fictitious? Is it more then the .008 your editors are quick to criticize the Edited Appleton’s for? The point is this blacklisting of the Virtualology Project and the edited Appleton’s references are more akin to book burning then a scholarly edit of the historical record. Look at the record and you will find virtually no editorial involvement of Virtualology in Misplaced Pages before the Spring of 2007 and to repeat ourselves, your writers have been using our content since your inception. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, while the behavior of a few editors certainly looks like spamming and COI, I very much disagree with blacklisting the site and robotically removing all references to it. While there are some problems with Appleton's Cyclopedia, most of its entries are just fine. I would leave the robotic edits to simple reversion of edits made by suspect users. I find it deeply troubling that it is being removed from articles willy-nilly where it was in fact used as a source for the information. I would much rather have that very clearly indicated in the article rather than have the source obfuscated. older ≠ wiser 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Pputter I look at our Veinor link addition reports for the first 5 months of 2007, I see perhaps one handful of links added by neutral editors; contrast this with massive quantity of links you added. Here are your numbers:

• Edit counts for each of your accounts that we've identified so far:
  • User:24.73.72.214: 20
  • User:24.94.139.230: 198
  • User:66.93.248.72: 9
  • User:71.42.169.190: 9
  • User:72.77.10.31: 10
  • User:97.96.197.9: 104
  • User:72.187.245.33: 2
  • User:Cedarkey1: 205
  • User:Damserlet: 393
  • User:Natnews: 17
  • User:Pputter: 242
  • User:Solknats: 9
• Total edits made by PPutter's accounts: 1218 edits

• Edits made to Klos-related article by Pputter's accounts:
  • Edits made to Stanley L. Klos: 143
  • Edits made to Virtualology: 22
  • Edits made to Evisum: 10
• Net edits to Klos-related articles: 175
• Net edits to other articles: 1075 (all related to link additions that I've seen so far)

These do not include promotional your edits to other Wikipedias.

--A. B. 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but once again the edits were on the what I discussed earlier all the A’s

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Aar-Ada Ada-Ale Alg-Amh Amh-App App-Ash Ash-Azp Aar Ada Aaron, Samuel Abad, Diego Jose Abadie, Eugene H. Abascal, Jose Fernando Abasolo, Mariano Abbadie, Abbadie, Antoine Thomson D Abbe, Cleveland Abbett, Leon Abbeville, Claude D Abbey, Edwin Austin Abbey, Henry Abbey, Richard Abbot, Abiel Abbot, Abiel Abbot, Benjamin Abbot, Ezra Abbot, Francis Ellingwood Abbot, Henry Larcom Abbot, Joel Abbot, Joel Abbot, Joseph Hale Abbot, Samuel Abbot, Samuel Abbott, Austin Abbott, Benjamin Abbott, Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Charles Conrad Abbott, Edward Abbott, Gorham Dummer Abbott, Horace Abbott, Jacob Abbott, John Abbott, John Joseph Caldwell Abbott, John Stephens Cabot Abbott, Joseph Carter Abbott, Josiah Gardner Abbott, Lyman Abbott, Robert Osborne Abeel, David Abercrombie, James Abercrombie, James Abercrombie, John Joseph Abercromby, Sir Robert Abert, John James Aboville, Francois Marie Abrahams, Simeon Abreu, Maria Ursula Lancastro Acamapictli, I. Accault, Michael Acevedo, Gaspar Zuniga Acland, Christina Harriet Caroline Fox Acolhua, Acosta I. Acosta, Ceeilio Acosta, Joaquin Acosta, Jose De Acosta, Santos Acrelius, Israel Acton, Thomas Coxon Acualmetzli, Acuna, Antonio Ochoa Acuna, Cristobal De Acuna, Juan Acuna, Manuel Adair, James Adair, John Adair, William P. Adam, Graeme Mercer Adams, Adams, Abigail Adams, Alvin Adams, Amos Adams, Andrew Adams, Benjamin Adams, Charles Adams, Charles Baker Adams, Charles Follen Adams, Charles Francis Adams, Charles Kendall Adams, Daniel Adams, Edwin Adams, Eliphalet Adams, Ezra Eastman Adams, Hannah Adams, Henry A. Adams, Herbert Baxter Adams, Isaac Adams, Janms Hopkins Adams, Jasper Educator Adams, John Adams, John Adams, John Adams, John Adams, John F. Adams, John Quincy Adams, Julius Walker Adams, Nehemiah Adams, Robert If. Adams, Samuel Adams, Samuel

And the B’s to Barbour, John Merrett stopped here:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Bab-Bak Bak-Bar Bar-Bas Bas-Bea Bea-Ben Ben-Bid Bid-Bla Bla-Bol Bol-Bou Bou-Bra Bra-Bro Bro-Bro Bro-Buc Buc-Bur Bur-Byr Bak Bar Baker, William Spohn Balam, Chilam Balboa, Miguel Zevallo Balboa, Vasco Nunez De Balbuena, Bernardo De Balcarce, Antonio Gonzalez Balcarres, Alexander Lindsay Balch, George Baldwin, Abraham Baldwin, Ashbel Baldwin, Charles H. Baldwin, George Colfax Baldwin, Henry Baldwin, Henry Porter Baldwin, Jeduthan Baldwin, John Denison Baldwin, Joseph G. Baldwin, Loammi Baldwin, Matthias William Baldwin, Maurice Scollard Baldwin, Robert Baldwin, Roger Sherman Baldwin, Theoron Baldwin, Thomas Balestier, Wolcott Balfour, Nisbet Balfour, Walter Balfour, William Ball, Dyer Ball, Ephraim Ball, Thomas Ballard, Bland Ballard, Harlan Hoge Ballard, Henry E. Ballevian, Adolfo Ballou, Hosea Ballou, Latimer W. Balmaceda, Jose Manuel Balmaseda, Francisco J. Balmes, Francisco Javier Balta, Jose Baltes, Peter Joseph Baltimore, Lords Baluffi, Gaetano Bancroft, Aaron Bancroft, Edward Bancroft, George Bancroft, Hubert Howe Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse Bangs, Francis C. Bangs, Nathan Banister, John Bankhead, James Banks, David Banks, Nathaniel Prentiss Banneker, Benjamin Bannister, E. M. Banoini, Juan Banvard, John Bar, Benedict De Baraga, Frederick Baralt, Rafael Maria Baranda, Pedro Sainz De Baranoff, Alexander Andrevitch Barba, Pedro Barbace, Fesberto Caldeira Brant Barbee, William A. Barber, Francis Barber, John Jay Barber, John Warner Barber, Mary Augustine Barbosa, Januario Cunha Barbour, James Barbour, John Merrett stopped here Barbour, John S. Barbour, John Strode Barbour, Lucien Barca, Francisco Barcena, Alfonso De Barcena, Mariano De La Barcia, Andres Gonzalez De Barclay, Robert H. Barclay, Thomas Bard, John Bard, Samuel Dickinson Hub Barker, Fordyce Barker, George Frederic Barker, Jacob Barker, James Nelson Barker, James William Barker, Josiah Barksdale, William Barlow, Arthur Barlow, Francis Channing Barlow, Joel Barlow, Samuel Latham Mitchell Barlow, Thomas Harris Barnard, Charles Barnard, Daniel Dewey Barnard, Edward Emerson

Or about 800 names from the beginning of meshing 25,000 biographies into Misplaced Pages database. You should note that over and over again we found not only sentences but complete paragraphs cut and pasted from these sites with no references. Add to this the Signors, Presidents etc and links to Counties named after them and yes we did do 1000+ names with volunteers making mistakes and redoing the same page several times. We did, however, seek a way to just do external links like find-a-grave and were advised the edits with references were the right way to go. As for Spain and Italy alot of the names in Appleton's had no English listings but they did have Spanish so we went there but in the same names. We saw it as a good opportunity for both of the Florida Internet Companies. We thought as you so eloquently stated that it was a “boon to your historical articles” We errered and if you look at some of the comments that one Editor noted, it looked like we were incorporating the references right from the A's and thought we were given a method on how it could be done properly. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To reply to a comment a few posts above, our guideline is called reliable sources. Appleton's is not reliable: it contains hundreds of fictitious entries. A good scholar might use it judiciously, but Misplaced Pages does not have the resources to vet content in such a manner. The only practical solution for this website is to select which sources are generally accurate and accept them as citations indiscriminately. Various permutation of this discussion have occurred many times in this website's history. Durova 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, there's a well-informed and judiciously balanced assessment of Appleton's Encyclopedia by our learned reference critic. "While there are some problems with Appleton's Cyclopedia, most of its entries are just fine."Indeed, I might say "'While there are some problems with Giorgio Vasari' Lives, most of its entries are just fine." You'd all think I was a bit of a popinjay, wouldn't you? Well, Appleton's Cyclopedia needs no introducing to anyone competent in the C19 American biography field. All mentions of it are currently being stripped from Misplaced Pages. More thoughtful and responsible editors are now forced to move the Cyclopedia references into footnotes, where they are less exposed to thoughtless monkeying, and no references to on-line text are possible. You should be alerted that this might appear to outsiders like myself very like administrative incompetence. I don't need to be drawn in at any level: this post is FYI only. So, do as you like—— as if you had to be invited! As you were. --Wetman (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource has a handful of Appleton's articles as well as discussion of the problematic material. There's also a link to Appleton's content at the New York Public Library:

• Wikisource:Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography
• Wikisource:Talk:Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography

--A. B. 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(replying to Durova after ec) Say what? I thought the whole idea behind using a wiki to build an encyclopedia was precisely to harness the resources of the masses to vet the content. It is preposterous to to even suggest that ANY source can be used "indiscriminately". Even the best sources contain errors. Simply because this has been debated in the past (and never completely resolved) is not a reason to proceed as if it has been. older ≠ wiser 03:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is why WP:RS and WP:V work in tandem. Our standard is verifiability, not truth among sources we regard as generally reliable. Take your complaint to the policy and guideline pages and see whether you can work out a better standard than we already have. Many have already tried and I see no fresh argument here. Durova 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that (verifiability, not truth) is precisely why it is absurd to go around simply removing any mention of Appleton's as a reference -- even when it was in fact used as the source of the information. What we ask is that people provide a source for the information they contribute. If a better quality source can be found, then that should be preferred -- but to simply obfuscate where the information came from is just plain stupid. older ≠ wiser 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We did our homework, despite some editors above maintaining the contrary. Without giving away too much, There are 202 known fictitious biographies such as Pierre de Vogué (http://famousamericans./jeanpierredevogue/) and Vicente y Bennazar (http://famousamericans./andresvicenteybennazar/ ) from the research Virtualology has done on the Encyclopedia. It was traced to one employee who was paid by the article and thus his work has been thorough researched over the years turning up the 202.

Most importantly, the BULK (approximately 180 of the false sketches) found are written on obscure European scientists who supposedly travelled to the America’s to study natural history. Examples of sketches include, the biography of Charles Henry Huon de Penanster, (famousamericans./ charleshenryhuondepenanster/) identified as a French botanist, whose bio parallels Nicolas Thiery de Menonville (whose genuine biography also appears in Appleton's). Nicolas Henrion's, (famousamericans./NicolasHenrion/) a French scientist listing reports that he arrived in South America in 1783, when Asiatic cholera was in full bloom. The epidemic first broke out in South America only in 1835. Miguel da Fonseca e Silva Herrera, (famousamericans./ migueldafonsecaesilvaherrera/) supposedly was a gold medal Brazilian historian, from the historical institute of Rio de Janeiro in 1820 but the society was not founded until 1838. Some good references on the topic are:

Barnhart, John H. "Some Fictitious Botanists." Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 20 (September 1919): 171-81. Dobson, John B.. "The Spurious Articles in Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography—Some New Discoveries and Considerations." Biography 16(4) 1993: 388-408. O'Brien, Frank M. "The Wayward Encyclopedias", New Yorker, XII (May 2, 1936), pp. 71-74. Schindlir, Margaret Castle. "Fictitious Biography." American Historical Review 42 (1937), pp. 680-90.

The rest of the boigraphies are IMPORTANT historical accounts of exceptional men and women whose deeds in the Americas were notable at the very least. These are a exceptional additions to the Misplaced Pages Project. It is wrong to blacklist these sites PS YOU HAVE TO ADD THE NET TO THE LINKS AS THEY ARE BLACKLISTED --97.97.197.9 (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Many people host information on the Internet that is accurate, but insufficiently vetted to satisfy Misplaced Pages's reliable sources guideline. So far as I'm aware, your endeavor meets Misplaced Pages's definition of self-published work. As such, in order to be citable the endeavour would need to be overseen by someone who has recognized expertise in the field of history. That requirement hasn't been satisfied. Durova 08:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

Based on everything I've seen, I become ever more confident of the assessment that the vast majority of these links were spammed, often very cynically to irrelevant articles, notwithstanding the pleadings of various sockpuppets above. Even if you believe Appleton's is a quality source, the links added usually provided were to articles that nothing not already included in the article and the citations added by the spammers (not regular editors) frequently supported either odd factoids or obvious stuff that needed no citation. I invite supporters of this source to step through diffs in my recent edit history to see for themselves just how junky most of this stuff was.

we respectfully request you run a comparison of the content of the Virtualology sites with the content of the Misplaced Pages Articles as then you might understand how much of the Virtualology content has been duplicated on Misplaced Pages --97.97.197.9 (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I must say that I am disappointed in the way this has all unfolded. I had hoped the link removals would be made judiciously with care taken to find replacements, verify no link was needed and or add {{fact}} tags. Based on having dealt with citation spam many times before, I estimated above that this would take many hours. Instead I see some others making up to 5 removals per minute using semi-automated tools and a host of frustrated regular editors complaining. Spam mitigation should always be a background task around here with care taken not to disrupt our encyclopedic content and ongoing editing.

What's the best way to fix this? One option would be to temporarily whitelist the domain, revert the hastier edits, then properly remove the links.

What do others think? --A. B. 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Having restored the Appleton's Cyclopedia reference (sans url) to Return J. Meigs, Sr. twice in the last 12 hours (see my comments above regarding the good-faith nature of this reference), I believe that the baby has already been thrown out with the bathwater. --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes -http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Return_J._Meigs%2C_Sr.&oldid=41702868 - started in March 2006 with FamousAmericans.net online content and there are thousands more, most not even cited. Instead of working together on correcting our "Spam" mistake our content is no longer cited, Virtualology is blacklisted and error messages warn of spyware associated with Virtualology sites is flashed when people try to utilize our 8 year old online legitimate sources. How can this possibly happen? Mr. Klos supported this Wiki project from the beginning and even commiserated with your founders, when his content started being used to born Misplaced Pages. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How does one retrieve the communication between Wiki and the following names since they have been deleted?

• User:24.73.72.214: 20
• User:24.94.139.230: 198
• User:66.93.248.72: 9
• User:71.42.169.190: 9
• User:72.77.10.31: 10
• User:97.96.197.9: 104
• User:72.187.245.33: 2
• User:Cedarkey1: 205
• User:Damserlet: 393
• User:Natnews: 17
• User:Pputter: 242
• User:Solknats: 9

--97.97.197.9 (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up I removed all links to famousamericans.net for a complete record of pages that contained links to it please see here for a complete listing of all interwiki links please see here β 04:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So here is one part of our case, close to a thousand references of Virtuaology content cited with no "spam" claims whatsoever. How can you just unilaterally do this to content that has been referenced by Misplaced Pages as Virtualology's for so many years? A. B., this is more grevious then our errors as you know better. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't removing the references without removing the material sourced from the references a violation of WP:CITE#Say where you got it? If the source actually is bad we should be removing the bad information with it, and not letting it linger. -- Kendrick7 06:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation As this subject is not my specialty, I am going to check with some actual specialists in historical reference sources tomorrow, and get some idea of the current status of Appleton's. I would be very surprised if the method of compilation met even minimal 20th century standards of accuracy. My impression is that it is used when there is nothing better. But there is-- not free or course--but much more reliable and in thousands of libraries.

There are two. The older one is Dictionary of American Biography 1928-1937, and supplements through 1985. Most college libraries and large public libraries will have it in print, locations at. --not all libraries will have all the supplements. I do not know if it is online.

the newer one, greatly preferred if available, is American National Biography Oxford Univ press, Print and online. Print in about 1800 libraries--essentially every college library and many large public--a listing can be found at . (if you enter your zip code it will show nearby libraries) Online in at least 200 libraries and library systems--partial listing at . They have a personal subscription at $25/month.

They each have about 20,000 entries, but not all the older ones were carried over into the new edition. Obviously, the new one is the more accurate for the ones it covers, and will have an up to date bibliography, listing both primary sources and selected secondary sources. I would regard anyone with a full article in each as unquestionably notable. My impression is that it is less scholarly that ODNB, but full up to the demands of WP.

there is a convenient free online bio of the day at . Today's it's Fiorello H. La Guardia. There is also, free access to the biographies in the current monthly update at The lastest is october 2007, and contains 43 articles--most but not all are in WP, but some are without good references. Between them, that's 800 articles a year available free. This would be a convenient way to help build the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For that one bio where there was unique info. from appletons--are you sure its correct? For articles where it wad listed as one of many sources, the question is whether it was actually used as a source, or just added as a spam reference. DGG (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Who can be sure what's correct? In dealing with biographies of long-dead people who weren't tremendously famous, no source is the "gold standard." The best I can do is compile information from multiple sources, write up the most reliable-seeming info I can find, identify my sources, and hope that someone else will improve the article later if they find more reliable information. For Return Jonathan Meigs, there are several short entries in biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias, but all are bare-bones entries missing a lot of the significant details that were in the much longer "Appleton's" entry. The Appleton's bio does have one detail that seems to be erroneous; it gives a birthdate of 1734, which does not agree with any other source I have found (accordingly, I have changed the birthdate in the article to 1740). However, it's still unclear to me if he was born on December 17 or December 28; few sources give the full date, and the ones that do are not in agreement. There's a long and extensively sourced bio on a family history site at http://www.meigs.org/rjm90.htm that has seemingly good content, but I've found some errors on that page (such as the year his first son was born -- since the son was a US Senator and a state governor, that particular date is verifiable). In a web search I found an amazing Google Book PDF (which I downloaded) called The Magazine of American History with Notes and Queries, by John Austin Stevens, Benjamin Franklin DeCosta, Martha Joanna Lamb, Henry Phelps Johnston, Nathan Gilbert Pond, William Abbatt. A.S. Barnes and Company, 1880. Vol. IV. That book has a lot of seemingly good info on Meigs (and other topics, mostly related to the American Revolutionary War), but 19th century historiography was not exemplary, so I don't know how much I can trust it. Another Google Book PDF is The Connecticut Magazine: An Illustrated Monthly of 1906, containing a laudatory article about the illustrious Meigs family -- another item that may or may not be reliable. My bottom line: often there is no bright line separating reliable sources from fatally flawed sources. --Orlady (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit this is OT, but in the case of Meigs above, would you include a footnote in the article to state that Appleton's states his birthdate is 1734? The reason is that one or more users will come to the Misplaced Pages article thinking that Appleton's has the right date, not suspect that it is wrong & either (1) cite the wrong date or (2) change the date in Misplaced Pages, thus making it harder to keep the article correct. -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Appleton’s Famousamericans’ biographies, have been extensively expanded in many areas even adding primary source documents that expel historic myths more troublesome then incorrect birthdates. For instance, John Hanson is purported to be the 1st President of the Continental Congress by the Smithsonian’s touring Presidential exhibit (http://images.virtualology.co/images/5057.jpg - co should be com but it is blacklisted). Primary sources Like Hanson’s letter of thanks to the 2nd President of the United States in Congress Assembled, Thomas McKean for serving before him in Hanson’s office improve the biographies immeasurably. (http://images.virtualology.co/images/5054.jpg and 5055.jpg ) Hanson was never a President of the Continental Congress, it was dissolved March 1, 1781 and the Library of Congress still confuses that simple fact. Isn’t this the magic of Misplaced Pages? Good intention minds working together to produce an almost Dialectic process to arrive at the “truth” on the human experience. Exceptional concept really yet quick to dispel work of like minded individuals from a different era. The irony here is amazing.

Additionally if you look closely at Misplaced Pages’s sites on Hanson you will find they heavily relied on the Famous Americans and “President Who? Forgotten Founder’s” content without giving proper credit to the authors. In fact Wiki’s entire series on the Presidents under the Articles of Association and Articles of Confederation all draw heavily on Virtualology online content which has been there since 2001. Moreover, there are many images that were taken ( ie http://en.wikipedia.org/Cyrus_Griffin from CyrusGriffin.com) by the Wiki encyclopedia incorporated in these and other Appleton's works as their own. Misplaced Pages did what Virtualology couldn’t do, getting biographies highly placed in the search engines. Today these Continental and United States in Congress Assembled Presidents are being referred to in the proper manner established by the Virtualology Project in 2001. Go back and try to find this content before Virtualology’s work on the early Presidents. It wasn’t there on the web found only briefly and incomplete in some obscure Depression Era books and a very good book on Samuel Huntington from the 1970’s. Even today the Library of Congress website errs with their – “Letters of the Delegates Database” that lumps all Presidents and their legislators under the United States in Congress Assembled with the Continental Congress. Virtualology cleaned up the timeline and Wikiedia gave it worldwide wings thanks to the genius of your founders.

Despite what some editors maintain, “quasi” scholarship is not just on the Klos “axe to grind” Presidents but in many discipline content published on Virtualology. The content has been morphed into your sites and credit, if any, was improperly given. Here Virtualology made its mistake and should have taken this up before the Voluntary Editors move forward, clumsily on their own.

As for Appleton’s it is a crucial resource to researchers as well as dealers in identifying primary source letters, documents, manuscripts and early print ephemera. We cannot begin to express how vital a reference it is having some obscure land grant or 18th century letter trying to discern its importance. Appleton’s is a key source to discern who the signers are and what impact this unknown primary source had on them and their rhetorical situation. Appleton's is a staple in primary resource research field -- a great starting point. Interestingly enough, on Tuesday the Magna Carter, the Holy Grail of Historic Documents, should break all sales records fetching over 30 million dollars. I am sure Ross Perot, a rare document collector, has Appleton's in his libary. One of your administrators noted that you have thrown the “baby out with the bathwater” which is an understatement. Appleton’s been online since 2001 within the Virtualology Project and is important scholarship that should be embraced as an excellent source to begin the Dialectic Process on over 25,000 noteworthy individuals with their biographies filled with important historic content on people, places and things. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to A.B. above) I think what we have here is an example of why automated edits are a bad idea unless there is a general both on what the problem is and the best solution. No source is infallible, & even unreliable sources need to be cited sometimes to explain how popular misconceptions entered the popular consciousness. Then there is the issue that those Nihilartikles from Cyclopedia will perpetually reappear in Misplaced Pages because newbie editors will re-submit articles on those individuals out of ignorance. In short, I agree that these links should have been handled individually by someone knowledgeable in the field; I didn't speak up before this because it took me a while to understand the problem here. Now I wonder if we have a bigger mess on our hands. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not taken the time to read through this lengthy issue, but I will say at least as handled by User:Betacommand, this needed to be handled differently. Here a chainsaw was used where a scalpel was needed. Not only should the info have only been tagged with {{cn}} instead of removed (unless it by some odd chance was a BLP), but Betacommand removed info cited to a different source, removed an additional tag for the other source, and then left a second ref to the FamousAmericans as an empty. And Betacommand has responded less than properly to complaints about this (including not including a link to this discussion in his edit summary). I have no problem with SPAM being removed, but please learn how to do it properly. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I am only human and do make mistakes, it was an accident that that was removed. For some reason I thought that this was on ANI not AN and that is why there was a miss-link. also that was corrected as soon as it was brought to my attention. β 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean you went back and fact tagged everything instead of removal then? Aboutmovies (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the silence unfortunately means "no". (If this conclusion is wrong, a correction would allow us to move forward without recriminations.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Checklist created

I've created a checklist Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/famousamericans.net/sourcechecklist from the historical linksearch Betacommand just provided. If anyone wants to work through the articles systematically, it can be done from there. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Could someone who understands the Betacommand bot argument for removing Appletons update the article for Appletons - it is nowhere detailed as the stuff above. I cannot believe we have changed unreliable poorly sourced material into unreliable unsourced material. I prefer the former. Particularly if the wiki Appletons entry explained how unreliable it was and that article was clearly linked to each time it was used a reference. Couldnt we use a clever bot to do that? Victuallers (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

COIBot

I missed this discussion, though I did see that famousamericans.net was added to the blacklist. There is a large list of domains above, and I think all these reside on server with IP 66.45.34.101. I have added that IP to COIBot, who will now report every time a website with that IP is added. Check Special:Linksearch/66.45.34.101 every now and then.

Let me know (e.g. on my talkpage, or here) if I have to create some reports on external links, the linkwatcher database COIBot accesses is not too old, but still may contain quite some interesting information. --Dirk Beetstra 12:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So this can't be used as reference anymore? -- Kendrick7 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

COIBot monitors, a.o. linkadditions of links that are under discussion , it does not revert, nor block, the addition of links. Or are you referring to the point that famousamericans.net has been blacklisted, if I saw that correctly, and it has not been removed in the meantime, yes, that means that it can not be used as a reference anymore. --Dirk Beetstra 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK. Well I don't really care for the blacklisting decision, but I'll find the correct forum to gripe in. -- Kendrick7 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Edited Appleton's Content As Requested

According to the Virtualology site, which is a copy & attempted revision of the notoriously unreliable Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, its revised biographies are arranged separately, as explained there "If you would like to edit this biography please submit a rewritten biography in text form . If acceptable, the new biography will be published above the 19th Century Appleton's Cyclopedia Biography citing the volunteer editor." from, e.g. However, I see no firm indication that this is in fact the case, and would like to see some examples of this. Ones directly from Appletons are not copyvios. Ones modified from Appleton's are copyvios, because the Virtualology site is copyrighted. Unfortunately, the original ones are also known not to be reliable or accurate.( It is additionally plagiarism to use them with just the tag at the bottom, without indicating that the entire article was copied and what the exact source is.) I therefore doubt that any material from this site can ever be incorporated in Misplaced Pages. If unmodified, they are not reliable. If modified, they are not public domain. DGG (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few Edited Samples

John Baptist Lamy Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnbaptistlamy/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.jhectorstjohndecrevecoeur/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Johannes Megapolensis Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johannesmegapolensis/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages John Mary Odin Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnmaryodin/ - 27k - Cached - Similar pages Manjiro Nakahama Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.manjironakahama/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Charles Francis Baillargeon Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons charlesfrancisbaillargeon/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages John Finley Rathbone Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnfinleyrathbone/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages John Taylor Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johntaylor3/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Cornelius O'Brien Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons corneliusobrien/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Louis Amadeus Rappe Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons louisamadeusrappe/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Sister Margaret Bourgeois Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons sistermargaretbourgeois/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Lucretia Maria Davidson Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons www.lucretiamariadavidson/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Ximenes Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscoximenes/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages John Francis O'Mahony Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnfrancisomahony/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages John Adams Webster Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnadamswebster/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Jose Flores Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanjoseflores/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Jarque Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscojarque/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Michael Joseph O'Farrell Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.michaeljosephofarrell/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Caballero Y Ocio Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons juancaballeroyocio/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Garcilaso de la Vega Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons garcilasodelavega/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Sebastian Garcilaso De La Vega Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons www.sebastiangarcilasodelavega/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Maria de Salvatierra Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanmariadesalvatierra/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Diego Garcia de Palacio Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons diegogarciadepalacio/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Edgar Philip Wadhams Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons edgarphilipwadhams/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Agustin Davila Y Padilla Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons agustindavilaypadilla/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Andr6s Avelino Caceres Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.andr6savelinocaceres/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Paul de Chomedey Maisonneuve Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.pauldechomedeymaisonneuve/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Jose Escalona Y Calatayud Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanjoseescalonaycalatayud/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Lorenzo Hervas y PANDUR0 Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons lorenzohervasypandur0/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Anne Joseph Hyppolite Malartie Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons annejosephhyppolitemalartie/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Mother Marie de L'incarnation Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.mothermariedelincarnation/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Atahualpa, Or Atabalipa (ah'-ta-oo-al'-pa) Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.atahualpaoratabalipa/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Dred Scott Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.dredscott/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages John Joachim Zubli Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnjoachimzubli/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Elzear Alexandre Taschereau Virtualologywelcomes editing and additions to the biographies. ... Edited Appletons elzearalexandretaschereau/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages John Joseph Kain Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnjosephkain/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Felix De (ath'-a-ra) Azara Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.felixdeazara/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Felipe Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons felipe/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages Santa Rosa OF Lima Virtualologywelcomes editing and additions to the biographies. ... Edited Appletons www.santarosaoflima/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco De (cor'-do-vah) Cordova Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscodecordova/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Frederic Auguste Bartholdi Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.fredericaugustebartholdi/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Bernardo Diaz Del Castillo Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons bernardodiazdelcastillo/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Malta Capac Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.maltacapac/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Miguel Grau Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.miguelgrau/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Orellana Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.franciscoorellana/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages John Nepomucene Neumann Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnnepomuceneneumann/ - 26k - Cached - Similar pages Alvar Nufiez (kah-bay'-thah-de-vah'-ka) Cabeza De Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons alvarnufiezcabezadeyaca/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Apostolos Valerianos Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.apostolosvalerianos/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdez Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.gonzalofernandezdeoviedoyvaldez/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages --71.42.169.223 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This template must be substituted.

Here are three of the hundreds of Heavily Edited Appleton's

http://www.famousamericans/arthurstclair/

http://famousamericans/williamrandolph/

http://famousamericans/fernandomagellan/ --71.42.169.223 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This template must be substituted.

I know they are SBL'ed the site is known not to be reliable. end of story. quit attempting to BS us. β 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

BS BS Kettle calling ...

Not following this is BS --

“Say where you got it

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear.

When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. The edition of the book should be included in the reference section, or included in the footnote, because pagination can change between editions. Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books. Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view.”

We understand you being upset BUT your complete deletion of the source material's references is unprofessional at best. Doing it under the guise of Appleton's being an unreliable source is sophomoric, not scholarly. This is BS in its worst state, justifying one's mistakes. Virtualology admitted they followed an external link model of find-a-grave sidetracking their original effort to correct improper citings on Misplaced Pages. They erred and sought to correct it, still do as evidenced above providing information requested by one of your Adminstrators. --71.42.169.223 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This template must be substituted.

Death threats, privacy, telephone numbers

This is an alternate account. I am an administrator here on the Misplaced Pages. A checkuser may be performed on this account to verify the truthfulness of this statement but I do ask that the sockpuppeteer account name not be revealed except with my permission. This account is not a violation of WP:SOCK. In my time here, I have received numerous personal attacks and more than one threat of a lawsuit. More troublingly, I have received the occasional death threat. My real name and photograph has been posted on the attack sites, along with my location, though not my exact address. Recently, I have started receiving telephone calls that have their caller ID blocked. These are the typical "hang-up" calls and I am no longer answering the phone to numbers I do not already recognize. Occasionally, I get voice mails though these are always blank. I do not consider any of the death threats I have received to be at all serious. None that I am aware of were made by someone in the same country as me and I never had any reason to believe this was more significant than a teenage vandal ticked off because I blocked him or her. And it is entirely possible (indeed, almost certain) that these telephone calls which have started in the past week are entirely coincidental. I am less happy with my real name and location, along with stolen photographs that are quite possibly not fair-use, being posted on attack sites. I'm considering changing my telephone number. Is this worth the effort? What other steps should I be considering? --Okay Bignose (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms the above does belong to an admin. Raul654 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeez. Whats the point, honestly. I don't understand people sometimes. Honestly, I would suggest a wikibreak, at least in terms of your admin acct. Let the storm die down. Sad it has to come to that, but it is what it is.↔NMajdan•talk 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been done before to disappear from one account and then reappear as an admin under another account. I suggest you contact one of the higher authorities if you would like to regain your admin access while remaining anonymous. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a user gaining admin access without an RfA would stand out like a sore thumb. If an admin is going to drop and come back, I'm afraid that they should work back through the ranks to become an admin again. Yes, it really sucks, but it's also the only way to avoid a red flag on the account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In two examples some people on a certain site were able to figure out which admin had recently disappeared and then compared the editing patterns to figure out who it was. Maybe you could continue making edits with both accounts to throw them off the scent, though that there's a very fine line on what kinds of edits are allowable.. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk to your telephone company about logging the calls (they record the details) and your local police for advice regarding the caller(s) - that is what you pay your taxes for - especially in conjunction with the death threats. Talk to the service provider about the site publicising your details; if they do not have permission from the copyright holder they should not be able to post your picture (unless it was released under GDFL) and they may be violating their terms of service in publishing your information without permission (same problem about GDFL, though) or in a manner which might cause you distress. The perhaps co-incidental receipt of the silent phone calls and death threats can be cited.

On-wiki, I suggest you WP:IGNORE/DENY, or take a break per Nmajdan. I wouldn't change account names - a new admin popping up without going through RfA is likely to attract attention, and there will not be that many recently inactive admins to sift through, from the off-Wiki sites. Sorry about your experiences, and I hope this has helped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't already in contact with WMF, please communicate with them. Also I'd be glad to talk to you under whatever account you wish. Suggest you set up a gmail account for use in connection with Misplaced Pages volunteering because your location can't be traced from the headers. Best regards, Durova 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please send email to me using your admin account. I am interested in this case, and I have some friends who are also interested. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I'll contact the WMF in the next couple of days. EVula has a very good point, I talked to another admin who changed account names earlier this year and it didn't really do much to help protect his identity. For the record, I have never used an alternate account other than this one. I'll also start star-69'ing the dropped calls, though I doubt this will give me much information. Does that even work if the person only lets it ring once or twice and I don't pick up? To the best of my knowledge, my telephone number has never been posted in relation to my Misplaced Pages account, not anywhere. And I haven't had any hang-up calls today so hopefully it was all just a false alarm, though I am still concerned. I'll please ask people (including those off-wiki) not to speculate about my identity. I am sure I am not the only Misplaced Pages editor who has been in this situation. Also, while I am not thrilled with so-called attack sites posting my personal information or using pictures without my consent, I am far more concerned with what third parties do with that information. Anyway, if I choose to start editing with a new account, I will check with a couple of trusted people to make sure I am not being abusive. --Okay Bignose (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You can refuse calls that are callerid blocked, I would contact your phone provider about that. Prodego 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, at least, you can arrange a trap with the phone company if you get a civil restraining order. You'd document the exact time of each harassing call and you'd need to synchronize your own clock so it's accurate to the minute. I suggest you contact an expert for advice about the details. Durova 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the timing issue was a myth, and the phone company knows regardless of when the call was. Prodego 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a question of correlating particular events. In the past I've had two weeks of evidence tossed out by the police because my clock wasn't synchronized with official time. They probably could have correlated it rather easily by shifting all the data two or three minutes, but some people refused to take that effort. Some jurisdictions try any excuse to avoid paperwork. While I was filing a report once I saw a woman turned away even though she was reporting a death threat. A minute later I spoke to her outside, we compared the fine print on our restraining orders, and she marched right back and compelled the clerk to take her report when she realized his excuse was invalid. Durova 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading this account, & having worked with real phone switch logs, I suspect the problem is that either no one in authority understands how this works -- or don't care. Excuse me while I talk about some stuff that has little to do with either WP:AN or Misplaced Pages in general, but explains how this information gets recorded.

Phone switches are in effect computer servers, & keep a very detailed log of all of the calls that are handled by a given central office. The record is kept so that at the end of the month the phone company can bill you. However, to get access to these logs for any reason other than billing, there are many barriers. To start with, most of the information is stored on 9-track tape, & the tape drives that could be used to read the data are in use; companies only have the minimum number of tape drives they need. Further, for various reasons (primarily to conserve space) those logs are encrypted, so they can't read them with a text editor like notepad or vi. (When I handled these records, I used a perl script that did the decoding, then search-&-printed all of the records in question -- which took as long as a couple of hours.) Despite all of this, it is theoretically possible to find out who called you many years before -- or as long as the phone company keeps the records. However, phone companies are not organized to provide that information at a moment's notice. (Remember: those companies are set up to handle providing customer service, & think about how well they do that.) In many cases, the people who handle the initial requests about calling info don't even know who handles all of those logs. I'm sure that's why a court order is needed -- to get the attention of a manager who has the clout to get the information. That's probably why most law enforcement agencies would trace calls -- it was far, far quicker than delving into the phone company beauracracy.

As for the question about "dropped calls", if I understand telecomm technology correctly, until you pick up the phone, no billing information is written. However, ISTR anecdotes about people being billed for calls they never answered; so if that if correct when some phones ring for a certain number of seconds, then a token charge will be written to the billing log on the switch. (There are several models of phone switches, all of which handle billing and pass voice data in different ways. And use one of the most unusual operating system I have encountered.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you eliminated the more mundane possibility of telemarketers using Predictive dialers that dial too many numbers, leading to "call abandonment"? Do you get a lot of telemarketing calls? If you live in a country with an equivalent to the United States National Do Not Call Registry and have not yet added your name to it, perhaps you could do so as a test (though there might be a delay before it takes effect). I apologize if this idea is off base. Cardamon (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not offbase. Actually, I was just about to suggest that as the most likely cause. Hangup calls, blank voice messages, it fits the description of certain dialers perfectly. I had that problem for short while; a friend is an engineer for the phone company and confirmed. El_C 13:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See Predictive_dialer#Silent_calls. The half-life of these dialer stalking can be between three to six months, if I recall correctly (but sometimes it will only last a week or two, as was the case for me), so changing one's phone number needs to be weighed accordingly. El_C 13:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Many phone companies allow automatic rejection (or voicemail) for unidentified calls. My preferred VoIP carrier also allows me to shunt specific numbers directly to voicemail. - Jehochman 13:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked if I have eliminated the mundane possibility of telemarketers. I have generally not ruled out possibilities like this, though I receive fewer than four telemarketing calls a year on my telephone. That makes it less likely. I do have another question, though. If I decide to set up a new account with the goal of eventually receiving adminship on that new account, I would obviously have to be very careful not to violate WP:SOCK. Would anyone consider it inappropriate if I did not disclose a relationship between the two accounts even during a request for adminship? I would happily inform the Foundation in advance (and would consider informing a couple of admins I particularly trust, if people believe it necessary) and would of course give up the admin bit on my current account in a manner which I felt did not interfere with my privacy. Specifically, not on the same day but in a manner which adheres to the spirit of the law, at the very least. Again, I'm well aware that setting up a second account imposes significant restrictions on what I can do under WP:SOCK. --Okay Bignose (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Help Please

The story; An IP edited User:EVula's page with a comment of "please revert my edits" . Which I did wiht a note of "per request?". The IP then made another odd comment, which I also reverted as this now looked like trolling, and I said as much in my edit summary. The IP also made a comment on User:LaraLove's page, which looked okay, so I left it. ]. I asked the IP to log in as they clearly knew their way around and was told they would but were at work . Now I get a long diatribe on my talk page about my lack of good faith and newbie biting. More concerningly mentioning my Real Life name. . This is a different IP, but I have no reason not to believe they are the same person. They seem almost to be inviting checkuser. Help please, I'm uncomfortable with revealing my RL first name, and worried where this is going. Pedro :  Chat  09:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP address is The undertow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), per this edit. Daniel 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So... what's going on? :s This seems to be related ~ Riana ⁂ 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like The undertow (talk · contribs) attempting to make some sort of point about the treatment of IP editors, by his own admission. As always, proving one's point experimentally tends to lead to hurt feelings and unnecessary disruption like this. Best that everyone return to the 'pedia instead of playing around or indulging others' playing. It's probably unlikely to recur (but if it does recur, it will be looked upon very poorly). Dmcdevit·t 11:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get to go thru these, one-by-one. Which should we decide to address? Being fluent in Spanish, and having lived in Mazatlan for a year, it's common knowledge that Pedro=Peter. Juan=John, Jesus=Je-sus, and Mary=Maria. It's a simple worldwide translation of a first (not last) name. I have no prior knowledge that if a user decides to use "Pedro" that his name in real-life is Peter - that can only be affirmed by the owner. It's as common as calling "Jeff" as 'Jefe.'

As far as IP admissions, I made myself clear that I could not log-in to my account at work, as I have a strong password. But that does not supersede the fact that even IF I could, that I would expect different treatment. WP:POINT is disruptive. I made all aware of who I was and what IPs I was using, and clearly iterated that I would have been treated differently had I been logged in. If the diffs are scrutinized, anyone can see that since, as an IP, I was reverted, simply because I did not have my log-in at the time. Simply look at the diffs and realize that while others were having fun with a given topic, I was reverted for either being an anon, or not logged it. ANYONE can edit. ANYONE still can. And for those pushing policy, even registered users reserve the right to edit as anons (although this was not the case.) the_undertow 12:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So this was not a good thing to revert. which seems to be your issue. The only thing I can see is that EVula should have reverted not me? The undertow, you've said again on my talk page you want to open an RfC on my behaviour. If that is your wish, please do so. Pedro :  Chat  12:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate it if you would call me by my nickname. Just because Pedro is spanish for Peter I can't see how you assumed I therefore must be called Peter. Either way, that's out the bag now, but I'd ask you to use my nickname please. Pedro :  Chat  12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's bring in context. Look at the diff you provided - it was about Lara and comments made towards her being attractive. Humor would dictate that it's actually funny for one to say "revert my edits!" And my sympathy runs deep for privacy. However, Juan is John. There is no way around that. I call my friend Peter, "Pedro", as it is the equivalent in both languages. I will not be punished for being bilingual NOR astute. Until you can PROVE that I had innate knowledge that you, Pedro, in real-life, were named Peter, you are simply placing blame on me, which is entirely unfair. ENTIRELY. If my girlfriend, say Maria, was on Wiki, and you called her Mary, it would not be a slight, nor a hint, nor an attempt to unmask her. Certain names are universal. And without causing you further discomfort, if my name was Dick, there is a really good chance you might be able to surmise that my real name is Richard - BUT ONLY IF I used Dick as MY nickname. Gerry Scott Kochendorfer. There is my fucking name. Half German and Greek. It's by no means a compromise, but it is CERTAINLY a way for me to make some sort of amends, outside of our own disagreements, which have been going on far beyond the 'nomenclature' controversy, which anyone could see. the_undertow 12:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your use of an ip as a "bad hand" account to disrupt and deliberately make vandalism edits. I would suggest you rethink your conduct and let's get back to work. -JodyB _talk 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Show me any vandalism. I'm curious about it. Lara was praised for her picture, and I asked her to "revert me!" as an empathetic fan would. Show me vandalism. the_undertow 12:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I answered on my talk page in response to your post. -JodyB _talk 13:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So... bypassing all that stuff up top, I'd like to go ahead and state that I was about to revert the IP edit myself, but Pedro beat me to it. It frankly made very little sense to me, and it certainly wasn't the first time an IP I'd never seen had left me a bizarre message somewhere in my userspace; until I happened to be searching for my name on this page, it never occurred to me that it might be anything more than an anon editor being odd. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-profit organizations being urged to spam us about their organizations

Here is an article urging non-profits to write their own Misplaced Pages entries. I e-mailed the editor, saying this:

The most recent issue of Board Cafe had a tidbit urging people to

write articles about their organizations on Misplaced Pages!!!!

This is a major violation of our guidelines against Conflict of Interest, Autobiography, and Spamming/Advertisement. Such articles are killed off as quickly as they are spotted, and a repeat offender may find their (perfectly legitimate) organization blacklisted from ever being mentioned in the Misplaced Pages.

He responded thus:

Michael, thank you for this email. I certainly understand your point.

Nonetheless, it's appropriate for something that is Misplaced Pages-worthy to get onto the site. Just as I encouraged people to put things onto Misplaced Pages, I also support Misplaced Pages's policies to eliminate illegitimate postings. The money that movie studios, for example, put into getting favorable Misplaced Pages entries for their movies and television shows is just part of the complexity of Misplaced Pages, because we also value the fact that important nonprofit groups have initiated and monitor sites about themselves (examples: Red Cross, NAACP).

So whether or not you think we agree, I think we are kindred, pro-Misplaced Pages, anti-spam spirits. Thanks for writing. Jan

He seemingly just doesn't get it.

--Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And apparently we're the second most popular site on the net, according to them! Gee, bad news for facebook, the BBC and YouTube! Seriously though, thanks Mike for highlighting that and your efforts in trying to persuade the webmaster. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

He just doesn't seem familiar with the concept, just look at his response there he says that movie studios put money into getting favorable entries wich is clearly not true as all film and television articles are solely edited by the users themselves and if their reception was negative it will be reflected (see Super Mario Bros. (film) for example). Maybe somebody can explain WP:N to him in a manner that explains the difference between "worthy" and "notable". - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples of some who have spammed the project;

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Public_broadcasting_Spam_.28KQED.29
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Long_term_COI_spamming_by_Carnegie_Council
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Mercy_Corps_COI_spam
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.arc.org.uk

--Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

just a comment that I remarked on that talk page that in my view that some material placed by some of these groups was in fact highly appropriate, though they should have been more aware of our rules about how to have it added. DGG (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

we need to get real - trying to get a wikipedia article is just what I'd advise a non-profit to do if I was in the position of that author, you chance your arm and if it gets deleted, well you tried. We are never going to stop this, so we need to work on better ways to manage it and not the usual terrible unreadable policy pages - an honest to god short document that indicates best practice to organisations. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BFAQ has advice that is just as relevant to non-profit organisations as businesses. Maybe though we should try a somewhat specialized version, with emphasis on the use of their web site, which such organisations generally think justified, not having understood the implications of GFDL. The main problem I've had in dealing with them is that, to put it bluntly, PR people at profit-making corporations are often more professional and more responsive. DGG (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Like DGG, I found external links added by a non-profit to be useful, but at the time, I didn't know what message to add to the user's talk page, but didn't want to add COI or spam templates. I've added info to the user's talk page (User talk:Art21) from a template I found via the links above, but not sure if it's appropriate or clear enough that COI applies to non-profits. Flowanda | Talk 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Lir

This user's one-year block (initially set by ArbCom, and then reset several times for vandalism and sockpuppetry, expired on December 10. I've removed the "blocked user" template from his userpage, but does anything else need to be done (i.e. logging the completion on the Arb subpage or something like that)? -Hit bull, win steak 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the template on his userpage doesn't actually do anything, and removing it doesn't either - there's still a block on his account. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not an indef block, it has expired. Mr.Z-man 05:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two options; one is to organize support for an indefinite community ban, and the other is to let it go. I'd be very much in favor of letting it go; things have quieted down in that department and that's a good thing. Chick Bowen 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; until there's some actual drama here, just ignoring the editor (especially since he hasn't edited since his block was lifted) is in the best interest of everyone involved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lir's history on Misplaced Pages predates me, so it's safe to assume there are a number of eyes on this account. If (to quote Chick Bowen above in this thread) we let it go, we can assume that she/he was grown tired with disrupting Misplaced Pages & moved on with his life, & stop thinking about him. If she/he immediately resumes his disruptive behavior, the account will be blocked indefinitely, & we can then discuss a permanent ban. Anything else would not be wise. -- llywrch (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So, to get back to my earlier question: When a user completes a long-term block, are there any clerical-type actions that need to be taken, or is the way that things are now the way that they should be? -Hit bull, win steak 21:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Everything just reverts to normal. Chick Bowen 02:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Dethzone

Wasn't sure where to ask this, so I figure I'd try here first. This person appears to be using their user page as a sort of Myspace page/sandbox. Not sure if it's against any policy, but it seems rather questionable at best. Should something be done about it, or doth I worry needlessly? :) -Ebyabe (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd blank it and show him WP:USERPAGE. He's violating that. If he isn't even be productive towards the encyclopedia, he should be blocked as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:Ryulong just deleted the whole thing so it's a moot point now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nay, not so, since it's been recreated. I think I see where this is going... -Ebyabe (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, blocked and deleted User:Korn On The C.O.B. which was probably not a coincidence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In furtherance of Jimbo's efforts to decrease drama

In furtherance of Jimbo's efforts to decrease drama, I present here a comment by User:Moulton placed on another site:

Removed

WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

While the sentiments expressed are perhaps admirable, I'm not sure how you expect to accomplish a decrease in wikidrama by reproducing something posted to that particular "another site" (well, at least you didn't link to it). I am disappointed, though, that you left out the wonderful bit of alliteration "..." —Random832 17:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get the drama out of human interaction is like trying to get stink out of a turd. 1 != 2 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's all froth. While a minority "wiki-war" (what a nice phrase) a vast (peaceful) army in the background is quietly getting on with building the encyclopedia. Some articles are casualties in the wiki-wars, but many more articles survive than die, and they can all be ressurected at some point. Though some are honey-pots, forever attracting drama and zombifying onwards towards the hypothetical end scenario. Carcharoth (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC) There, some nice random rambling metaphorical philosophy to wash down the (actually rather insightful) post above.

edit conflict I've replaced it to a diff link of when you posted it, partially to reduce the effort that would be needed if (as I cynically suppose is likely to happen) it is determined it should be oversighted, and partially because you've given no indication of permission from User:Moulton. —Random832 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: Does his GFDL permission lapse if he is blocked indef? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the GFDL's grant of permissions is explicitly perpetual (and says nothing about Misplaced Pages's blocking policy in any case). — Gavia immer (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, but WAS 4.250 is not the author of the piece, and Moulton did not post it to Misplaced Pages. —Random832 18:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we have no reason to believe we can repost that text, though perhaps a link to the original would be informative. 1 != 2 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec × ∞)Ah. Yes, I spaced out on Moulton not being the poster. So, I guess the answer is "maybe, maybe not". Glad I could clear that up. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The original, however, is posted to a thread which also contains posts that can be interpreted as attacks on users.—Random832 18:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We already have an article on this: six phases of any big project. -- Kendrick7 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles with unsupported characters

• ]
• ]
• ]

These need deleting. These pages exist, brackets won't show up and it shows up on the list of all articles as something that has text on it (3rd and 4th lines). — Save_Us_229 17:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk to a developer. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WP::P&action=delete fails. —Random832 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm contacting someone to deal with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:WP::-), WP:WP::LBT and WP:WP::P. Do with them as you will. -- Tim Starling (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. These were to WP:FRIENDLY, WP:LBT, and WP:FUN, respectively. Someone will have to find and clean up inbound links manually; whatlinkshere does not work with broken titles. —Random832 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted an inbound link to ] today (=WP:SHORTCUTS), since it was no longer working. I wonder if the database could still have the list of pages containing these links. -- lucasbfr 21:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jlhess and Jon Hess

User repeatedly vandalizes the article with unverified, original research and POV material. User appears to be the subject of the article. I've asked user to remove things they consider untrue, but instead user insists on a flatter piece for the article. User also appears to be using sock puppets, and has made threats and personal insults towards me, as well as challenging me to a fight. --Mista-X (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

More Congressional Edits

I noticed an article at Slashdot (found here) that discussed further congressional edits to Misplaced Pages, particularly at 2003 Invasion of Iraq, highlighting this diff. I had a look at the contributions from the IP in question, User:143.231.249.141, and noticed a significant number of recent edits to the article on Congressman Donald M. Payne. In particular, this material, which was added today, appears to be a direct copy of the congressman's official website, found here. As it's a government source, does copyvio apply? If not, does the article still need to be re-worded to avoid directly copying the text of a government website?

Since there is attention being given to this (US House of Representatives) IP and its contributions, and since it's 5:00 here and I need to leave for a while, I thought it prudent to note the issue here. Please move this comment to the correct noticeboard, if it does not belong here. Thanks! ZZ ~ Evidence 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that information produced by a federal government employee and/or released by the federal government is considered public domain and exempt from copyright protection. Pages of members of Congres edited by known Congressional IP addresses (particularly if they can be linked to that members staff) need a CoI tag. Avruch 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article has already been tagged, so I will add the above notice to the talk page describing the conflict of interest. Thanks, ZZ ~ Evidence 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Can someone move Swing of the Quad Cities back to Quad City River Bandits. I tried, but since the River Bandits was a page it won't let me move it. The team again changed names, cause they can't figure out what they want to be called i guess. Here is a ref. if necessary Ctjf83 23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Done. BLACKKITE 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Swing of the Quad Cities" is the oddest team name I've ever come across. Chick Bowen 04:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD backlog

There is a long backlog on AfD right now going back to December 4. See WP:AFD. Admin attention would be appreciated. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got some time, I'll see what I can do to help. Resolute 02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Down to 170, we've made a dent at least. It was 230+ when I started working on it. Mr.Z-man 05:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

*collapses* - down to ~150. Mr.Z-man 07:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention is kinda gettin' clogged. Can an admin please go and "unclog" it? --EoL talk 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unclogged. - auburnpilot talk 02:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn Doran

This is the subject of a current ongoing controversy regarding a former employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. The article is at Carolyn Doran and it should be watched for vandalism in reaction to the Register article. Avruch 04:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Related to this matter, I've fully-protected User:Carolyn-WMF‎ and semi-protected User talk:Carolyn-WMF‎, as both had already seen some vandalism (it didn't help that the Wikinews article linked directly to her userpage, which I've since fixed). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the talk page and two redirects as speedy deletes if someone wants to get them. Lawrence Cohen 06:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I really have a problem with the talk page being deleted. From what I looked at it, there was nothing in the talk page that warranted a speedy deletion. At least restore it to allow talk about the article, if one should exist. At least have it for a week or two. User:Zscout370 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page restored by another admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zscout370 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though I have expressed genuine doubts about the notability of the subject of the article, it is probably wise to keep at least the talk page undeleted for a day or two simply to diffuse the inevitable drama. Risker (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And a soft redirect was made to Wikinews. I issued the protection to the soft protected article, so it is up to Wikinews now. User:Zscout370 06:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a double-take on the soft-redirect due to the fact that at this time there's not enough reliable source for us to link to the Wikinews article. (If Washington Post runs a story blowing the whistle, I wouldn't hesitate to link to Wikinews--- I'd even say that we could probably write an article for C.D!) - Penwhale | 07:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Wikimedia Foundation article is sadly out of date and currently gives the impression that Doran is still an employee, doesn't mention Sue Gardner or her position, etc. If someone is in a position to clean that up using reliable sources, this might be a good time to do it. Risker (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Risker's post, the problem he described has been fixed -- although I'd argue that the changes he advocated were not controversial & did not need reliable sources. -- llywrch (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything needs reliable sources. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest & start flagging non-controversial statements like "London is a city in the United Kingdom" or "Wyoming is one of the United States" with {{fact}}, & see how long it is before someone starts invoking WP:POINT at you. ;) Now if you want to find a reliable source for those statements (I guess the Congressional act which made Wyoming a state would work for the second example), & add them to the article, I'd be honestly surprised if anyone objected. But now this thread is drifting into the hypothetical. -- llywrch (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

PimpUigi account

Hey guys.

I'm PimpUigi, and I noticed there is no email address attached to my username. I can't log in, or change my password, or anything.

Can you assign my email address to it?

I should be able prove I am PimpUigi, as I have accounts on tons of other forums, and many people on those forums even know me in person.

To my knowledge I am not blocked.

My email address is <redacted> or <redacted> It may be better to use the second one, as it will get CC'd to both email addresses that way.

Thank you for your assistance, and any info you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.149.217 (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Pimpuigi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? If you've lost the password, it would require a developer to change it, which they would not want to do since that account has only five edits, all from July. Why don't you just create a new account? Chick Bowen 06:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since there is no e-mail attached to your username, there is no way to get back your account (for obvious security reasons). Sorry. -- lucasbfr 07:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That's strange, as I've never edited anything. I have no idea why my account would lose it's email either. To my knowledge, I signed up, but never edited anything. I just kind of signed up, and forgot about it. Can you delete the name, and then I can remake it????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.149.217 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the five things it said I contributed to, and I've never seen them before in my life. I'm worried my account has been compromised, or someone was impersonating me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.149.217 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no way whatsoever to tell if you are telling the truth, since those edits are months old and the IP logs have likely expired. Sorry. Just ignore it and make a new account; if that one starts being bad, we'll block it, with no harm to you. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A point about the delete-a-page dialog

• The delete-a-page dialog shows two entries with typing boxes: "Reason for deletion" and "Other/additional reason". As "Other/additional reason" is often full of a copy of the start of the page's text, it would be useful if two more alternatives were added to "Reason for deletion": "To allow incoming move" and "Temporarily for history-merge or history-split". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could just delete the auto-inserted text, which is what I do. I'm actually not a fan of the existing deletion page, as the summary comes before the dropdown when I tab through them... very frustrating. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Doom characters

Please check the relevance of this article. Other characters like Arlene Sanders from Doom are available on Misplaced Pages. I'd be glad if Sergeant Kelly would also be acceptable. D@rk 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

...why should we have the article, though? I appears that Kelly only appears in a single game, whereas Sanders at least appears in multiple books set in the Doom universe. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Those books are horrible and their mere mention on Misplaced Pages is a blight upon all mankind. Er, ahem, I mean, uh, just because she's in four horrible books that collectively probably sold less than a single video game (in this case, Doom 3) does not make that character inherently more notable than Sergeant Kelly. Quantity alone does not infer more notability. Personally, I'd nuke both articles - redirects are sufficient. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that it's been almost 15 years since I played Doom, & that this entire thread properly belongs elsewhere, but I have to ask -- there were characters in that game? I thought the cast consisted of one guy with at least one firearm, & the creatures he killed. There was no plot to get in the way of the story! Merge, redirect, & insist on reliable sources for everything else. -- llywrch (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There were no characters in the first two games. There we characters in the horrid books, and in Doom 3. --Golbez (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Those books were awesome. Jtrainor (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesomely bad. The first one was marginally entertaining, the second two were bad, and the fourth killed my puppy. --Golbez (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image for deletion

Hello, Image:Inkou.jpg is up for speedy deletion as of December 1, but the category has been deleted (because it was empty, the tag had been removed against policy though, after the expiry date) , can someone please look at the image and delete it if necessary thanks. Jackaranga (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the uploader adequately addressed the issue. Using the DVD cover as an example in order to illustrate porn in Japan, falls within the scope of fair use, and I think other admins felt the same. Otherwise, the image would have been deleted. Your revert however (which removed part of the fair use rational), labeling the removal of the template as vandalism, does not show good faith. The template states "Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern." That is what he did, so I have removed the template. — Edokter • Talk • 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You can see at WP:CSD and the user warning {{uw-speedy}} how removing a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself is against policy, and considered vandalism (thus the warnings), also you can see at WP:NFC Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). Anyway if you accept to be the admin who is refusing deletion, please drop me a note so I can start a DRV as this is a common type of problem and a DRV on this kind of one would be useful, thanks. Jackaranga (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, but the image was never tagged with a CSD template, but with a disputed fair-use template; uw-speedy does not apply here, and you totally misread the policy and the templates. Now you have sent it to deletion review, while there is nothing to review. The proper action would have been to nominate it for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Images for deletion. Can someone close the DRV? — Edokter • Talk • 12:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Coredesat 12:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Important reminder

Hello, can I please remind everyone that removal of speedy deletion tags from pages you have created yourself is a violation of policy. I just realised many users do this, including admins, I may have myself also I can't remember, please be careful of this. I reworded the user warnings {{uw-speedy1}} (2,3,4) to change article to page in order to conform with WP:CSD. Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this. Often for example BetacommandBot tags images for speedy deletion, and users remove the warning themselves after having corrected the problem, however this is not allowed and is as bad as removing the speedy deletion tag from an article you created because you think you found reliable sources. good example, bad example I think the confusion stems from the fact that sometimes users believe they know about fair-use images. They think "I have 10,000 edits I just made a typo in the article name, I will correct it", however there may subsist other problems (for example missing copyright holder name... many experienced users forget this). So I think we should just follow what the consensus on WP:CSD tells us: correct the problem, place {{hangon}} on the page and ask Betacommand if he will reconsider. Jackaranga (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? 81.153.124.23 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will admit not all the tags are speedy deletion tags, some are "relative-speedy" deletion, so perhaps this doesn't apply to those ones. But for example invalid fair-use claim as well as missing rationale are, see WP:CSD#Images and media, invalid fair-use rationale is not one however, so perhaps the problem is not as big as I thought, but still something to remember. If a page creator could remove the speedy deletion tag himself we might as well scrap the whole speedy deletion idea, so not a joke, but I did perhaps overstate the problem a bit. Jackaranga (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never had a problem with people removing "speedy deletion" tags from images after they have fixed the problem. --EoL talk 23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's only when all you do is remove the speedy tag that it becomes a problem; if an article is tagged with {{db-bio}} and the author removes it and inserts a valid assertion of notability, that's perfectly fine (and if the policy says it isn't, then the policy is wrong). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but you must remember it's the consensus that no distinction is made, so we must try to abide by it if possible even if we disagree personally. Jackaranga (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is the consensus; EVula's description is closer to what has been standard practice by long precedent. Remember that policy pages are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Chick Bowen 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How about removing wrongly-added speedy tags? DuncanHill (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

One of only many examples, yes. Jackaranga's original example, a bot-added tag about a specific problem with an image, is actually a good example of a situation in which the author's removing a tag is clearly acceptable. Chick Bowen 01:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you fix a problem with your images, please remove the deletion tags. It saves a lot of time when going through and deleting the non-compliant ones. Mr.Z-man 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin trial periods

Has a system ever been used where trusted editors (who desire to become admins) are given admin tools for a trial period (a month for example), in order to test whether they would make good admins? If there is a more appropriate place to ask this question, let me know and I'll move it :). Seraphim 02:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This has often been suggested, but never seems to get any agreement.--Doc 02:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think it useful if it were implemented. RfA is based around presuming what sort of admin a person would be...if they were given a trial for a week, their actions as an admin for that week could be reviewed and adminship decided on that trial period. There are negatives but I haven't fully thought them through. Seraphim 02:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Would probably create more problems than be a benifit to wikipedia. Admin school seems to address using the tools, in an environment that will not harm the encyclopedia. see →Misplaced Pages:New admin school--Hu12 (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All someone has to do is not do anything outrageous in the week they're a trial admin. Once it passes, they can go wild... EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see is that it would create a system where people have to go through 2 RFAs. Since we can't just hand out the tools to anyone who asks, we would need some sort of approval process both before and the process after to evaluate. Mr.Z-man 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(five edit conflicts - is this a record)I think it is a good idea and that existing admins should be subject to periodic review too. DuncanHill (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)All excellent points. It could be difficult to judge who to approve...and become too complicated. Periodic review sounds like a good idea though. Seraphim 02:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Make it automatic: If you've been around for at least three months, have racked up at least a thousand edits, and ask for the tools, you get them for a month. After that month, there's an RFA to see if you should keep them. If you abuse the tools during the trial period, it's grounds for an immediate and permanent de-sysopping. --Carnildo (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is actually an important issue. There is a huge backlog of admin hopefuls/candidates looking for mentorship, going back as far as October, from what I see. But there also seems to be little take-up from existing admins to adopt them. I look at RfAs, and see very few people I recognise. That, in itself, is no bad thing, because a lot of admin work, particularly clearing backlogs, does not show up on the radar of an average editor. However, I can see that a case can be made for "trusted editors" having limited tools to deal with patent vandalism either by blocking or page protection; this would release "full admins" to deal with issues such as sock-puppetry, edit-warring and the like, where a greater depth of experience would be useful. However, the position at present is that the admin tools are indivisible. It is difficult, and ultimately nugatory, to propose a hierarchy of admins; however, a little responsibility, properly transferred to editors in good standing, and subject to appropriate review, would be no bad thing, in that it would relieve admins of what is, ultimately, voluntary responsibility, and minimise some of the drama that seems to occur on a daily basis. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EVula. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Up to a point. But all you have to do to become an admin is keep your nose clean. After that, as long as you don't hit the radar, you're home and away. Is that what we really want? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

EVula makes a good point about requiring the RfA process. But the idea of bifurcating admin duties seems interesting. For instance banning a user or deleting a page are very serious actions, since if done wrongly, they can prevent useful content or users from participating. On the other hand, page-protection and semi-protection is easily reviewable and users of that feature could probably do with less scrutiny then those trusted with the block and ban buttons. Viewing deleted data and editing mediawiki pages is probably somewhere in between, since deleted data can have copyvio issues and mediawiki pages impact the entire encyclopedia. Also, I suspect the first comment will be that a less-vetted page-protection policy will lead to the main page constantly getting deleted. In that case, removal of full protection could be left to regular admins and addition of it and all semi-protections to "trusted editors", whatever that term may mean. Mbisanz (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add that banning an editor is not an admin function; it is that no admin is prepared to unblock an editor; so it is effectively a collective decision, not an individual decision. Deleting a page varies in seriousness, depending upon the page. Closing an AfD on apparent consensus may be, in the short term, serious to its creator. Salting it, certainly is. Deleting a User page is certainly serious, as in the recent User:PresterJohn situation. Even if an article page is deleted as a result of AfD, there is always deletion review. There are checks and balances built in, sufficient in general to limit the actions of out of policy mavericks. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 03:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we hav good checks and balances, due process stuff in place, but some things take more discretion than other and some discretions are (IMHO) more serious than others. I could easily imagine the problems of setting a level of 2000 edits and presto your a trusted editor who could block. Even with containmment, many good new users could be turned off to the whole thing. On the other hand, I don't see reckless page protection as serious as an issue since its unlikely to have the same psychological aspect. And as you point out, there are more processes a person can screw up in deletions (userspace, CSD/PROD/AFD/DRV, copyvio, NPOV) than in protections.

Or we could just ask Jimbo to follow up on his famous quote and make a "bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops"; that could help dispel the notion of being an admin as passing the RfA test :) Mbisanz (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Imagine what a huge disaster that would be. Prodego 05:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The flaw with Carnildo's suggestions is that blocks are personal, and cause drama. Even bad undeletions can be quickly reversed, but bad blocks sit in the logs of users (not articles) forever and they are a source of drama. I could almost agree to a system of users-with-three-months-2000-edits-nothing-bad-and-no-administrator-disagrees system (maybe they'd have to post their name on a page for seventy-two hours and if no administrator objects they get two weeks' +sysop) getting temporary +sysop where their actions are clearly marked with a link to distinguish them as actions by a temporary sysop in their trial period, normal administrators can overturn their actions and not be reversed by a temporary administrator, they do not have access to Special:Blockip (or, even better: they can only block people who don't meet the technical threshold for being "autoconfirmed"), and they can be desysopped on the request of any administrator. But people will argue that it's too bureaucratic, probably, but anything less will result in mayhem and drama everywhere. Daniel 10:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please examine the behavior of User:Quantumentanglement

He placed a wildly inappropriate "warning" on Mongo's talkpage here. This was after QE had been placing inappropriate fact tags (which Mongo reverted) over several 9/11-related pages. His contributions, such as they are have been disruptive, as he has called an established editor a "vandal" numerous times, and refuses to retract when others tell him this is inappropriate. He lashes out at anyone who dares question his reasoning. I have warned him about this disruption. I think it would be appropriate for a user with the tools to keep an eye on this guy, and block him if he refuses to discontinue his disruptive behavior. Mr Which??? 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MrWhich...he is just a new editor or recreated editor who is only here to support the "alternate storyline". I've asked him to cite what sources he is using to try and refute what the article states and maybe he will...one never knows.--MONGO (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's the jolly old disruptive single-purpose account again. He's only been here 4 days and he's progressed to edit-warring, fringe theory advocacy, biased editing, incivility, personal attacks, templating the regulars - crikey. How far wrong can you go? Can someone with more patience than I explain why he needs to do everything completely differently from now on? Thank you. Moreschi 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

MiguelL0pz

I have posted the following in Nikki311's talk page and on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism

• MiguelL0pz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The editor is begging to be blocked by continuing to make vanfalism. ClueBot has warned him, but he still continues. The user has not made one single edit which is constructive. Lex /_C Guest Book 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are his edits:

There are many other edits, but you can't suppose I'd write them all down here. Please see to this ASAP. Lex /_C Guest Book 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sfacets

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

This user has been blocked by, at my count, nine different admins, plus one extension of a block due to sockpuppetry. According tot he user, this is because everybody else is biased, especially all the admins. He's made it pretty clear he'll pick up the cudgels again when his latest block expires. Is this user redeemable, do we think? Guy (Help!) 17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if he's redeemable in an absolute sense. But it has become clear that the effort required by the community to redeem him against his will is disproportionate to any benefit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is unproven. Andries (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Two accounts making identically POV edits to the self-same subjects, with the newer account active only when Sfacets is blocked. Oh, it could be innocent, but it's pretty unlikely. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with Sfacets for two years now, and I'd say he gives "POV pushers" a bad name. He's exhibited a range of tendentious editing behaviors that include ownership of articles, disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate points, harassment of editors, false accusations about other editors, unfulfilled promises to reform, and more reverts than I've seen from any other editor. He claims that all the blocks he's received were "unwarranted, and the reasons given were shams like 'civility'". I also believe that he's incorrectly claimed to have created some of the images that he's uploaded. Regarding user:Yogasun, the sock designation and block were made by one uninvolved admin and confirmed by another. That account picked up right where Sfacets left off and made virtually identical edits. No matter if it's a meat puppet or a sock puppet, the account was only used to continue the edit dispute which led to one of Sfacets' blocks. I can't speak for the community, but my patience with Sfacets has already been exhausted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• See also this edit, where he rmeoves my comments from his carefully-laundered talk page with the edit summary "Remove harassing vandal." Anyone here think it's acceptable to call an admin a "harassing vandal" when they respond to posts on yo9ur talk page? Guy (Help!) 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really can't resist that - Guy's edit summaries when blanking content from his own talk page are at times no less uncivil. DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That might be relevant if this were a reciprocal situation, but that's not in an issue in this case. Sfacets has a history of calling good faith edits "vandalism", and of using vandal-fighting tools in edit conflicts. There are numerous complaints on his talk page about mislabelling edits or editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And how is that relevant? Corvus cornix_talk 05:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an element of the problematic behavior of this user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP subject ambiguity

This could apply to any BLP subject and may benefit from wider awareness.

We might routinely get problems whereby some "John Smith" tells us that the article "John Smith" points to a mass murderer, or other person that makes them look bad. In such cases please be aware of Template:AmbiguousBio, which can be placed at the top of a BLP article and looks like this:

Template:AmbiguousBio

The template takes a name, a brief description of the article subject, and an (optional) disambiguation page for others with similar names if such a page exists. For an example see Russell Bishop (sex offender). FT2  19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone should probably go through and try to find all the controversial bios that use the less noticeable {{otheruses}} type templates. Mr.Z-man 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Power structure problems

I would like to suggest a total revamping of the entire hierarchical structure of this project. It has become somewhat obvious to me that there are several users who hold high ranking positions of power within the project (I'm not naming any names at this stage yet) who appear more intent on arbitrarily blocking other users and exercising their own power, than actually helping to contribute to this project. Such users are bearing grudges against others and taking unreasonable punitive measures, without the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. These same users are ignoring votes for consensus, and abusing their powers to push their points of view into certain articles, removing or changing the valid contributions of others. I find this extremely counter productive, and it is not at all what this site stands for in my humble opinion. I feel that this project would benefit from considerably more equitable standings between users, where useful discussion, acceptance and tolerance would be the code of practice, rather than a power ranking system that arbitrarily blocks out the so called "enemies" of those perched on the higher rungs of the power ladder. Please take time to consider my post here and I would be more than happy to discuss this issue with many of you. 91.108.241.252 (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, just realised what a foolish title I initially chose considering I want users here to take me seriously! 91.108.241.252 (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the people who have power are the ones who are most feverent in denying that there is a power structure. It's hard to fix something nobody will admit exists. -Amarkov moo! 20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true, Amarkov. DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

total revamping of the entire hierarchical structure from an unknown person. Right. Try creating a few articles to prove you are here to help create an encyclopedia. Or improve some articles with new sourced information. Strangers telling us how to spend our unpaid time does not fly. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm a total stranger here, and I think that the OP made some good points. DuncanHill (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there something, somewhere, along the lines of "comment on the content, not the contributor"? DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, what power structure? The technical one, or the social one? We can't change social at this point, in fact, you never really can. As far as a technical power structure goes, it is pretty set in, and doesn't really match to the social structure. Prodego 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The technical/official structure could be spread out (multiple admin levels) but the community is mostly against that and the more we divide tasks the more bureaucracy we need to maintain the divisions. Mr.Z-man 20:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with 91. —–abadafa (+C0) 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think IP 91 should come out and tell us who he really is. He's obviously not a new user. On the other hand there are extremely influential users who ignore problems. But, I disagree with IP 91 in that I feel a total revamping is not needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is no hierarchical structure. That makes it a bit difficult to revamp it. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  Indeed, officially it works exactly as 91 says it should. In practice, there are deviations from the ideal, but I see no easy way to fix those by "revamping the power structure" - the easiest way to fix them is to take the abusers to ArbCom. --Tango (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree with 91. Administrators are immune to consequences for most of the actions they take, in my experience, which in turn leads some ofthem to be some of the most egregrious edit warriors. I also definitely disagree that he should reveal himself at this juncture-- given his opinion, it is reasonable to believe that he himself might be a controversial figure and as such wishes to post his argument without bias being imposed upon it by who he is. Jtrainor (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've commented before that I think the admin process might work better if users were eased into it, being trusted with certain tools before others. But, Z-man makes the good point that it would just create more divisions in the community (imagine having to go through multiple RFAs). And we are here to write an encyclopedia, so as long as the structural system isn't broken (we don't see 20 day backlogs are RfD or unreverted vandalism to the main page), I'm going to focus my attention on my personal pet peeves, poor spelling and formatting in articles. Mbisanz (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

zealous editors and edit warring at the main 9/11 article

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.

there is a lengthy discussion at the main 9/11 article, i've made a valid citation request which is persistently and constantly removed with no arguments whatsoever. as far as the talkpage history goes, it appears that we are dealing with the particular group of extremely biased and overzealous editors who decided to install some sort of hegemony there. numerous policies has been broken in last few days, i'd appreciate if appropriate warnings would be distributed among involved parties. thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. In the meantime, it would be helpful if you can repair your keyboard's "shift" key. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for admin intervention here. This is a regular dispute. Your statement that your citation request has been "removed with no arguments whatsoever" is a mischaracterization, judging from the talk page. Arguments you disagree with are still arguments. The users you are talking about are neither biased nor overzealous. Please read what Misplaced Pages is not. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox to publish fringe theories. Aecis 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A review of the article shows that User:Quantumentanglement has been engaged in a campaign of tendentious editing; I have warned him/her accordingly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

for a valid argument you need a valid reference or source, soapboxes or fringe theories, which you've pointed to have nothing to do with the request for reference, do they? please explain briefly, if the citation request is removed without actually providing a citation, then that is acceptable, per our guidelines? as for the soapbox, and tendentious editing claims, that's exactly why i've decided to point to the things which are going on there, for if you take a look, you'll see that editors involved are not focused on the issues, they rather talk about fringe theories, conspiracy theories and all sorts of non related issues. since i'm working long hours, i find such approach not only inappropriate, but also entropic in its nature, i'd really appreciate if the folks would focus on the issues and not waste other peoples time or provoke some of those responses that i've made there, just so i may regret them the very next day. i'm not sure why would you decide to use something which can easily be described as the double standard? please, share a few words, thanks. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This does not require admin attention. Quantumentanglement does not seem to understand our guidelines, and has been arguing that the article needs to meet a standard of evidence beyond anything guidelines mandate, despite being told repeatedly by a number of different editors that he is mistaken. His request for sourcing is based on this misinterpretation, and other users have removed it for that very reason. It is far from "without argument". --Haemo (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that we've gone over this issue ad nauseum before, with Arbcom cases, user bans, etc. for people pushing conspiracy theories on 9/11. This is nothing new, and proponents usually end up losing their case or banned. But seriously, we have an editor here claiming there were no Arabs aboard Flight 77, despite one of the biggest glutton of sources I could ever have imagined. This is POV pushing at its worst, and you are treading dangerous waters. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming a single thing, and your insults are noted, thank you… here, article, along with the documents provided through the FOIA (attached at the bottom), these documents prove beyond any doubt that there were no Arabs aboard the Flight 77. It may be worth noting the fact that omission, neglect and denial of such reference is simply not acceptable. Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A link to an inaccessible page on a Croatian site is your proof? May I register my incredulity here? —Kurykh 04:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Incredulity seconded, but this belongs on the talk page. Closing this discussion. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:05, 16 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.

User:Defender 911

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to bring to your attention User:Defender 911.

At one point, Defender was one of Misplaced Pages's prized editors. However, he was blocked indefinitely in August for severe harassment and for disrespecting a ellow user's right to vanish. It was a widely endorsed block, and since no administrator was willing to overturn the block, he was banned.

Now, recently, he has requested for unblock, however it was declined. What I'm suggesting the community consider is something that I know may cause some amount of drama, but please understand that this is out of good faith.

I am suggesting we unblock Defender 911.

This is not going to be easy for the community to do. There was very serious disruption caused by this user, and it stemmed from disrespecting an editors right to vanish. However, what I suggest is that we keep a close eye on Defender, and place him on civility probation. Yes, I know this would be a tough unblock, but I'm certain if he really has reformed, he can be an asset once more.

After all, we all lose sight once in awhile. :) Maser 06:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly, strongly oppose Defender 911 being unblocked or unbanned. His actions just prior to his banning showed a serious inability to use common sense, showed how this user could be extremely malicious and a danger to good-faithed Misplaced Pages editors (in the interests of privacy for those involved I can obviously not provide details), a total disregard for established users' warnings both about his userspace editing and his harassment of other editors, and a general inability to be involved in a community environment without causing excessive disturbance. Sorry, but I don't want Defender 911 to be editing Misplaced Pages ny time soon, both to protect users who are far more valuable than him from his harassment and also to prevent other, less noticeable yet just as effective disruption. I strongly oppose unbanning. Daniel 06:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we have some diffs of the example behavior which caused the ban in the first place? It's unusual for someone to be banned on first offense, as it appears so here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding many have been oversighted. It would be inappropriate to rehost the harassment that resulted in the block, really. For some more tame stuff see the recent contributions (the last 100) — although, it must be said, that is only the tip of the iceberg and the end of the whole story. Furthermore, it was hardly the users' "first offence" — Defender 911 had so many warnings, so many conditional no-blocks (for a small selection see the last version of the user talk page before the block). Daniel 06:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards