| Revision as of 15:40, 24 February 2007 view sourceWerdnabot (talk | contribs)60,702 editsm Automated archival of 13 sections from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:05, 26 February 2007 view source Thatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits split archive (too big)Next edit → | ||
| Line 1,963: | Line 1,963: | ||
| <span id="63296782077" /> | <span id="63296782077" /> | ||
| == ] == | |||
| I've started a ] on adminship and its procedures, to find out if a substantial majority of editors believe that certain changes should be made to our procedure or precedent. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated! :) - ] 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296837817" /> | |||
| == Recruitment for Vandal Fighter backlog == | |||
| The tools we use for counter vandalism have improved in leaps and bounds; and its been key to maintaining Misplaced Pages stability. However, I've found even with these tools blatant vandalism is getting by our overworked first responders. I stopped going counter-vandalism a while back as real life got in the way and new admins and tools seemed to be doing the job. | |||
| But recently I've been running ] in the background while I browse Misplaced Pages then scroll through the backlog about once every hour or two. Now while there isn't a lot of vandalism to clean up; there is a significant amount of blatant vandalism I still come across like which took almost an hour to be reverted. | |||
| So I'd like to recruit and get a little help recruiting people to effectively use this passive tool so that we can catch this blatant stuff that slips by. I suppose a mini tutorial would help for new and experienced users alike not familiar to VF: | |||
| *English VF 3.3 download | |||
| *Run file and click Connect button, ideally run VF and browser in windows next to each (overlapping) to easily switch back and forth | |||
| *Go to configuration tab and ensure "Automatically remove old edits..." and "Show only IP edits." are enabled. | |||
| *Change the color scheme so that it makes sense to you and draws your eye to suspicious edits, while not tiring your eyes. (I recommend a dull color like gray for normal IP edits) | |||
| *Hopefully you have a tabbed browser, which will make opening/closing multiple pages easier | |||
| *Then go to Live RC tab and rearrange the columns so that you can see article, editor, +/-, summary together | |||
| *Begin looking for Admins and others (by looking for reversion edit summaries) and adding them to your whitelist (by clicking on Wlist column) so that you can focus on anon edits | |||
| *Begin looking for vandalism, clues include: [[WP:AES| (which means there was a blank edit summary), large +/- numbers, especially for sub-sections (big changes in the article), bold edits (which are highrisk edits) | |||
| *When you reach the bottom of the list click "clear list" button and distract yourself with real life for a while as a backlog builds and do it all again! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| Hopefully we can improve and organize our 2nd-tier Counter-Vandalism response. Feedback welcome, and if I should improve/post this elsewhere. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If you click on the User Lists tab, there is an option at the bottom to automatically import all admins to your whitelist. Also don't forget you can blacklist anyone you see vandalizing. <b><font color="blue">]</font></b><font color="blue">6</font><sup> <font color="green">]</font></sup> 06:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah yes, never really worked properly for me (admin import); but good suggestions. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 06:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296832657" /> | |||
| == WP:ATT: the policy you can't live without == | |||
| It seems that the good people who have worked very hard to unite ] and ] into the brilliant ] have all gone to sleep, so I'm asking you all to have a look at it, because it has now gone live! It is scheduled to replace ] and ] in one week. (I hope most of you have already heard about it, and that I'm posting here as a mere formality.) --] 04:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I will look it over. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :ILIKEIT. Good work to SlimVirgin, Jossi, Pmanderson, Merzul, Steve block, et al. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :OMG, you're kidding me. Now what. Will ] acquire and merge ] and every other core policy as well? Then will Jimbo have to break it up? ] 04:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, because this is an invalid slippery slope argument, and you know it ;) It's actually not so much the merger that I like, but the far more appropriate terminology. You will no longer have to explain to people why they can't "verify" something by their own analysis. In short, the main benefit here is that we avoids the oxymoron "verifiable, not truth", which is a source of much confusion, IMO. --] 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's just a summary of V and NOR; there's no change. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, it changes absolutely nothing wrt current policy, but I do think attribution is a better word. This will not have any impact for any of our experienced contributors, but it will help new editors understand "verifiability" better. To make it very clear, in terms of life on Misplaced Pages for our main projects, I promise that nothing will change due to this policy. --] 05:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Can we pinch ] off ]? I would imagine it would be used more for this than for the less-visited <15 edits since the turn of the year announcements page. ] ] 10:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: How sly do I have to make this? Will ] acquire so many of our core policies to the point where Jimbo''(Department of Justice)'' will have to ]? ] 00:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Some people have no appreciation for wit. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Maybe, ], would be sly enough... and don't immediately Assume Bad Wits, we're not all from the US. Still, I guess that's no excuse, sorry for not immediately appreciating your cunning word play, I do now :P --] 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296784297" /> | |||
| == legal threats in edit summaries == | |||
| ] has been making legal threats in his edit summaries. I've warned him twice, but if some admin would keep an eye on him that would be kick ass. ] 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Here are his/her and ]. ] 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the report. Hopefully the warnings you've left will be sufficient. Please update us if the situation continues/worsens. Having said that, I've seen serious legal threat problem situations, and I don't think this is one in which we need to warn the Office to expect papers. :) Regards, ] 16:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296815257" /> | |||
| ==Sudden appartion of a seemingly well developed article== | |||
| {{article|Race and intelligence (Research)}}, this article was started yesterday and has less than 50 edits but is already 58KB in size. Given the nature of the subject matter I question this article's rapid development. I'm I a bit off on this one? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't be surprised if this article is a ] candidate. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It doesn't appear to be. It might be a fork of {{article|Race and intelligence}}. ], the individuals who started it did a draft off wiki to get it into a decent state before posting it here. On the surface it doesn't look like anyone did anything fishy here.--] 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, thanks Isotope23, I'll get back to AGFing. :-) {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Honestly, seeing a mature article suddenly appear would pique my interest too. It is the exception around here rather than the norm.--] 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It doesn't appear to be a fork, it's simply the "Research" section of ] broken off to form a new article in ] fashion. I don't see what's surprising about new articles being long and well-developed either, I draft all of my articles off-wiki and I'm sure plenty of people do too. --] (]) 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Maybe I've just been seeing too many poorly written stubs lately. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing people draft up a good article before they post it here.--] 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296793117" /> | |||
| == Laurel Nakadate == | |||
| Can someone please close ]? The nomination has been withdrawn. If this is not the proper place for this request, I apologize. Please tell me what is. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Closed as ], because the nom withdrew and nobody wanted it deleted. --] 18:31, 16 February 2007 (]]]) | |||
| <span id="63296824917" /> | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Serafin has been evading his block, and has been continuing his disruptive editting. He was blocked on 19 January for 1 month, but since then has made 100+ edits ], most of which have been personal attacks and none of which have been useful contributions. if you will read ] you will see how problematic he has been. He has been banned from both Polish and German wikipedias (sometimes known as Aserafin, Bserafin, Cserafin), further indication that his actions are not likely to contribute anything to the English wikipedia. if that wasn't enough of a smoking gun, I would like to direct you to a talk that took place between him and another polish-speaking editor, ]. Much of the discussion is in Polish, but Philip was kind enough to translate it for me ]. the most incriminating part is where he states ''You can rest assured that I will be doing everything to close as many articles as I can.'' This was commented soon after the all the articles he had been editting were protected, and he had been blocked for a month. Can someone please block all his sockpuppets to allow the normal editors with good intentions to continue on wikipedia. and if he uses another anon IP, perhaps semi-protect the pages he has been seen to frequent. | |||
| --] 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : It is simpler just to block with ACB. '']'' 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| what is ACB? and has it been done? | |||
| --] 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296847777" /> | |||
| ==Deleteing protected userpage redirects== | |||
| An editor ] if I would delete ] and ]. They are both protected redirects to redlinks. I am assuming this would be ok since they are redirects to now-deleted userpages, but since they are protected I thought I'd ask here first. If yes, can I assume it is ok to delete protected userspace redirects to redlinks in the future (Of indefinitely blocked users)? This isn't the first time I've encountered one of these and I wasn't sure on what I should do. Also, should I unprotect after deleting? (or does it auto-unprotect? Yes, I'm a new admin :)) ] 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : ] R1, I believe :). As far as I know page protection stays when pages are deleted, but I can't confirm it. Experiment and see :P. '']'' 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Or CSD R2. It's up to you, they are both appropriate. '']'' 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Page protection goes with the page itself. Go ahead and delete them. (ie I'm leaving them for you) ]] 07:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Done and done. Thanks for the help both of you. ] 09:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296864577" /> | |||
| ==Disruptive editor?== | |||
| :''Moved discussion to ] to keep comments about BabyDweezil in one place.'' -- ] 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296858277" /> | |||
| == Category:Disputed fair use images backlog == | |||
| The ] is terribly backlogged. There are many images in there that have been tagged for many months and never taken action on. | |||
| I've done a first step to try to bring that category more in line with the process outlined at WP:CSD. I added instructions to {{tl|Fair use disputed}} telling taggers to give the proper notice to uploaders (as required by CSD I7), and to use {{tl|db-badfairuse}} if the issue has not been resolved after the waiting period. I also created the user-talk notification template to go with it, {{tl|No fair}}. However, to reduce the process overhead, my preferred solution would really be to bring the whole thing in line with the process of {{tl|nrd}} ("no rationale") and {{tl|rfud}} ("replaceable"), i.e. create a dated category queue that leads automatically into ]. Right now, to get an image deleted if it is a clearly invalid fair use, i.e. a plain copyvio, is paradoxically more difficult and more work than getting an image deleted that is perfectly legal but just "replaceable" for the sake of our free-content ideals. It shouldn't be like that. Thoughts? ] ] 12:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296868837" /> | |||
| == Requesting help == | |||
| There has been a long time vandal on wikipedia known for making well over a dozen sockpuppets, not including I.P's. We have since designated him his two most well known alias' ] and ]... at first we believed that he just didnt understand some aspects of Misplaced Pages policy however i came incresing clear that the user had no intention of listing or paying attention (notable disruptions include the repeated reverts on the ] article to a previous version of his which has forced the page into numorous Vprotects stopping all edits). Many attempts through various means including personal emails have been made by ], ], and admins ] and ] but they have all ended with the admins having no choice but to block the user puppets indefinitely. After months of personal attacks (on wikipedia and via email) and repeated breaks in wikipedia policy im looking for any ideas short of letting him forcedly keep pages like Brock Lesnar the way he wants them. --- ] 15:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296923497" /> | |||
| == Harassment == | |||
| Could someone go through and remove the obvious and unending harassment of me in this section ]. I'd do it, but I'd like a third party to for impartiality. Someone made some inappropriate and off-topic comments on there months ago, and some people (or one person with proxy access) just will not let it die by continuing to harass me there and then often vandalizing my user page and talk page with the same IPs.--] 16:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm so glad we got rid of ]. The harassment continues and no one wants to get involved.--] 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Antandrus has pruned the thread and I blocked the latest harasser. Looks like you've got a bit of a stalker on your hands, though... —] ] ] 03:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I removed the whole thread. It was just too difficult to excise individual harassing posts (there were many). Under talk page guidelines, threads which have nothing to do with improving the article can go, as you pointed out yourself there. It was quite clear there were some individuals bent on harassing you personally (I remember reverting a couple of them today). I hope this helps, ] ] 03:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, and could this go on AN/I next time? That board is more geared toward this type of stuff and will probably get you a faster response. —] ] ] 03:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure thing. Trying to figure out who the stalker is on that page would be rather difficult. A number of point of view pushers got really upset that I wouldn't let them fill the article with unsourced opinion and agenda, and of course the user who's off-topic comment I removed got quite riled up as well. If I didn't communicate with IPs so often I'd ask to have my page semi-protected (as I've seen it done on occasion) but get the odd legitimate question from an IP on my talk page so I wouldn't want to lock them out.--] 06:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296893557" /> | |||
| == CAT:RFU opposition == | |||
| I am not sure what to do as this is my first time coming to the determination that I am in weak opposition to a block issued. I have notified issuing admin ] that he may have incorrectly blocked ]. Please post to my talk page with any advice on how to handle this determination. ] 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :My first step is usually discussion with the blocking admin -- sometimes they'll know something I don't, or there were sockpuppets/deleted edits/some other skeleton in the closet. If that doesn't yield anything fruitful, I see if they'd be willing to see the block reduced or lifted. If the two of us can't reach some sort of agreement, then bring it to the community for a larger discussion -- AN, AN/I, maybe CN now that we have another. Something like that, anyway; there's no set rules, and some people do come directly to the noticeboards. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you seek ample evidence, go to my talk page and click on "history". All IP adresses can be traced to the same town, that of Jacknicholson/Marshalbanana. I'll try and sort this out tomorrow. ] 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here's an email I got from ] explaining the situation: | |||
| ::Marshalbannana aka Marshal2.0 aka Jacknicholson (indef-banned for puppetry) has a long history of puppetry and anon-IP edit-pushing (on Katana, trying to insert a youtube video for months, eventually resulting in full protection being required). After I (Misplaced Pages User:jesup) accused him/Jacknicholson of sockpuppetry , he started abusing my user page and later (after user was sprotected) my Talk page occasionally (still doing it as of last weekend). | |||
| ::Appears to be a high-school student from somewhere in the south, perhaps Georgia, on a dynamic IP (BellSouth) which frequently changes or he forces changes. | |||
| He seems to have started vandalising my userspace too, but Luna et al. are quick to revert it. However, seems to have got past unnoticed. I'll reinsert it tomorrow, if only to please my bureaucratic urges.. ] 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, and there's at ANI. ] 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296886057" /> | |||
| == User:Confusingone == | |||
| ] keeps posting the same personal attack on my talk. Given his/her attitude it seems like a warning would be more strongly received if it came from a third party. ] 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Gave it {{tl|bv}}. Half-inclined to just block an be done with it -- high probability this is a trollsock, as I'm reading it. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I would say you're probably right - he appeared right after We have 6 heads was blocked, who got in one vandalistic talk message to me before being blocked. Sigh... children.] 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296893017" /> | |||
| == Easy solution to inappropriate usernames == | |||
| Instead of individual admins blocking accounts that have bad usernames, why doesn't Misplaced Pages just modify the software so that names that contain certain key words (e.g. fuck, shit) can't be created in the first place? That would save the admins a lot of time.--] 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Because software can't make a judgment call - many real, proper names across the world happen to have "shit" buried in the middle of them. Also, the software can't make judgment calls in the opposite direction - User:Sh1t would be blocked by a human, but not by a computer. '''〈<font color="red">]</font><font color="red">]</font>〉''' 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I daresay it would be possible (use letter-number regexp). 99% of usernames containing "fuck" or "shit" are bad anyway. '']'' 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Shitomi" would be legitimate, whereas "Shitonme" would not be.<br />However, this is a solution looking for a problem. Let's just leave the system as-is; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 21:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::(edit conflict) Is it really necessary, is the real question. I've looked at the user creation log occasionally, and out of, say, 100 names, I've never seen more than 2 that were inappropriate, and more often 0. And in my experience, most people with inappropriate usernames turn out to be vandals, so they get noticed and blocked pretty quickly. ] 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I still remember the ], I have no faith on automatic systems. In all cases ] works pretty well. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The major point with this is that inappropriate username accounts aren't a problem until somebody starts editing with them and these are quickly dealt with at ] and ], many accounts are created and never used ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296918997" /> | |||
| ==Has Misplaced Pages been down?== | |||
| This might be an inappropriate place to put this, but I was just wondering if anyone else has had problems with logging onto wikipedia? I've had to delete all my cookies and temporary internet files to get back on and my watchlist hasn't changed since I first started having problems 40 minutes ago ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 23:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I did too, but it is fine now. —''']''' 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ya, it was hard, but I got through it. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I had the same problem not too long ago and I'm still experiencing some problems when editing. But with this piece of crap my parents call a "computer," I'm not really surprised. // ] 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sure we'll get a report about it, but the load balancer went down and no backups of the config could be found. As soon as they moved the A record over to the IP of a backup load-balancer, everything came back up. —] ] ] 23:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well thank god its back up, I started having a nervous breakdown! ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 23:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::During ], I think some came close to suicide. It wouldn't have suprised me at the the time if #wikipedia had caused freenode to crash. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 05:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ooohh yeah, and the article links to ]. I was just an IP occasionally fixing back then, so it just left me bored for a day. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296920857" /> | |||
| ==New ] addition== | |||
| After much discussion and back and forth I have added a section and subsection to ] arrived at by a number of the parties involved in this. I invite those who have been following these developments to ] this new section. As well as the ] that developed it. Thanks. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 23:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Somewhat ambiguous for new users. I know what it means but I doubt a newbie would. ]] 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::True, this addition is meant as a citeable reference for folks to use in encouraging users to remove simulated MediaWiki content. At this point it has been left like that to avoid ] about how to simulate MediaWiki content and also to ]. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The version I put online didn't have the Jimbo quote ref. that is currently showing which is rather out of place now. That was added by ] who I requested to remove it. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 00:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, its not a major quote and consequently seems irrelvant. ]] 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I'm happy for anyone to remove it if it seems out of place. This is a wiki, after all :). '']'' 03:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't think it should be removed ... rather, the language should be made stronger. The "you have new messages" joke is merely annoying ... but someone could spoof the donation link and that would be more than annoying. We should definitely have it written down that spoofing the interface or any official content is not permitted. --] 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::BigDT, there's a big <s>lack of consensus</s> gray area in terms of consensus to do what you are talking about. Before editing in support of your thinking I would highly recommend you properly research this as this was the source of serious disruption for the past few days. Cheers. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296935497" /> | |||
| == Block review == | |||
| I am here requesting that my indefinite block of {{userlinks|Nirelan}} be reviewed. I had originally blocked him because I found that he was using sockpuppets to game 3RR at {{la|Dave Winer}}. After {{userlinks|Nirelan2}} showed up, I extended the block to a week. The block expired recently, and it was brought to my attention that he edit warring, again, I blocked him, as are to ] as well as a handful outside of that article. Now that I look back on it, an indefinite block may have been a bit much, but disruptive activity like Nirelan's should not be allowed to continue.—] (]) 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *There are a few more edits at ].—] (]) 01:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it should be trimmed down to between two weeks — a month. I don't think blocks on users like this should be done unilaterally; if the same disruptive editing continues after the block, take it to the ] (I doubt much resistance will be found). —] ] ] 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Duly noted and changed to a month.—] (]) 10:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296953317" /> | |||
| == Autobiographical edit == | |||
| I noticed that the user {{user2|Ken Perlin}} has edited about ]. The edits are in good faith, but it ] if the editor is Dr. Perlin himself. I request an admin to look into this matter. — ] (]) 11:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : The ] does not prohibit it, though it is suggested that the subject add to the talk page rather than the main article. As he is a new editor, he was likely not aware of the guideline. I left him a note on his talk page referring him to the guideline. — ] (]) 15:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296997640" /> | |||
| ==Libel risk on ]== | |||
| Could an admin please urgently purge this revision from the edit history. Staines, the subject of the article, claimes that the Guardian newspaper published a retraction of the referenced article and has threatened anyone who links to it with libel suits. , . I'd also recommend purging *this* edit when completed. Cheers, ] 09:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And also references on the talk page. Cheers, ] 11:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree. The user was told on his talk page. This story has been mentioned on half-a-dozen blogs, and *all* have since referred to Staines legal threats and taken them down, so I think the anon's claims that he's just referring to a 1986 Guardian article innocently (and 1986 Guardian articles are not exactly something you'd just stumble on - it's only been mentioned on these blogs (and copied from one to another, and each now accompanied by legal threats)). ] 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your patience. I propose a solution on the Paul Staines talk page.] 12:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nobody interested in this? Fys has also joined the battle now. See my talk page for some more discussion. ] 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Personal attack there from Nss.. who is wikistalking me. The article in question is still available on several blogs. I'm not suggesting we do link to it, but merely linking to it does not open Misplaced Pages to a libel risk even if the article was held libellous. ]. “] ] ]”. 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's not a personal attack. The fact is that this incident which previously just involved the anon IP now involves you as well. There is most definitely a battle, as is obvious from all your reverts and the series of posts on my talk page. You accusing me of wikistalking seems to me be the real personal attack. ] 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Stop implying that I support inclusion of the article when you know full well I don't. You are wikistalking me, reverting all my edits and nominating pages I have written for deletion. You can't hide your actions behind the cloak of claiming it's a personal attack. ]. “] ] ]”. 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I have responded to your silly wikistalking allegations on my talk page. I will not be wasting more of my time on them. ] 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Another personal attack. ]. “] ] ]”. 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What's personal about that? 1. The allegations are silly, as I've already explained on my talk page. 2. I have responded to them already, so you are wasting my time bringing them up here, where we are trying to clear up a legal issue, not conduct petty squabbles. ] 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The one reliable reference we had linking Staines to the Guido Fawkes blog has been taken out. If Staines is litigious then we are exposing Misplaced Pages to a big risk. I have tried to take out scandal sheet refs, but I think someone else is tinkering about putting then back in. | |||
| Ok, we now have at least two newpaper articles that link him to the blog.--] 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296984320" /> | |||
| == Consensus standards for deletion == | |||
| An admin has been closing AfDs with different standards for deletion than some others expect. While specific instances can be taken to DRV (having been raised with him first), the issue is perhaps that there is lack of shared understanding as to what "rough consensus" might mean. ] perhaps gives insufficient guidance. ] states ''the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision''. ] - a rejected policy but perhaps the content is useful because it reflects past decisions, states consensus is ''two-thirds or larger majority support for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)''. Specifically what is the appropriate closure for only 56% delete out of a vote of 16 - ie 9:7 with also an 8th keep vote from a new user? --] <sup>]</sup> 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please let us know what AFDs you are talking about. AFD is not a vote, the closing admin must and does take into account the quality of the arguments. ] ] 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::When I get a moment I will post at DRV so specific merits of the case can be considered. My point in raising here is have I missed something - the standard for consensus was 75% - translated as the range 60-80%, 56% seems too far outside that standard notwithstanding the merits of the argument. If it is to do with the merits of the argument beyond numbers providing consensus then surely the closing admin should comment to that effect - he didn't, not even when asked politely on his talk page, from which I conclude a different standard applies. Is that standard agreed?--] <sup>]</sup> 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is impossible to give you a straight answer without knowing what AFD you are talking about. AFD is not a vote. If we have 50% of people in an AFD discussion arguing for deletion because the article violates all kinds of policies, and 50% arguing for it to be kept because "it is awesome", it will be deleted. ] ] 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| What Proto said. Please, don't take anything to DRV if your only objection to the closure is that vote-counting gave a low number. ] ] 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Surely, if the article "violates all kinds of policies" or there is some other reason for ignoring the numbers, the closing admin should specify that, not say merely, "The result was delete." and refuse to comment when queried politely as to the rationale for his decision. What I am seeking here is a clarification of the guidelines for deletion, ie that if consensus is less than say 60%, then further rationale should be given in the comments by the closing admin.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] contains three relevant requests, all were closed without clear consensus as per simple numbers and no rationale was provided by the (same) closing admin. I am more than happy to accept that the arguments are important, but then the weight placed on those arguments has to be articulated in the decision.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, there is no policy or guideline that says that an admin must specify her reasons for closing an AfD the way she closes it. Many of us do so out of courtesy when it's not obvious, but we are not required to. If you'd like to introduce such a policy, you need to do so on a community-wide level; there's no point in complaining here. ] 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::However, it is a good idea to provide something more than "the result of the discussion was", not least because it prevents discussions like this one from occurring in the first place. Remember the adage about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. ] 03:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The deletion guideline for admins states quite clearly rough concensus should be achieved - closing AfD is not on the whim of an admin. Rough concensus is a numerical figure unless there are other factors taken into account - that figure has been expressed previously as 75% for AfD or at least in the range of 60-80%. I think admins are accountable beyond mere courtesy to explain their decisions when they are not obvious as per the guidelines -ie when they are ignoring the numbers and considering the weight of arguments. Is that not a shared view? That is the issue I am exploring here - not so much making a complaint. My complaint has been made at DRV where it belonged.--] <sup>]</sup> 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know, but I don't share it. Consensus is ''never'' numerical. Someone making a nonsensical argument will always be ignored, no matter what, whether they agree with the consensus or not, whether I happen to mention it in the closing message or not. ] 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Does that mean that there is no accountability in AfD ? The closing admin can do as he pleases and need not explain why he did it ? ] 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Who said anything about no-accountability? There is ] for deletion review. The process is not perfect, but it is not incomplete either. — ] ] 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Closing an AFD (or other) discussion often does require a significant amount of judgement, and numerical vote counting is certainly not required and is in fact ''discouraged''. However, I do agree that the closing admin should explain his decisions, especially if queried. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>2007-02-16 05:43Z</small></i></span> | |||
| ::::I have no difficulty with reaching a conclusion that is not number driven, my difficulty is with the lack of explanation of that decision, including after querying. DRV does not incidentally provide the form of review necessary - ] for the article which drew my attention to the differing standard or lack of explanation (whichever I can't be sure since the closing admin won't reveal his reasoning, illustrates that DRV does not provide accountability, the closing admin hasn't contributed his raationale there and it is a review but not of the decision making because it can't because the rationale for the decision has not been provided (maniacal laugh). Some of that debate focuses on the issue that consensus isn't about numbers. ] is policy and does actually mention numbers - therefore to ignore the numbers, surely you have to explain yourself.--] <sup>]</sup> 09:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I wouldn't push the "WP:Consensus lists numerical thresholds" point; it won't help you because anyone that has experience with AFD discussions knows that !vote percentages often don't mean anything (much more so than at RFA), and in fact hurts your cause because it's too easy to refute. I think your main concern here is the lack of explanation when asked. DRV may be the right forum in theory, but in practice, I have often seen participants of DRV say "keep deleted" if they agree with deletion, without considering whether proper procedure was followed. Refusal to explain admin actions is really a conduct issue and the forum for that would be ]. However, if this is an isolated incident, I would let it go, since admins do have discretion in closing AFD discussions. Bring it up at RFC if objectionable conduct persists. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>2007-02-16 21:07Z</small></i></span> | |||
| :Yeesh, what is it with this 'we do not have to explain' kick lately? First people claiming that they can just say 'BLP' and not have to explain what they thought was 'controversial' and now this. Yes, you have to explain. ''Always''. It's called 'collaboration 101'... or ] if you prefer the official site guideline. If the reason isn't obvious (as in... if someone asks what it is) then yes, you need to explain it. People explaining themselves is a fundamental courtesy without which Misplaced Pages couldn't function at all. --] 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Now subject of an RfC at ]--] <sup>]</sup> 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296991400" /> | |||
| == Indexing the AN archive == | |||
| I've been meaning to try this for a while. I've created what should be an index to the archives of this page: ]. If people think it's useful, I can probably fashion it into a bot. Regards, ] 11:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks great (except for the encoding problems). For questions such as "When was the ban of ''Someuser'' discussed", it should be very useful. ] ] 11:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yup. Somethings going odd in the initial download, but I'm not sure what. I guess it's do to with the character set being used. I'll have a go at fixing that tomorrow. The links should still work, even if they look a bit odd. Any other problems anyone can see? ] 11:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No problems that I can see. But man. We need to get you bored more often! :) --]<sup>]</sup> 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If this is to be useful, we really need to start renaming threads with useful descriptive headings referring to the exact page or user under discussion. I've just renamed this thread - and I suggest we encourage people to rename threads with specific titles from here on in.--]<sup>g</sup> 13:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Still banging my head against the long characters. And there's one or two cases where the redirect gets slightly confused, it hits the right archive, but not the right section in it. (Which may be a wikimedia bug in how multiple spaces in headings get handled under some, but not all, circumstances.) Anyway, I'll have to redo it when/if I work out how to handle long characters better, but I think it broadly works. Is it useful enough as is to move to, say, ] and link from somewhere? If so, I'll do the same thing for ANI as well. Regards, ] 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've moved ] to ] and linked to them from ] and ]. I'll now generate ] and ]. If everything looks OK to everyone, I'll move and add them as well. Regards, ] 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Done. Regards, ] 21:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Indexing ]=== | |||
| ::This could be a useful thing elsewhere. There was a recent discussion at ] about rejected cases not being archived or listed somewhere. This sort of index would help in locating these if the TOC from the page history of ] could be scanned like this. ] 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reading the history is no problem, but there would need to be something specific for the script to look for. It's not obvious what. What would help would be if we changed the template so that instead of: | |||
| :::# (cur) (last) 02:20, 5 February 2007 Paul August (Talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0) - Decline) | |||
| :::# (cur) (last) 02:19, 5 February 2007 Paul August (Talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0) - Accept) | |||
| :::We had something more like: | |||
| :::# (cur) (last) 19:02, 5 February 2007 Barney Rubble (Talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing 'Fred vs Wilma' (4/1/0/0) - Accept) | |||
| :::Without something like that, it's hard to know what to look for. I guess it would be possible to say something like here is the first and last times that an edit was made to a section with this name, but I'm not sure how useful that would be? Regards, ] 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was thinking more in terms of the bot looking at one version of the page for each day, and picking up the case names from the headers, just to show what cases were open at that moment. Then the scanned headers could be alphabetized with a link to the version it came from. It would miss the exact moment the case was removed from the page, but would make it easier to find cases nonetheless. If someone doesn't remember the date that a case was filed, just having the date is good; as is being able to check the index to see if a user or an article has been the subject of a proposed case before. ] 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, that could work. Recovering the full history will mean at least couple of hundred lookups but it won't have to be done often. Once that's done, it might be useful to use binary split to find the very last version of each case, but first things first. Good idea. Regards, ] 20:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think the Arbitration Committee Clerks and helpers could probably assist in compiling whatever index or information was required, especially if the arbitrators endorsed the idea. Doing it in a way that doesn't require major reconfiguration of the entire RfAr page would certainly make it easier. ] 01:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296990800" /> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Who'd have thought that a short, innocuous essay on measures by which Misplaced Pages could be considered to be failing would cause so much ill feeling? First people tried to re-write it so that it said Misplaced Pages was succeeding. I got blocked for trying to prevent them from doing that. Then the bowdlerised version got moved to my user space while I was blocked. Now ] has deleted the link from the original location to the present location. Not only that but he's also protected it to prevent recreation. | |||
| Given that the essay was linked from slashdot, it seems not unreasonable to provide a redirect so that people wanting to see what was written can do so. In addition, JzG has stated that cross-namespace redirects must be deleted. However, ] clearly states that 'a cross-space redirect '''out of article space'''' is deletable, not just any redirect that an admin decides they don't like. | |||
| Thoughts, anyone? ] 23:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, you were blocked for ] for this edit war | |||
| ::That said, I believe the redirect should be left there so people can find the essay. While there were issues with ownership of the essay when it was in the namespace, it is now in user space. There are also a lot of people coming to this essay from outside WP. Will others support restoring the redirect?--] 23:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see no reason why Misplaced Pages needs to host demolition job essays on itself. We're not a soapbox. There's plenty other sites that will only to happily host this for you. Plus, essays in project space are actually improperly so called, they are corporate works that are open to ammendment. So people are entitled to change it to whatever. So, even if it was allowed, it will not be the essay slashdot featured - but something else. If you want a monographed essay, it needs either to be in userspace or off-wiki.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I deleted ] and ], redirects to the essay. I would suggest moving the essay to Meta and creating a soft redirect there, but I am not sure if the essay would stay in Meta for longer than here. Redirects to nowhere are not useful, being them in the main namespace or in the Misplaced Pages one. -- ] 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| So, Doc, you actually think that Misplaced Pages editors should not be allowed to point out potential failings of Misplaced Pages? ] 00:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The title alone seems to be pushing a point of view that is far from proven. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *This article and this section are patent trolling. I guess it worked since I'm responding, but still. Please don't feed the trolls. --] ] 00:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *You hit the nail on the head.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:Really? It seems like intelligent constructive criticism to me. What am I missing? -]<sup>(])</sup> 00:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Worldtraveller has done tremendous good for Misplaced Pages, with all his featured article writing and other efforts. His input and thoughts should be welcome, even if they are critical. We should be able to accept criticism and have discussions on how to make Misplaced Pages better. I think the focus on where the essay should be detracts from more constructive discussion. I'm also not interested so much on specific metrics used to judge whether an article is "good" or whatever. My main concern is about the rise in (seemingly so) in vandalism, tendentious editing, harassment, and other things that (1) make the editing environment less comfortable (2) less productive, as I'm increasingly sidetracked to deal with administrative tasks and maintaining articles. If we can find some ways to improve the situation, so that editors can be more comfortable and productive for long-time users as well as newbies. The way that Worldtraveller has been treated is very bothersome to me and poisons the well. I'm really in no mood to edit and work on articles. It's disheartening. --] <small>(])</small> 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The reaction to this article probably did more to prove Worldtraveller's point than an evening of RC patrol would have done. On a good day, I may have a total of an hour to work on WP. Most of that time is taken up checking my watchlist and reverting stupid edits in those articles - and not a one of the articles on my watchlist is anywhere near as good as the ones Worldtraveller is associated with. ] 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I read this when it was first linked from Slashdot, and I'm surprised to see so much angst about it. It seemed like a reasonable examination of some things the principle writer was interested in, and it just didn't seem all that controversial. I don't remember seeing anything I haven't heard others say. It seems like a more useful response would be to let the guy have his say, and then write and link to an essay of your own, ''Why Misplaced Pages is Succeeding Brilliantly''. Maybe I'm missing the point. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :From ]: | |||
| ::''7. Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. '' | |||
| :Jimbo goes on to explain that we're not talking about unconstructive bitching, but thoughtfully presented critique. I guess readers can decide for themselves whether ]'s points are constructive or not. I found the essay an interesting read, although I don't agree with everything in it. -]<sup>(])</sup> 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hence my earlier point about keeping the redirect to the essay. Will others support this?--] 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : No. This is not about respecting or not respecting Worldtraveller's grievances (I respect them just fine, I'm in discussion rigt now with WT about this). It's about ], pure and simple. The essay made several salient points that were well worth making, but it had some issues that others wanted to correct. That's how Misplaced Pages works. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Rarely I do anything controversial, but for the sake of readers following bookmarks and links to this page (to find the essay) the redirect page needs to stay. I have restored it, and if anything this needs to follow process and go to AFD. Please quit edit warring over what IMHO are petty details and wikilawyering. --] <small>(])</small> 00:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :FYI, this specific link is bookmarked 26 times on For a page that has only been around a few days, that's a lot. Surely there are scores of other links and bookmarks that people have out there. --] <small>(])</small> 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is the sort of analysis we should be encouraging. It seems well researched, accurate and thoughtful, and can only lead to an improvement in the project. Self-criticism is vital. ] 06:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is dumb. Regardless of the merits or flaws of the essay itself, it has been widely read, linked, and discussed; bickering about what namespace it belongs in and where the redirect should go is bureaucratic and lame. There isn't an eyeroll big enough for the argument that we should let masses of slashdotters' bookmarks go dead because of an obscure internal policy that doesn't even really apply here. ] 07:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Maybe I missed out here, but wasn't part of the original problem that the original author wanted to ] the essay in question? If so then the redirect would just seem to be a way for him to bypass that need by keeping it in userspace, whilst providing the "benefit" of an "official" url. The brief statement and valid link which is there at the moment looks like it sidesteps the issue of broken bookmarks, but I guess this should ultimately go. --] 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Precisely. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Anybody who is more concerned with the essay than with the reaction to it is missing the big picture. We should ''encourage'' this type of analysis and critique. The ability to look critically at the project is the exact thing that is needed if the title of the essay is to be proved false. Frankly, I think the essay should be moved back to project space and all the redirects restored. —] <sup>]</sup> 09:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] was created as an essay. It was linked from Slashdot. It contained numerous points that were contested. The originator was unwilling to allow any edits to it, resulting in a lame edit war. It was userfied. I deleted the redirect as a cross-namespace redirect and because you don't get to take your ball home if someone points out you're getting the rules wrong. I suggest it stays that way. We really do not need people setting up essays, flatly refusing to allow them to be edited,. getting them on Slashdot, and then asserting ownership (by whatever means). Links back to the essay from Project space give all the coverage and publicity but without the "owner" allowing the Misplaced Pages community to challenge the assertions in any way, which is fundamentally against the Misplaced Pages ethos. ''Fundamentally'' against. Either it's an essay in project space and gets edited mercilessly to fix the problems which numeorus editors pointed out with is basis, or it is a user page in user space. ] MySpace, you don't get to have ''your'' say as the ''only'' authoritative version. You just don't. This has nothign to do with not allowing analysuis and critique, the critique was fine as long as other editors were allowed ot give their context, it's all about saying "This is ''my'' essay that Slashdotters see, and ''nobody else'' can correct it". | |||
| : For the record I am perfectly happy to have the edited essay back at that site, or nothing, but pointing everybody back to an essay ]ed by a particular editor is simply not right. It wold, as far as I can tell, be unprecedented to allow a user to override the "edited mercilessly" clause in this way. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. Allow it to remain in user space. We cannot censor users for criticising Misplaced Pages, but they cannot claim ownership over Misplaced Pages space. — ] ] 10:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I would like to say that actually I thought it was a perfectly legitimate essay, and the edited version was shaping up reasonably well, the problem is not that it criticises Misplaced Pages but that the editor asserts ]. If someone wants to poke a stick at Misplaced Pages without it being in any way challenged for accuracy or interpretation, they need to do it on someone else's servers, is all. Combining high traffic with ] is a very bad idea. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Well said. Regards, ] 10:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''allowing the Misplaced Pages community to challenge the assertions''<br>I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of an essay. An essay is to present a ''point of view''. An essay doesn't need to and in fact really shouldn't try to present all points of view. I haven't looked at the history, but if the attempts to ''challenge the assertions'' were for the purpose of trying to correct factual errors, then you have a point. If the purpose of the challenges was to present an alternate point of view, then you don't. —] <sup>]</sup> 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The 'ownership' stuff is bullshit. Everyone's happy to trumpet all this 'this is a wiki, anyone can change anything', but you all implicitly assume that ]'s altering of the essay so that it concluded that Misplaced Pages is succeeding was backed by ]. You seem to not get that obviously, the only consensus view is that 'Misplaced Pages might have problems and it might not', and altering an essay so it says that is hardly useful work. Some rather more sensible people were challenging the assertions of the essay, not by removing all critical material, but by '''discussing on the talk page'''. That's really quite a useful thing. JzG appears to not want any discussion of a critical position to happen. | |||
| If someone edits ] so that it's actually all about ], and someone else repeatedly reverts back, are they asserting ownership? ] 10:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Groan. Wikidrama galore! Actually, ownership issues apart, it was good to see someone finally raise the point of the infuriating lack of importance that we attach to quality articles, and our wrongheaded and somewhat rabid fondness for quantity over quality. ] <sup> ]</sup> 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it is useful. But if he keeps on reverting other users' edits, it's an ] issue. We are not against censoring him. Just that Misplaced Pages space should not redirect to his userspace. ] and high-traffic are a lethal concoction. — ] ] 11:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, maybe not lethal, but certainly against the principles of the project. The best result is obviously to have the essay back in project space and edited by those who want to extend or clarify it. As far as I can tell the only person who has a serious problem with that is Worldtraveller. Pride in one's writing is one thing, ] is another. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why exactly should there not be a link from where the essay was to where it is now? Do you understand that there was not a redirect, but just a link? Do you understand that changing an essay so it says '''entirely the opposite''' of what it said originally, '''without getting any consensus for the change''', is disruptive, and that reverting disruptive changes has nothing to do with the 'ownership' you're bleating on and on about? ] 12:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: We don't have "official" versions. Maybe if we did the degradation of featured articles which you and others identify would be less of a problem. But rightly or wrongly we don't have that. Here's a possible solution: somewhere around there is a Slashdotted template, which I think allows for diff-linking the version they linked, to go on Talk. Why not subst {{tl|High traffic}} on Talk and add the diff link? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think you're under the impression that I added the link to the older version. That was not the case. I've been a bit mystified about how you kept on reverting it quoting ] - I see your mistake now. ] 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I strongly believe Guy is wiki-lawyering to find any available excuse to cover from public view a widely publicized analysis of the state of Misplaced Pages. The soft redirect page linked to the original essay, as well as the rebuttal; how more balanced could the situation be? The talk page for the original article contains a wide variety of extremely useful discussion about the current issues with the Misplaced Pages model and what should be done to fix them. The censoring of the article and its associated discussion is intolerable, and if it continues it clearly indicates that wikipedia has already failed and it's community has come under the control of a ] regime. (] 13:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| :This is so disgusting that JzG is wikilawyering over the redirect page. Not only was the essay by Worldtraveller linked there, but so were several other opposing and "rebuttal" essays. Honestly, I have no clue where those rebuttal essays are now and can't find 'em. You are depriving me to be able to read those, in addition to scores of people coming in from bookmarks and external links into Misplaced Pages from reading the essay by Worldtraveller. The page should not be unilaterally deleted. If anything, this needs to go to ]. --] <small>(])</small> 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand Guy's point about ownership. I'm not saying that's what happened, because I wasn't involved in the editing, but it is a legitimate concern. I don't think Guy is wikilawyering or trying to cover up anything. At the same time, I don't expect essays to be individually balanced, but to balance out in the aggregate by other essays from other points of view. Everyone can edit it, of course, but rather than completely change the direction of the essay it would be better to write another essay elsewhere. I mean I could in theory go edit ] to be instead about Superman's obligation to save the world, but I would do better to write about that under a different title. I thought the disambiguation page was useful. Would linking to a particular version of the essay be helpful? Restore the page, and add a note at the top, "This version was linked from Slashdot on Wednesday" or something? Of course someone could host it off-site, but I'm not sure that's the best outcome for Misplaced Pages. Let me say too that for someone from outside going to read about how 'Misplaced Pages is failing', it looks bad to get ''This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation.'' I don't think that's the best option for the long term. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is nothing stopping Guy or anyone else from forking the essay by Worldtraveller and creating a version they think is "right". I would indeed like to read responses to Worldtraveller's essay and other viewpoints. Right now, all those links are gone and denied to me and outside readers coming in. --] <small>(])</small> 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Tom, thanks - and don't get me wrong, I don't think the essay has to be balanced or anything, we're pretty clear about essays being held to a lower standard of neutrality than other content, I just don't see how we can allow one editor to assert absolute ownership. Aude, I don't ''want'' to fork it, I want the original back and being edited. If Worldtraveller is content to allow the thing to be edited, and accept that some of the original critiques may be contextualised or explained, then I have no problem at all. For me, the best result is to have the essay back in project space and being edited. Sure, from time to time someone might "subvert" it, but we can deal with that in the usual way. It's not like we've never been there before. This is absolutely not about Wikilawyering, it's about ] and ] and ] a free webhost and a whole lot of other things that get violated as soon as we allow people to start insisting on ''their'' version of something. It's a route down which I think many of us would rather not start. So: let's have the essay back and editable (and edited), by all means. Anyone who wants to do that is more than welcome. But please ''please'' let's not have any more of this disgruntled "here's the version I think was right" stuff, it's not the way Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::If returned, I think it is best in his userspace, but it can still be edited by anyone, userspace is not that different. The first edit I would make is to the title, it is pushing a POV that is not proven or generally accepted here. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Title is not especially important, it's a critique and the fact that we still have 1.6 million articles and are a top-ten website (more or less) says everything you need to know to balance it out. We all know that mathematically speaking bumble bees can't fly, and it's not like this is the first time we've been told Misplaced Pages can't possibly work is it? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Okay; can we restore the essay and edit it normally? My first edit would be to add a link to the version that people saw from Slashdot, and any ''See also'' links that aren't already there. I'd like to hear from Sir Nicholas before I undo his protection, but I'd like to have something informative up again as soon as we can. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Yup, no problem whatsoever with that, I've just done it, but linking to the Slashdotted version? No thanks. This is a Wiki, if something is broken we fix it without pointing to the broken version. Not that there's a lot broken about this, but we don't need to have ownership issues and silly "yeah, but I said it better" disputes. Just edit the thing, and if it gets subverted then some of us who agree with the original can edit it back. Just like we usually do. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, if slashdot wants the old one they can go through google cache or history, nobody gets to choose the POV displayed here. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Right. And I think there are enough admins who are sympathetic to the spirit of the thing that we can be reasonably sure it won't get subverted again, or if it does, not for long. Christ, that was like pulling teeth! I really thought it was a blindingly obvious call, but apparently not. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have suggested that the name be changed to "How Misplaced Pages can be better". That essay is simply making up criteria for success and applying it, nowhere in the mandate of Misplaced Pages are any of his criticisms mentioned. I could say the Apollo mission failed because they didn't go to Mars, but it carries no weight because that was not their mandate for success. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I think that the essay as it stands should redirect to a copy of the original in userspace. Obviously, nothing is owned on Misplaced Pages, but an essay in userspace should not be altered by other users. After all, because the essay is a part of the user's domain, it would be assumed that the content has been written by that user (unless it's a talk page, obviously, or a misc placeholder page). ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 14:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The user's domain? Have you read ]? Essays in userspace are no more owned than essays in Misplaced Pages space. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are correct, however, if an essay is edited in a userspace, the outside editor should mark his changes clearly on the essay (unless it fits consensus.) Not doing so would be akin to changing someone's "About Me" section; while nobody owns that section, it's still bad form to misrepresent someone's work... and chances are, things in userspace are likely to be attributed to the user unless explicitly said otherwise. ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Excellent essay! Please maintain it carefully. People should be careful not to nerf it either. Instead, try to figure out ways to fix issues (unless you're sure ''it's a feature, not a bug'', if so, argue so). Use page as checklist! Strike items that you fix ;-) . --] 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) <small>''What, that's not so easy, you say? ;-) ''</small> | |||
| *<s>Keep The essay does point out some failings of Misplaced Pages. I am going to improve the essay quality when I get time, because I see so many people have contributed and made references for the essay Misplaced Pages is NOT failing. --] 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)</s> One of the most pathetic essays ever written. They even removed my 2 cents from the essay. '''Just Delete It.''' --] 01:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296986900" /> | |||
| ==Need some outside input on a problem editor== | |||
| I've been dealing with {{user5|Matrix17}} on and off for a week or so now. He is creating quite a bit of content that isn't of very good quality and he seems to have something of a problem with formatting his articles, as well as what constitutes acceptable external links and sources for a biographical article. It is kind of hard to tell from the way he ] his talk page, but several editors have brought this up to him and his ] would appear to be that he resents being told to do things the right way (I'm not sure what the blocking thing is about; other than telling him he would be blocked if I saw him adding unsourced rumors to ] again, he's never been blocked... just warned). Despite the fact that he's been told some , makes me think that he just expects others to follow him around and clean up the articles he creates. To me that is unacceptable. I'm not trying to be hard on this guy, and at this point he is starting to wear out the patience of the editors who have . Any ideas here? I don't think anyone wants to follow him arond wikifying his articles until the end of time. At this point I'm not sure anything I say to him is going to have much of an effect because I suspect he thinks I "have it out for him". Anyone had a successful approach to getting an editor to start contributing per policies and guidelines?--] 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've placed a vandalism warning on his talk page for a specific edit of his. I've also told him to not remove the warning b/c that is also vandalism.--] 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem is that I don't think the ] edit was meant to be vandalism, he just doesn't seem to understand the concept of what a good sourced edit is as opposed to opinion or rumor, even after the concept has been explained to him. Warnings are probably not going to do a lot of good given his response to every previous interaction... that is why I'm fishing for another approach here. He's obviously run into a similar problem at se.wikipedia.--] 03:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Removal of warnings is '''not''' vandalism. Many people get this misconception due to old obsoleted discussions and templates. -- ] <small>(])</small> 07:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hmm, didn't know removal of warnings was no longer considered vandalism. Can you provide me a link to that change so I'll have it for future reference. Anyway, while I agree most of Matrix17's edits were not vandalism, the ] edit seemed to be clear cut vandalism, while attempting to speedy delete ] was borderline vandalism. I do agree, though, that the large issue with this user isn't about vandalism but about making properly sourced edits.--] 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here's the of the removal. I think people were abusing the warning templates for established users and it became a vicious cycle as part of edit wars. But editors are allowed to remove warnings. --] 18:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks.--] 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see any attempt from Matrix17's part to even try to align himself with how articles are written, sourced and formatted. I've cleaned up quite a bit of his articles and have seen some improvement initially. But now we're back to him not caring at all when his submissions or on his talk page. His Censure-article addition found itself to instead and he has been blocked two or three () times from the Swedish Misplaced Pages for basically the same behavior he has shown here, albeit he has toned down some of his attitude. | |||
| :We can't, after all, hold his hands for all future, so someone should really point out to him how contributions to Misplaced Pages are made and how a user should behave towards his fellow wikipedians. --] 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297024700" /> | |||
| == Uninvolved admin should close this == | |||
| This: ] needs closing, new opinions are decreasing and repetition of old opinions are increasing. I was rather involved, so I cannot, and should not, close it myself. | |||
| Please, remember not to vote count, but to take into account the level of reason and compatibility with policy and guidelines(such as WP:CREEP, WP:OWN, WP:USER, and WP:NOT) each opinion carries. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I see no need to close this - it is an ongoing discussion. What would a 'result' prove but lack of consensus? Polls are very evil like that.--]<sup>g</sup> 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, using a poll the decide a debate is unwise, evil I am not so sure about, however, using a poll, and the surrounding discussion, to help determine a consensus is just fine. A subtle point, but an important one. As for what a result would prove, we are waiting on this discussion to decide if a policy change should be made. I don't see a lack of consensus, perhaps by raw counting, but not if you consider the arguments. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] and one thing for sure is that the folks there are leaving comments in their !votes and others are responding accordingly. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well said, there have been arguments, and responses and even agreement. This is not an example of a poll, this is an example of a discussion assisted by a poll. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Ahem. Well, if every single admin has participated in the (crazy and unnecessary) debate, I would be happy to close it. It would be my pleasure, in fact :P. '']'' 19:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please do. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If every single admin has participated, then perhaps the debate is not ''crazy and unnecessary''. —] <sup>]</sup> 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I'm not entirely sure why so many people wished to poll over such a small issue that should have been resolved in about three statements. Oh well ... '']'' 23:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*Yep, this particular poll was definitely evil. ] 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Now that ], it seems logical to close that ] discussion out. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 10:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296979220" /> | |||
| == Apology == | |||
| I'm rather afraid that I need to give an apology to all concerned that surrounds myself sending a whole raft of messages to people who had already contributed to ]. For those who aren't aware of it, I was pretty annoyed that a very clear AFD had already been held and a clear consensus to keep the article was made. The article was kept. However, it was then (IMO, pretty reasonably) moved to the Misplaced Pages namespace. However, it was then soon added to MFD. This really got on my goat (as has other similar AFDs) as I really saw this as deleting the article through stealth. I argued quite strenuously against those who wanted it deleted and who referred to things like ], etc. as I felt that this was unfair and missing the point. I don't apologise for that, as I didn't personally attack anyone, though I did message on person to ask a question and they found this to be somewhat confrontational. | |||
| However, where I did go wrong was to send a message to all the people who added a keep to the discussion informing them of the new MFD. I also erred in calling it a "vote". Several people found this to be unacceptable, and yes, it was. After reflecting on my actions for some time, I would therefore like to apologise to the community at large for violating ]. It was wrong to do, and I should have known better. Should anyone wish to apply some sort of decision against me, I would appreciate it if they could first take it through ArbCom. I will certainly not dispute the facts, and in fact I will take any punishment that they deem necessary without protest. | |||
| I should note that this isn't a particularly easy thing for me to admit to, as I really felt at the time that I had no recourse but to send messages to these people. Something I now see wasn't particularly wise. - ] 05:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks for owning up. I know, AfDs can be annoying sometimes. One learns from mistakes, and I'm sure you will learn from this one. Cheers :P '']'' 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Remember that two wrongs don't make a cat. That said, best to move on, punishment-free, even! ] 10:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Feh, no big deal. Make sure you notify the delete !voters as well. For punishment, slap yourself with this ] :o) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296977540" /> | |||
| == Stalking (?) with IP == | |||
| I believe I'm being stalked by a user who is possibly using his IP account to avoid being blocked. | |||
| I have apparently got on the bad side of ], when I noticed he/she was uploading a lot of copyrighted images of baseball players that were destined to be deleted as fair use images, and advised him on multiple occasions to stop uploading non-free images. | |||
| After a couple of user talk exchanges, I received | |||
| from ], titled "Loser alert". I assumed it was the same user, so I left a message at ] and got neither a denial or admission, but . | |||
| I gave up on trying to communicate with the user and decided to simply stay out of the way. But then, Em0909153 reverted my edits twice at ], and possibly again with the IP the third time (), although I requested that the change be discussed in Talk. The IP account reverted another one of my edits () without giving a reason. | |||
| I have no doubt that the IP address belongs to the user, especially with the from the IP address, using an by Em0909153 specifically for vandalism. | |||
| What can I do to resolve the situation? Trying to communicate with Em0909153 seems hopeless. --] 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've posted a notice on Em0909153's talkpage, to make him aware of your post here and ask him to remain civil. As for the IP and the account being the same user, that's too obvious to bother CheckUser with, considering the links you post and the IP's general contributions. alone is enough to convince me. ] | ] 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC). | |||
| ::Thanks. The flaming isn't that big a deal to me - I just don't want the user reverting my changes blindly, just because he's got a grudge. --] 21:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296990020" /> | |||
| == Brian Peppers == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' <!-- from Template:discussion top--> | |||
| It looks like someone (perhaps several people) are excited about February 21 being the day that Brian Peppers can possibly have an article again. There has been multiple blanking of the ] article announcing the event. I'm not familiar with what happened way back that got the article deleted (looks messy), but I went ahead and semi-protected ] for a couple of days after the 21st to prevent further uhh... celebration (?). -- ] 07:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, that's because Jimbo had salted it and set the date for discussion to begin again on Feb 21, 2007. It's very unlikely to happen. The most that will happen is a ] ] to endorse the deletion.—] (]) 07:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I figured that part out. Just wanted to give everybody a heads up on the potential for vandalism on the 21st. I actually botched the semi-protect and did it for longer than I wanted to, but I'm not going to fix it. If some other admin wants to shorten the semi-protect, feel free. =) -- ] 07:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, and I blocked the IPs involved as open proxies. One relegated to a Hungarian ISP, which is nigh impossible for someone involved with YTMND and the Brian Peppers nonsense.—] (]) 07:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Also being pushed on YTMND, unsurprisingly. I checked around, there are no more sources now than there were a year ago, and none for any significant biographical data. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Our friends at Misplaced Pages Review were talking about a big trolling session as regards this article a few days ago, which explains a few things, I guess. ] <sup> ]</sup> 12:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've noted before that sourcing is not the only issue here. We don't allow attack pages against non-notable people, and that's all this article could ever become. If it were up to me we'd cancel the preannounced troll festivities by deciding right now that this article isn't going to happen. ] 14:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Seconded.--]<sup>g</sup> 14:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Make it so. --] (]) 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Comment: and reveal two ] sources. does provide some helpful, verifiable information, but maintaining this article for a marginally notable man and continuously fighting against unsourced memes doesn't seem to be worth it. ]<sup>]</sup> § 16:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I support Brad's proposal. ''']''' 22:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Oy vey. While I am no fan of the Brian Peppers article, it's ''extremely'' conclusive that an encyclopedic article about a sex offender with a congenital defect is automatically an attack article. Many people will tell you that Dick Cheney only cares about money; does that make ''his'' article an attack page? What about Joseph Stalin? Because he locked people up in Gulabs, that makes ''his'' article an attack article? Yeesh. <span style="font-size:95%">—], your friendly neighborhood ''']'''.</span> 16:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No, it's conclusive that all the people interested in creating such an article wish to do so in order to create what would be an attack page, and that the person is not sufficiently notable for Misplaced Pages and that any possible notability would derive directly from online attacks against the person. Cheney and Stalin are both historically important personages for which there is a superabundance of reliable source material, because historians, authors, etc. write about them as having a major effect on the world. There is almost no reliable source material about Brian Peppers, and the only reason anyone would wish to create an article about him is because some people online amuse themselves with his physical deformity. —]→] • 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Very good. Anyways, I read the latest version of the Brian Peppers article before its deletion, and it didn't seem like an attack to me. Now, if this article had reliable source, we would maintain encyclopedicness and revert attempts at transforming it into an attack article. But, oh wait, there's barely anything out there about him. <span style="font-size:95%">—], your friendly neighborhood ''']'''.</span> 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to agree with MessedRocker. We don't have pages about non-notable people full stop, regardless of whether it is an attack page; similarly we don't delete articles about notable people because they are liable to vandalism. Although I'm not ''au fait'' with all the background to this, the fact Jimbo set an end date implies that the presence of this article is still open to debate. I think there should be a pre-emptive AfD (if that makes sense), where standard concerns about verifability and notability will be raised and considered. Then, on the consensus of that, we decide what to do with the page. But this should be about whether the subject deserves its own page, and attempt to avoid the trolling issues. (And in response to Centrx, this is why this article needs due consideration in the appropriate forum.) ] 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd also support a preemptive review of the sourcing/notability issue in some more open forum, such as AfD or the new ]. The article should remain protected during the time of the review, or maybe created as a provisional stub, so that uninvolved editors can assess what this is all about. ] 19:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Jimbo set an end date to stop a wheel war, and because the article was not worth the fight it was causing. It still isn't. YTMND now has its own Wiki, which is the place for this. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Eh just unprotect the talk page and leave those who wish to do so to fight it out.] 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I strongly oppose doing any such thing. ] 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Question: Do we consider the snopes article a reliable source? If yes, I believe that an article can be made that is not an attack and asserts notability. If not, then it cannot. but that site cannot verify much, only basic details that verify he is a sex offender. but that is again only basic details that do not show why he is notable. Other than the snopes article, but as you can see they took the link down to the news story and now it simply leads to their main page. The only remnants of the article's contents that I found are now, sadly, on the YTMND located at http:// brianpeppersfoxtoledo dot ytmnd dot com/ (can't write out ytmnd links due to blacklist) However, as an admin I can verify that the website did indeed have that information at one time (and it definitely asserts notability). Now, this brings us to an interesting scenerio. According to ], this reference is still considered a reliable source and should not be removed. ''If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more''. So if we follow that guideline the link I provided should be considered a reliable source, and along with the snopes article that would be two reliable sources that assert notability, plus we have the other ones that verify he exists. I think we have ourselves enough to make an article. ] 21:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have access to LexisNexis, which confirms that WUPW Channel 36 in Toledo, Ohio ran news reports about Peppers on the 4:00 and 10:00 newscasts on November 28, 2005. The summary reads as follows: | |||
| ::::"Abuse of the sex offender registry: Photo of Brian Peppers who is on the registered sex offender list is being circulated around the Internet. V; Pepper's photo. Peppers suffers from a disease that causes facial deformities. He has been the target of many jokes and warnings on the Internet. I; Lori Olender, Asst. Lucas County Prosecutor - does the registry and the public a disservice. People have created numerous web sites showing the disfigured Peppers. I; Det. Mark Woodruff, Lucas County Sheriff's Office" | |||
| ::--] 22:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| No, we don't have a basis for making an article that any self-respecting encyclopedia would want to contain or that has any chance of meeting reasonable standards for inclusion. There is no valid basis for asserting this person's notability whatsoever, even if the basic facts of the prior version were certified as true by a chorus of angels, which is why I have argued that the emphasis on sourcing, important though that is, is actually a digression. Valid topics for Misplaced Pages articles do not include persons who would otherwise be entirely non-notable, living sad and lonely lives of isolation and rejection. That such a person made a mistake and now finds himself treated as a figure of fun because of aspects of his physical appearance over which he has no control, and thereby faces the deprivation of self-respect which must be one of the few things that allows a person in such circumstances to want to remain alive, does not provide the foundation of an encyclopedia article. We do not include articles on people for the purpose of making fun of them and causing them emotional harm, and we do not include articles on people who are not notable. In this instance, I gather that the notability rationale is that the subject has become famous, and is therefore notable, precisely because people make fun of him. Famous for being made fun of, an "internet meme"—this type of ] does not impress me. The way this sad individual has been treated on Misplaced Pages, and on the Internet more generally, is sordid and horrible. Making sure that the Misplaced Pages is not used to damage people in this way is one of the most important tasks facing us as administrators. (It is a task that our detractors believe we need to place an even higher priority on than we do, which is one of the reasons I find their desire to see this article re-created so odd, but that is a digression.) The people counting down the days until they can re-create the prior article or a similar one are not here to provide information that is either educational or informative or legitimately entertaining, which are the reasons a good-faith contributor creates or edits an article. Anything on this subject is going to get speedied as db-attack on a non-notable person so far as I am concerned. ] 21:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The notability judgement should be related to the established ], most applicable being "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". Just as it would be for any other case. Notability is not to do with "famousness" at all. Nor should it matter that this article might get vandalised, unless we now let vandals determine inclusion criteria. Just because it's an article on a person who has been attacked does not mean the article itself is an attack page, so long as it's written neutrally. And the last thing we want is a wheel war over this. A debate over the article should happen in the appropriate forum (which isn't here) and the conclusion should be drawn from that. ] 21:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::There won't be a wheel war, but I had hoped we could arrive at an advance consensus here on what to do, because February 21st (Wednesday) is being expressly anticipated on other sites as a special day to be dedicated to trolling Misplaced Pages over this article. But instead, we'll let someone write something and propose that it be placed in the now-salted article space, and an admin will delete anything that gets written, and someone will take the deletion to DRV, and we can have a week of pointless discussion of this nonsense while a real-world person suffers real-world harm and those who dislike us enjoy their lulz as people try to defend the indefensible. ] 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The consensus, like it or not, should be at that talk page or at DRV. Ironically enough, we probably could have avoided this nonsense without the arbitrary deadline, but now we're stuck with it. It'll be interesting to see us abandon our general guidelines again for something we don't like, though. --] <small>]</small> 22:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is untrue. --] <small>]</small> 22:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's too vague to be responded to. More importantly, Jeff, although I don't wear it on my sleeve, I am probably as reasonably strong an "inclusionist" as you are going to find among the admin corps. I think a lot of our contributors' and administrators' energy devoted to policing the borderlands of notability with respect to high schools and local bands and webcomics (I'm particularly sensitive to webcomics right now) could be better utilized, although I recognize that lines have to be drawn somewhere. But this is a different sort of situation, and I hope that reflexive advocacy of including rather than excluding content will not be carried in this instance to a troublesome and disturbing extreme. ] 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::(after conflict) Right, I agree with getting an advance consensus, just not here. Keeping it protected for a few more days while we discuss doesn't really matter (and may even help reduce the trolling somewhat). But there ''are'' arguments that the person qualifies under notability guidelines (note, I'm not necessarily saying I agree with them), and a decision ''does'' need to be made. ] 22:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * The person has been the primary subject of no non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. He has been the secondary subject of one non-trivial article in a reliable secondary source: Snopes discusses the rumour that the picture was faked. We do not have a reliable source for whether the wheelchair visible in the picture is the result of a permanent disability, whether his residence in a nursing home is permanent or not, the nature of his physical deformity. We do not have any details of the offence (for example, we have not even one newspaper report of the case). The case was not famous or infamous, he is not in any books on notable offenders, we have found no published interviews with school fellows or other parties that give any verifiable biographical data. In fact, what we know about Brian Peppers is (1) that he is an apparently deformed man that was convicted of an offence at the low end of the severity spectrum for sexual offences and (2) a lot of juvenile idiots with too much time on their hands chose to laugh at his appearance. Of these, only the first was allowed in the article, possibly because the second was deemed too likely to hurt the feelings of the juvenile idiots. The idea of having an article on Peppers solely because of his being an unwilling freakshow exhibit is repellant, and I will do whatever I can to ensure it does not happen, out of simple human decency. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Perhaps true, but this discussion shouldn't be here. ] 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *** Depends, is this a place for admins to talk or not? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Are deletion debates now only contributed to by admins? ] 22:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****This isn't the deletion debate. There isn't a deletion debate for another 3 days.] 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****(edit conflict) In fairness, in 99.99% of instances a discussion like this would not belong on this board. It's appropriate in this special case because of circus that evolved last year, the way that the situation is being promoted on external sites, and the need for admins to discuss how to deal with the matter. ] 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ******I think I might be misinterpreting, so could you clarify? Is there definitely going to be a deletion debate, or are some people saying there shouldn't be one at all? If the former, then arguments about whether the article should be deleted don't belong here; it should be about how to handle and manage the debate. If the latter, then I see a problem, as it implies admins have an increased say in whether we delete articles. ] 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ******* Administrators are the ones who actually perform the task of deleting articles. A discussion beforehand amongst administrators, so that we avoid repeating a deletion/undeletion war and use discussion to resolve any conflicts amongst administrators with differing opinions on whether or not the delete button should be hit, is a good thing. ] 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If you look above at my first comment and the reply afterward, we have confimation that he was the subject of both a news report on television and on their website. The written source says that he has become "one of the top urban legends on the web" which is definitely an assertion of notability that is sourced. Are you saying these, along with the snopes article, are not enough to prove notability? ] 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Not to repeat everything I wrote above, but I'm saying that it's not enough to prove notability, and I'm also saying that a bootstrapped claim of notability based primarily on the fact that a living person is being mocked for his physical appearance would be a despicable basis for a Misplaced Pages article ''even if true''. ] 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **I agree, but it's not Misplaced Pages's job to be the moral police of the internet. If it is found to be notable it should be included, if it is found to not be notable it should not be included. If we were to not include the information because we didn't like the way he became notable that would set a dangerous precedent of censorship on Misplaced Pages. This matter should be decided based on Misplaced Pages policies alone. ] 22:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] says '''In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.''' That is there for exactly articles like this and for certain paragraphs I tried to delete from the article ]. Further, to the extent that it is unclear whether or not it applies here, it should be written to ''be'' clear that it applies to this case and cases like it. It was written with the intent of applying to cases like this. ] 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (User:WAS 4.250) | |||
| *Got any diffs showing that that was the intent? To me, it looks far more like it applies to what material should be included, not about whether the article should exist as a whole. ] 23:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **See ] for the origins of the BLP policy. '''Biographies on living persons deserve a special sensitivity''' was its original name. ] 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There are no new points to be made here and further discussion will only cause further antagonism. Here ends the discussion. --] (]) 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :like it or not it is an issue we have to face.] 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div> | |||
| <span id="63296969620" /> | |||
| == User who's not understanding the the point of Misplaced Pages == | |||
| {{user|Chill77}} is relatively new user who seems to be completely incapable of understanding what Misplaced Pages is. He started by repeatedly adding unconfirmed characters to ] without any sources to prove it, and despite repeated warnings not to do this without sources, he continues to do so. His when creating the redundant article ] seems to indicate he thinks the site is some kind of fansite or forum where he can list his opinion and wishes about a ficitonal series. He doesn't respond to any messages on his talk page, and his continued editing after every time I warn him show he's either ignoring them or not understanding them. My patience with this user is down to nothing; can somebody '''please''' deal with this user and get him to understand that his edits are unconstructive and/or to get him to read the site's policies and rules? ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tl|uw-create3}} warning issued. If he keeps it up, next stop ]. ] 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296969140" /> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] article is about a non-notable engineer, and I have reasonable suspicion that the article was created by this individual, despite his claims to the opposite. I would appreciate if an administrator would look into the matter, and delete the article if he or she agrees. --] 19:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Speedied as nn-bio and deleted. --] 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! --] 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296981320" /> | |||
| == The "Emperor of West Misplaced Pages" == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Walter Humala}} | |||
| *{{sistervandal|sister=commons|Walter Humala}} | |||
| Random discussions on IRC brought ] to my attention. I went to put this up at MFD, as I was fairly certain that Walter Humala had been indefinitely blocked (I remember being part of the discussion). However, it turns out that he was unblocked, and I went on to ]. This user was blocked for disruption in the past, and the bulk of his contributions appear to still be disruptive, especially flooding the servers with his creations and forked templates which solely insert "emperor" instead of "user". This user has even made his user page (and contributions) on the commons just as bad, including hosting his "Map of the Wikiempire" at the commons (the only reason it wasn't deleted there was because he was ]). While a community ban should probably be listed at ], the fact is that the administration should figure out some way to deal with his contributions before the community does.—] (]) 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296984020" /> | |||
| == Regarding ] == | |||
| ] article is clearly a non-notable article on a ] clan, but the author is contesting the speedy deletion. Would an administrator please look into the issue? Thanks. --] 23:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've deleted it as a clear "non-notable group" article. ] | ] 23:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296990500" /> | |||
| == ] - potentially controversial AfD == | |||
| A heads-up for you all: I've nominated ] for deletion (see ]). It's a neologism invented by pro-Israeli bloggers during the ], along with "]" and "]" - both were deleted months ago as original research sourced from non-reliable sources, as well as violating ], not to mention duplicating existing articles. Unfortunately I suspect that this will turn out to be quite a controversial AfD, as people are already voting on the basis of politics rather than policy. Administrators may wish to keep an eye on it - in a sane world it should be an open-and-shut case but since it involves Middle Eastern politics, it's not going to be quite so simple... -- ] 01:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63296995420" /> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] added ] to the England article when this was removed he then used a sock to remove the miliarty section from the ] article --] ] 02:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297006160" /> | |||
| == Can you please Help == | |||
| I do not understand how some users can block information about MegaMeeting.com in the Video Conference page. These are simple links that talk about the industry and provide information. There are more than 4 other companies that are have links back to their respective websites. Please advise me on how they decide what stays. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 04:00, February 19, 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | |||
| * Well, it looks like several people have suggested on ] that you have a look at the ]. You might want to take them up on their suggestion. -- ] 05:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297000220" /> | |||
| ==Sock puppet== | |||
| Hi, I'm not sure how this kind of stuff is supposed to go, but I believe that I have discovered a sock puppet (]) of ]. He has made a lot of vandalism edits to ] page. | |||
| Proof that this user is a sock puppet of the UPN Vandal: is the edit made on the ] of the Simpsons Movie. Compare this with edits of known socks: , and . | |||
| This user has also created a dozen false soundtrack pages. The administrator who normally deals with that guy isn't on right now, and it would be nice to stop him before he creates another page. Thanks for the time, ] 04:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297042100" /> | |||
| == Ongoing continued libel on ] == | |||
| See also #5 above ('Libel risk on Paul Staines'). ] is repeatedly adding libellous content back to the page. This user is the same user that added the libels anonymously (as ]), as reported above. I have reverted a few times, but he is very rude and abusive (see his contributions), so his attacks are likely to continue. Can someone revert whatever his latest edits are, if applicable at the time, and protect the page. Also the comments above about purging the libels from wikipedia still stand. | |||
| Thanks ] 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297195368" /> | |||
| == Springfield Isotopes == | |||
| Hello. ] had an ] that ended on February 15, 2007, the result of which was keep. ], the closing admin, left a note at ], noting that "Anyone interested in merging or redirecting should first seek consensus on this talk page." ], who had nominated the article for deletion, has now since redirected the article three times, without discussion at either the talk page or his user page. Please advise; this user, in my opinion, seems to have a tendency to disregard community consensus. --] 17:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've left him a note, but this isn't an administrative issue. Consider using the ] next time, e.g. ]. ] 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, thanks. I wasn't sure where to go with it. --] 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::We reached a consensus at the Simpsons WikiProject that the page should be gone. It should be noted that the above user has been shadowing me for no reason whatsoever. -- ] 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No comment on the "shadowing" part, I haven't looked into that, but the consensus that the page should be gone wasn't really impressive (see ], only three people seem to agree on this, two of them being the nominator of the AfD and a contributor to it), and doesn't really matter, as a Project doesn't ] a page, and even if a clear consensus would have been reached, it would not overrule the AfD. Also, such a discussion should be held or at least noted at the talk page of the article under scrutiny. To redirect a page immediately after an AfD resulted in a rather clear keep seems like a way to get what you want one way or the other. The fact that you redirected it to two different pages indicates that even you feel that there is not one obvious redirect as well, but that is a minor point. If there is a good merge candidate, discuss it on the article talk page, and proceed if there is consensus for that: but please stop redirecting the article. ] 10:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297057188" /> | |||
| == My page has been moved == | |||
| Hi chaps, sorry to bother you. ] moved my talk and user pages and I have no idea what to do to get them back. I've been accused of being a "phony editor/user", which a look at my history will reveal to be a false charge. ] 04:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed and restored. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Semperkatolica has now placed an <nowiki>{{Autobiography}}</nowiki> tag on the ] page with no discussion as to why he feels that may be the case. ] 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297042308" /> | |||
| == "Homophobes" == | |||
| There has been a lot of disruption going on tonight because of my block of and user talk protection of {{IPvandal|203.87.64.214}}. After I made his user page into an archive, I discussed why I was currently cross with him, after which it turned out he posted on some blog of users who attack Misplaced Pages. This led to me blocking several IPs tonight thinking they were open proxies. Now, what the hell happens now?—] (]) 06:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've alerted ] that we can probably expect some disruption over the next few days. Gor, between him and Nkras, talk about persecuted... ] (Have a nice day!) 07:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think ] needs to be involved. It's just some sort of blog that we're going to have to either identify and shut down for disrupting Wiki.—] (]) 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wasn't thinking that we get involved, more than this person began his campaign by edit warring on an LGBT person's article, so there's reason to suspect he may continue. In which case, we need to keep an eye out. ] (Have a nice day!) 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Example=== | |||
| Hi, I have recently noticed that there has been an increase in vandalbots, particularly in hours where vandalism is quite low on the Defcom scale (i.e. 4-5 scale) or at times where admins are not available (i.e. late at night in America or during work hours in America). For example, please see {{vandal|Pandora 45}}. Just want to keep you at alert. Is there anyway that bots can be made in order to quickly revert the pages that this vandal has made? HighBC, you have any suggestions? <b><font color="#6495ED" face="georgia">]</font></b> 08:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is actually the same sort of user that is mentioned in the above section, and I have merged them.—] (]) 09:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP uses vandalbots? Please also see {{vandal|Tim_Ayeles}}. Thanks! <b><font color="#6495ED" face="georgia">]</font></b> 09:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think it's the IP. But it is the same vandalbot.—] (]) 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::]—] (]) 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::], well, it turns out that they're all one in the same.—] (]) 09:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297108308" /> | |||
| ==Editor adding "counterbalancing" original research== | |||
| Editor {{user5|Insulator}} has added and to the ] a piece of original research that is essentially soapboxing based upon . In removing this from the article I have specified in my edit summaries the out of policy nature of his edits and after having been reverted a couple of times I ] how his edits don't correspond to policy to which he has responded while me. Would an uninvolved party take a look at this? Based upon what this user is saying in his response to my user talk to him, the solution to this will likely be as simple as reverting his last reintroduction of this material. Thanks. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree, reverted. ]] 10:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, Viridae. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 10:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Now we can delete it because Misplaced Pages is not Wikinews... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nice JzG, there's ] for such a notion. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Gads. Several pages with 57 links, just because a celebrity happens to be a dick? Oh well. Give it a year, and maybe people will have some perspective, and the lot can be merged back into ] where it belongs. ](]) 10:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297072068" /> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| We frequently tell people things like, 'Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide', 'Misplaced Pages is not a game guide', 'Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary', 'Misplaced Pages is not a webspace provider', et cetera... usually just before we delete something that they have been working on. Needless to say this doesn't usually go over well. As such, I thought it would be nice if people could get out of the habit of saying, 'Misplaced Pages is not...' and instead say, '] accepts this kind of travel guide info', '] allows game guides like this', '] is the best place to put dictionary entries', et cetera. To that end I created the ] page to start listing various places which '''ARE''' all the specific things which Misplaced Pages frequently '''is not'''. Please expand, correct, use as you see fit, et cetera. --] 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Nice idea... I like it. It might be a good idea to publicize this at village pump too. I agree we could be a lot friendlier if we were saying "] a travel guide, but ] is and that might be a good place for your contributions."--] 16:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : (ec) That's a good idea for such a collection of where things ''can'' be posted, but I'm afraid that soon it will degenerate into either primarily just a listing of Wikimedia projects or into a place where everyone will be posting links for their own sites/ categories. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic, though. As for telling people that their material isn't appropriate here, I usually prefer the more straightforward statement, saying that "your material isn't suitable here because Misplaced Pages ] , but for a list of alternatives see ]" - it gets the point across, while tacking on a reference to the page you just created. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is an excellent idea. One thought – and I'm just throwing this out here – would this be more effective if merged into WP:NOT? ](]) 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe, but that's pretty long already. I did include it as a 'see also' at the end of ]. --] 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Nice page CBD :P. '']'' 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Please make sure to double-check the entries on this page with the projects you are recommending. For instance, I'm not certain, but I think Wikibooks dumped their game guides a few months ago. ] 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed they did. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hmmm, I'll check, but they still have lots of things like ]. --] 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: From looking it seems like it's not a black-and-white issue. But it's probably worth discussing this with someone from the Wikibooks community to see whether this would be more of a burden than a benefit to them. ] 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297062288" /> | |||
| == Requested move == | |||
| Please move ] to ]. --] 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please move ] to ]. --] 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Please request moves at ]. ] 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict) Both have been done, but in the future you can use ] to request such moves. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, thanks. --] 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297056828" /> | |||
| == Hello == | |||
| The article ] is an attack site and I have already labeled it for speedy deletion - my question is, after it is deleted, should I redirect to ]? Or should I do it immediately? --] 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : No, just blank and redirect. No need to delete :P. '']'' 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297070328" /> | |||
| == 12.135.51.149 == | |||
| I'm sure you would be interested in looking at ]. The user has been wandering around ], I believe. '']'' 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297181688" /> | |||
| == Odd set of edits... == | |||
| ] redirected ] to a category, and since the category was not as comprehensive, I removed the redirect. However, lokking at the edit history, the page is blank, and I cannot restore the list. Can an admin take a look and see if there was a double redirect or an improper move in the history? ] 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The original list was deleted per ]. Hope that helps. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hm. I had that page on my watchlist, and never saw the AfD template. Was it done properly? ] 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes. The deleted edits show that the AfD template was present from February 13th until its deletion on February 18th. It's been recreated twice since then, and I've now listed it at ]. ] 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297118508" /> | |||
| == Extra categorization == | |||
| ] is adding a whole bunch of cats to articles, where the article is already in a cat that is a subcat of the cats that he's adding. I've indicated this to him, but he's ignored me. My understanding that it is not good practice to include both sub- and super-cats in articles as it defeats the whole purpose of categorization. Regards -- ] 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *You are correct. I've dropped him a line. ] 12:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297077228" /> | |||
| == For historical reasons, will someone please tell me what the deleted ] used to say? == | |||
| Hello, I am looking through the history of something that used to include this, but I don't know what it means. Will someone please tell me? Thanks, ] (]|]) 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Posted on your talkpage... ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 01:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I am assuming you read ], but it did not give much of a clue. '''Template:Policy2''' was created in January 2006 before ] such as <code>#if:</code> was fully implemented. It was basically the same as ] except it included a space to list a ]. But after ParserFunctions became in use, the optional parameter to list a shortcut was added to Template:Policy, making Template:Policy2 deprecated. Hope this helps. ] ] 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks to both of you! : ) ] (]|]) 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297099008" /> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] is apparently the subject of ], which has been deleted at AfD twice. Aside from the fact that he has posted the article for the third time, he removed my db-repost tag. I went to his talk page to give him a good faith note not to remove CSD tags, but I saw he had already received warnings for the same conduct. Not sure what the proper action is in such cases, but I thought it was worth mentioning here. -- ] 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked indefinitely, his sole edits are his autobiography.—] (]) 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297138968" /> | |||
| == ] intro needs a fix == | |||
| '''Techies please help'''. The ] is missing something vital. It ought to have a link to the ] guideline and a specific statement in the introduction that community bans for disruption require a consensus of ''uninvolved'' editors. The board is getting stuff like this that specifically goes against the key provision that got the disruptive editing guideline accepted. If this is tolerated then we set up a situation where good people could get railroaded out of the community. The header ought to explain that involved parties can comment and provide evidence and should disclose their involvement in the dispute. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297149768" /> | |||
| == AfD running like an out-of-control steam train == | |||
| ] is heading for a steep decline into the pit of doom, if it hasn't already. I'm hesitant to sprotect - for similar reasons to the main page FA protection debate, but admittedly slightly different (because it will deny the users the right of reply) - but I was wondering if you thought we could/should because their mass-silliness keep !voting is becoming disruptive (this is only 2 days worth!). One of the few "delete" !votes has been attacked by a mob, and that mob has turned around and !voted keep in ridiculous numbers. Cheers, ''']''' 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Holy sockpuppets Batman! Well, if you got a ton of time on your hands, you could leave a message that if any more "meatpuppets" attack the page, you will protect; if not, you could just do it, and say, due to abuse, that any new users can contribute on the talk page. Could run a checkuser, but might get the duck test response... ] 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's deleted. It fails A7. It was a good faith nom, but a little too much good faith nom. Any issues take to deletion review. Friday deleted it, mostly because I was closing the debarte before deleting it. ] <small>] </small> 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Cheers. an impressive list of deleters, really. Can't argue that the deletion was unilateral :) ''']''' 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Indeed. '']'' 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: ''"Martin Luther King Jr. helped people and he has a page. Why can't Dan? He has the right for freedom of speech and, if you delete this, you are suppressing his right. AlixTheEskimo 07:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)".'' Wow. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ah, the power of Myspace. ] <small>]</small> 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297148508" /> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Would it be possible for an administrator here on Misplaced Pages to get the original source information for this image. It is the subject of a deletion request due to insufficient source and the description page indicates it has been moved here. See also ]. ] 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *left a note at the deletion debate, but all I can see in the history is "A young Glenn Gould circa 1944 with his Dog and Budgie, from the Ontario Archives <nowiki>{{PD}}</nowiki>". ] <small>] </small> 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is what I found: | |||
| "A young Glenn Gould circa 1944 with his Dog and Budgie, from the Ontario Archives {{tl|PD}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{tl|PUI}} | |||
| Source seems to be http://ao.minisisinc.com/Webimages/I0002768.jpg <br /> | |||
| Information at http://ao.minisisinc.com/scripts/mwimain.dll/1354/2/6/1958?RECORD: | |||
| *Digital Image Number: I0002768.jpg | |||
| *Title: Glenn Gould as a child, at his piano | |||
| *Date: | |||
| *Place: Toronto (Ont.) | |||
| *Creator: Gordon W. Powley | |||
| *Format: Black and white negative | |||
| *Reference Code: C 5-1 | |||
| *Item Reference Code: C 5-1-0-133-2 | |||
| Since we now the creator, Gordon W. Powley, and know at least that he is not dead 70 years (he cannot have died in 1934, since the photo is of ca. 1940 or later), I don't think Public Domain applies.--] 13:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| " | |||
| :Hope that helps. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I believe that Canadian copyright applies for 50 years, IIRC. If it were first published in Canada, that might allow it to be PD. ] ] 20:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is PD in Canada, but not in the United States. Therefore, we need more information about the copyright holder. Is it Archives Ontario? If so, what is their policy? If not, it is likely going to take a great deal of detective work to figure out who to contact. ] 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was under the impression only the law of the country of provenance counted in such cases? ] ] 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is unfortunately complicated. This image might be in the public domain in the U.S. if it was in the public domain in Canada ] ] per the ], but we also need to know its publication history in the United States. See for a handy guide. ] 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not sure, but I think Fut is correct on that point. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297153728" /> | |||
| ==Could someone please restore ]?== | |||
| I was the only contributor (and creator) and had it speedy deleted in a fit of annoyance... this doesn't really need to go through DRV, if someone could restore it I would be most grateful. ]<small> (]) (])</small> 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. -- ] <small>(])</small> 22:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297208928" /> | |||
| == Corporate sex offenders? == | |||
| I've never seen this listed anywhere, so I thought I'd bring it up. Misplaced Pages is currently listed as a "passive Corporate sex offender" at Pervert-Justice.com, because of our current attitude to paedophiles. You can see it . I personally find the fact that we had one of the most notorious paedophiles and a leader of the "childlove" movement actively editing our articles absolutely horrifying. Maybe we need to be more aggressive about blocking paedophiles? I mean, I think {{user|Clayboy}} is an acceptable editor, but someone like Rookiee is hardly going to be unbiased... ] (Have a nice day!) 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Update''': They also have a essay on the subject . ] (Have a nice day!) 02:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That website is nothing but complete bullshit. "''We've left Misplaced Pages in the 'passive' category because they still have not taken a clear and unambiguous stance disavowing pedophile advocates from editing 'encyclopedic' pedophile articles. There are still pedophile editors on Misplaced Pages but some in the extremely large organization do seem to wish to rid themselves of such persons who are harmful towards Wikimedia's interests.''" There will ''always'' be pedophiles out there and there's nothing we can do to completely rid the world of them. What really bothers me is that they talk about Misplaced Pages being a breeding grounds for pedophiles and yet say nothing about MySpace, one of the most talked about websites when it comes to pedophiles. What the hell happened there? // ] 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find it disturbing. Personally I feel that it conflicts with the goal of having a safe editing enviroment as seen by a particularily nasty episode that just wrapped up. —''']''' 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cute, they include Livejournal but not Myspace. This justice truly is perverted. --] 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Isn't this the group that hatemailed us into banning Rookiee for... something... when he hadn't actually been doing anything disruptive or policy-violating at the time? They get their facts wrong 75% of the time and the rest of the time they exaggerate them. | |||
| :::If you want your children to be safe online, you don't let them use the internet, ''anywhere'', unsupervised. It's that simple. --] <small>]</small> 01:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When I have kids, I intend to let them follow the exact same schedule in technology as I did. They get a C64 and an NES when they're 5, a 386 without a modem and a Genesis when they're 10, and they will be allowed online when 14. The point of this is because I know that I wasn't ready for the online world before that, and two, to give them appreciation of old-school video gaming. ;) Screw trying to police them, I'll just keep them offline til they can police themselves. --] 01:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ohh, let them play ], that game rocks! ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, you're going to let your kids online with a 486 running Windows 95 and Internet Explorer 3.0? Wow, I bet you'll get the vote for "most popular dad" on the block.... <grin> -- ] 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nah, that's when I let them get a real computer. :) And it would be a 486 running Windows 95 and Netscape 1.1, puhleeze. ;) --] 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::People don't seem to get that this is an encyclopedia, with a NPOV, I would not worry about what they say. I would think this is a terrible place to prey on children, considering everything is permanently logged, including IPs, and the intense level of monitoring we do. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That essay is the perfect example of why these people really don't know a thing they're talking about. Thanks for reposting it. --] <small>]</small> 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed, It's hard for me to take that site too seriously. --]|] 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''"We've left Misplaced Pages in the 'passive' category because they still have not taken a clear and unambiguous stance disavowing pedophile advocates from editing 'encyclopedic' pedophile articles.'' Damn straight. Pedophilic editors such as ] need to be blocked on sight. ] 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Whoa, whoa, since when did Misplaced Pages become the morality police? If someone is convicted of murder, should they be banned? Should we ban anyone who's been jailed? As long as they aren't doing anything to harm Misplaced Pages or trying to harm others through Misplaced Pages, I don't think its our purpose to ban people based on their activities outside of Misplaced Pages. Of course, everything should be done to prevent predators from being able to contact children through Misplaced Pages, but banning users because they ''might'' violate rules is absurd. ] 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Why? --] 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because the idea that anyone could think of children as sexual beings is icky. --] | |||
| :::That doesn't answer the question as to why they should be banned. "Ickiness" is not an objective qualifier. Try again. --] 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's about my view of the matter too. --] 07:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::], anyone? --]|] 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's a ], as are the above responses. ] 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My response is a provocation? Should it be banned? Also, didn't at least one of you lose adminship because of some misguided crusade against pedos? --] 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Let sleeping dogs lie. —''']''' 03:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''One of you''? I did not participate in a crusade. I am —and always have been— an editor and admin in good standing. ] 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Can we have fewer cliches and more substance in the comments here, please? --] 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Some old wounds haven't healed. Therefore things are better left in the past. —''']''' 03:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I thought the pedophilia userbox wheel war made it quite clear taht Misplaced Pages was gonna go crazy on any self-identified pedophiles. ] 03:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have created a ] to cover this issue. 04:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I can see why this is controversial, and I think I can at least sympathize with everybody posting here. I ''think''... to me, maybe it's an issue of ''"Why are you here?"'' If you're here to help build and keep a neutral, informative, 💕, then I suspect I'll have no serious qualms with you -- that is, if they're wearing their Wikipedian hat. If, however, they're wearing another hat, and here for another purpose (promoting or practicing pedophilia, neo-nazism, whatever it may be), then I suspect I will have ''many'' qualms with their presence. That's what it comes down to, for me, I guess -- are they here to build an encyclopedia, or not? – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There is nothing much what we can really do. While we did try to come up with some sense of the problem, based on the WEP:CHILD debates, but honestly, we cannot do much. While Pee-J is trying to do what they do, unless we catch the people in the act of preying on children, we cannot do anything administratively. Not to mention, people have a right to privacy here on Misplaced Pages and not everyone even decides to make an account. But I strongly urge anyone that if someone is indeed preying on children using Misplaced Pages, please let us know. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Our policy is that ] a platform for advocacy or propaganda. That policy covers both advocacy of sexual assault of children and the witch hunters. ] 14:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297180608" /> | |||
| == sneaky vandalism in progress == | |||
| See the recent edits by ] and ] on the ], ], and ] pages. They are tricky triple edits that foil the diff mechanism. Looks like they did some tag-teaming too. You should block them pronto. This requires more wiki skill than I have. Good luck cleaning up their mess. (] 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| :{{IPvandal|24.64.64.242}} appears to be static and I've soft-blocked it for a month. The other one I left a {{tl|bv}}; we should keep an eye on it. ] 06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297188948" /> | |||
| == Administrator attention needed == | |||
| Please take a look at ], but particularly ]. What has happened to all our administrators? ''']''' <sup>(] | ])</sup> 05:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :We're all hiding. Shh... =) -- ] 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :CAT:CSD is backlogged? Alert the media! ] 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can see the headline now: "] backlogged. Is this the end of Misplaced Pages?" -- ] 06:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::What has happened is that the administrators are simply busy doing other things, Misplaced Pages and otherwise. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| "Candidates for Speedy Deletion backlogged; Netcraft predicts death of Misplaced Pages" - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 08:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297182588" /> | |||
| ==Empty sockpuppets/suspected sockpuppets categories== | |||
| As indefinitely blocked users get their user pages deleted often, it is not uncommon to see ] ] ]. Are these speedyable just as any other empty category if empty for at least 4 days? Or should we hold off on these? I've come accross quite a few so if I should be deleting them that is helpful to know. ] 06:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Go for it. ]] 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, will do. ] 06:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297193088" /> | |||
| == <s>Three</s> Two bad blocks waiting to be undone == | |||
| I've been trolling through ], and I happened to come upon two bad blocks. I wouldn't say anything here, but it doesn't look like any administrators are going through the unblock request at the moment. We have: | |||
| *] - user appears to have been blocked simply for trying to work with images. This was not vandalism, but newbie problems. | |||
| *] - this is ''definitely'' a bad block. This user was blocked for "vandalizing" another user's page by placing a {{tl|db-author}} tag on it, but in fact, he is this other user. But, he can't login because he was blocked due to a ] violation. | |||
| *<s>] - continual censorship of articles. But this is edit warring, and deserves maybe 24 hours at most, and at least an explanation of ]. Not worth an indef block, IMHO.</s> | |||
| Worst part: more ammunition to talk about "block happy admins", yada yada. ] 09:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Gen. von Klinkerhoffen was not blocked for censorship but being a YTMND troll, primarily with using "For Brian Peppers" in his edits. The censoring I would have not blocked for (I was going to warn him, but then I saw the edit summaries). The IP is shared, and the block has an expiry. With Brooklyn5, I have no idea what's going on (looks like an impromptu username change without edit changing), so I'm not touching that.—] (]) 09:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the clarification. No need to fool around; Brian Peppers edit summaries clearly show he's a troll from somewhere, just like Colbert vandalism would. ] 09:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Brooklyn's been unblocked. No need for alarmism, misunderstandings that lead to unnecessary blocks happen, and they are usually dealt with within reasonable time, that's what the unblock category is for. But thanks for helping to clarify the Brooklyn situation. ] ] 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297192428" /> | |||
| ==Addmin needed for review== | |||
| ] that I may ask for additional and neutral addmins from here to review . Contributor, who ran 3RR board initially also not object for this . The prime concern is - was there violation of 3RR rule in presented case by Piotrus or not. Thank you in advance, ] 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297212468" /> | |||
| == 62.6.160.99 == | |||
| the user 62.6.160.99 is currently enganging in massive vandalism and claims to be a sockpuppet of long term vandal my name | |||
| please block him/her.--] 15:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297239027" /> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{admin|1ne}} has a bit of a problem. Check the last few deletions and undeletions - a wheel war over ] and a suspiciously ]y undiscussed deletion of ]. Could someone who is friendly with this admin please go and have a quiet word. Thanks. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I remain of the opinion that we should deal sternly with wheel warriors. ] 13:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **For those unfamiliar, I believe this administrator is in one of these categories and hence sensitive to the matter of precisely where the age cut-off for them should be placed. Of course he should step away from further deletions in this matter and I'm sure he will take guidance accordingly. ] 13:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Yup. No evil intent, just an excess of enthusiasm, butin a very sensitive area. Needs a quiet word from a trusted friend. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Agree fully. No need to rush in and browbeat him, just quietly point out that he's too close to the issue and that someone else might be a better choice to decide the matter. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*As it seems that "quiet point" is probably going to come from this noticeboard - given NYB has had a chat/linked him here - I might as well throw my hat into the ring. 1ne, although you may feel that an injustice is being done to Misplaced Pages, wheel warring only creates ], and those problems aren't worth it on this category. Cheers, ''']''' 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Wait, wait, wait, guys. I had a change of heart, I'm not trying to violate POINT. What I think is that we should delete categories for everyone under 18. What's wrong with that? Also, JzG, don't 'report' people you're involved in disputes with. Cheers! ] 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*The thing is that he's not the only one who redeleted that page. Several administrators have, while you restored it six separate times. Your actions are out of process, and definitely constitute wheel warring. What's wrong with his bringing attention to it here? -- ] <small>(])</small> 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* Agreed. 1ne, please don't wheel war (and you did so on both categories). ] ] 23:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* How are the other administrators' actions not out of process? Deleting something with the reason 'page contained: foo' isn't a reason. ] 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* That's an automatically generated edit summary. I'm sure that if you have any question about the reason an admin deleted a page and ask that admin the reason, he or she will gladly tell you. ] 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*All of the other admin's actions were due to CfDs. Unilaterally restoring or deleting things that have gone through an XfD is generally not cool. -- ] <small>(])</small> 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*Then why did 'born in 1993''s talk page state that it survived a CfD with no consensus? Ignoring that is not cool. ] 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::*It references it, but ]. Kick whoever put that there. ] that was in the deletion summary was a '''delete'''. -- ] <small>(])</small> 04:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*It was a UCFD, which means that it's not going to be found on the main CfD page. Do not pass go, whack the people who decided on that split. -] <small>]</small> 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*And the correct link is ], which is indeed "no consensus". -] <small>]</small> 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think it was a very bad idea for 1ne the DRV from showing up on the TOC when adding his input. Almost as if he didn't want other people to notice it. ] 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What, do you think I'm in on some sort of conspiracy? If you see my edit to , you'll notice that this is a glitch in my browser that happens when I add a new section. I was wondering why the formatting was broken, myself. I think it was a bad idea that you didn't look into my contribs to pages related to this one. If I had known I was attaching '&''s to things, I'd have been fixing them. Vega, is this a big conspiracy to you? ] 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps you should try a new browser if that is the result of you adding new sections. ] 08:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions. ] 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ah, but I didn't jump to conculsions. If I had I would have flat out said that you were trying to get people to not see the debate instead of saying "Almost as if" you were doing that. ] 09:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ah, but perhaps you shouldn't suspect there's a conspiracy without convincing evidence. ] 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: This is a stupid debate. Let's get back on task. Anyways... so 1ne has been wheel warring over a category. Newyorkbrad says he may have emotional connection towards that category. That makes sense to me. The wheel warring has come to an end. That is good. The wheel warring towards the 1989 category is no more. That is good. Did 1ne delete the category to begin with to disrupt Misplaced Pages for the sake of a point or because he's genuinely concerned about the fact that some people in that category are under 18? That is irrelevant; if we keep spending all this time on it, then it ''will'' have been disruptive. The problem seems to have died down. Let's get back to work. I myself have more homework than I thought; I should get started. <span style="font-size:95%">—], your friendly neighborhood ''']'''.</span> 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297271847" /> | |||
| ==Brian Peppers (2)== | |||
| It's now 21st Feb, How come this page is still protected? ] 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :We decided we didn't need a weakly sourced attack page.—] (]) 09:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The page will probably have to go through deletion review before it is allowed to be recreated. ] 09:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Already there. ]. I linked it there from the Talk page, to try to get all the crap in one place (I know, the triumph of hope over experience). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow, I expected that to go up right at 00:01. ] (]) 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Btw DXRAW, Jimmy never said that the page would be unprotected on the 21st. He said that the discussion could reopen then. Big difference. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297250007" /> | |||
| == LOL... == | |||
| See . :-) ] ] 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't but recognize a striking pun regarding an admin signing as "Nearly Headless Nick" <code>:-)</code> ]<span style="font-size:70%;">]</span> 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe we should warn him in particular that he risks becoming even more nearly headless? Hey, wasn't he involved in some controversial AfD closures too lately? Hopefully no webcomics, were they? ] ] 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do believe several of them were. *sigh* Webcomics. Oy. (So, when are we going to have an extensive discussion on how to judge the notability of webcomics that aren't covered by media outlets, don't have dead-tree versions, etc. but are fanatically followed by Internet fans, and avoid having this kind of thing showing up in every freakin' webcomic that comes around?) ] <small>]</small> 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What discussion is there to have? For a webcomic to have an article we need reliable independent sources and preferably someone at least vaguely dispassionate writing the thing, same as everything else. Webcomics aren't a special case. Ok, they're on the Internet, and we're on the Internet, and therefore it's easier to round up some fans to SPAm an AfD, but this is just a side-effect of our model - webcomics have no more reason to 'deserve' an entry in Misplaced Pages than they do in Britannica. It's just harder to organise a coach down to Britannica's head office, and have them tell the editors that Webcomic #15353 is number 5 on the Top 100 List Of Webcomics About Bicycling Furries Wearing Wooly Hats, than it is to post a link on a blog. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree completely, and have opined on both sides of webcomic debates. The problem is that there's this seemingly growing revolt among webcomic creators and their readers that is vilifying Misplaced Pages because their articles are being deleted, and it seems to be a significantly sized group that's out there screaming about deletionism. The comic leading this section isn't the only one that's been taking potshots at us. My question, I guess, is whether we need to have specific guidelines for webcomics that we can point to, say "If you don't meet these, then let us know when you do," and make the comics mob put down the pitchforks and torches to actually try and meet the guidelines. ] <small>]</small> 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I say we bend the rules for webcomics. After all, they're writing nasty things about us! Seriously, I agree with ] that the rules on notability are clearly stated.--] 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297234107" /> | |||
| == {{user|Lakerdonald}} - violation of ArbCom ruling? == | |||
| {{user|Lakerdonald}} is an Encyclopaedia Dramatica user who has had useful edits in the past. However, his/her recent edits are somewhat startling. Would edits such as , , , and his/her userpage constitute a violation of Remedy #3 of ] (''"Users who are current or past editors of Encyclopaedia Dramatica are...admonished to wear their Misplaced Pages hats while here."'')? --''']]''' 15:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And it should also be noted that this user just violated ] on ]. This is here instead of on ANI because I was not sure whether to block. --''']]''' 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::<nowiki>*Eye roll*</nowiki>. These users are literally pushing the envelope as far as they can. ''"Oops, might get banned now!"''? C'mon. Just block the guy. If anyone can tell me how the statement "users are full of cocks" is anything other than ], I'll do it, but this is someone just trying to game the system. User is just hoping to get people mad, and then have some admins come along and say, "I don't know if we should block him..." ] 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Blocked. Seems like an obvious case. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, I wasn't sure how strictly to apply the ArbCom ruling. --''']]''' 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The user posted an unblock message but I denied the unblock on the grounds that this was absolutely a valid block.] <font color="purple">]</font> 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Attacking Jimbo in the Peppers DRV. Genius. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297224087" /> | |||
| == Little help? == | |||
| Can somebody take a look at ]? I can't figure out what the heck is going on there. It's obviously a talk page, and after several bizarre moves from place to place, it's now sitting where the article should be. I'd fix it, but I can't find the article. Anybody have a clue? ] <sup>]</sup> 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like the article is at ] (with the capitals). ] 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cleaned up. A user had been somehow upset over contents on the talkpage, had tried to remove some passages, had mistakenly moved the talkpage to her userspace, then moved it back but not to talk space but article space, and with the wrong capitalisation. ] ] 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks, guys. That one blew my mind. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::New admin? Wait till you've overseen some real good hard move-war somewhere. After that, nothing will be able to shake you. :-) --] ] 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297251507" /> | |||
| == ] closed early == | |||
| I've closed this early for reasons explained at that page. Please review in case anyone thinks that continuing this for the full length will produce a different result or something else in the least bit productive. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Given that few of the "endorse deletion" were based in reality, I'm not even sure how you can come to an "endorse," let alone think there's any consensus given the discussion there and at the DRV subpage's talk page. You needed to reverse yourself twenty minutes ago. --] <small>]</small> 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a matter of principle, I strongly oppose closing any discussion that has been open only 11 hours. For a lot of people, this means it will be over before they even saw it. ] 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a shame we don't all possess your positive knowledge of what is and is not reality, <s>Mr. Brady</s> Jeff. ] ] 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it is. I don't think that means you need to be a ] about it, though. --] <small>]</small> 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nor am I trying to, and I'm sorry you chose to interpret my remark as such. Rather, I'm trying to suggest that simply stating, as a fact, that everyone else's concerns are non-existant, is unhelpful and is not the way to win arguments. ] ] 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I actually detailed it better at the talk page of the DRV. It was, of course, soundly ignored in favor of a disruptive close, so what else is there to say? --] <small>]</small> 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I approve, we've spent enough time debating on that one, and no new information has come to light. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As it met standards ''before'' it was deleted, what did you expect? After 11 hours, how could you expect anything new to crop up. I may relist it on the main DRV page if someone doesn't do the right thing. --] <small>]</small> 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Although I have some sympathy for Trebor's argument, I think it was a good close. —] <sup>]</sup> 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Jeff, I see no 'I don't like it' delete arguments on that page.--]<sup>g</sup> 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? I'm sorry to see that. --] <small>]</small> 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''Pace'' badlydrawnjeff (to whom I directed some remarks on the talk page of the DRV as to which I would welcome feedback from others), the consensus against re-creating the article is overwhelming. Personally, I would prefer retention of the outright deletion over redirecting to ], in part because the "People" section in that article is itself a WP:LIVING/privacy/notability horror show that needs substantial attention and clean-up. But I suppose we should leave that for another day. ] 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, you've posted this in a few places already. Thanks for the input, there still hasn't been a legitimate, logical, rational reason for deletion given. Not that 11 hours is enough time to find one. --] <small>]</small> 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about the legitimate, logical, rational reason that many of us find the idea of basing an article on this subject to be horrific, despicable, and non-encyclopedic as well? And how about the fact that there are several hundred other deletion debates going on, on many of which I would like to see a strong case put for keep, instead of devoting continuing energy into continuing advocacy for an article that clearly is not coming back? ] 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for proving my point. "Horrific" and "despicable," both terms I agree with, are irrelevant to the discussion. Non-encyclopedic? Well, I disagree, but we have ways to discern that, which this article met. If we're going to abandon our policies and guidelines here, why bother with any other disucssions if they don't matter? --] <small>]</small> 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You want "legitimate, logical and rational"? How's "Any article about this guy would amount to: He is a sex offender from someplace. He got a short sentence. He has become an internet meme because a number of people think he looks funny." Come on, man. I know you're on the extreme end of the inclusion spectrum, but that's all you could write about him, and even that would probably not meet BLP because it would be slanted towards negative coverage. Having said that, however, I probably would have let it run at least 24 hours before closing; I, though, am not an admin, and I respect Sam Blanning's judgment in this case. ] <small>]</small> 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse closure''' - the result was no in doubt. Sure, a minority believe it was the wrong result - but even they must admit that letting it run was not going to produce a different conclusion.--]<sup>g</sup> 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **It depends - if we expected the arguments to be weighted properly, I ''certainly'' expected a different result. --] <small>]</small> 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Endorse closure per ] logic. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Yeah, that was one of our shining moments. Ugh, the logic is nonexistent here. --] <small>]</small> 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***How heavy should the sockpuppets be? There were plenty of those supporting re-creation. ] ] 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Ignore 'em. Ignore 'em like those using IDONTLIKEIT arguments should have been. --] <small>]</small> 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****And the BLP concerns? Are those to be dismissed too, just because you're so sure they don't amount to much? ] ] 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ******Nonexistent. The deleted article didn't appear to have any, and we could have easily edited any of those concerns. --] <small>]</small> 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *******BLP was what I was getting at re: Fortuny. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ********Yeah, not an issue. --] <small>]</small> 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't think there would have been any harm in letting it run one full day, but on the other hand I don't dispute the close either. Consensus was extremely clear, and among established editors it was truly overwhelming. "Brian Peppers Day" has come and gone without any great cataclysm, and we all survived. Time to get back to building an encyclopedia. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Agree with Andrew, this could be left to run, but the outcome would have been the same. This was clearly trending ] to keep deleted.--] 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Fully endorse closure''' - I wasn't around for this the first time, but from everything I have read, it was an embarassment for Misplaced Pages and there's no reason to make the same mistake twice. --] 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *This is disgusting. --] <small>]</small> 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*This was simply never going to be recreated, for many reasons. Jeff: please get off the soapbox. Others: there are many people abroad who are getting off on us tying our knickers in a knot over this non-notable alleged sex-offender "meme"-driven ]. If ever ] applied somewhere, this was it. '''〈<font color="red">]</font><font color="red">]</font>〉''' 20:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I'm not on a soapbox, yet. I can certainly get on one if you'd prefer. --] <small>]</small> 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I'm suggesting a new ] based upon a number of meme furthering articles I've seen turn up on WP. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Jeff, darling, you've been stood on the same soapbox since late last year. Adding another one simply wouldn't help... although it'd make you taller, obviously :o) '''〈<font color="red">]</font><font color="red">]</font>〉''' 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I ''really'' don't think you want to go there. --] <small>]</small> 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Okay, we get it Jeff, you're righteously indignant. Now knock it off. --] 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Well done Sam. Now let's all get back to building that encyclopaedia... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Thats what we were trying to do before it got closed early. This project while a good idea has many flaws. ] 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* One fewer, now :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*No, An article is not a flaw, Get your head out of your arse. Read this for example ] 23:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*And about five newer. Can I cash in on that abusive admin offer now, Guy? --] <small>]</small> 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* If you want, but do take the time to pause and reflect on the fundamental fact: the sum total of verifiable information here is (a) Peppers looks funny, (b) Peppers was convicted of a technical offence at the lower end of the severity scale of sexual offences, (c) a number of people chose to make fun of his appearance, resulting in his mugshot being pulled from e-SORN. Nothing else is actually verifiable. Not the disability, not the fact that he lives in a nursing home, not the cause of his apparent deformity, not the details of the offence, nothing about the victim or the context, no contemporaneous news coverage, Factiva, Lexis-Nexis and Google News all come up blank. We know next to nothing about ''Brian Peppers'', the living human being. The only things we do know are either trivial or derogatory. I paid money for searches to see if there was additional verifiable data - there isn't. This is not the Star Wars Kid, who thought he was being cool and wasn't, this is someone who ahs absolutely no control over the situation, and furthermore whose "notability" rests solely and entirely on the fact that he looks weird. Only that. It's a random picture of some guy, taken out of context and used as an object of ridicule by people with absolutely no shame. And we deleted it, and we decided to keep it deleted. It's a trade: we get raspberries from the people who like to laugh at Peppers' appearance, in return for our self-respect and the clueful application of our policy on ]. I can't find it in me to call this anything but a good deal. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*Well, I knew you were only half serious anyway. --] | |||
| :::::::nothing pm lexis-nexis? that rather contradicts a claim amde here: | |||
| :::::::].] 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <small>]</small> 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Endorse close, nothing good was going to come of keeping that discussion open any longer. ++]: ]/] 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Endorse closure, per above. All useful arguments related to this issue are already well-known. It was pretty apparent to me that nothing good would have come from keeping this open longer. ] ] 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have never seen so many trolls in my entire life. —<b><font color="orange">]</font>] <small>]</small></b> 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I would endorse the close as well. Article was clearly not going to be recreated. I say this, by the way, as someone who doesn't think either recreating it or salting it would be a bad thing. The issue is just too trivial, and ends up being a time sink. <font color="green">]</font> 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Putting it out of its misery was the right thing to do, as consensus was clearly to delete. Thus ends, "Brian Peppers Day." ] 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I also endorse the close. I already explained how trivial any sources found on this guy would be, and almost all of the deletions were valid. Something deleted so many times clearly has zero chance of being notable, whether as a person or as a meme, and ] that proves otherwise per ]. One source of questionable value is ''not'' enough, and I would recommend reviewing the whole situation before accusing the closing admin of being abusive. --''']]''' 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **My review of the whole situation is how I came to the conclusion. Your continued assertions regarding supposed triviality simply are not true. --] <small>]</small> 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Well, regardless, all that can be established is that he is a sex offender, and the DRV was heavily trolled anyway. I don't really see how the "keep deleted"s were "not based in reality" - there were major ] concerns here. This is not a ] issue, and even if you take any such arguments out of the equation, there still would have been consensus to endorse. --''']]''' 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****I wasn't seeing a lot of ''heavy'' trolling, honestly, and there, again, were not a lot of BLP issues - certainly not so many that couldn't be dealt with via editing. I guess it depends on whether you think a consensus can be based on incorrect reasoning - ] certainly doesn't. --] <small>]</small> 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Strong endorse. This is clearly the right decision. Good job. ] 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Normally I'd be among the first in line to cry for "hey, let's just follow our own rules so that our critics won't get any undue ammo", but heck, it's ''abundantly clear'' that there's no way out of this dead end right now. Basically, a) the Opposition hasn't been able to figure out why this person is really ''notable'' aside of some fuzzy ideas on... perhaps... <span style="font-size: 70%;">I don't know... having some email forward notability somewhere?</span> <span style="font-size: 50%;">Uh... forwarded a bit from person to person...</span> <span style="font-size: 30%;">somewhere...</span> and b) how to conduct this matter with all the solemnity required. We don't need a "just-because" revival of the article. --'']'' (]/]) 23:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse closure'''. ] covers the action. The degree to which this particular subject is a troll magnet might make an interesting sociological study, but we're an encyclopedia and not a social experiment. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong endorse closure''', I think we're ready to put this all behind us. --] 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297245207" /> | |||
| ==Problem in exchanging a redirect page and the page it points to== | |||
| Hi, I tried to exchange the Page ] (then a redirect page to ] with the page ] /then the main article). | |||
| I tried to do this by a ring move. The idea was to move "Lamellophone" to "Lamellophone1", then "Lamellaphone" to "Lamellophone" and finally "Lamellophoe1" to "Lamellaphone" (+ change some texts). | |||
| Trying to move the redirect page "Lamellophone" to "Lamellophone11" did not work, the system complained that a page of that name already existed (I belive it did not). | |||
| I then did the change instead by moving the content of the articles including the talk page content. However, the Talk page of "Lamellophone" now has the title "Talk:Lamellophone1", so it looks like the attempted move lead to an inconsistency in the data structure. | |||
| It looks like there is a bug in the moove functionality. If possible, could somebody repair the problem (rename the talk page)? | |||
| Thenk you ] 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Cut-n-paste move repaired. ] ] 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297237107" /> | |||
| == I need a hand == | |||
| I dont have time at the moment to take care of this issue but these images need undeleted. | |||
| <div class="NavFrame" style="padding:0;border-style:none;"><div class="NavFrame" style="border-style:none;padding:0;"><div class="NavHead" style="text-align:left;"> | |||
| '''Complete list'''</div> | |||
| <div class="NavContent" style="display:none; font-size:normal; text-align:left"> | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) (]) | |||
| </div></div></div> | |||
| :these were orphaned to to a template issue can other admins please undelete? ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I added image links to facilitate undeleting them (you can see redlinks vs bluelinks) and restored the first three, but they seem to still be orphaned. Are they actually in use somewhere? --] 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::They still have the orphan template, but all of the ones I've looked at appear to be in use. I've been restoring and then removing the template. And I'm working from the bottom up. -- ] 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I restored all remaining images. I haven't gotten to removing the template, though. ''']]''' 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think we're done here. Pats on the back all around. -- ] 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297243347" /> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Can someone please review the closing of the discussion surrounding the application of the ] to the article titles that include ''TNA iMPACT!''? It appears the closing admin ignored comparative argument strengths, simple majority, and the manual of style itself in deciding a consensus was not met and therefore move was not warranted. Thanks. ] 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If reviewing this requested move discussion is not done here, then can someone suggest the next step? I know that there is deletion review, but I don't see a requested move review. Thanks. ] 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297259247" /> | |||
| ==Request deletion of image== | |||
| The image, "Image:H60566.jpg" exists under identical file names in both Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia Commons. Request that the Misplaced Pages image be deleted so that the Commons image will be used instead to the linked articles. Thank you. ] 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Marked. I subst'd {{tl|nct}} and it's still yelling at me for transcluding it! ] 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, the articles appear to now be linking to the Commons image. ] 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297268367" /> | |||
| == titty.jpg == | |||
| Per ] which says to ask on this board I would like to use this image in the article ]. ] 06:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It's been . ] 06:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Yeah; the user who uploaded it is a single-purpose account who has uploaded a few porn images that were deleted for no source/improper licensing, so my opinion was that GFDL-self couldn't be easily confirmed. ] ] 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297297407" /> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] needs full protection after article today about lawsuit. Already it's been vandalized. I also thin someone with oversight needs to delete the latest edit. --] 14:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There is a separate page ].--] 14:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I realize that. This is an ongoing incident that recently had front office action and oversight deletions. It needs attention. --] 14:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The article is a mess right now. I tried to clean up some of the self-referential problems... --] 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I reverted back further, it looks like you missed the vandalized "Fussy" stuff. I've fully protected for the moment whilst we sort this out.--] 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Be sure to have a look for vandalism when protecting pages, since once protected it can't easily be removed by editors. The protected version had some nonsense about a prosthetic penis, which I've removed. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ugh, I don't know how I missed that. Nice catch.--] 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span id="63297300707" /> | |||
| == Optional parameter in the "usernameblock" ("unb") template == | |||
| What isn't documented at {{tl|usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected) is that the template takes an optional parameter. '''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>usernameblock|'''''reason for block'''''}}''', or even '''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>unb|'''''reason for block'''''}}''', will replace the rest of the sentence following "'''blocked indefinitely''' because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block. | |||
| That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text. | |||
| ''If you enter:'' <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}}<br />''you get:'' | |||
| :]Your username has been '''blocked indefinitely''' because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our ] and ] policies for more information). | |||
| ::::''(and the rest of the template stays the same)'' | |||
| Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at ] over "<u>Why</u> was this name blocked?" -- ] 15:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:05, 26 February 2007
Impartial uninvolved admin needed to close consensus debate
There is a hotly contested template at Template:911ct. There is a discussion here over aspects of naming the template. That discussion has pretty much run its course, and we need an experienced editor, probably an admin, who has not edited any 9/11 articles, and who will look at the arguments over naming with a wholly impartial eye, and bring formal closure to the debate, ideally with a rationale.
The template is currently locked to prevent edit warring. I believe that the result of the debate will allow it to be unlocked and we all hope that people on either side will acknowledge and work within consensus.
Any volunteers? Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, but do you know what scares me? I don't think there is any consensus there. But 99% of sane, educated people would choose "Conspiracy". To call these nonsense theories "Alternative" is (frankly) nuts. Dave 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- ETA: And that, of course, is the problem with consensus... Dave 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would think that a consensus also includes the rationale of the arguments put forward, though? Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
208.101.43.146
This IPvandal account appears to exist for one reason alone, and that is to add fictitious info to List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. The user has already been blocked five times for this behavior, the last time for a period of one month, and immediately began to vandalize the page again when the block expired. He has been warned twice, and reported twice in the past 24 hours, but apparently, no admin wants to be the one to deliver the death sentence to this pest. The reportings simply were not acted on. Will someone please review this situation, and take the appropriate action? It gets very tiring having to revert this vandal's edits three or four times in a day. Thank you. -- Elaich 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've blocked this IP address indefinitely; if another admin wishes to shorten the block, feel free. I didn't disable account creation. -GTBacchus 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't block IPs indefinitely...IPs change hands. Durova 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry. Thanks for fixing it. -GTBacchus 21:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't block IPs indefinitely...IPs change hands. Durova 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand not blocking IPs indefinitely, but how are we to be protected from this vandal otherwise? The vandal has not shown one ounce of good faith. The IP address has been static ever since he/she began vandalizing, and the user did not use another account or IP address to vandalize during any of the blocks, which seems to indicate that he/she either cannot switch IPs, or has been permanently banned in the past from creating a Misplaced Pages account. This is why I don't understand the Misplaced Pages policy of allowing anonymous users to edit. Anybody can create an account, and if it was required, the whole issue of IPvandals would disappear. -- Elaich 07:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not blocking IPs indefinitely does not mean one can't block IPs for a long time. I know of a case where the user's static IP address was blocked for 6 months a time. --cesarb 07:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I changed this block to six months. The longest I've ever heard of for an IP is one year. I imposed one of those: a static IP with a long history of vandalism posted a suicide note to the site. So I looked up the location and filed a report with the Pennsylvania state police. (Was it trolling? A troubled teenager? I didn't know, but it seemed like the right thing to do and people supported me.) Shortly afterward the vandalism resumed. So okay, this person didn't eat a loaded revolver, but my tolerance sank right down to zero. Durova 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Bot gone wild
-:) A bot User:STBot is changing multiple articles however many of these changes are wrong. The owner is offline and I wish until he came online someone stop the bot. The problem is that bot is claiming articles related to Afghanistan which have nothing to do with Afghanistan. For example these are 101% Pakistani thing Command and Staff College, Balochistan Engineering College, Balochistan University of Engineering and Technology, Gwadar International Airport, Barkhan District, Gulistan (Pakistan) Balochistan University of Engineering and Technology, Kohlu District, Quetta Electric Supply Company and many many more. Similarly many other mistakes by bot for example Holiest sites in Islam are now in Afghanistan project. I know if you look in more detail you will find kind of mistakes made by the bot and it is still runing. So stop it. --- ALM
- I have blocked for now. Will also leave a notice on the bot owner's talk page. The bot is also making edits at a much higher rate than the normal stipulated rate — Lost 13:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Danke! --- ALM 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. Grunt. This isn't the first of these wikiproject-article-tagging bots that I've seen that hasn't done exactly what it was supposed to, either. Moreschi 13:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I run a similar bot. But in this case, the owner seems to have picked up entirely irrelevant categories. I guess they just need to be more careful while picking categories for tagging — Lost 13:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi! All the articles were directly in a category listed at User:ST47/AfghanistanSandbox, and the bot run was requested at WP:BOTREQ#Afghanistan_articles, the wikiproject people, who know a lot more than my geographically-challenged mind, looked through that list and fixed it, and I have no clue what category those other articles came from, but I've never had articles just appear before. ST47Talk 13:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd suggest picking up the categories more carefully. The damage is caused by irrelevant subcategories that may have more than one parent cat. For example, Gulistan (Pakistan) which is in Category:Qilla Abdullah District. If you go about 4-5 categories up in the hierarchies, one of the parent cats is somehow related to Afghanistan. The project people need to give you much better categorisation. A similar solution is need for the Spain tagging too. I am unblocking the bot for now, but please discuss with the project people before you resume the tagging. And please undo the tagging that has been done so far as it will need a bot to undo — Lost 13:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Above examples (in my original post) was not listed there but still bot changed those pages. I have not listed all of the bot mistakes but only few of them. Bot has made too many mistakes I guess. Obviously no sense in including Pakistani President in Afghanistan project?. Right? --- ALM 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm working on reverting the spanish ones - I have 46 (I didn't get too far there, thank god :D ST47Talk 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Removed 32. I can do any incorrect Afghanistan categories a la bot if need be. ST47Talk 13:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest undo all its todays edits please. --- ALM 13:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is not done with all the article of Pakistan under Afghanistan. I have tried to do some of them by hand but do not have time to do so many of them. I will appreciate the fix. Thanks . --- ALM 17:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest undo all its todays edits please. --- ALM 13:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Above examples (in my original post) was not listed there but still bot changed those pages. I have not listed all of the bot mistakes but only few of them. Bot has made too many mistakes I guess. Obviously no sense in including Pakistani President in Afghanistan project?. Right? --- ALM 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd suggest picking up the categories more carefully. The damage is caused by irrelevant subcategories that may have more than one parent cat. For example, Gulistan (Pakistan) which is in Category:Qilla Abdullah District. If you go about 4-5 categories up in the hierarchies, one of the parent cats is somehow related to Afghanistan. The project people need to give you much better categorisation. A similar solution is need for the Spain tagging too. I am unblocking the bot for now, but please discuss with the project people before you resume the tagging. And please undo the tagging that has been done so far as it will need a bot to undo — Lost 13:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. Grunt. This isn't the first of these wikiproject-article-tagging bots that I've seen that hasn't done exactly what it was supposed to, either. Moreschi 13:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Danke! --- ALM 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Cut/paste user not stopping, need Pakistan-related admin
Muhammadhani (talk · contribs) has been moving articles by cutting/pasting them. He has been doing that since last year, generating articles with history split between two articles, and apparently continues to do so. He seems to be from Pakistan. Could an administrator with knowledge about their language drop a note to him? He hasn't acknowledged the messages, and it becomes a bother when several users had already warned him to stop doing this. If he does not stop, I would have to block him until he acknowledges the warnings. -- ReyBrujo 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, here is a list of articles that need history merge, feel free to give a hand. I used to history merge them, but now I am not sure if the new names are ok or not.
- Daily Express, Pakistan to Daily Express (Urdu Newspaper)
- Mahmudabad, Pakistan to Mahmudabad (Karachi)
- List of universities in Karachi District to List of universities in Karachi
- Buffer Zone-I to Buffer Zone II
- Godhra Karachi to Godhra (Karachi)
- Khokhra Par (neighborhood) to Khokhra Par (Karachi)
- Muzafarabad Karachi to Muzafarabad (Karachi)
- Civic Centre Karachi to Civic Centre (Karachi)
- Sui (Pakistan) to Sui (Balochistan)
I will contact Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pakistan to see if they can give a hand in "controlling" this user. -- ReyBrujo 15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed every copy-paste move I could find. I will contact this user about his actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Need uninvolved person to close username rfc
This has gone on for a while: WP:RFCN#MikeHunt35_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29
It needs to be closed, but is a close call, and most people who handle these closings have participated in the debate. Thanks. HighInBC 15:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have closed it as "allow". If there are any fancy templates that need to be added to the debate please do so. Kusma (討論) 16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks no fancy templates, we just close them and remove them with an edit summary describing the outcome. An automated bot generates the archive later. HighInBC 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Since you guys get the resulting workload
This is just a heads up about changes proposed regarding template deletion (speedy) processes and procedures proposed by CBDunkerson. See Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion
| This project page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons. Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message. Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
Note to administrators: this page has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.This page was last edited by Thatcher (contribs | logs) at 13:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago) |
Especially, please take note of the heretofore unhearalded {{R from other templates}} and consider jumping in on a tagging/cleanup effort in the odd moment on Special:Unusedtemplates, if such are redirects.
| This project page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons. Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message. Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
Note to administrators: this page has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.This page was last edited by Thatcher (contribs | logs) at 13:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago) |
Also need to begin religiously using that on TfD close-outs, as well as back edits on moves/renaming changes, one would think. Regards. // FrankB 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Don Murphy wants an Admin
Film producer Don Murphy has recently expressed an interest in "purchasing" an admin. This request was removed from his board when User:Kynn found out about it. Mr. Murphy has reposted his request here: Shitapedia- Updated. A member of his forum apparently has an admin who is willing to be bought out. This really isn't a problem if the admin does decide to allow his account to be used, he would most likely be blocked from editing indefinatly. I have notified users who have worked with/against Mr. Murphy on Misplaced Pages and those who were mentioned on his forum. These users are Kynn, HighInBC, Centrx, and Natalya. Philip Gronowski 18:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would not worry too much about it... I think even a dishonest admin would need at least a couple years pay to blow their admin bit. HighInBC 18:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- For context, Don Murphy is apparently User:ColScott. —Centrx→talk • 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- No worry, an admin willing to sell an account it not an admin we would want anyway. I just hope that, if there really is an admin willing to take this offer, that he/she doesn't know the only two really destructive things an admin could do. Someone once offered a Steward 2000(I don't remember if it was euros or dollars) to create an admin account for them ;-). Prodego 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I cannot think of anything that cannot be reversed by going through the admin's logs. HighInBC 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Incorrect. —Centrx→talk • 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- While technical things done by admins can be reversed, nothing can be reversed like the lasting emotional imprint on someone who has been blocked unfairly or had their article deleted. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Incorrect. —Centrx→talk • 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. What a nice man. Would there be some benefit in suggesting the WMF office perhaps touch base with this guy and have a discussion about his issues? I'd say that attempting to buy an admin for causing mayhem might concern them somewhat. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was just looking at his message board and neither the person who apparently knows an admin nor Mr. Murphy have posted again. I think it is resonable to assume that they are continuing their dealings through e-mail. While the account can be bought, they are unlikely to have the skills to do any lasting damage. We can hope that the admin has good character and refuses the offer. If I knew how to, I would certainly take it to WMF, but I doubt they could do much about it. Philip Gronowski 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What's needed here is a sting operation to publicly offer large amounts of money to buy an admin name and password to weed out the admins that bite at the forbidden fruit. Then go public with it to poison future such attempts. Repeat as often as needed. WAS 4.250 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, but that would be dishonest. HighInBC 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- ...as accepting the offer would be. Picaroon 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Two wrongs don't make a right. --Conti|✉ 21:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- ...as accepting the offer would be. Picaroon 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, but that would be dishonest. HighInBC 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. Can we be sure that this is the real Don Murphy? --Kim Bruning 21:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- ROFL! When I first read the title of this thread I thought it was a new wrinkle on the casting couch. Of course I have basic ethics. Tell Mr. Murphy I'm within driving range of Hollywood and I'll give him a chrome plated tour of Misplaced Pages in return for a tour of the set at his next film. Durova 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- For enough money I will... sing him a song on my user page. HighInBC 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I am dead positive that this is Mr. Murphy. It is a message board based off of his official website, http://www.donmurphy.net/. The request was also posted by an administrator of the site by the handle of Don Murphy. Philip Gronowski 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- And I'm dead serious about my offer: I'm really not all that far from Los Angeles and I wouldn't mind doing a little (G rated) Wikidiplomacy. Durova 21:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Dream100 / User:Japanese Dog Calvero
I'm asking for a long block or a permanent ban on the user User:Dream100 and his three sockpuppets User:Japanese Dog Calvero, User:59.117.191.87 and 59.117.180.197. This user's activities is focused on vandalising pages and he has a history of deeply racist attacks , , , , Other users and myself have pointed out that this behaviour is not acceptable and can get him blocked, but instead of changing his behaviour he insults people on their user pages , . When his accounts as User:Dream100 was blocked, he created the account User:Japanese Dog Calvero. That it is the same user we are dealing with can be seen both from the identical vandalism edits with a racist motive, directed against Iranians as well as from the user's was of expressing himself . I have warned him on his user page about the behaviour, but he continuously blanks the page and responds with insults , . Given his behaviour, I don't see how the user User:Dream100 / User:Japanese Dog Calvero / User:59.117.191.87 /59.117.180.197 contributes in any way to Misplaced Pages expect that his constant vandalism and racism causes offense and extra work for responsible users. JdeJ 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- And he continues . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JdeJ (talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
User:Platus Satire Mark 2: User:Lir?
I recall seeing the above mentioned user being banned here after about two years worth of waiting out year long bans, coming back, causing the same riot and revolt that got them banned in the first place, and getting banned for another year. I also note that the notorious long term vandal User:Lightbringer was similarly officially bumped off after sockpuppeting and attacks.
As such, I suggest consideration of another long term trouble-user who keeps coming back with sockpuppets/open proxies in defiance of their ban: Lir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since being banned by the Arbitration Commission on New Year's Day 2005, he has steadily returned and had his ban extended through two straight years and a month or so. 68.39.174.238 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I played the main role in kicking both of them off Misplaced Pages, so this intrigues me. Has Lir edited recently? If so, where? Raul654 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- User:Zoe issued the latest block for "New vandalism", what sockpuppet or where I don't know (I admit I wasn't paying much attention at the time). If you know this user well and think it may be worth not going through with this with him, that's fine with me. 68.39.174.238 00:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Server Loading vaccinations need
- Seems sensible to add
- There was a significant change to WP:DPP this weekend, relative to templates tagged with {{interwikitmp-grp}}, as I'm fairly sure editing the latter on the last two occasions locked the data-base for a time... a geometric propagation effect of so many tools templates in wide use being tagged and exported to our under manned sister projects.
For those unfamilar, this is the best online discription of the proto-project currently available. Now that it's moving out of experimentation into minimal implementation, I'll be innaugerating a project page (just in!!!)... and this is and would be an assist in freeing up time for that. The specialist normally editing many sisters are both undermanned and have not our wide deep pool of template coders, and viewing some of their VP posts (How can I do this... stuff) is eye-opening, as are the responses.This project page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons. Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2 If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
- Nominator: Please consider placing the template:
{{subst:Db-noimage-notice|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive74|header=1}} ~~~~- on the talk page of the author.
Note to administrators: this page has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion.
Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.
This page was last edited by Thatcher (contribs | logs) at 13:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)
If some have a moment to assist in adding the 'doc page pattern' technique to such tools templates, especially the protected templates, this will be a big help in innoculating (preventing) the system from such server loads. The {{interwiki doc page pattern}} subst'd gives a boilerplate on the /doc page, so only a little cutting and pasting is needed to achieve a permanent fix.This project page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons. Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2 If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
- Nominator: Please consider placing the template:
{{subst:Db-noimage-notice|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive74|header=1}} ~~~~- on the talk page of the author.
Note to administrators: this page has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion.
Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.
This page was last edited by Thatcher (contribs | logs) at 13:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)
Two caveats:This project page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons. Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2 If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
- Nominator: Please consider placing the template:
{{subst:Db-noimage-notice|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive74|header=1}} ~~~~- on the talk page of the author.
Note to administrators: this page has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion.
Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.
This page was last edited by Thatcher (contribs | logs) at 13:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)- The syntax <noinclude>{{/doc}}</noinclude> does not work on most other sister projects, so please use the longer equivilent <noinclude>{{{{PAGENAME}}/doc}}</noinclude> or the verbatim boilerplate if aiding this small tasking bubble.
This project page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons. Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2 If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
- Nominator: Please consider placing the template:
{{subst:Db-noimage-notice|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive74|header=1}} ~~~~- on the talk page of the author.
Note to administrators: this page has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion.
Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.
This page was last edited by Thatcher (contribs | logs) at 13:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)- The next stage evolution uses parameters and will delete the interwikitmp-grpNN suffixed pages, so if you convert those to
{{interwikitmp-grp}}, per suffixed 'NN' tag now inplace, will be a big assist. See either {{template list/doc}} or {{tlw/doc}} for call examples. And I (and perhaps others like you?) can get on with making the write-up for the trial project into a concrete project from Meta. I'm a little time tight right now and all help much appreciated. Thanks, regards FrankB 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:RM backlog and Talk:Ethnic Japanese
Hello. GT, Pat, Duja and the crew normally do stellar work in keeping the requested move page flowing but the girth of recent move request have put a bit of a backlog on the page and I hope that other admins could help tackle it. One particular move that could certainly benefit from having a few extra set of eyes take a look is the move request on Talk:Ethnic Japanese. It been open for 10 days now and has been suprisingly contentious despite having a grand total of 6 editors commenting on it. This is the second move request on this page within a month. Thanks! 205.157.110.11 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack made by User:68.173.168.91 on User:MattSignorile
The user User:68.173.168.91 made a personal attack on User:MattSignorile. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Staten_Island_Technical_High_School&oldid=105591091 This IP address has a history of repeated vandalism to the page mentioned above. User:68.173.168.91 has been blocked two times. LordKenTheGreat 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:AIV
We need a administrator to look over and decide at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thank you! --Extranet 08:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism warnings in different languages
For some time now, I have been telling Dutch vandals in Dutch not to vandalise Misplaced Pages. See for instance , and . I believe that addressing a vandal in his or her own language has a better chance to get the message across. A problem with this, however, is that admins who do not speak Dutch will not be able to see that the vandal has been warned before. Could standardized templates in other languages (for instance test-nl, test-es, test-fr, test-fy, test-bg etc.) help overcome this problem? The vandal will be addressed in his/her own language, and other admins will be able to see which warning has been issued. Aecis 13:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I sometimes warn in the vandal's own language, so I agree that such warnings work better than doing so in English. I'd think that it's clear from context that the warning is a warning, but perhaps adding
<!--Test1 warning-->or whatever it is from the actual warning templates might be useful and less trouble? 〈REDVEЯS〉 13:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's a decent idea, but is it worth remembering that if someone is unable to speak English, they probably shouldn't be editing en.wikipedia in the first place? Vandals in particular. Proto::► 13:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not inability to speak English, rather English being a second language. I find you can have more effect on someone by speaking to them in their first language - it really rams the point home. 〈REDVEЯS〉 13:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- We've got a little bit here, at least for some languages; these could be used as 'starting points' Lectonar 13:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Roger the red
Roger the red (talk · contribs) (RTR) is a combative user who has violated several policies and guidelines. He was previously banned due to legal threats but has returned and is almost as combative as before.
RTR is the head of a very small film production company, the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (AMBC), which is the main focus of his editing. In addition to writing about the AMBC and promoting it (some if it arguably legitimate), he's also questioned and removed the competings claims of another film company.(#) Many of RTR's edits have served to promote the legacy of his father and in several cases appeared intended to settle perceived mistreatment of him by others.(#) He's created or made edits to articles about himself(#), his family and friends, and his company, and has added links to them from many articles. In the course of his editing RTR has attacked the purported agendas of other editors and claimed harassment(#, ), made demands, and issued legal threats to other editors (#) (one of which resulted in the ban of an earlier account (#)). RTR has disrupted the articles of other studios in order to make points about the editing of his company's article.(#) He's added copyrighted text from other websites(#) and complained when they were identified.() He's made extensive use of dispute resolution processes including requesting peer review, seeking mediation, emailing OTRS, getting an advocate, adding editing tags, and making contact with uninvolved editors(#)(#) In spite of all of his complaints and requests for help no other editors have supported his positions significantly (that I've noticed). That makes his efforts appear to violate WP:Wikilawyering. He's identified himself by name previously(#) but now claims to be a new, totally disinterested editor (#) despite an obvious continuity of behavior (#). By doing so he appears to be evading a block and abusing the alternate accounts privilege.
Because of the block evasion, the incivility and ongoing threats, the violations of WP:POINT and WP:COI, and other problems this editor has shown himself to be unable to edit in a neutral fashion or to respect our policies. I think that a community ban is called for. -Will Beback · † · 05:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support community ban based on the material at User:Will Beback/AMBC. This user is obviously not inclined to contribute to Misplaced Pages in any way, except for promotional purposes. As he's not commented here yet, I'm open to changing my mind in case of a persuasive rebuttal. Sandstein 07:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support community ban. Wherever he goes, whoever he deals with, the results have been the same. — Walloon 08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I was completely unfamiliar with this user, so I read Will's page. It's pretty obvious that this user is a POV pusher with an agenda who is combative and stops at nothing to get his way. I agree with the ban, mostly on the grounds of POINT and WP:AUTO as well as major problems with conflict of interest. It might be ok if he had shown any ability to separate his responsibility to his company from his responsibility with being a neutral editor on Misplaced Pages but I see no evidence of it. --Woohookitty 12:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I haven't been following recent events, but have been involved in the Mutoscope and American Mutoscope and Biograph Company and regard this user as a self-promoter and POV-warrior of pitbull tenacity. I agree with Will Beback that he seems to be "unable to edit in a neutral fashion." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I've followed enough of this to agree with Will. It's time to close the door on this disruption. Durova 22:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support I've just looked through the evidence page. Tyrenius 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Could one of the uninvolved admins please place the block? -Will Beback · † · 05:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Could one of the uninvolved admins please place the block? -Will Beback · † · 05:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Response
- moved from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -Will Beback · † · 07:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
First, I apologize for the lengthy posting. I am a film fan/historian. I am from NYC and now live in Los Angeles. I am new to Misplaced Pages and thought it would be a good source to contribute pertinent information on film history and its companies. I thought it would be fun, and I was in for a great surprise and disappointment. I was to start from the beginning, which was Gaumont, Pathe, and American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. The third article mentioned and its discussions intrigued me and after looking at it further the article looked mauled at best. I then continued on the "Sprouts" which were the people involved and its history. by this I mean attempting to contribute to the information. By doing this triggered a controversy worse than the 1950's McCarthy hearings. Every little thing I did with this article was questioned and scrutinized. This can be seen by going to all talk pages on the subject. With time allowance, I then tried to study and learn about Wiki-Policies and protocol. I am thorough and attempted to follow this in good faith. However, I was constantly confronted by -Will Beback and a coalition that is and has been in contact with. I decided that along with my other contributions not to edit American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, this controversial article but to "Tag" this and attempt to bring in other neutral editors for their contribution which was according to Wiki-Policies.
Here comes the rub. I was accused by Will Beback of being a member of the new company mentioned in the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company article. I responded of course and even contacted an AMA advocate Tutmosis since I knew no one on Misplaced Pages. I even had no problem with removing the "Dispute" tag, but I wanted other contributing editors to come onboard.
With this has now sparked another attempt by this editor against me, now for "Block Evasion" (See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Roger the red) in which I am again accused of being part of this new company claiming to be American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. I am also accused of being "Uncivil", "Disruptive", etc., in which I have not. As I mentioned earlier, I do not know anyone on Misplaced Pages since I am new, except my AMA advocate Tutmosis. this is even mentioned by administrator Will Beback using this as a "Weak" point. Will Beback is now resorting to uncalled for measures to block me as an editor rather than to civilly discuss the situation, or go through channels of Dispute Resolution, Mediation, or Arbitration which I would be completely agreeable. I also feel that the "Supporters" that he has are associates and know this administrator on a personal level. In all I feel he is using his administrative powers in an inappropriate way. Because of these actions, I want to make an open informal complaint over the behavior of Will Beback.
--Roger the red 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)- Invoking McCarthyism is not going to help your case any. The reason your editing attracted attention was because it gave all the impressions of what we call vanispamcruftisement - that is, edits which are vain and self-promotional. What possible motive would we have to drive away people who made many edits, unless they were problematic? Guy (Help!) 10:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Will did a good job here. I fully support his actions. If you want to come back, abide by the community decision and read up on site policies. Send a polite message to request reinstatement sometime around midyear and I'd be willing to reconsider...if it contains a respectful apology for the hassle you caused. Durova 21:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Followup- I've blanked the evidence page. Its previous contents can be viewed in the history. -Will Beback · † · 08:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
CyberAnth and WP:BLP
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#BLPs - CyberAnth strikes again. Apparently you guys suck... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- He's STILL at it? SirFozzie 11:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- What here requires an admin's attention, other than your apparent beef with CyberAnth? Misrepresenting what he said to in an attempt to gain favor isn't nice, by the way. Frise 03:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line of this is that we do not need a special kind of adminship just for an individual who works with WP:BLP reports. That is the work that a regular editor can do. If they also have the mop, then they can assist in other ways along with working the BLP reports.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- That is certainly a valid point, but coming here and putting words in CyberAnth's mouth when his communication on Jimbo's talk page was calm and polite isn't very nice, in my opinion. Frise 03:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- If I required admin attention, I would have posted to WP:AN/I. Forgive me, but Cyberanth declaring an entirely new kind of administrator is needed because the current ones aren't doing their job properly seemed like something admins might want to know about. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then I feel you should argue the merits of his proposal and please not attribute sentiments to him (admins suck) that he did not make. Frise 03:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- "However, I can claim some knowledge of what some admins do not do based upon their visiting of pages prior my evaluating them - pages that contained content that they let stand in clear violation of WP:BLP." seens an implicit way of saying admins suck. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then I feel you should argue the merits of his proposal and please not attribute sentiments to him (admins suck) that he did not make. Frise 03:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- If I required admin attention, I would have posted to WP:AN/I. Forgive me, but Cyberanth declaring an entirely new kind of administrator is needed because the current ones aren't doing their job properly seemed like something admins might want to know about. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
CALM DOWN. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's something funny about you showing up a full day after people stopped posting in this section only to tell them to calm down. :) Frise 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Clearly administrators should unionise, then go on strike. Except we're not paid, nor are we given benefits. I suppose we could demand a dental plan...Mackensen (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- CyberAnth started up his own process: Misplaced Pages:BLP Admin. PTO 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
User wont accept dispute resolution decision?
Hi, we are having trouble with a disruptive editor at Unwinnable. The user seems to be playing a game of revert-war over the article - every single edit is reverted to his WP:OWN version. In an attempt to close the issue, we logged a case at WP:3O(third opinion) and the decision was in our favour (see Talk:Unwinnable#Third opinion), and we assumed this would be an end to the issue.
However, the disruptive editor returned today and started reverting the 3O implementation again. He has been blocked for WP:3RR once previously over this page, and whenever there are attempts to engage him on his talk page, all the warning templates are instantly removed. (see the history of User_talk:Prosfilaes). The user seems less concerned with the welfare of the article (he has now slapped an "OR" banner on the page in a fit of pique) and more concerned with "winning a battle" (the wikipedia-as-MMORPG mentality).
Its hard to know how to proceed in this situation as the dispute resolution has already been done, but the user won't accept the result. What now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.203.67 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
- Without examining the user's conduct, which may indeed be disruptive, dispute resolution like that at WP:3O does not produce final decisions in the way you suggest. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- what is the point of 3O in that case? we though it was "2 users, a dispute, a decision. dispute resolved." - if it isnt, then why bother? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.232.72 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
- It's only an initial step in dispute resolution. 3O exists for minor disputes that could be solved quickly, without clogging up Misplaced Pages processes. IF 3O does not work, try the next tier in dispute resolution, namely the Mediation Cabal. --physicq (c) 19:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Given my experience with the original poster, I'm afraid that he won't discuss this issue with the Mediation Cabal, but I will try that.--Prosfilaes 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Bear in mind that if this complaint is legitimate and the poster can back up the claims against this user with appropriate page diffs and other evidence, then Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing would be worth a read. If that editor is truly gaming the system and continues to do so then the community can intervene. For now, assume good faith and give the next dispute resolution step a try. Best wishes, Durova 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I admit that I have been stressed and inappropriately using reverts, and need to stop that behavior. However, this was not disruptive editing; this was being irritated by someone who engaged in a revert war with me, made the first post to the talk page "please use talkpage instead of revert-warring." after he had violated 3RR, ignored his 12h block by changing his IP, repeatedly attacking me on the talk page and filling my talk page with prefab templates instead of talking to me.--Prosfilaes 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Requesting review of my actions
Over at Kjárr, a budding edit war broke, so I protected m:the wrong version and left a note to that effect on the talk page.
Followed an email exchange with User:berig. I'd like to state first that email seeming unnecessary here doesn't put me in an extremely agreeable mood.
Thanks for protecting that Kjárr article and for showing that the referenced version of the article is the wrong version.
It is obvious that I was wrong in believing that it was the referenced information that should stay. FYI, Dusis was getting back at me for losing a discussion we had had on the Scandinavia article.
I am so insulted, that you will not see me around anymore.
I tried to stick to the fact in my answer:
"The wrong version" is a satirical page. I use it whenever I protect a page because when a page is protected, someone will inevitably be displeased.
I do not care for the content dispute or any previous relationship you might have had with this user. Revert or edit warring on any article instead of calmly debating the question on the talk page is, and will aways considered harmful to the encyclopedia. That was the reason why the "wrong version" was protected.
If you can't understand that such behavior is a problem and that we do have a dispute resolution process (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution), go ahead and leave. I'm not going to run after you.
Obviously, I don't take very kindly to threaths to leave when the matter is at best a misunderstanding. At this point, Berig switched to french, and the next messages are translations.
If you'd taken the time to look at the article, you'd have understood that Dusis was changing cited information. In addition, your compatriot(I have no idea why that came up,as I had never came across Dusis before) didn't listen to my arguments, and in one edit he reverted, I had added information the importance of which he insisted on.
I don't create articles like these, on which I work hard, tobe treated like a troll. I hope you understand that.
Now saying that I wasn't annoyed would be a lie, but I still tried to correct the user assumptions:
Whether the content was orwas not cited does not matter to me. If editors cannot solve their disagreements via discussion, it is perfectly reasonable to impose a cool down period to the article itself, and as I just said, in such a dispute, one side is guaranteed to be in disagreementwith the results. That's why Misplaced Pages:Protection policy says:: "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version". In fact that(imposing a cool down period) is the administrators' duty. ("A temporary full-protection is used for enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war.")
If my tone might have seemed condescending at one step or the oter, I am sorry for that. I normaly try toavoid personal involvement whenever a protection is necessary, and an email like that is not particularly constructive when it comes to theactual problem; that is, whwther or not reliable sources confirm or not that Kjárr is a representation of Caesar.
If Dusis is stalkingyou, I don't mind looking into that allegations (but I don't have the time right nowbecause I was at a friend's house without my usual browser and just looking my mail) I couldn't have know:I only saw an edit war, and acted on that specific situation. If that is not the first incident involvingyou two,maybe a Requestfor comment or one formediation are appropriate.
All thta was to no avail, however. Looks like we can add a French-Canadian Cabal to the List:
So, I wrote a lot of articles about nordic myths because few people are working on it(and are really interested in it).
As you can see on my user page, a few people have left signs of their appreciation of my work.
However, I feel like I'm at the end of the roadA French-Canadian gets angry at me for telling him we must respect information from reliable sources of Scandinavia. then he starts ruining information at Kjárr that I worked hard to source properly.
Then a French-Canadian admin protects the page in the version of the French-Canadian and tells me he wants to stop an edit war. That's the fastest protection I ever saw.
I can't see why I would continue writing articles whe stalkers are helped by compatriot admins like this.
I'm done with Misplaced Pages.
The entitlement almost made me laugh. I told him in my first message: I wouldn't run after him. SoI didn't answer. However, I'd still like to have others' opinion here. (I think the protection of Banjee was pretty rapid too, for the records.)Circeus 17:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think you could have used different wording than "the wrong version" in the protection log; it's a fairly inappropriate place for satire, especially when it's highly unlikely that editors in the dispute will understand and/or find it amusing. As for the accusations of a cabal; I wouldn't worry about it. Some editors just don't get the point that not everyone is out to get them; it might be worth explaining one more time, simply, that the protection action is neutral, and until all editors involved can learn to see things from more than their own perspective, or at least withhold their editing until they can, the page will be protected. -- Renesis (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Everything looks perfect, neatly typed in triplicate, tied up in the regulation quantity of red tape. You followed the rules, and how could anyone possibly expect more than that? Your great work is bound to improve the encyclopedia. I'm minded to give you a barnstar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The only information I'd add to the above is, that if someone deliberately changes cites, or verified information, to read deliberately incorrectly (as opposed to different emphasis or something thats a legitimate editorial issue) - for example they change a quote or a fact that the citation shows a different thing for -- then that may be held to be vandalism, not bona fide editing. Correcting obvious vandalism is outside 3RR and "wrong version", because one isn't aren't taking a stance in an edit war by doing so, you are fixing a vandalized quote. I know this since we had the same problem on Labrador Retriever a month ago -- reverting the vandalised quote was not considered preferential treatment of a version or 3RR violation, but repair of vandalism, which may be done whether the article is blocked or otherwise.
- That said I would not reference "protecting the wrong article" again. Even if in jest or to make a point, people will (as you see) take it wrongly. FT2 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it was a bad idea. It certainly didn't raise any ire at Template talk:Philosophy navigation. Maybe I just don't do page protection enough. I agree about the modification of cited statements (I reverted a few such changes myself in other articles), but as I said, my "job" wasn't to get involved in a mostly scholarly dispute.Circeus 15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
overlooked category renaming
Check out Category:Muslim Islamic scholars. It seems it was never recorded as needing bot attention, and it's been sitting there for five weeks unmoved. Category:CfD 2006-12 is now deleted and the bots have moved on. Same goes for Category:Shi'a Muslim Islamic scholars, Category:Shi'a Muslim scholars, Category:Sunni Muslim Islamic scholars, Category:Sunni Muslim scholars. — coelacan talk — 09:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- If that happens post to WP:CFD/W with a link to the CfD and the bots will handle the rest Betacommand 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom
The arbitration committee has endorsed the indefinite ban of Nathanrdotcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The committee regrets that the rationale and evidence for this decision must be kept private to prevent injury to innocent third parties. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- As the person who asked arbcom to take the case, I'd just like to express my thanks that this delicate matter has been dealt with efficiently and discretely. I've little idea about the evidence and issues, but handling this type of thing is exactly what arbcom is for. Case closed. Well done.--Doc 13:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- As the blocking admin, I echo that. I also praise Doc for filing the case swiftly and intelligently. El_C 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Possible mis-editing
By chance I had occasion to consult the ~paedia today regarding Buxton University. I noted that it was stated to be "accredited", in contrast to a Google search which recorded Wiki saying it was "unaccredited". Looking at History, I note that the change was made in recent (0/02/07, I think) edits by a red-texted user. Is it possible that, erroneously, its status has been altered ? -- Simon Cursitor 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- That edit has since been reverted, because it removed much of the article as well as making the change. If you see information in Misplaced Pages that you know is incorrect, you are welcome to change it yourself, especially if you provide a source to demonstrate that you aren't vandalising (like the redlink user apparently was). --ais523 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you -- I do not work for the relevant authorities, so couldn't be certain what the accurate answer was, much less source it. And I am also aware that accreditation and statements about it are a sensitive (and litigatious) subject at present. Thank you for sorting this out. -- Simon Cursitor 08:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing backlog at WP:CFD
Categories for Discussion still has an 11 day backlog. It would be nice to see the backlog cleared or at least to see many of the non-controversial discussions closed. As pointed out previously, administrators may use the bots at WP:CFD/W to assist in deleting or renaming categories. (I would just like to see some of my two-weeks-old and three-weeks-old nominations closed, even if they are closed with no consensus or with rejections of my proposals.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would help, but CFD is too complicated unless you're a black belt in Bot. I took a look at WP:CFD/W and my eyes glazed over. Proto::► 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can automate this? We could have a page WP:CFD/Clear that is protected so only admins can list categories there, and a bot would read it, say hourly, and depopulate the categories it finds there. >Radiant< 15:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, CFD/W already serves both renaming and clearing purposes I believe. The bots just run down the list and do whatever unless it says 'NO BOTS'. What Dr. Submillimeter is asking for is people to close discussions (part of which is adding to the CFDW page). I'd help (I used to do it a lot), but atm I just don't seem to have the time to sit down and burn through the discussions. Syrthiss 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- It does? Okay, in that case I've closed three days' worth of discussions. Bot away! >Radiant< 14:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, CFD/W already serves both renaming and clearing purposes I believe. The bots just run down the list and do whatever unless it says 'NO BOTS'. What Dr. Submillimeter is asking for is people to close discussions (part of which is adding to the CFDW page). I'd help (I used to do it a lot), but atm I just don't seem to have the time to sit down and burn through the discussions. Syrthiss 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleters needed
Feeling twitchy? Need to crush things under your thumb?
PRODs, Orphaned fair use and Images with unknown source are all at all-time highs and could use some rabid deletionism.
Dragons flight 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- OR it could use a few admins willing to take the time to actually consider these rather than just deleting them to make the problem go away... Remember DePROD will clear out the backlog too.--Isotope23 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- That works too, though cursory inspection suggests there are large numbers of things where deletion makes sense. Dragons flight 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, I know your original post was tongue and cheek...--Isotope23 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- <snicker> So laugh already! ;-) </snicker> --Kim Bruning 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, I know your original post was tongue and cheek...--Isotope23 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- That works too, though cursory inspection suggests there are large numbers of things where deletion makes sense. Dragons flight 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Article with some serious allegations needing extra eyes
I came across James E. Sabow through a mention on Jimbo's talk page, but I'm on deadline and haven't the time to do anything about it - it definitely needs some extra eyes, though. It's unsourced and makes some pretty serious allegations regarding a coverup of the article subject's murder, so it might be worth taking a look at. The article creator, User:JPatrickBedell, linked to it from Jimbo's page saying "Perhaps the case of James Sabow will be a test case for the wikijustice that will prevail in a world that has Misplaced Pages.org." Tony Fox (arf!) 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Additional: a quick bit of poking around indicates there are some sources for this piece, but it still looks pretty iffy at present. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Slashed to one sentence stub. Actual notability needs checking as well. Moreschi 18:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
TfD vacation
I don't want to sound WP:OWN-ish here, but since I'm nearly the only admin who looks at WP:TFD, and I've been busy at school lately, there's a huge backlog. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll pitch in. --Woohookitty 08:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Featured user pages
Hi, please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
jennifer aniston work in film Derailed
The general concensus source would be the large critic's website called Rotten Tomatoes. This website includes all the respected, major movie critics citing their publications. In your career section, discussing the movie Derailed, Jennifer Aniston did not receive "much praise" for... "doing it well" from the greater majority. The reviews of her performance were scathing by almost all (90%+) the professional critics; largely stating she was miss cast and out of her element and ability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist2 (talk • contribs)
- Uh... huh?--Isotope23 20:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why is this here? Shouldn't it be on the article's talk page? Acalamari 22:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Blockreview GeorgeDevers
- GeorgeDevers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - see George devers (deleted) Attackpage linked to account name. Agathoclea 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:SSP
There is a severe backlog here. Attention requested. --Ideogram 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Durova/Community enforced mediation
This proposal would create a new experimental option in dispute resolution. Advance reviews have been favorable so I'm opening this up to general feedback. Please reply at the proposal's talk page so the discussion is focused in one place. Durova 23:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Similar vandalism from a variety of IPs
Don't know if there is anything in it but the following IPs have made similar edits: User:74.224.96.160, User:72.152.77.246 and User:68.217.72.65AlanD 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
User Olivierd's sub-page on his sockpuppetry case
I'd like an admin to take a look at this page and tell me whether such a thing is appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Since I'm named on the page, I'd rather refrain from any comment so that I can't be accused of trying to sway an admin. Thanks for your attention.--Ramdrake 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see no problem with it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Question regarding IP users
I was just wondering (there is probably a page out there that'll tell me, I know... sorry) why Misplaced Pages allows edits from those without a username? Surely a large percentage of vandalism would dissapear if only registered users could edit pages. Registering isn't a labourious task but it is enough of a task to weed out those who vandalise on a whim... Those who are more hard-core can easily be blocked and investigated for sock puppetry. I'm just wondering as I've been spotting (due to having contributed in the talk pages of, reverted vandalism on random pages searches of or have contributed to the pages of several articles and therefore have them on my watchlist) a fair bit of vandalism recently and it is nearly always IPs doing it.
Is there a good reason for continuing to allow IP edits? AlanD 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- The argument is that many positive edits are made by IP users, who might be experts in the field but may not feel the need or want to take the time to register. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is a Perennial Proposal. In addition to the point made by Chris Griswold, the more cynical among us can single out edits made by IPs for closer screening. If IP editing were disabled, then thousands or millions of dummy, single-edit, vandalism-only accounts would spring up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I take your points but still feel, personally, it would in the long term lead to less vandalism in general. However it isn't my call and you folk clean up far more vandalism than I.
- Thank you for replying so quickly. AlanD 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Can an admin help this user?
See here and here. I think he wants to delete his userpage and talkpage completely. -- Jim Douglas (contribs) 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- m:Right to vanish. He needs to go about requesting a username change, then changing all references to his previous username on every page that he's signed. User talk deletion isn't a usual step to take though, unless there's some dire need for it; some users have been known to abuse the right to vanish to "clean the slate" in regards to their user talk, and it cuts apart discussions and such. I'm not comfortable with it myself, though I can't speak for others. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- If he is sure he wants to leave Misplaced Pages for awhile, I will be glad to facilitate (and if he is not sure he wanted to leave Misplaced Pages for awhile, he's about thisclose to someone proposing a community ban anyway). This user unfortunately does not appear to be suited for this project at this time. Given that this is a minor editing under his real name (not just disclosing it once on a userpage, but actually signing with the name), and that his checkered record here will come back to haunt him years from now when someone on a college admissions committee or something does a Google search, I think allowing a vanishing would definitely be in order, with the understanding that he is to allow an appropriate period of time (I suggest three months minimum) before returning under a new username, which would be confided to a trusted admin or two, before quietly starting over. Newyorkbrad 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Per an e-mail received from a third party, this editor has requested that his userpage and talkpage be deleted as he no longer feels comfortable editing here under this account. Under all the circumstances, this request appears to be in good faith and I am satisfied it should be granted. I will perform the deletion and get back to the user strongly suggesting that he take some time off before considering returning with another username. If anyone has any concerns about this, please e-mail. Newyorkbrad 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you see ASAP! Can you delete the archives too? User_talk:Asher Heimermann/Archives/2006/A, User_talk:Asher_Heimermann/Archives/2006/B, User_talk:Asher_Heimermann/Archives/2007/A. Mr. Asher Heimermann 05:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- If he is sure he wants to leave Misplaced Pages for awhile, I will be glad to facilitate (and if he is not sure he wanted to leave Misplaced Pages for awhile, he's about thisclose to someone proposing a community ban anyway). This user unfortunately does not appear to be suited for this project at this time. Given that this is a minor editing under his real name (not just disclosing it once on a userpage, but actually signing with the name), and that his checkered record here will come back to haunt him years from now when someone on a college admissions committee or something does a Google search, I think allowing a vanishing would definitely be in order, with the understanding that he is to allow an appropriate period of time (I suggest three months minimum) before returning under a new username, which would be confided to a trusted admin or two, before quietly starting over. Newyorkbrad 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Brad. I adopted Asher a while back, though have had very little success in even managing to communicate with him, never mind guide him towards an acceptable editing style. Most of my interaction with his has been to attempt to persuade him that listing his email address and/or telephone number is a very bad idea and that he should consider editing under a pseudonym. I fully endorse him disappearing, but would ask that he be counseled to seek advice from an experienced user if and when he chooses to join us again. Mind you, even if he doesn't I suspect he will come to our attention before too long. Rockpocket 07:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi; yes, I remember that, and I'm sorry this didn't work out better for everyone. As I noted above, someone needs to counsel him for the future, and keep an eye out. Do you think you established his confidence such that you're the one to do it? Newyorkbrad 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Brad. I adopted Asher a while back, though have had very little success in even managing to communicate with him, never mind guide him towards an acceptable editing style. Most of my interaction with his has been to attempt to persuade him that listing his email address and/or telephone number is a very bad idea and that he should consider editing under a pseudonym. I fully endorse him disappearing, but would ask that he be counseled to seek advice from an experienced user if and when he chooses to join us again. Mind you, even if he doesn't I suspect he will come to our attention before too long. Rockpocket 07:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A Man In Black
- The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
As previously discussed on this board, I have had problems with A Man in Black. I ended the image debate as it was clearly never going to go anywhere. Today, an article I worked very hard on, KXGN, was messed up entirely by A Man in Black. I tried to distance myself from A Man In Black and it seems like he wants to pick a fight over anything. I don't want to deal with this user and would very much like it if he were to go away. Anything can be done here? I have distanced myself, but this user doesn't seem to get the point. - SVRTVDude 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- And what point would that be? --Calton | Talk 05:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- That fancruft and fair use images are oogly googly cool? JuJube 05:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Dear God, I hope not. --Calton | Talk 06:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Am ending this conversation as it is not going anywhere, obviously. - SVRTVDude 06:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Caution, Don Murphy "Stooges" might attack
Here are some of his fans at it. I have a screenshot if it gets taken down when they notice this post (which they likely will), if you want screenshots contact me by using the e-mail function at my user page. Philip Gronowski 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps they haven't noticed that Misplaced Pages is vaguely used to dealing with vandalism... Good to know where it is coming from, if it does show up, though. -- Natalya 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Copyright violation removal
I rewrote the Stochastic oscillator article, could someone clean it when they get a chance. THanks Mrdthree 07:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- The rewrite is here. --Woohookitty 08:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
User:BWCNY
I do not know if this is where it belongs, however BWCNY has been causing minor problems lately, and any attempts to correct him usually result with a blanking of his own talk page. He was given two UWs the other day one of which was for not properly citing his additions to various topics. He proceeded to blank the talk page and than instead of adding the citations or reverting the work, he tagged his work with the fact tag. Is this a violation of WP:NOR? He has added information without citing his work to numerous pages and before I revert the pages, I wanted to know if it was wrong. He than proceeded to include masked vulgarity on his User page. I do not know the proper method to proceed since Ive never seen anyone for lack of a better way of putting it, vandalize their own page as seen here User:BWCNY. Any assistance that can be provided would be greatly appreciated. Rob110178 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would help if you posted page diffs for the specific edits, rather than a single link to an older version of the user's page history. Yes, the editor may blank warnings to his talk page. He's still been warned and that's viewable through the history file. It's bad wikiquette to blank all posts from one's talk page, but still permissible. You might try an article content WP:RFC on the article in question to establish consensus on the WP:NOR issue. Best wishes. Durova 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with the WP:RFC is that there are so many of those types of articles, I do not know where to start. I'm going to try to give it a shot. The minor nature of these issues amongst other problems makes this situation challenging... Rob110178 23:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your initial post made this seem like a single article. Please provide the full story with page diffs. Durova 18:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- There was a good amount of pages involved. I went the RfC route and as a result, user has decided to stop editing for a while. We will see where it goes from here. Rob110178 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your initial post made this seem like a single article. Please provide the full story with page diffs. Durova 18:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with the WP:RFC is that there are so many of those types of articles, I do not know where to start. I'm going to try to give it a shot. The minor nature of these issues amongst other problems makes this situation challenging... Rob110178 23:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes a few fresh pairs of eyes resolves everything. Best wishes. Durova 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- A RFCU has yielded two puppets that this user has run. What happens when an RFCU yields positive results? How does the puppeteer get addressed? Thanks Rob110178 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Proven socks of a banned sockmaster are subject to automatic banning and the sockmaster gets a fresh template on the user page to identify the activity. See User:JB196 and click the category link to his sockpuppets. User:AWilliamson is another good example. Durova 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- A RFCU has yielded two puppets that this user has run. What happens when an RFCU yields positive results? How does the puppeteer get addressed? Thanks Rob110178 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes a few fresh pairs of eyes resolves everything. Best wishes. Durova 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal: BLP Admins
I'm surprised not to see this mentioned here already. CyberAnth is proposing that a special class of admins be created to enforce WP:BLP. The proposal can be found here: Misplaced Pages:BLP Admin. Present admins may wish to contribute to the discussion... WJBscribe 04:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's been speedy closed. Someone (with some clout) needs to have a good talk with CyberAnth.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. This has to be one of the most infuriating disputes that I have come across. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Who has the clout, Ryulong? Frise 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I (snarkily) note that the first of the two requirements would prevent the creator of the BLP Admin proposal from achieving this exalted status. Proto::► 09:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is snarky, and it's inappropriate. It's a good policy idea or not (I lean toward not) no matter who proposes it. If it's not a good idea, that will be clear without arguing ad hominem. Tom Harrison 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I (snarkily) note that the first of the two requirements would prevent the creator of the BLP Admin proposal from achieving this exalted status. Proto::► 09:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Probably best not to comment on the author in this venue, go to the proposal's talk, comment on the proposal there. Regards, Navou / review me 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets backlog - down to under one month
Just wanted to note that the oldest case on WP:SSP is down to less than one month. That is still horrible (cases should be decided in 10 days), but is a lot better than over two months which is what it was when Robdurbar posted the call for help on January 12.
Great thanks should go to the indefatigable User:MER-C, and User:Akhilleus, who, despite not being admins, have been helping out a great deal by closing what cases they can (when all users are already blocked for other reasons anyway), patching the somewhat baroque Wiki syntax on the page, moving cases to archives, advising people who have questions, and so forth. By the way, the only reason I'm not nominating both for WP:RFA is that the former had a fairly recent one, and the latter refused my nomination. They're good folks - a big hand, please.
Meanwhile, if any other admins want to help out closing a few, we would all appreciate it. Otherwise for the last month I've been basically the sole admin closing cases for this page, and it's not as if I'm more qualified than anyone else - I had barely even heard of the page before the call for help came. --AnonEMouse 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your hard work, and that of your non-admin compatriats! Applause is certainly deserved. :) I (and hopefully others!) will look into some of the remaining cases, and hopefully can aid you in your extensive efforts to clear up the rest of the backlog. -- Natalya 17:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
DontStayIn
Can someone put the text of this article into my userspace please. I'll clean it up and try to show it's notability then add it back to the mainspace. As the website in question has an alexa rank of 8,817 it's most probably a big enough site for an article. Thanks. exolon 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, will do so now, but don't just put it back in the mainspace, please - provide the new article to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, so it's formally protected from re-deletion. Proto::► 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure DRV is appropiate - this was speedied, not put through an AFD so I'm minded to be bold and chuck it back into the mainspace. If someone still doesn't think it meets the criteria, we can go through WP:AFD to establish community consensus. exolon 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Question on deletion and protection from recreation of Colleen Shipman
I just deleted the Colleen Shipman article and prevented it from being recreated because it violated Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons(she is the non-public crime victim in the Lisa Nowak case). While I agree with others that the article's subject is also not notable, the fact that this was a violation of BIO made the deletion urgent (IMHO).
One editor, though, questioned this decision and I said I'd bring it to the attention of other admins. As the BIO page says, "Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Because of that, I do not see a reason to unprotect the page. Other thoughts? Did I go too far? --Alabamaboy 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, after I explained the situation to the editor and said I'd bring it up here, Benjiwolf, he/she cited me for vandalism. Still, we've worked that out (at least, it appears we have). Anyway, I've invited the editor to make his/her case here.--Alabamaboy 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
well as it came in on my computer he deleted with no good explanation...colleen shipman surely should have a page if lisa nowak can...its lisa that will be sueing yall for lible...i put up colleens college and job at nasa...Benjiwolf 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I should note that I immediately explained the situation to the editors involved in the case. Second, Lisa is a public figure--an astronaut now accused of felony-level crimes--while Colleen is a non-public crime victim.--Alabamaboy 20:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alabamaboy did explain the deletion to you. I support the deletion. At the moment Shipman is non-notable and putting up personal information about here is a violation of her privacy. There needs to be a strong public interest case to violate the privacy of a non-public living person and I just don't see it. Benjiwolf, please read WP:BLP which is Misplaced Pages policy.
- All that being said, I'm not so sure about the protection from recreation. Depending on what happens in the next few days I could see Shipman becoming article-worthy. Personally I'd have left the article unprotected unless it kept being recreated. As I said though, the deletion was within policy, the correct thing to do and most definitely not vandalism. Gwernol 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also support removing the protection from recreation if the subject becomes more article worthy AND well-referenced information that doesn't violate WP:BLP can be added. For now, though, I thought that was the best way to keep a flood of WP:BLP-violating info from filling the article (as Lisa Nowak shows, articles about this case are attracting a ton of attention). Best,--Alabamaboy 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I can certainly live with that. Gwernol 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also support removing the protection from recreation if the subject becomes more article worthy AND well-referenced information that doesn't violate WP:BLP can be added. For now, though, I thought that was the best way to keep a flood of WP:BLP-violating info from filling the article (as Lisa Nowak shows, articles about this case are attracting a ton of attention). Best,--Alabamaboy 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- All that being said, I'm not so sure about the protection from recreation. Depending on what happens in the next few days I could see Shipman becoming article-worthy. Personally I'd have left the article unprotected unless it kept being recreated. As I said though, the deletion was within policy, the correct thing to do and most definitely not vandalism. Gwernol 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
well after alabama boy explained himself i promptly put up a message on his page noting that he now had a better explanation...yet his intitial instantaneous move was without much explanation at all and i felt highly insufficient for such a drastic move on a public figure in the space program that is involved in a major news story...i was going to remove the stop sign i gave him myself yet my computer time expired right when this all was going on last night and i have had to wait for access again till this morning here in switzerland...i was however going to leave a minor warning about too quick a deletion that wasnt initially properly justified, yet done in good faith...anyways...(please read my note on the colleen shipman talk page)...i agree completely that colleen is a crime-victim...yet i put up that she is a public figure...and very very high profile right now...if someone had stalked some other person in the public domain that wouldnt have us remove their page...to have some basic facts about her such as her college and exact position in the space program are worthwhile...the space program is by its very nature a high profile highly public civilian enterprise (even tho the military & navy is naturally heavily involved)...this information all exists in the public domain now thru various news sources...why not wikipedia???...if we merely restate what is in other reliable news sources there should be absolutely no problem...to keep colleen somehow blocked and a mystery is somehow strange...she is the third figure in this story...i agree speculation about her should be instantly removed from her page...and as to lible...i see it more a problem for lisas page...i think someone should keep a rough eye on lisas page to ensure it doesnt get too out of hand and in the realm of speculation...only info from reliable news souces and no sensationalism (and even some of the reliable news sources are going to play it sensational to get readers and listeners)...Benjiwolf 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Template marked as listed on TFD, but not listed?
The Repeat Vandal template shows up as being listed at Templates for Deletion on it's main page, but doesn't actually appear to be listed. . TheQuandry 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's right here. Picaroon 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, beat me to it. I found it by checking the nominator's edits around the time he edited {{Repeat vandal}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's how I did it. The reason the tfd link didn't work is that "vandal" was capitalized. I uncapitalized it. Picaroon 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- A-ha! Thanks! TheQuandry 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's how I did it. The reason the tfd link didn't work is that "vandal" was capitalized. I uncapitalized it. Picaroon 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, beat me to it. I found it by checking the nominator's edits around the time he edited {{Repeat vandal}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
User:NorrisMcDonald editing Norris McDonald
Norris McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by NorrisMcDonald (talk · contribs). This appears to be a direct violation of WP:AUTO, and I would offer it up for deletion because of that, but I do believe that the individual is notable enough. What should be done about this? I have reverted his edits already. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Been dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
RFA passed at 69%?
Hi, I'm not here for long, but I noticed that Ryulong passed RFA at 69%, which is hardly "consensus": and unheard of for 'crat's "75% and lower is questionable" ness. Why was this RFA passed? -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- This was discussed extensively at the time, a couple of weeks ago. You can find some of the discussion on the talkpage of his RfA and more in the archives of the RfA page itself. Newyorkbrad 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- A) This isn't a matter for adminsitrators to handle as this is something for the community, not for administrators, B) It's already been discussed to hell and back at the RFA talk page, and C) He hasn't done anything wrong (yet). So let's not get this started again, please :) Cowman109 22:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Old, old news. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Chris, I suggest you ask this question at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and not here. --bainer (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just was strolling by and was too buzy/lazy to do anything. Sorry to waste your guy's time. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 05:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Civility, thy name ain't Calton
I was working with AMIB on something last night (shocking, I know) and PM'd with a kind of argumentative message on my talk page. This would go on for hours of back and forth argumentative PMs from Calton...with me finally asking, twice, "Did you PM me just to argue?". He stopped with the PMs.
Today, User:Rspeer PM'd on User:Calton's talk page "I can't help but notice the many other users objecting to your caustic style of conversation. You really, really need to be more civil." only to have User:Calton respond with "You really really need to mind your own business", among other things. Other users and admins, I guess, have asked User:Calton to just chill out and he just gets more and more rude and argumentative. If an admin would please tell User:Calton to step back, take a deep breath, and relax for Pete's sake. - SVRTVDude 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- After posting the above, I recieved this from User:Calton..."Nice little stunt you pulled at WP:AN, but if you're looking for some edge in intimidating me, it's not going to work.". I think that proves my point, as nothing I said above was intimidating in the least. - SVRTVDude 00:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please, please take anything further about this to WP:RFC/USER if there is more than one person who has attempted to resolve the dispute and is willing to endorse it. If not, work out some way of avoiding each other. Either way, nothing here requires admin tools. Jkelly
- I have taken it there, not sure if I did it right (someone want to make sure for me....noobie moment), I will leave this thread open so everyone has a chance to comment and the board's process can run it's course. - SVRTVDude 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problems has progress WAY beyond a civility problem. Am trying my damnedest to stay away from User:Calton but he continues to make attempts at picking a fight. Told him politely to just step away from the computer, watch some TV and come back in the morning only to be met with unnecessary anger. This is way beyond a civility problem (and in my opinion) may possilbe require an admin. Post remains on WP:RFC/USER - SVRTVDude 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problems has progress WAY beyond a civility problem. Am trying my damnedest to stay away from User:Calton but he continues to make attempts at picking a fight. This is utter nonsense: User:Orangemonster2k1 keeps leaving annoying messages on my Talk page and I'm picking a fight? I've told him to stop doing that, and this latest thread is his response: pretty much a naked attempt to not only pick a fight, but enlist others in helping him pick a fight.
- Told him politely to just step away from the computer, watch some TV and come back in the morning only to be met with unnecessary anger. No, necessary annoyance at your presumption. If you are "trying damnedest to stay away", try actually staying away: stop pestering me on my Talk page and stop disrupting this page in your attempt to escalate your pestering. This is NOT what this page is for, and this is my last word on the subject. --Calton | Talk 02:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problems has progress WAY beyond a civility problem. Am trying my damnedest to stay away from User:Calton but he continues to make attempts at picking a fight. Told him politely to just step away from the computer, watch some TV and come back in the morning only to be met with unnecessary anger. This is way beyond a civility problem (and in my opinion) may possilbe require an admin. Post remains on WP:RFC/USER - SVRTVDude 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to respond to this and leave it at that...Calton, you PM'd me, you continued to PM me, and I like to respond to people's comments (good or bad) in a timely fashion...so I wasn't pestering you, I was answering your comments. I am not trying to annoy you, if you think I am, then I am sorry...but that is not what I am doing. I am just returning your comments....call that annoying if you want.
- My point here, which you have missed completely and showed perfectly, is that you are completely uncivil in your posts. I have not, except for my last comment, be in anyway uncivil or impolite. I have actually tried to explain myself, my point, and move on to no avail. This has gone on for hours tonight and hours last night over something you were not involved in. The KXGN schedule is done and over with, it is not up and I will leave it at that. That is my last on this subject. Sheesh. - SVRTVDude 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- At this point, I believe that Calton has done more than enough to merit a block for personal attacks. I should not be the one to apply that block, however, so I ask another admin to review his recent interactions with other users, such as User talk:Orangemonster2k1, User talk:Mangojuice, User talk:JLaTondre, and the grand compendium of them all, User talk:Calton. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Calton, although I usually agree with what you are saying, I have to admit I think you should be more careful in saying it. --Ideogram 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Calton
Is there anyone you can muzzle Calton? Admin User:Firsfron has asked Calton to leave me alone and me to leave him alone...I have....but in the past 20mins, I have gotten 4 PMs on my talk page. I have had to defend myself against a "stalking" claim on Firsfron's talk page....this is getting out of hand. Please muzzle Calton. - SVRTVDude 08:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interested parties may wish to examine Orangemonster2k1/SVRTVDude's last several contributions before opining. Note especially the two pointless article reversions (hmm, "stalking", perhaps?). Note the content of the messages I left (one being a correction to a previous message). Note the inability to take a hint. Note the falsity of the claim about him supposedly leaving me alone. Yeah, this is a childish waste of time, so this is my last word here. --Calton | Talk 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, an addendum: looks like Orangemonster2k1/SVRTVDude made even more pointless article reversions several hours ago, so it's worse than I thought (look at around 0200 UTC). --Calton | Talk 08:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The RfC on Calton's conduct is now active; further comments should go there. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I want to apologize for the admins and other editors who are having to take time out of more pressing matters to deal with this. I have tried many times to end this situation on a good note to no avail. I am not that hard to get along with...hell even AMIB and I are talking and working together and we all know how bad that got couple weeks ago. Again, my apologizes to the admins and other editors dealing with situation...I honestly tried. Anyone got a Tylenol? - SVRTVDude 10:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Cautionary note
Just saying that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tech.co.uk seems to be SPA heaven. Take this into account when closing; I believe those who have commented there so far are employees of the company ... although I have no proof. Bother.
Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Double redirect for Template:Test4a
Template:Test4a is currently a double redirect, which cases problems for folks like me that haven't switched to the newfangled warnings...Since it's a protected template, I'm powerless to fix it myself. It probably should redirect to Template:Uw-delete4. Thanks, Scientizzle 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to have been fixed already. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
TfD backlog
Down to four noms, but each is complicated. Thanks to those who helped. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. :) I will say that hopefully the admins who helped will keep up on it. :) --Woohookitty 08:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Surferboy092
This user has been disruptive to the Misplaced Pages community, with an obvious attempt at vandalizing the project. He vandalized a section on the Orange County, California page, and other school related articles. He was warned in November, but did not cease to destruct pages. I think it is appropriate to place him under a ban.
- If the user vandalizes again, an indef block as vandalism only might be warranted. As is now, the user only has four contributions in the past four months. Not exactly a pattern of disruption, but thatnks for the heads up. I'll watch. Teke 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Warning when viewing user js pages
Apologies if this has been explained before, but I'm curious as to the purpose of the notice that now appears on all user .js pages:
- If you have been directed here because of a note on your talk page, please be very certain you know the user who left it for you. If not, the code may contain malicious content, which can compromise your account and lead to your being blocked. If you are unsure about whether the code is safe, you can ask at the help desk.
Only the user themselves and administrators can edit a user's own .js pages, so (assuming administrators are trusted not to mess with them) there shouldn't be any risk of malicious content being run in that way. As far as I'm aware, you can't "execute" the code on someone else's .js page without copying or including it in your own, and just viewing a .js page doesn't execute the code on it, so what is the risk exactly? Thanks – Qxz 12:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, a vandal went around and welcomed users notifying them (incorrectly) that they'd been blocked and the only way to appeal to this block was to copy malicious code into the .js files. Cbrown1023 talk 12:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- And people fell for that? Meh... same people who open .exe email attachments from people they don't know, I guess. I suppose that is a bit of a problem – Qxz 12:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, this a total noob question....but, what is a .js page? - SVRTVDude 12:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Every user has a special page in their userspace to which they can add JavaScript code, which will execute when they view Misplaced Pages pages; allowing all sorts of helpful scripts to be written to help with editing, browsing and so on. See for example Misplaced Pages:Tools/Navigation popups. Your page is here – as you don't know what it is yet, it's presumably empty. :) There's also another one for CSS, which you can edit in order to change the appearence of the interface – fonts and colours, for example. These changes are only visible to you, the appearence of the site for everyone also depends on one of these pages, but it can only be edited by administrators – Qxz 12:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, now I understand. Thanks :) - SVRTVDude 12:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, this a total noob question....but, what is a .js page? - SVRTVDude 12:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- And people fell for that? Meh... same people who open .exe email attachments from people they don't know, I guess. I suppose that is a bit of a problem – Qxz 12:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Shared/group accounts
The normal Misplaced Pages jargon for this has slipped my mind; I'm referring to accounts used by a group of people. My understanding was that these weren't allowed, but the policy (which I can't find) might be weaker than that, and it might just be deprecated. Could someone advise me? I've come across a self-declared example at User:Sikh-history, and was wondering what I should do, if anything. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Role accounts? Anyway, they are definitely not allowed. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- According to User talk:Sikh-history this account is now used by only one person. He needs to update his user page. --Ideogram 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I read that page twice and still didn't see that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here. --Ideogram 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see he replied to my question and I asked him to rewrite. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here. --Ideogram 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I read that page twice and still didn't see that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:SOCK. Approved role accounts are exceedingly rare. Durova 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to all (of course it's "role account"; why couldn't I remember that?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Probably because one account shared by two or more people is far less common than the opposite (i.e. sockpuppets or meatpuppets). For the record, I'll share that I can remember only one role account approved in the last six months; if you'd like to know more, & have lots of time on your hands, I think it was discussed here on WP:AN/I. Happy huntnig! -- llywrch 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Time-limited protection
As far as I'm aware the ability for administrators to protect pages for a specified amount of time is a relatively new thing, but it seems to be getting used quite a lot. I've just noticed a problem with it, though, which doesn't really seem to have been addressed.
- Administrator protects a page for, say, a week because of vandalism
- Administrator applies {{sprotected}} to the page
- Protection expires a week later and nobody notices, {{sprotected}} remains in place
- Potentially useful edits are not made because anonymous users think they can't edit the page. Alternatively, anonymous users vandalise the page and confuse everyone who doesn't understand time-limited protection.
If this has been discussed before, then forgive me – Qxz 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed; I was wondering the same thing after going back to remove {{tprotected}} on several articles, only finding that someone else had already removed them in each case. Maybe an option that can enable some kind of automatic (i.e. built into MediaWiki) template on time protected protections? In other words, a new MediaWiki:Timeprotectnotice page, or something to the effect, would be created, and the message would be displayed on time protected articles when it is still protected. A checkbox would enable admins to turn off the notification template, when necessary. This seems like the best solution here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there already is one, but it only comes up when you edit. I think it's a bit big to be displayed when you're viewing an article, though – Qxz 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- A possible solution would be to ask the devs to e.g. automatically display MediaWiki:PageIsProtected at the top of every protected page. >Radiant< 13:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there already is one, but it only comes up when you edit. I think it's a bit big to be displayed when you're viewing an article, though – Qxz 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Something in the interim that might help is simply using a different template for timed protection. Even if visually identical, it would allow people to scan through to remove them as needed. Bitnine 14:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Another solution would be for some bot to automatically remove the template once the page is unprotected (it would also help when some users add protection templates thinking adding a template is enough to protect the page). --cesarb 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually that's easy. Have a bot remove all protection templates, daily. Since the bot doesn't have admin rights, it will fail to remove the template from pages that actually are protected. >Radiant< 14:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- But it would be able to remove templates from semi-protected pages, correct? And move protected pages. I suggested this type of bot awhile ago, but it didn't seem like there were any takers. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Another solution would be for some bot to automatically remove the template once the page is unprotected (it would also help when some users add protection templates thinking adding a template is enough to protect the page). --cesarb 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I'm not sure that the tag is that dangerous, I usually go for "Edit this page" and if it's not there THEN I look for the template, or if it's tagged, I'll check to see that it says "View source". I suspect I'm not alone. As to removing the template, is there a magic word like "PAGEPROTECTION" that could be read? If so, if the template could have a condition where if it was on an unprotected page it would change to something like "This page was protected , but is no longer. Please edit this page to remove the "{{protectBU}}" template. If that information wasn't easily obtainable, it could just say "If this page is unprotected and it has been at least 5 minutes since it was added, please speedily remove it and notify the poster". Etc... 68.39.174.238 01:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Cyrus Farivar
Reposted from WP:DRV:
A notification, rather than a request, but I'm not sure where else to put it. I am undeleting Cyrus Farivar as per Jimbo's previous endorsement of exactly this act: "Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored." . User:Jaranda expressed concern that this was not brought to DRV, so I figured I should leave notice here (and also on WP:AN before restoring it again. I will not continue to restore at this point, but I will bring the issue through proper dispute resolution channels should it continue to be an issue.
I am not asking for or opening a full review because, well, it's unnecessary and beside the point. DRV is a process through which we review deletions, but it is not the sole way in which they are reviewed. This is something that there is a definitive ruling on - journalists with the publication record of Cyrus Farivar are notable. Small segments of the community may create pages that proport to establish other criteria for notability, and AfDs can fail to attract the attention of anything but the mindset that currently dominates the page, but none of this changes the basic fact that a notability guideline of that extremity has been actively rejected from the very top, and the act of unilaterally restoring this article has explicitly been sanctioned.
This ought not only terminate the debate, but also serve as a rather sobering warning about the sad state of so-called policy on Misplaced Pages, whereby it clearly does not provide useful guidance on our actual best practice. Phil Sandifer 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I converted this to a full deletion review. I see adequate reason to doubt that Jimbo would stand by that statement today. The reason: WP:BLP and the incidents that led to its creation. GRBerry 02:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- That was then. This is now. It's been more than a year and half since Jimbo said that. Times have changed, and his answer to that same question may have changed. Nishkid64 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- With all deference to Jimbo, this article was deleted properly and should not be recreated simply because one rouge admin has a thing for this dude. If Jimbo personally wants to come undelete this article that's one thing, but if you're going to keep defying consensus, at least take personal responsibility. It's also not clear in what context Jimbo said that because the signpost article doesn't provide a link to the mailing list or a diff. Savidan 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Recent actions of my own
In trying to deal with the backlog at CAT:CSD last night, I came upon several I3 deletions. After these deletions, I was confronted by Krome007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who had uploaded a picture of Harry Colquhoun. In the process of making sure there wasn't a red link on the article, I rolled back the edits, removing very little, yet Krome007 felt I was wrong and I said that anyone can edit on Misplaced Pages. This was met with the response, "OK so anyone can edit but I thought the idea was to edit with factual information you monkey nut" (emphasis mine). I responded saying that the image did not have the correct tag or copyrights, suggested that if the image were in the public domain that Mr. Colquhoun email permissions, and that he not be incivil with me. He responded and finished his statement by calling me a "self righteous fool." I blocked him indef, after which he sent me an abusive e-mail about my block.
He posted an {{unblock}} request in which he personally attacked me. I was discussing the block with Shreshth91 privately, and he came to the conclusion that the block was too harsh, and I had a change of heart. Shreshth91 unblocked and then reblocked for 4 days, and I unblocked and stated that I was putting him on probation for 96 hours. During this whole time, I had put Harry Colquhoun up for AFD. He contacted me (and others) about his comments at the AFD discussion, and when I saw it, I viewed this response. I blocked for five days due to the probation I had placed on him, notified him, and left. Checking on my contribs, again, I saw he had editted the page, and continued to personally attack me. I privately sought advice on what to do, and it was a general agreement that his incivility was uncalled for. After more attacks on me, I rolled back his edits and protected his talk page for the duration for the block. I know that this will not be the end of his interactions, but I am here requesting that these actions be reviewed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have just received another e-mail from this individual
Right I am reporting you for getting a friend of yours to suggest the page gets deleted for your own personnal reason. This guy is your mate who runs a power rangers site. I am going to suggest that you be stripped of your admin status. http://www.grnrngr.com/
Laters
- I can assure anyone who is contacted by this individual that I did not contact JPG-GR about anything concerning the AFD, other than this very e-mail.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not entirely related, but someone mentioned relishxxx.com yesterday in one of the spam channels. I can't recall whether it was someone spamming links or whether it was spammy articles, but there's something dodgy going on with Krome007. I've no problems with your block. Oh, if a meta admin spots this post, chuck relishxxx.com on the meta blacklist, ta. -- Heligoland 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have received another e-mail. The text can be seen here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Next time anything like this happens, get another admin involved the moment the personal attacks against you start. That always makes it cleaner. (When someone's attacking me, it's hard to think objectively and fairly. I imagine you're similar.) No comment about the actual blocks. --jpgordon 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I know that now. I have also unprotected his talk page so he can stop venting at me in e-mails. There's no use in him e-mailing me, as I do not need to supply him with my e-mail address.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, this sort of thing happens all the time, and most of the time when admins get yelled at it's because they've done the right thing. Just a question for everyone in general - why are admins required (well, not required, but encouraged) to release their email addresses? It just encourages this thing to happen; unblock requests can surely go to the unblock mailing list instead, and private conversation can be done via IRC. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The e-mail address thing is as follows: If I reply to his e-mails, he can see my e-mail address. I don't like using the E-mail function, only in emergencies. And frankly, I've already dealt with someone who had knowledge of my e-mail address after I blocked her and suffered for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Make a yahoo or hotmail account. Use it as a throwaway account for correspondance with people you don't want to give your real email to. --BigDT 05:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I use g-mail. I just don't need someone to know it (cause I might accidentally use my personal e-mail due to how I have Outlook set up)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Make a yahoo or hotmail account. Use it as a throwaway account for correspondance with people you don't want to give your real email to. --BigDT 05:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The e-mail address thing is as follows: If I reply to his e-mails, he can see my e-mail address. I don't like using the E-mail function, only in emergencies. And frankly, I've already dealt with someone who had knowledge of my e-mail address after I blocked her and suffered for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good grief. This is why I have Thunderbird set up to handle seperate email logins...that's frightening. --Elaragirl 11:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I use M2. Actually, just kidding, I never got the hang of mail clients. I just check it on the web. I have Yahoo Mail Plus, so I used its AddressGuard function to set up a throwaway account for use on Misplaced Pages. Alternatively one can check out spamgourmet.com, I've never tried it but it looks good. Hbdragon88 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just never reply to Misplaced Pages emails if I don't know/trust the sender, instead responding via the emailer's talk page. Proto::► 11:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good grief. This is why I have Thunderbird set up to handle seperate email logins...that's frightening. --Elaragirl 11:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling
Is there any way that someone could give an early close to this afd? With 15 users or so commenting, only 2 have voted to keep the article, and the rest want to merge relevant info into other articles then delete, so consensus has been reached. It's just a mess with too much arguing. Booshakla 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus looks to me to be drifting away from delete, with the keep and merge votes. I'm hesitant to WP:SNOW it. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd let it run course... an early close will pretty much guarentee someone is going to complain it was deleted/kept out of process.--Isotope23 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Time
I'm an admin in school with nothing to do next period, so 90 minutes to do absolutely nothing. What are some administrative tasks few people do that I can occupy my time with once I run out of movies? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets has been badly backlogged for a month. Not an easy or pleasant task, but it can consume as much time as you can give it today. GRBerry 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Judgement calls aren't really my thing, but I can head off and do some obvious ones. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've heard that CAT:CSD has an ass-trocious backlog. ~ Flameviper 20:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Judgement calls aren't really my thing, but I can head off and do some obvious ones. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How to change a user name
I am an administrator on the Zazaki Misplaced Pages. I need to change a user name, but I don't really know how to do it? Can anybody help me do it, or do I have the ability to change a user name as an administrator? Best, --Daraheni 16:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC) diq:User:Maviulke12
- If you want to change your username on the English Misplaced Pages, you'll need to go to Misplaced Pages:Changing username and make a request. Administrators do not have the power to change usernames here; that is up to the Bureaucrats. It will not, however, affect your username at the Zazaki Misplaced Pages. -- Natalya 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- You need to do this at Meta-wiki. http://meta.wikimedia.org/RfP#User_rename_requests Thatcher131 16:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This account
This account was recently created by an editor in order to edit a rather embarassing page. Is this all right or are communal accounts prohibited? I took several special measures in order to prevent someone just stealing this account and running with it.
Your input would be appreciated.
Thanks, Squeamish Editor 20:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's fine if someone went out of the way to create their own account for this, not to have one massive collection (after all this would be equivalent of having an IP address but with benefits of an account). This is a potential fork for banned users to edit. I'm going to block it for now until we figure something out. Yanksox 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- An account with a posted password is just a very, very bad idea all around. Per Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Segregation and security, you can make a separate account for editing embarassing pages, but don't encourage other people to use it. They can make their own. --AnonEMouse 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Although Yanksox's block of the role account was anon-only, Flameviper (talk · contribs) is claiming on his talkpage that he is incurring collateral damage from the block. Make of this what you will. Newyorkbrad 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that anon-only and ACB only apply to IP blocks and are ignored in username blocks. So this is probably a garden variety autoblock. Thatcher131 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Autoblock lifted. It's a mindspring IP, so may be dynamic. Thatcher131 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Role accounts are not allowed on the English Misplaced Pages. A role account is one that more than a single person is editing with. They are forbidden because they do not allow us to know who is contributing when the account makes an edit, so it breaks the terms of the GFDL which all text is licensed under on Misplaced Pages. Please see Misplaced Pages:Role account. Thanks, Gwernol 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the role account blocked. "This is a communal accont. This means that anyone who wants to use it can." No-brainer. Whoever created it (a) probably knows better, and (b) needs to stop messing around; Misplaced Pages isn't a role-playing game. --jpgordon 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- It also had a public password. I logged in, removed the email address and scrambled the password. Thatcher131 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Not the kind of thing we should have running around Misplaced Pages. Far too likely to be abused - BEANS. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- It also had a public password. I logged in, removed the email address and scrambled the password. Thatcher131 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- It was wise to block the account. I just came across it in the automatically generated list of new users. This account would have only been used for vandalism had it not been blocked. Acalamari 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ummm ...
WTF? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Argh, it's User:BoxingWear again. BoxingWear loves "personal agendas". PTO 23:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Bennett Lewis article - Wikimedia Foundation donation
Couldn't think where to put this, so I came here. Can someone have a look at meta:Wikimedia thanks all contributors - which lists a Bennett Lewis as a donor, and at Bennett Lewis, where this edit claims that the donation was posthumous (maybe from a trust fund or something). I suspect these are two different people called Bennett Lewis, but if someone could just double-check, or ask in the right place, and then tidy up Bennett Lewis, that would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've just removed all mention of the donation in the article. Even if this were the same person, which I highly doubt, a donation of this sort does not belong in the article, having no merits for inclusion. The article, however, could use some improvement. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Replaced image
This is possibly commons problem. Anyway, I discovered that image of Ben Stein has been replaced with image of stones, see Image:Stein.jpg. I couldn't find the original file to revert. May be someone moved images in some clever way:( Anyway I'm absolutely positive that the file was on that address on Jan 27 because one user replaced image of Stein with Henry Kissinger and vice versa. Please try to investigate what happend since I couldn't find it. I would be very happy if you could reply here or on my talk page then. Thank you.--Pethr 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- The previous image appears to have been deleted at 14:40, 7 February 2007 by User:Ed g2s for the reason of "replaceable fair use, 7 days". Apparently on 27 January it was tagged as such, and was deleted after, which would explain why the original file doesn't show up. -- Natalya 03:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The image appears to have been deleted due to being in breach of our fair use policy, and an image with the same name from Commons has is now showing. It's quite difficult to describe why, but it's not vandalism or anything naughty. It's just how Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia Commons work. -- Heligoland 03:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Ben Stein was vandalized a few times so I thought this was somehow part of it. Someone should have removed the image from articles when deleting because picture of stone in the water was appering in infobox of living person... It is indeed funny, but not very nice. Once more thank you!--Pethr 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Just won't get it
Can someone explain on Talk:Jacob_P_Secrest just why he can't have an article for his micronation? He's not listening to me. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- You've already explained why. Just ignore him. Proto::► 14:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've dropped him a line, we'll see what happens. It seems better to try and take the time to explain it to someone so that they are content with what happend, and will continue editing constructively. -- Natalya 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Moved to User talk:I Can't Believe It's Not Blight, since the article is deleted and likely to stay that way. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Kinetoscope and blacklist
An anon IP has vandalized Kinetoscope, a featured article, by deleting an entire section of content. Unfortunately, I cannot revert this because the original text contains a citation link which is apparently now part of the blacklist. This link is a legitimate citation, present when the FAC was approved, yet its presence allows this article's vandalism to stand. Can someone please rectify the blacklist or at least exception this case so that the article can be properly reverted without the citation being removed? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 11:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- The reference was not necessary; it was of the form of "at least one website has picked this up", within a paragraph that had a proper published reference. The site in question includes much unacknowledged scraped content and was spammed by its owner across four language Wikipedias. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nonadministrator's query: The reference to the site essentially served as a warning to readers about its unreliability. The intent and effect clearly serve the spirit of the blacklist. Not permissible?—DCGeist 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why include a site if we know it's unreliable? The reasons for blacklisting were credible enough, the reasons for including were, to my eyes, weak. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Contentious RFCN, need outside view
The debate in question is here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Malakaville_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29
There is a rather contentious debate at WP:RFCN. I would like a neutral party to look at it. I closed a 2 day old(which is long for an RFCN) debate as No consensus, after receiving a complaint, I inviting a user to re-open it. I have seen no new arguments provided since, and it is becoming less productive as time passes.
I would like someone uninvolved to decide when it needs closing, and how to close it. I have not given an opinion on the username, nor do I have one. Thank you. HighInBC 02:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. HighInBC 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I find it somewhat disheartening that RFCN has started to resemble AFD, with people !voting "strong disallow" and such. In general our username policy should be pretty clear-cut, no? >Radiant< 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Our username policy is probably the most ambiguous policy we have. That is why WP:RFCN is always so full of colorful arguments, we have intentionally left the line a little blurry, and asked users not to try to find that line. HighInBC 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"noautoblock"
Special:Log/block is indicating the lack of an autoblock as "noautoblock", all one word (Example). Might it be better to say "autoblock disabled" or something similar? (Compare with how it was until a few days ago, when it said "autoblock enabled" or nothing). Presumably there's a "MediaWiki" page somewhere where this text is set, but I can't seem to find it (and can't change it myself anyway) – Qxz 14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh, who changed that?? Now I have to go fix my bot. HighInBC 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like it has changed in the Mediawiki texts. (Special:Allmessages enter block-log-flags in the box to limit to just these flag) --pgk 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it doing that? I went through the last 20 or so svn diffs, nothing obvious there... Prodego 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well you went further than me, I looked at the module in question saw which messages it pulled out and saw it didn't appear to have changed recently and stopped there. --pgk 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it doing that? I went through the last 20 or so svn diffs, nothing obvious there... Prodego 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- You mean it's not meant to be doing this, and you can't change it? Um. Oh. Well, good luck sorting it out... – Qxz 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- We don't know, but whatever developer (which it seems it must have been) changed it does. Other developers should be able to find it as well. I did notice Mediawiki:Noautoblockblock, but I don't see how that could do this... Did there use to be a BlockLog.php in SVN? Prodego 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe someone far more knowledgeable than I also needs to edit/undate WP:AUTOBLOCK, which as of now still says that a blocking admin has no control over turning the autoblock on or off. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I probably changed this. I'll look into it at some stage. — Werdna talk 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Self-reference
I had a quick look down DumbBot's protected article list and picked up a few self-references, which I collected at Misplaced Pages:Protected titles/Self-reference. I was wondering if we should also add things like edit conflict and edit war and the like. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Protected titles is for protecting non-existent pages against (repeated) creation, not for protecting pages that do exist. Uncle G 12:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Help Desk personnel needed
This is a good thing for new admins and aspiring admins to help on. Or old admins who are bored with chasing vandals. We desperately need experienced and sane editors to deal with things like the Microsoft-Misplaced Pages kerfuffle without it becoming a media circus (, , ). So WikiBlue (the Foundation's communications and PR person, Sandra Ordonez) has drafted a simple page at Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from enterprise).
What we need now is (1) OTRS volunteers (these are always needed ... they deal with a firehose of crap and can burn out quickly) and (2) Misplaced Pages:Help desk. The Help Desk NEEDS sensible people, and admins are picked for their judgement.
So please dive in and help :-) - David Gerard 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd love to help out some with OTRS... Last time I checked I didn't qualify tho... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- m:OTRS/volunteering is the link for volunteering for OTRS. I don't fancy that, I do enough of it in work dealing with the wonderful Freedom of Information Act, but will lend a hand at the Help Desk whenever I can. Proto::► 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
An IP address is requesting that they be blocked
- 74.39.196.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I warned an IP after someone using it vandalized Leon Trotsky. Later, this message was posted on my talk . Then Hagermanbot came along and added the "unsigned by" bit . Someone from this IP is requesting it be blocked permanently. I can't do anything about that but figured I should pass it along. TheQuandry 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would recomend that this only be done if we at some point are able to speek to an official at the school. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of good edits from that IP. I wouldn't block unless whoever is making those constructive edits signs up for an account. Thanks/wangi 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- No users own their IP, so we should only block if an admin thinks it should be blocked. It is not the same as a user asking to be blocked. HighInBC 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
For reference, if some organisation such as a school wants IPs assigned to them to be blocked from editing, ask a representative from the school to contact the info team at info-en@wikimedia.org. --bainer (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Japan Article
I have added factual information to the Japan article and yet it is constantly being reverted without any reason being given and they are not discussing it in the Talk:Japan page either. I have asked in the talk page why the information is being reverted and yet no reply is given. Considering that the information which is constantly being reverted is just well known facts I can't see any reason why it would be reverted other than for anti-Japanese sentiments, which I have concluded for myself is probably the reason after looking at the users talk pages and past contributions. Can someone please stop this 'vandalism' of the Japan article as it's being done to hinder the article in as much of a way as they think they can get away with, not to mention that this anti-Japanese sentiment has no place on Misplaced Pages. Somethingoranother 21:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Dispute resolution, which deals with content disputes (Which appears to be the issue at hand) is a little bit farther down the hall... Sorry to not be of help. Also, I'd recommend a bit of good faith, it's not always racism. Logical2uTalk 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it helps to provide a citation when you add factual information. Burden of proof rests with the editor who wants information to remain. Durova 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks from Ross.Hedvicek
Ross.Hedvicek has vulgarly attacked many people from Czech and English Misplaced Pages. He's obsessive - it's there once again - he is banned at cswiki, so that he insults people there and in his nasty blog. Please, do something, probably a longer block would be fine. He's one of the people, who really spoil reputation of the Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Petr K 21:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I encountered him about a year ago and I found him distasteful, but you'd need to make a better case than that to have him blocked or community sitebanned. Considering the duration of the problem you might request arbitration. Durova 14:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
BoxingWear ... again ...
Hope you all like this lovely email conversation with BoxingWear and associates. (Copy and pasting since I'm not used to GMail.) Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why on earth did you waste all this time on these people. --Ideogram 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good question. One learns. Sometime. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually more worried with this reply:
- Good question. One learns. Sometime. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
i have found out some info on real identities of some users, will send tax editors to review their income taxes, all will be legal, but everybody will get their dues. One way or the other proper way.
- (No problems with me, I've never released my real identity on the Internet), but what should we be doing here? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is there anything we can do? --Ideogram 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good question. Contact the real-life authorities? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- So far as I know, knowing someone's True Name is not a crime. People make vague threats all the time. --Ideogram 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Let's just forget about the whole thing. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you can get someone's taxes reviewed just because you ask. The IRS is really understaffed these days. Natalie 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Let's just forget about the whole thing. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- So far as I know, knowing someone's True Name is not a crime. People make vague threats all the time. --Ideogram 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good question. Contact the real-life authorities? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is there anything we can do? --Ideogram 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- (No problems with me, I've never released my real identity on the Internet), but what should we be doing here? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Shoot, BoxingWear just doesn't give up, does he? Lets see what happens when the IRS tries to check my income taxes... Anyway, BoxingWear is making empty threats in his typical style. I would ignore him unless you get audited or get your income tax checked by the IRS (which I highly doubt will happen). Administrators should read the deleted history at Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/George Reeves Person for a little background. PTO 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- "This page has been deleted by Jimbo Wales, and should not be recreated." Moderately helpful, but I'm not getting the background I was promised. ^_^ JuJube 04:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
What the heck is a "tax editor" anyway? Herostratus 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yuser, what he told you is exactly the same thing he tells everyone. He has absolutely no way to find out anyone's identity, it's just one of his typical threats. Don't bother returning his e-mails. Chick Bowen 04:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh... it's him. I will say from personal experience (not mine, since obviously I protect my identity) that he has seriously harassed people in real life, so be aware of that. Herostratus 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. He will harass you in any way he can. And he will leave you charming messages like this one (and hey, BoxingWear, if you are reading this, I'm in need of a good tax person this year, so go right ahead). Several of us have tangled with this irritating person for more than a year now (oh, by the way, he is also probably the notorious "Squidward" vandal -- see the March 14 edit in the deleted history of Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Squidward for a telltale bit). Note to all who are following him: normally he turns up at IPs in the 66.99.small number.xxx and 64.107.small number.xxx ranges, but for the last two days he has used only open proxies. I've started blocking them whenever he reappears. Antandrus (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm pretty sure it's a canard that he is Squidward, he only claimed falsely to be Squidward, I think. Yes, the best policy is revert, do not engage, and endure. At the uttermost end of need, Jimbo knows his real identity (courtesy of yours truly) and he knows this, unless he has forgotten it. This kept him quiet for quite some time, but no longer it appears. Herostratus 07:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Lovely. I got one too.
I asked you few questions, don't have manners to reply FUCK YOU THEN!Do know, we know identities of most of you and that will be used against you.
- See my archives around 23 or 24 for the rant he posted, and my reply to said rant. Daniel.Bryant 08:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I got
one3, too, but that may be due to my blocking of the three ranges he primarily uses after his latest attack.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)- He left quite a rant on my talk page, too. PTO 14:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Lovely. I got one too.
- No, I'm pretty sure it's a canard that he is Squidward, he only claimed falsely to be Squidward, I think. Yes, the best policy is revert, do not engage, and endure. At the uttermost end of need, Jimbo knows his real identity (courtesy of yours truly) and he knows this, unless he has forgotten it. This kept him quiet for quite some time, but no longer it appears. Herostratus 07:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. He will harass you in any way he can. And he will leave you charming messages like this one (and hey, BoxingWear, if you are reading this, I'm in need of a good tax person this year, so go right ahead). Several of us have tangled with this irritating person for more than a year now (oh, by the way, he is also probably the notorious "Squidward" vandal -- see the March 14 edit in the deleted history of Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Squidward for a telltale bit). Note to all who are following him: normally he turns up at IPs in the 66.99.small number.xxx and 64.107.small number.xxx ranges, but for the last two days he has used only open proxies. I've started blocking them whenever he reappears. Antandrus (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Polarbit
I've been trying to deal with above user over the page My life as jacob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Polarbit (talk · contribs) seems to be the creator of the page about a non-notable album and recreated it after it was speedy deleted once before. I tagged it again as a speedy delete, but the user kept removing the speedy deletion tags, even after a repeated final warning. Despite claims he will "add sources" to the page, all he's done is just add templates to the page. A quick bit of research shows no coverage in reliable sources for the album, and Polarbit has tried to remove the speedy tags from the article through anonymous IP addresses. Can someone please deal with this user and the article? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for deleting it, but he recreated the article again. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Editor's business card on user page
User:JPatrickBedell has an image of his business card — Image:Cannabis-bcard-2007-01-10 000001.png — on his userpage. I find that this is contrary to policy and the general principles of Misplaced Pages.
- Though not an article, it violates the spirit of Propaganda or advocacy/self-promotion/advertising.
- His cards advertise his business — selling cannabis — which I believe falls under WP:NOT Personal web pages as this is the sort of item that one would post on their own website.
- And, finally, I find that it does not advance Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia (WP:User page).
There was a recent incident, discussed here (or it might have been on AN/I), in which an editor removed what they considered to be inappropriate content from another editor's userpage without first talking to the editor. The gist of the discussion pointed to an overall agreement that concerns should have first been made known to the editor to give him a chance to remove the image on his own. I've done this on the user page. I've been politely ignored. (JPatrickBedell has posted on my talk page in response to another editor's posted concern that JPatrickBedell might be using a sockpuppet for editing, so he's clearly aware of talk pages and has been reading his and others.)
I've not deleted the image myself, but instead I'm bringing it here for comment/to get sense of community opinion. — ERcheck (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Get rid of it. Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost, and blatant advertising is blatant advertising. I would suggest asking a commons admin to get rid of the image, as he's cunningly uploaded it there. Proto::► 12:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Highly inappropriate misuse of Misplaced Pages. Further, his userpage clearly indicates he is not here to further Misplaced Pages's neutral aims, but to push his 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm not sure this guy belongs here.--Doc 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I deliberately separated the business card issue from the conspiracy issue, though is becoming clearer that there are policy violations, including potential libel (). — ERcheck (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- As a commons admin, I hereby point out this discussion is misplaced. You are welcome to post a discussion in commons:Commons:Deletion requests and argue that it is not in the commons:project scope. I do not believe it qualifies under the criteria of speedy deletion. --Cat out 13:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
OK the image has been put up for deletion by a commons admin. The user, however, is our problem.--Doc 13:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Get rid of it" didn't necessarily mean speedily, and only referred to one problem image. But thanks for the deletion, Cat. The discussion is not misplaced, however - as Doc says, the user is on Misplaced Pages, not Commons. Proto::► 13:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh what I meant was the deletion discussion. :) --Cat out 13:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was going to delete it but rama beat me to it. I was initially thinking that this "might" be useful on a business card article. But clearly this thing isn't even useful for that. --Cat out 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Get rid of it" didn't necessarily mean speedily, and only referred to one problem image. But thanks for the deletion, Cat. The discussion is not misplaced, however - as Doc says, the user is on Misplaced Pages, not Commons. Proto::► 13:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
(This is reposted from User talk:ERcheck.) Thank you very much for expressing your concerns. It appears to me, after carefully considering your request, that the belief that this image is not allowed on a wikipedia user page can only result from an inappropriate misreading of the published guidance on the subject. It communicates contact information as its central purpose, and also encodes two distinct information currency units, which may be decoded by other wikipedia users to learn about both PDF417 and information currency. Thank you again for your help. JPatrickBedell 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for working so hard to make wikipedia great! For clinical analysis of wiki-behavior, I could only call this an example of suppresionism (of course, the article will probably be deleted by the time you read this :). Thanks again! JPatrickBedell 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
compromised account
Would this be the place to report a possibly compromised account? Natalie 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. WP:AN/I might be slightly better, but that's just such a minor detail. Which account do you suspect isn't being used by its creator? Picaroon 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it may be a moot point now, since the account has been blocked, but almost immediately after User: 134.148.5.104 was blocked, User: Perdy80 began making the exact same vandalism edits. But if you look at Perdy80's contribs, he or she was a perfectly fine contributor up through 1 February. There is then a 1 week gap of no edits, and then the vandalism edits start. It just seems odd to me that an editor of primarily football related subjects would suddenly start repeatedly vandalizing politics articles. Natalie 03:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Very, very odd. I'll keep an eye out, I suspect a relative and a cookie. Teke 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- E-mail is enabled--has anyone tried e-mailing? Chick Bowen 07:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Very, very odd. I'll keep an eye out, I suspect a relative and a cookie. Teke 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it may be a moot point now, since the account has been blocked, but almost immediately after User: 134.148.5.104 was blocked, User: Perdy80 began making the exact same vandalism edits. But if you look at Perdy80's contribs, he or she was a perfectly fine contributor up through 1 February. There is then a 1 week gap of no edits, and then the vandalism edits start. It just seems odd to me that an editor of primarily football related subjects would suddenly start repeatedly vandalizing politics articles. Natalie 03:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
80.192.242.187
There have been some problems with this IP. There are multiple attempts to reason with him here: User talk:80.192.242.187. Despite this, there is persistent and unrepentant addition of inaccuracies, incivility and vandalism including explicit comments. He has already been blocked once for 11 hours and another time for 48 hours. I request something more be done. Here is a summary of his edits in the last 10 days. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 15:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- uncivil, offensive 'cockle' comment
- shouting offensive, ignoring references, alluding to others that do not exist
- changing meaning of text to something other than the citation
- ignoring talk page discussions, adding bogus references
- referring to other editors as 'the clowns', while adding factually inaccurate information
- adding inaccuracy
- uncivil rant to Galloglass
- assurance to Regan123 that no inaccuracies have been added
- removing references
- addition of inaccuracies
- addition of inaccuracies
- argument to Galloglass about postal system (his arguments are the opposite to Royal Mail sources)
- adding inaccuracies
- adding inaccuracies, edit summary says opposite to Royal Mail sources
- adding inaccuracies, edit summary says opposite to Royal Mail sources
- adding inaccuracies
- adding inaccuracies
- vandalising Fnarf999 page, multiple obscene references to 'bumming', 'homosexual', 'masturbating' etc.
- vandalising Fnarf999 page
- vandalising Fnarf999 page
- vandalising Fnarf999 page, multiple obscene references to 'homosexual', 'masturbating' etc.
- adding nonsense and 3RR
- adding nonsense
- uncivil 'prick' comment
- adding inaccuracies, false claim about Royal Mail publications
- uncivil, accuse Fnarf999 of being gay/homosexual
- shouting, uncivil
- shouting, uncivil
- uncivil
The real Light current speaks again
ATM there are many impersonators of me (the REAL LC) on the Wiki. Its dissapointing to see the gullible Admins have been fooled again, and have banned me as a result. I didnt have much faith in Admins to start with, but this latest action shows their complete and utter stupidity. See you soon
- I wonder if some action could be taken on this as the bad editing practice now continues. MRSC • Talk 07:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack or Not?
I want to know the reason of User:Jayjg post on a user talk page. He keep calling each reference we (me and many other provide) as false. He abuse me multiple times by calling source I give him as cherry picking sources. Now he is generalizing political and linguistic as non-reliable sources. I want to know the reason of his post that how can someone with such MAJOR post in wikipedia continue to do such things. Hence I post on his talk page which he removed calling personal attack. . If it is personal attack then it simply means he is God and he can say Noam Chomsky as unreliable and we accept it. If we ask him he call it persoanl attack. I wish to have some outside view on this. --- ALM 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- User:Jayjg who is an admin and as well as on important places like Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee say following. Politicians and linguists are not researchers in the field of terrorism, and therefore are not reliable sources on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC). He decline to accept Noam chomsky as a reference. When ask why he is generalizing all the politician and linguistics in above statement then he saying it personal attack. It is simply not acceptable from someone who is so important in wikipedia.--- ALM 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear that you are accusing him of abusing his administrative privileges. Unless you feel he has used rollback or protection or banning inappropriately, this probably isn't the best forum for you to air your complaints. You seem to have a dispute with him about what is and is not a reliable source. I'd suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, and take content disputes to the article's talk page. If he doesn't want you to comment on his talk page, the appropriate course of action (in my opinion) would be for you to not do so. – Quadell 16:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- How can he selects not to answer to anyone or decline to answer to anyone. If he is a simple user then it is OKAY. I do not care and if a simple user do not wish to answer. However, an admin should not be able to decline to answering legal and fair questions. If they can then they should not be admin. Is my logic wrong? --- ALM 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- An admin is a regular user, unless that admin is using his tools. Unless there has been some mis-use of admin tools, this belongs with regular conflict resolution. HighInBC 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think I have passed the stage with him where I can resolve conflict. I will try to push some people to file RFC because I do not have time to do that myself. He first says that I am using primary source. Hence I provide him secondary source. He says that it is not reliable source. I provide him more reliable source. Then he says it is cherry picking. Hence he never accept any sources at all. If I post a simple question on his talk page he decline to answer that. Why he is admin then? When he do not welcome other people to talk with him and answer questions? (I have references of each of above things). --- ALM 16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- An RFC is a good part of conflict resolution, and might be your best bet. Admins are not required to respond to every message left on their talk pages, and many do not. Best of luck. – Quadell 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the situation, it appears User:Jayjg is challenging Noam chomsky as a reliable source on terrorism-related articles (since Chomsky is a linguist and not a terrorism expert). While this view could be debated, it is a valid view. Jayjg has not engaged in any personal attacks regarding this. That said, ALM has appeared to engage in borderline personal attacks around this issue. ALM should feel free to take this to conflict resolution if he wants but should also know that his actions and statements will also be considered in any conflict resolution. --Alabamaboy 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have nothing to lose Alabamaboy. It is not about Noam Chomsky alone. It is a long lasting dispute about him. If they ban me then it is okay because for me standing for what is right matter more then individuals.
- Then I try to send email to few editors who have conflicts with him in the past. I will tell them references so that they can file RFC and I can work. Because I cannot do that myself without losing important work time. --- ALM 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- When contacting these other editors, you may wish to keep WP:CANVAS in mind. HighInBC 17:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Important Note: Question was NOT about Noam chomsky alone. Question was that he has generalised all politican and liguistics. The question is that he refuse to explain himself even being an admin and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee member. His quote "Politicians and linguists are not researchers in the field of terrorism, and therefore are not reliable sources on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)" --- ALM 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not alone me who is confused from his post and had a wish for simple explanation. there are other user also.--- ALM 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- But it is still not an admin matter. I suggest mediation or RFC, or gathering more opinions, or conducting a poll. HighInBC 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay thanks. --- ALM 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Image question
I don't deal much with images so I'm not much on an expert on licensing... so hopefully someone else here deals with it more and can answer this question. An editor has loaded some images (this being an example) with a GFDL license. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to release something GFDL, you need to be the content creator don't you? There is no image source information and I somehow doubt the uploader actually created this image so it probably is a valid license, but like I said I don't do enough with images that I'm 100% sure that is the case. If any other admins want to take a look or just explain it to me on my talk page, that would be great.--Isotope23 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Either the creator must release it under GFDL, or it must be a modified ('derivative') version of a work under a GFDL-compatible licence (such as public domain or CC-by) and released by the modifier under GFDL, for the resulting image to be GFDL. I can just about imagine that image being a derivative of a public-domain image, but it doesn't seem likely and anyway that should be stated to be true on the image if it is, so it looks somewhat suspicious. --ais523 18:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is sort of what I thought. I'm talking to the uploader right now to get this sorted out.--Isotope23 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Subtle POV Pushing in Douglas Feith Article
An anon user at 24.104.47.12 is repeatedly inserting redundant information concerning Douglas Feith's religion and alleged politics into his article. I think an administrator should warn the anon user at 24.104.47.12 about it. Abe Froman 18:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
renaming of an article
This is re-request in re Oberon-1. See discussion at talk. There is no Oberon-1 language. There was an Oberon Report by Wirth et al, and there was an Oberon-2 Report. The Oberon-1 article should be renamed Oberon, and all pointers to it converted to Oberon. In keeping iwth the programming language decision re Java and C and so on, perhaps it should be Oberon (programming language). But this impetuous rename should be recovered. WP readers deserve better than this confusion. ww 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is a complicated case and should go to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. The history has to be gone through with some care; last October it seems to have been divided into what are now Oberon-1 and Oberon-2. The previous title was Oberon (programming language), which now redirects to Oberon-2. It should not be at Oberon, which is a disambiguation page, however; it needs some kind of explanatory parenthesis. Chick Bowen 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Puppet Filled Mess
Hi
Where is the best place to report a string of sock/meat puppets these days? I've been editing as anon for years now, and am not familiar with the current meta practices on en.
I noticed some serious disruption in an AfD involving massive sock and meat puppetry, including external incitements to disruption. Somebody with checkuser needs to sort this out. Just as my luck would have it, I happen to get into a passionate AfD right after I leave the IPs behind, and now I can't bring this up in the AfD itself, as it has moved to semiprot (as it should be) to stop the puppetry.
Thanks, NetOracle 00:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, I don't see much need for sanctions or investigations here. The closing admin just needs to discount the puppets, i.e., the very new users with their very passionate opinions or the older accounts who have not edited Misplaced Pages since 2004. Sandstein 12:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Action figure reverts
Hi. I don't really know who to report here because there may be sockpuppets involved. If you see this history page, you'll notice that recently, 219.88.183.189 and I (Power level (Dragon Ball)) have been having a dispute about which image should be used for that article. Recently, someone creates an account named OJHomer and reverts back to the version that 219.88.183.189 wanted on the Action figure article: link. This newcomer, however, was reverted by SUIT. I don't know what to suggest here. Perhaps CheckUser would be the best thing to use here to find out who created that account to help sway consensus. But the problem with that is that this user may very well use dial-up or something and his IP address can change over time. Can an administrator confirm who created the account without reffering to CheckUser, to save us the trouble? Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just pointing out; "no" admins can't know 100% who created the account and the IP without Checkuser. ~ Arjun 04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- So, should I tag the new user as a possible sock of 219.88.183.189 and use CheckUser? Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Protection of today's featured article
Ragib semi-protected today's featured article (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman). Isn't generally accepted that articles on the main page aren't protected? John Reaves (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, that's some of the lowest vandalism edit amounts on a FA I've seen in awhile and it was protected for what reason? Metros232 04:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- While there has been a recent movement to change our policy regarding FA protection, it currently states that FAs should not be protected except for very short amounts of time in order to fix vandalism. There was also no {{sprotect}} template added to it. I'm going to unprotect; until there is consensus for the policy to change, then we shouldn't go around ignoring it (IAR notwithstanding) willy-nilly. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good call; there's no reason for it to be protected for any amount of time longer than about twenty minutes (though I do agree that any front-page FA should be move-protected). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with EVula that the main page FA should be protected. Daniel.Bryant 04:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree also, protection of move but not of editing. ~ Arjun 04:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- (It is obviously still move-protected, if those above were not speaking generically.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree also, protection of move but not of editing. ~ Arjun 04:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with EVula that the main page FA should be protected. Daniel.Bryant 04:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good call; there's no reason for it to be protected for any amount of time longer than about twenty minutes (though I do agree that any front-page FA should be move-protected). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I had semi-protected it due to the initial burst of vandalism. No problem if someone removes it to just move protection (which already was done). Not a big deal to make an ANB report ... Had I been online in the last couple of hours after I protected it, I'd have un-semi-protected it myself. Thanks. --Ragib 07:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I have been blocked (a month) in the Spanish Misplaced Pages for a page I maintain in the English Misplaced Pages
User got blocked on es:, is complaining here. This is not our jurisdiction, and we can't take any admin action there.
We don't accept other wikis coming here disputing our blocks, we can't meddle on other wikis. Since this is not admin related, since no admin action can follow, I'm moving the huge thread to User talk:Drini/randroide Those interested in the debate can continue there.
I repeat, this is about an affair on other wiki, no action from this wiki's admin is being requested, therefore I'm moving it to a proper place.
The page User:Drini/randroide is a commentary on the page that got him blocked on es:, so people that can't read spanish can know what's it about. -- Drini 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
MOving content out again
This is not the place to discuss es: admin actions. I did not DELETE content as you FALSELY claim. I moved it, and provided links to it. Stop lying. -- Drini 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You requested comments on my actoins. I did them. Above. ANd now again:
- The link is incorrect, Drini. Please paste the correct link. Randroide 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
- Please be aware that these pages are not the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we're not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Misplaced Pages's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.
So I moved the discussion that's not related to administrative tasks out of here. I gave my talk page as a starting point, but feel free to continue it otherwise. I gave comments and reasons on why I did. I repeat I did not delete content, I moved it and provided links. Thank you. -- Drini 21:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Randroide begs your pardon
I beg your pardon, Drini, I missed that you pasted the discussion in the linked page.
Nonetheless, I ask you to please assume good faith: I never called you "Liar". Errare humanum est.
And I repeat: I asked for comment, not action, from en:Misplaced Pages administrators. My one month blocking at the Spanish Misplaced Pages was cause by this page at en:Misplaced Pages. I was asking for comment about the page, not about the blocking.
Randroide 12:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you want comments I suggest you either use Requests for comments or Village pump admins here are not special leaders who decide what is good and bad. -- Drini 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion, Drini.
- By the way, your translation of the contentious page you presented ,protected by you, is incorrect in several key points. Curiously, your mistranslations always present Spanish Admistrators -you are also an admin there- under a better light
- Please check your translation.
- Any input from Spanish Speaking users is also welcome.
- Randroide 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just a quick question addressed to Drini: Why did you copy that content to your userspace? --Asterion 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Randroide 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
James Sabow - Unfounded copyright claims preventing critical image inclusion
Thanks for making wikipedia great! I would like to include the images Image:FIGURE 11 A 4cda533808cecbb8952a1a001392adc86ad9a4f282ee2e97f56e28849b88048f.jpg Image:FIGURE 11 B 1a65945fc077c716da682e8c877fb62c9957ad5ef20afcd497353f7c9f23c4fb.jpg Image:FIGURE 11 C 9de163fa3d855d4d1c5273e0ea16bf984f185f5fdc314b4410e55d6bd6be45cf.jpg in the James E. Sabow article. The images make plain that Col. Sabow suffered a basilar skull fracture before a shotgun was discharged in his mouth. The images (initially on commons at Image:FIGURE 11 A a5cd1064fb7502e6a9e10b1dfe54ea5872c3279f.jpg, Image:FIGURE 11 B f1992ff75a9c82108c08c27e207879b8115fc9bf.jpg, Image:FIGURE 11 C 3ae8ad0330aeba8d5250813b471dc58c7a248e9e.jpg) are autopsy photographs that are not generally copyrighted. The fair use rationale provided with the images at en.wikipedia.org would apparently satisfy wikipedia's copyright policies.
Unfortunately, the edits including the images have been reverted twice, and I am seeking help here. I believe that, despite the graphic nature of the images, it is important that users of wikipedia be able to see the facts of a disputed case for themselves. Thank you for your consideration. JPatrickBedell 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Misplaced Pages:Image use policy for our policy on publishing images on Misplaced Pages. In brief: be sure, in the future, to not make up spurious licensing claims, and, at a mimimum, credit the copyright holder of any image you upload. Jkelly 20:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- They are licensed GFDL and I don't see evidence the uploader actually has the correct permissions to license these as GFDL. I've responded on his talk page so hopefully this can be cleared up.--Isotope23 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- The three images on commons (Image:FIGURE 11 A a5cd1064fb7502e6a9e10b1dfe54ea5872c3279f.jpg, Image:FIGURE 11 B f1992ff75a9c82108c08c27e207879b8115fc9bf.jpg, Image:FIGURE 11 C 3ae8ad0330aeba8d5250813b471dc58c7a248e9e.jpg) have each been tagged with the copyvio claim. I don't believe that claim is valid, although I may of course be wrong. Copyright issues are, in criminal justice proceedings, a non-issue, and the OC Coroner doesn't assert copyright on the images. They don't sell autopsy images, either. Thanks for your help! JPatrickBedell 20:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- A copyright dosn't need to be asserted to be valid. Orange County would own the copyrights by default unless they have a policy of releasing the info into the public domain (for example some places release mug shots, some don't). Fair Use might apply if the article was talking about the photo or it had a section on his head wound. I'm not 100% sure tho. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Inclusion of the images may also constitute original research. It is not wikipedia's job to prove anything with regard to the subject, and this article looks like a textbook case of axe-grinding. Several of the references are self-published by the subject's father in what appears to be a highly contentious investigation. I certainly do not accept the claim that coroner's records are not copyrighted. At a minimum they are medical records protected by HIPPA and may not legally be disclosed without written authorization from the subject's estate or authorized medical proxy. The images are almost certainly copyrighted as well. Thatcher131 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions. The images are now referenced in the text in a way that makes the importance of the images clear. This is fair use for a matter of public importance. Also, please note that Dr. David Sabow is the brother of Col. James Sabow. Simply ignoring the references does not demonstrate NPOV. Thank you for your help! JPatrickBedell 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There are changing licensing claims on these images. See the upload summary. User asserts public domain claiming they are the work of the Naval Investigative Service. Then, it is changed to the county coroner. In fact, it is likely that the source that the JPatrickBedell took these images from is a copyright protected report from http://meixatech.com/COLSABOWHOMICIDE.pdf . These images, as noted from their file names, are likely scans of figure 11 in the report.
The use of these images are part of JPatrickBedell's self-declared mission ("I am determined to see that justice is served in the death of Colonel James Sabow...", see user page) to use Misplaced Pages for finding "justice" in the death of Col. Sabow. The editors mission has lead to edits that appear to violate some fundamental Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines: WP:NOT — advocacy, WP:OR — Synthesis of published material... (deleted "Evidence" subpage). These images are are only included to advance this mission. — ERcheck (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wait five days and the issue probably goes away. At least it's shaping up that way. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- It seems that the user has uploaded the images again. Aecis 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
John F. Sandner
I'm not sure if this the right place to raise this. If not let me know. I began an article a few days ago on John F. Sandner, former longtime chairman of the Chicago Merc, and unfortunately I seem to have taken some phrases from a website unintentionally, for which I apologize. The article now has a large "copyright violation" notice, and I tried to expiate matters by commencing a new article in the temp file attached to the article. I understand that an administrator must resolve this. Could someone please look at the temp file when you have a chance, and use that as the basis of a new article? I realize it is a stub and requires much work, but this is just a beginning. thank you. --Samiharris 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Finding fair use images outside the article namespace
Folks, some time back I seem to recall there was an external tool which helped locate images uploaded under fair-use criteria but used outside the article namespace. Am I mistaken? Otherwise, where is it? Ta! └/talk 23:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- PS, to add to that - what happened to the external tool which listed current {{prod}}s? I think it used to be on toolserver... └/talk 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Proposed_deletion - that cat maintains a list automatically. I don't know about the first question. 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary lists all currently active prods. I don't think the fair use tool exists anymore, though the toolserver and most of its tools are still operational at http://tools.wikimedia.de, though not all the data for the English Misplaced Pages is there. Here is the latest message from the toolserver mailing list relating to the situation of the toolserver and English Misplaced Pages. Graham87 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Proposed_deletion - that cat maintains a list automatically. I don't know about the first question. 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion made at WP:CN
For those who still don't have WP:CN watched, FYI there's a suggestion there right now for an "ArbCab". I don't support the idea, but cross-posting here to get more people's attention to it. – Chacor 02:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Don't we already have WP:WQA, WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB, and WP:ARBCOM? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Since there are links to them all, I assume we do. :) I have never heard of WP:WQA though, why would you need a page for giving what basically are light warnings? Prodego 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, WP:WQA is so get third-party opinions on violations of ettiquette, not policy. I'm confused now :). Yuser31415 03:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Since there are links to them all, I assume we do. :) I have never heard of WP:WQA though, why would you need a page for giving what basically are light warnings? Prodego 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- See the CN for my response. Geo. Talk to me 03:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Immediate attention needed at Latina Aragon
I have already tagged this article, but it's content is supposedly about an Undercover Narcotics Agent, and it would seem to ba a supremely bad idea to have information of this type hanging around Misplaced Pages. NipokNek 13:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, obviously it's fictional, but that info was added after I posted here. Sorry. NipokNek 13:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- The text keeps changing, now it seems to be real again. I need help. NipokNek 13:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've speedy deleted it as an unquestionable copyvio from └/talk 13:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I hate it when you tag something, and then the text changes significantly. You go back and it looks like you have no idea what you are doing. :P NipokNek 13:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Fishy Page(s)
I originally posted this to the VP, and it was suggested to try here:
This isn't quite ANI territory, but it does look a bit suspicious and may require a bit of unpicking. On random browsing I came across Anthony John Bailey - it looked like it was a little too polished and my suspicions were only raised further when I see virtually a mono-contributor history (a couple of accounts and IP addies, but almost all of them bar the most recent few are most likely all the same person). There is certainly some fact in there, but there is certainly also a good deal of what, for a better phrase, could be described as promotional material. Hi-res photograph (publicity shot), verbose language, "Bailey is one of the most decorated living Briton" (is he? no source and sounds promotional), coupled with fudge facts, "Freedom of the City of London 2004" - as Freedom of the City details for London that basically means being as part of a Freemason/guilds type linkage - the text as it is in his article makes it sound like it is on par with Neil Armstrong being bestowed freedoms. The vast majority of references are to "Eligo International" - a check on that website reads:
| “ | Eligo International is a dynamic and well-established public relations and public affairs company offering its clients innovative, creative and competitively priced communications solutions. Our experienced team of communications experts are engaged in developing and pro-actively executing the communications needs of statesmen and public figures, governments, diplomatic missions, senior corporate and industry leaders at home and abroad. | ” |
If folks can manage to actually decode any real english words out of that pea soup of management speak then it looks to me like a straight up PR firm. It was also "Founded in 1997 by Anthony Bailey". Of the other references a couple are from reputable sources, but the rest of them are from various "organisations" setup by him or his company. Matters aren't helped by the multiple edit accounts this has all been created from - including 81.149.151.110 (talk · contribs), Digby2 (talk · contribs), Seisal (talk · contribs), Cahce (talk · contribs) and the most obvious, Eligo (talk · contribs). A couple of them may be genuine editors, but the IP addy and Eligo are definitely the same thing. Other relevant articles to the situation include Painting & Patronage and House of Hohenberg - there may be others.
The issue I set out here is not some nn situation - these all appear to be real things - but what it does appear we have is some sort of promotional, PR web. I say web because the methodology of the editing is all too intermingled and from too many new accounts all editing on the same subject. The main article on the individual most definitely reads as nothing but self-promotional vanity and is in no way objective. Others thoughts would be welcomed. SFC9394 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am not seeing anything in that article that meets WP:BIO...should this be prodded or sent to AFD? Hbdragon88 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Start the AfD. I'll vote to delete.--Alabamaboy 01:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Acutally I take that back. Article claims that he is the ambassador to The Bamgia, which strikes me as being notable. Hbdragon88 02:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Slight problem there, as I can't verify that at all. He has attracted some press coverage over his relationships with notable people and his donations to the Labour Party, and his engagement to an Austrian princess attracted some coverage as well. I'm confused as to what he's actually notable for though. One Night In Hackney 10:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm confused as to what Tara Palmer-Tomkinson is notable for :-) Guy (Help!) 12:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Slight problem there, as I can't verify that at all. He has attracted some press coverage over his relationships with notable people and his donations to the Labour Party, and his engagement to an Austrian princess attracted some coverage as well. I'm confused as to what he's actually notable for though. One Night In Hackney 10:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it claims that he is the ambassador (or ambassador-at-large) from The Gambia to the EU. What does that mean? I don't know. This piece, while not exactly a reliable source, makes me think it might simply mean that his PR firm is doing work on behalf of the Gambia. Anyway: shall we continue this conversation on the article's talk page ? FreplySpang 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- zoominfo summary page which collates multiple sources. Of particular interest is the independent piece - the account there (namely that Labour rejected funding from him in the past over concerns that he was a lobbyist, but now accepted due to current financial difficulties) sits completely at odds with the Political chapter in the article - which paints a conveniently different picture. SFC9394 13:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- The more I look at this the more it just looks like a PR company editing wikipedia for their clients. Checking more of Eligo (talk · contribs) leads to other articles (Khalid al Faisal, Mahmoud Khayami) - conveniently on subjects that the PR firm have as clients. Indeed there is a crossover of editing subjects which can link the same thing back to Public relations (talk · contribs) - editing in June last year. I would tend to suggest this needs to be fully examined - it looks a bit deeper than just a vanity party donor article. SFC9394 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- A series of sock/meat-puppets building favorable articles about clients. Not shocking... we all know this goes on.
- First, lets take this to WP:RFCU. If it seems they are all from the same IP, indef-ban the lot and delete the article so someone independent can build an un-COI article if any real notability is there (and it might be... ambasitor from a tiny african country might qualify him). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
3RR Problem
I wanted to request some insight into a matter surrounding a 3RR report violation I filed on Feb 8th, The report appeared to have falled by the wayside, with one editor commenting on how the violations didn't appear to be patterned, and that the first instance didn't seem to be a revert. I submitted additional evidence of pattern with prior instances of reverting (that had not been reported). The report went unanswered. Eventually, it was archived without result. I resubmitted the same report (with a notation that it had been filed previously without result). Shortly thereafter, I received the following result, noted here. The first responder, User:Humus sapiens stated "no violation, so no block." The second responder, User:Jayjg, chided me for submitting "ancient" requests, implying that I had dredged through the history of an article to find something from long ago, and that I had re-submitted the article after it had already been ruled upon, neither of which was accurate. In subsequent conversations between Jayig and myself, he suggested that "3RR reports that aren't acted on are typically those that are seen as problematic for one reason or another, which is why they aren't acted on." As I am not really aware of any issues surrounding what appeared to be a simple violation of 3RR (with an unreported history of same), the only "problematic" part of the equation appeared to be that it was a relatively user reporting an editor (who was clever enough to disguide his edit summaries to escape notice). I am submitting my concerns here because it was suggested (though not recommended) that this was the next venue of appeal. I feel that the reasons the 3RR report were denied (ie, no violation, stale reportage) are not in keeping with the spirit and letter of the rule. I had reported the instance of 3RR in a timely fashion, and supplied supplemental information as to prior bad acts and bad faith as needed, both politely and (so I hope) succinctly. I know that 3RR is not ment to be applied punitively, but I feel it has to be applied consistently and fairly. To have the report result skewed because of a perception that it was "ancient", it implies that the complaint was noit actually or adequately investigated. I am not asking for a pound of flesh; I am asking for a bit of fairness and consistency of policy application. I thank you for taking the time to read my concerns, and I apologize if my language was in any way impolite.Arcayne 23:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, your languages is fine and your complaint is valid. It's an unfortunate result of the 3RR desk being understaffed. In my experience the WP:3RR monitors typically do a good (and often thankless) job... but its entirely possible for something to slip though the cracks.
- I know it's not your fault that the report went un-acted-on for so long, but it's not within the spirit of the blocking policy to block people for behavior that has stopped.
- I haven't looked at the content of the report, so I can't say it was a valid report or not. Sorry... someone with more time can comment on that for you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, in retrospect, this has gone on a bit longer than it should have. The reverting stopped because I (as the one getting reverted) decided that it wasn't worth the risk of furthering an edit war, and stopped posting the edits that were getting reverted. That the user in question dodged a bullet is immaterial at this late date; that sort of behavior has a way of popping up again, and with them, it probably will.
- As I look over this, I probably should have let this go after the mistake; I hope you will chalk it up to newbie idealism. I didn't mean to disparage the 3RR desk; they are human and make mistakes - this is why they put erasers on pencils and delete keys on keyboards. I could have posted my complaint showing the reverts a lot better than I did. Ciê la vie.
- I am sorry to have taken up the ANboard's time, and hope this will fade from memory....these are not the droids you are looking for...Arcayne 08:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
MedCab backlog
We have a large backlog of cases at MedCab requiring mediation, please help. --Ideogram 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Boris Stomakhin article and inciting of ethinic hatred
Following the edit warring between me and User:Biophys, Boris Stomakhinarticle was protected by administrator User:Cbrown1023 who told that he would unprotect that page till I reach an agreement with User:Biophys. The underlying problem for edit warring is that Biophys holds strognly Russophobic views and maintains that criminal Boris Stomakhin, who got 5 years of prison in Russia for public calls to extremism and terrorism against Russians including me, is actually innocent dissident. Biophys took his text material inserted into the article Boris Stomakhin from blog . As you could see phrases in the current article Boris Stomakhin match those in Blog La Russophobe. It is evident that this Blog La Russophobe is inciting ethnic hatred at least. The page of that blog http://russophobe.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-is-lr-russophobe-why-arent-you.html says that you should hate russians. User:Biophys insists that we should agree on exclusion from the article of citations taken from Russian respectable newspapers which hints that Stomakhin is not really innocent peaceful dissident, but actually almost a fascist. My question for Misplaced Pages administrators: If Misplaced Pages is a proper place for publishing Russophobic statements (anti-semitic statements), inciting ethnic hatred against Russians? I understand the position of User:Cbrown1023 who doesn't want to verifiy reliability of Russian texts, but a simple search in Google on Boris Stomakhin would lead to all Russophobe sources which are published by User:Biophys in current protected version of the article on Boris Stomakhin. I am astonished that Misplaced Pages administrators allow to paint people like Osama bin Laden like peaceful dissidents.Vlad fedorov 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Every version is the wrong version. Solve content disputes on the talk page and thereafter other channels of dispute resolution, no matter how disagreeable or biased the current content. If you two weren't edit-warring in the first place, you won't have reached this point, right? --physicq (c) 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not every, but if you publish citations from Mein Kampf in Misplaced Pages I think that you are wrong. If an individual takes his text to Misplaced Pages from the Blog inciting ethnic hatred, then you are wrong. I again repeat my point for your irrelevant answer - material taken from site inciting ethnic hatred couldn't be published in Misplaced Pages.Vlad fedorov 07:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- What could I solve with man who wants to exclude reliable sources by labeling them unreliable? Are you sane person? If you would look at the history of the article you would see that it is not me who deletes portions of sourced text without any reasons. I have been complaining on 3RR board they have banned me because when I was reverting to my version and my text contained some passages left from edits by Alex Bakharev and Mikka which were unsourced (and they were undisputed, by the way). Vlad fedorov 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Did you just call me insane? I'm only trying to help you here, and I get a personal attack in return? --physicq (c) 07:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have been complaining for a month, but no one actually listened to me and tried to get into the matter. Please review the Talk Page on Boris Stomakhin article. There you will see everything with your eyes. One man (Biophys) forces his opinion despite that me, Ellol, Grafikn, Alex Bakharev and Mikka consider him to be wrong. He has published his version which was protected and no one cares that a man who called to kill all Russians and me also, is painted in Misplaced Pages as a dissident abused by the government, although investigation into his case was opened by complaint of private persons - retired pensioners. How could you help me? Vlad fedorov 08:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I will forgive you for the personal attacks. Looking at the talk page, I see that both of you have been uncivil, and many a personal attack has been thrown. I'm going to have to ask both to step back from the article and from each other and try editing something else (as full protection is now making you do). Both of you seem to have reached a point where alternative solutions are not being contemplated as plausible and acceptable to all. Ellol has offered a compromise, but does not seem to be acted upon. This is essentially a bilateral content dispute. I'm not inclined to wield my block powers yet, due to the fact that if I block one (on any pretense), I will have to block the other on the same pretense. Unless another admin thinks otherwise, I'm going to have to refer you to WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB, or WP:MEDCOM. --physicq (c) 08:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- User:Physicq210, thank you. I agree to follow your advice (this is good advice!) but disagree that I ever was uncivil. Biophys 14:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC) My arguments about violation of LP policy by Vlad Fedorov can be found here Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy. So, I reported this to LP noticeboard and tried to enforce LP policy.Biophys 16:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thank you for your guidance. At last some light in the end of tunnel. But what could be done with administrator William Connolley who blocked me and haven't blocked Biophys too, although Biophys has done the same things. How could I complain on administrator?Vlad fedorov 08:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- That you need to take it up to him, on his talk page. Try asking him mildly, without insults, incivility, or threats of reporting him onto this board. However, chances are that you might have to swallow that block, no matter how unjust, to let this dispute pass and die off. --physicq (c) 08:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you once more. Your answers are really helpful to me. It is unjust that administrators could abuse someone without any consequences.Vlad fedorov 09:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Biophys refuses to negotiate, he wants to scrap all sources which may prove that Stomakhin is a fascist.Vlad fedorov 07:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Here is his message:
Sorry, but I insist to exclude this paragraph for the reasons explained above. This is my last word. There is nothing to discuss here. Biophys 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There is another problem. Vlad fedorov started reverting all my recent edits on political topics (completely unrelated to Stomakhin), so he effectively blocked my work in Misplaced Pages. I warned him but he continues. This is personal vengence. What can be done in this situation? Biophys 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have reverted deletions by Biophys of well-sourced materials published by another author on the article Mitrokhin archive. This deletion could be seen here cur http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitrokhin_Archive&diff=107010834&oldid=106018891 I have reinserted these well-sourced statements, since they are reliable and definitely should be mentioned in the article. I have deleted Biophys's unsourced defamatory statements on Russians as ethnicity which incite ethnic hatred in the article David Satter. Please note that Biophys reinserts unsourced statements inciting ethnic hatred by following edits cur http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=David_Satter&diff=prev&oldid=107021411. I think he should be blocked for violation of LP policies, since these statements describe David Satter as inciting ethnic hatred at least.Vlad fedorov 06:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to notice that Biophys deletes well-sourced materials not for the first time. For example Biophys has deleted good source in the article State sponsored terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=State-sponsored_terrorism&diff=102543018&oldid=102542124 Revision as of 23:23, 22 January 2007 (edit) (undo) Biophys (Talk | contribs) /* United States - reference to blog removed, non-working reference corrected) deleted the working link to . I ask you to read his comments with attention, first Biophys claims that it is a blog, and second he claims the link is broken. But how he could say it is a blog if the link is actually broken? By the way, the source is not a blog and the link always works.Vlad fedorov 06:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is factually wrong. "Terrorism" is an old story. I agreed yesterday with physicq to stay away of you and do not do anything with your edits (see my message on your talk page that you deleted). It was you who attacked today and yesterday my articles and edits on political topics: Izvestia, David Satter, Yulia Latynina, Mitrokhin Archive, Anatoliy Golitsyn, Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation and Active measures, probably to take revenge for Stomakhin article (Sorry, I do not see any other logical explanation).Biophys 19:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Now Vlad fedorov attacked my another article, Human rights in Russia. He repeatedly deleted text supported by references to articles by Anna Politkovskaya from Novaya Gazeta. He also make changes to "prove" that Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation is great.Biophys 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder, if anyone here could make Biophys calm? Every edit is explained and supported with specific arguments. FSB cannot be described as a secret police, since this term according to the respective Misplaced Pages article refers to the totalitarian states. I have corrected Biophys POV to NPOV, since CIA is not described as a secret police. As to the Human Rights article, I have employed the same approach which Biophys has taken in regard to the Izvestia article in Boris Stomakhin case. Biophys uses unconfirmed allegations of Anna Politkovskaya which is said was publishing her materials without verifications. Moreover, in the cited sources on Russian there are no allegations of Politkovskaya that people were detained because of their religion, while Biophys inserted these claims into the passage dedicated to the freedom of religion, which is evidently is not appropriate.Vlad fedorov 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are doing original research by saying it is factually wrong. There is nothing wrong here - CIA has sponsored Cuban terrorists to commit terror on Cuba. It is sad that you see my edits as personal attack on you, try to think about it in other way. By the way you have suggested that I am FSB/KGB team working in the internet and called me troll. So you have also committed personal attack on me.http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Further_actions and here on my own talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AVlad_fedorov&diff=106849885&oldid=106512675 Vlad fedorov 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have never made any personal attacks. It was you who wish me to die (see notice by Alex Bakharev about this personal attack on your page). Biophys 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC) But you deleted Alex Bakharev's comment from your talk page, as well as other negative comments with regards to your behavior. Biophys
- First, I never wished you to die, and no one considered this as a personal attack, since you, Biophys, wished President Putin to die then too. And if someone should consider my wording as a personal attack, then he should consider your words on Putin as a personal attack too. Luckily, administrators are not so stupid as to believe in your another empty accusations. Second, I have deleted Alex Bakharev comments because the matter was solved, as to you I could note that you have deleted comments of other users which addressed your vandalism, POV and conspiracy theories. Amd I would like to notice that these comments weren't 'favorable' of you. And here I refer specifically to the notice of administrator Mikkalai who warned you about your 'completely POV edits', notice of Alex Bakhraev on your edits about Putin phallus and other stuff you like so much.Vlad fedorov 07:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to notice that Biophys hinted that I am a KGB team working in the Misplaced Pages, actually. See there http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Further_actions.Vlad fedorov 07:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Vlad fedorov, Biophys, please don't use the Administrators' noticeboard for this discussion. Complaining about each other won't get you far. Conscious 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I share you opinion. But there was a case where admin just took the side of Biophys who fired empty accusations and blocked me without any verification whatsoever. So I feel if Biophys fires another empty accusations I need to present some my explanations, just to be sure that another admin won't miss the point.Vlad fedorov 09:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Adminship numbers (was: Completely unnecessary thread...)
- I changed the title from "Completely unnecessary thread, clear abuse of this noticeboard". It was bugging me seeing the silly abuse claim constantly repeated on my watchlist. Dragons flight 22:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Since the promotion of AnemoneProjectors there are now 1,111 admins. I find this satisfying for some reason. Chick Bowen 07:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I get what you mean by your header and the message. Could you clarify? Regards, Navou / review me 14:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I mean nothing at all. It's a round number. By abuse of this noticeboard, I meant by me, not abuse I was reporting, if that wasn't clear. Chick Bowen 16:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Irony. --Ideogram 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Predictions on when we'll reach 2000, or 2222? Newyorkbrad 16:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
More importantly (but not much), who is admin #666? the wub "?!" 16:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mindspillage! --Deskana (request backup) 17:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Head for the hills! Mackensen (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- So there's something to that numerology stuff after all... Erm, I mean, what an amusing coincidence! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's just alphabetical, isn't it? --jpgordon 17:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming no one was sysoped twice, or desysoped (which has happened), it is Alhutch. But obviously that is not correct, since you need to factor those things in. I know I am #865 though ;-). Prodego 17:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like Shimgray was #666 based on the list I have at the bottom of User:NoSeptember/admincount and both of the the rights logs at enwiki and meta. That is, his promotion raised the number to 666. NoSeptember (admin #795) 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's just alphabetical, isn't it? --jpgordon 17:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wish I could be admin #420. HighInBC 17:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your admin count says I am admin 866 (based on counting upward from the March 06 count), but I know that I am 865 (I checked when I was promoted). How could that be? Prodego 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Someone had been desysopped before you were promoted? So at the time you were the 865th active admin, but the 866th promoted? Just a wild guess, not sure how NoSeptember processes the data. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have hidden text in the lower part of the list that keeps track of meta log changes. Since I am moving backward from 28 June 2006 when I first started tracking the count, it could be an error in counting the changes in the two logs. If any permissions changes were made outside of the logs (i.e. by a developer) I will certainly miss it, which is why I will be limited in how far back I can calculate the count accurately, since developer actions are not logged. Obviously, when building a tracking list backwards, any errors will be cumulative. There were no desysoppings between EOM March and your promotion time. NoSeptember 18:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Better to just use userID's. HIBC, yours is 899386, still no 420 though ;-). NoSeptember is 244888, which is quite a nice number. Newyorkbrad = 990214, Deskana = 309128, and I = 451766. There used to be a tool to go the other way, so you could find out who is user 666, 6666, 66666, 666666... but it doesn't exist anymore. Prodego 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I've tracked admin counts is to help create accurate graphs such as this and this. The list at WP:LA (and hence the count) was not always maintained all that accurately. And yes, long ago I noticed that I have an excellent userID# number :). It shows 2 to the X power, repeated X times. NoSeptember 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I find that number distinctly unsatisfying. The ratio of admins to registered accounts has been undergoing a serious long term decline. I've outlined the problem at User talk:Durova/Admin. Durova 18:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, your information is an excellent source for info on adminship trends. I absolutely love the color coded graph of admin 'classes', if you will. It shows the rate of admin creation better then a simple bar or line graph could. One thing I notice is the wave pattern on the admin promotions by month graph. We seem to be in a trough right now, and perhaps all this concern over admin promotion rates is not entirely warranted. On the other hand, it is significantly lower then other growth rates now. Prodego 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there is only one "big wave", the others seem to be just ripples to me ;). NoSeptember 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- There were a lot less admins being promoted then too, though. So it is possible this is an amplified version of a ripple. I guess we will find out in a few months. Prodego 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The ripples seem to be about 20% fluctuations, the wave was more of a 100% fluctuation that took a year to subside. NoSeptember 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- There were a lot less admins being promoted then too, though. So it is possible this is an amplified version of a ripple. I guess we will find out in a few months. Prodego 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Re: Durova--yes, I agree that the promotion rate needs to be quickened, though how to do it is a question. NoSeptember's graph suggests (possibly--this may be a coincidence) a dropoff after the February '06 wheel war. The less stressful we can make being an admin, the more people will want to do it. Yes? Chick Bowen 19:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let's give credit to Tariqabjotu for making the graph. NoSeptember 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed--sorry, and thanks for a useful graph, Tariqabjotu. Chick Bowen 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who got sysopped when the WP:PAIN and WP:RFI boards were both backlogged and tried to keep them running (and succeeded until some cases went to arbitration), I draw a direct connection between the decline in the admin-to-account ratio and the difficulty in keeping up with those complaints. Although I don't want to come across as alarmist, there's a basic principle I draw from the law enforcement of New York City: during the 1970s it was almost impossible to get the police to respond to a noise complaint because the usual line was, we're too busy dealing with rapes and murders. During the 1990s those priorities changed. When smaller quality of life violations got attention the felony rates went down substantially. What the city discovered was that a friendly police officer walking the beat, asking someone to turn down the volume on a radio or writing a small citation for vandalism actually stopped potential troublemakers from graduating to more serious crimes. I'd like to recruit more sysops - more beat cops as it were - so we have enough admins to intervene early and keep the serious problems to a minimum. Durova 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- This sounds like Fixing Broken Windows, a book (and an ensuing discussion) that I highly recommend to those interested in crime, its causes, and prevention. I recall that Tipping Point also touches on the issue. Heresiarch 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- An important point that the Fixing Broken Windows page overlooks is that the Giuliani administration continued and expanded upon initiatives from the Dinkins administration. Also, the specific tactic of addressing turnstile jumpers had an enormous impact on the subway crime rates. New York City actually has a separate police force for its transit system. What they found was that people who sneaked into the system without paying the fare committed a large portion of the more serious crimes (which makes sense intuitively when you think about it for a moment). Anyway, back to Misplaced Pages: let's look for more good people to mentor into sysops. Durova 22:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- This sounds like Fixing Broken Windows, a book (and an ensuing discussion) that I highly recommend to those interested in crime, its causes, and prevention. I recall that Tipping Point also touches on the issue. Heresiarch 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who got sysopped when the WP:PAIN and WP:RFI boards were both backlogged and tried to keep them running (and succeeded until some cases went to arbitration), I draw a direct connection between the decline in the admin-to-account ratio and the difficulty in keeping up with those complaints. Although I don't want to come across as alarmist, there's a basic principle I draw from the law enforcement of New York City: during the 1970s it was almost impossible to get the police to respond to a noise complaint because the usual line was, we're too busy dealing with rapes and murders. During the 1990s those priorities changed. When smaller quality of life violations got attention the felony rates went down substantially. What the city discovered was that a friendly police officer walking the beat, asking someone to turn down the volume on a radio or writing a small citation for vandalism actually stopped potential troublemakers from graduating to more serious crimes. I'd like to recruit more sysops - more beat cops as it were - so we have enough admins to intervene early and keep the serious problems to a minimum. Durova 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed--sorry, and thanks for a useful graph, Tariqabjotu. Chick Bowen 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let's give credit to Tariqabjotu for making the graph. NoSeptember 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there is only one "big wave", the others seem to be just ripples to me ;). NoSeptember 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Of course, the reason for such a low increase lies in the now-adays rediculous 'requirements' for being an admin. Reading the RFAs, you have to be a walking encyclopedia with an edit count of 10,000 (minor edits don't count!) and have an immaculate reputation that surpasses that of the Pope! I'd love to help out, and I do what I can as an editor. But I'm not one that creates articles by the dozen, nor do I have any expert knowledge (other then that which is already on Misplaced Pages). But you can see me do plenty of 'janitorial' work, which is what I believe is being an admin is all about. You want more volunteers? Get rid of the 'Nay-sayers' first; they're the only reason admins don't get elected. I know consensus is the basis on which the community is build, however bureaucrats still tend to go with the numbers instead of the arguments.
I just had to get that off my chest... --Edokter (Talk) 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- At the time of my RfA's passing, I had exactly 0 created articles to my credit (for that matter, I still have that number). I did have 9k edits, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"Undo" message at MediaWiki:Undo-summary
Does anyone want to chime in on this? This is a protected template, but there seems to be some discussion as to what the undo template should be. There are two suggestions:
- ]Undid revision $1 by ] (])
- ]Reverted revision $1 by ] (]) via ]
There's some talk on MediaWiki talk:Undo-summary, on people's opinions, but I want this brough to a wider audience-Halo 17:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I personally like this version. Perhaps a poll should be started about this, on the talk page. Prodego 17:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Polling is evil. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is a tool to assist in determing consensus. Prodego 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I like the one that says Undid, though I would prefer a wording that uses Undo, that is after all what it is doing. HighInBC 17:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Undid" just rubs me the wrong way, "Undo" makes much more sense--162.84.217.206 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Undo is the wrong tense to go in the edit summary - the undoing has already happened. I know we use 'Revert done by X', but using "revert" as a noun is bad enough, please let's not go down this evil and slippery slope any further. Proto::► 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer version two. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Er, it really shouldn't use the word revert, since we mean something specific by "revert" which is different from "undo." Revert always refers to the most recent change. Chick Bowen 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Undo only works on the most recent change--162.84.217.206 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- It most certainly does not. Discussion is ongoing at the talk page, please discuss over there so we can keep this consolidated. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Undo only works on the most recent change--162.84.217.206 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Er, it really shouldn't use the word revert, since we mean something specific by "revert" which is different from "undo." Revert always refers to the most recent change. Chick Bowen 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer version two. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Polling is evil. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If we want to be grammatically correct (for once!), it should be:
- ]Revision $1 undone by ] (])
... but grammar and MediaWiki messages tend to mix like ice cream and smelly poo. Proto::► 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I like that version. It sounds much nicer and it makes use of "undo". --bainer (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Except $2 is the person who made the revision being undone, not the person undoing. Prodego 02:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- ]Revision $1, by ] (]), undone
- Possibly... Ral315 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss this on MediaWiki talk:Undo-summary, to avoid forking the discussion. --ais523 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Db-bio-photo}}
Cocoaguy created {{Db-bio-photo}} without a community-concensus which is a total nonsense, claiming A7 criteria for deleting non-notable photo :) Shyam 23:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I redirected it to Template:Ifd, which is what should happen if someone wants to delete an image that has no other problem beyond questionable encyclopedic value. Jkelly 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- (Scratches his head). Doesn't CSDA7 delete the article, orphaning the image, which causes it to get deleted? Besides, people are allowed to be bold in their creation of things. It certainly seems like a good idea, until the logical sequence of photos used in DB-BIO articles is considered. Logical2uTalk 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- If an image is licensed under a free-license then why it should get deleted? If the image is under fair-use it would automatically be deleted in seven days after orphaning. Shyam 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- By logical sequence of photos in DB-BIO articles I meant "Upload, Fair use tagging, Article creating, image place in article, DB-BIO applied, Article deleted, user doesn't notice/recreate, image orphaned, image deleted". Maybe I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. Logical2uTalk 00:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- If an image is licensed under a free-license then why it should get deleted? If the image is under fair-use it would automatically be deleted in seven days after orphaning. Shyam 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The same photo may be used elsewhere, or may have future purposes. A7 is for articles, there is no such speedy deletion criteria for images. Being orphaned is not a speedy delete criteria even(unless it is unfree). HighInBC 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- It may, although frankly I often speedy delete (as IAR) obvious vanity photographs uploaded for a vanity page, and I see no reason not to. I don't think there should necessarily be a CSD for them, since as HighInBC says if they're properly licensed they could be used elsewhere, but I also don't think we should permit people to just upload pictures of themselves willy-nilly, and keep them here indefinitely. Note that orphaned free images have been and should be deletable through IfD, even if they're not speedied. Chick Bowen 00:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- The same photo may be used elsewhere, or may have future purposes. A7 is for articles, there is no such speedy deletion criteria for images. Being orphaned is not a speedy delete criteria even(unless it is unfree). HighInBC 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you there Chick Bowen... If the image is unlikey to be used anywhere else, I don't see the problem in deleting it. However, if it's a good image and might be usefull elsewhere (and it's free) then perhapse uploading it to Commons is a good idea too. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I raised a question about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedable image question. Glad to see I'm not the only one who IARs such images. 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I actually ran across this issue last night. I deleted the image as I do in the case of the myspace-ish articles created, by IAR. I notified the user who tagged it that A7 wasn't appropriate. I delete these orphans for several reasons:
- They will be deleted by Orphanbot tagging and cause backlog work
- If they are just free images floating around, they should be on commons.
- Most importantly in my judgement, the users do not realize what the free license means. A picture of a kid goofing off can wind up like the Star Wars Kid. We should be more proper in content than YouTube.
- So there's that, it should be worked into CSD in a way. I'm gonna post this over there too. Teke 03:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Gumshoe school?
Sometimes this board or ANI gets questions about how to handle a complex investigation. I've thought of writing up some pages in my namespace on the subject, sort of a quick self-study course. Gumshoe 101 would deal with the basics such as how to read a page history and find a diff. At the most advanced level I'd step through my investigations of long term vandals such as JB196 and AWilliamson. There's a potential for crossing the WP:DENY line, which is one reason I've held off, but I also think there's value in coaching people through the techniques I use. Good idea? Durova 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, why not? No harm, as long as it's in userspace. Cheers. Yuser31415 05:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in seeing your techniques as well. Your previous investigations have been pretty impressive, seeing how you got there might be useful. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- This might well be useful for all editors on vandal duty, whether administrators or not. I'd recommend that you develop it in your userspace and then move it to Misplaced Pages space with a link from the Community Portal if it becomes popular enough. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- From the WP:DENY perspective there is always a trade off between enabling us to better deal with vandalism and giving undue publicity to specific vandals/vandalism, as long as the balance is right it shouldn't be an issue. I'd be more concerned with the WP:BEANS issues, revealing some of the signs may enable some to avoid them... --pgk 12:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- IIRC I've seen checkusers decline to give much detail on how they've come to a certain conclusion for that very reason. --pgk 12:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have mixed fealings about this one... I have tactics I use to make a case for sockpuppetry that I'd love to share... but if they become universaly known then they become much less usefull. Hmmm... Perhapse the information can be stored in the history of a deleted page so only admins can access it? Maybe thats not such a good solution either? I donno... ballancing the beans in my nose is hard. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you could put a note on your user page that people can email you for details. You'd obviously have to judge the enquirer's suitability. Tyrenius 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have mixed fealings about this one... I have tactics I use to make a case for sockpuppetry that I'd love to share... but if they become universaly known then they become much less usefull. Hmmm... Perhapse the information can be stored in the history of a deleted page so only admins can access it? Maybe thats not such a good solution either? I donno... ballancing the beans in my nose is hard. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Due to the way I envision this it would probably stay in user space. Part of the challenge is to minimize the exploitation potential: if a TV news show runs a public service story about how people can protect their homes from burglary, the burglars are sure to tune in also. I'll see about drafting something that does more good than harm. Might be slow in rolling it out, with other irons in the fire. Thanks for the feedback. Durova 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Gang Stalking is its own article, while Gang stalking redirects to Stalking
... and the redirect from Gang stalking to Stalking is protected. I would rather not see the content at Gang Stalking obliterated; maybe it could be merged into Gang. Is this the right place to report this? If it isn't, I apologize. Joie de Vivre 18:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've deleted and protected it as a recreation. Tom Harrison 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- But... what about the content that was at Gang Stalking? Did you just delete it? Wouldn't it be better to place it at the Gang article talk page for possible integration? Joie de Vivre 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I deleted it under Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion G4. If you have cited material relevant to Gang, feel free to add it. Tom Harrison 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the gang stalking article might be worth keeping, or at least sending to AFD. The Gang stalking deleted via AFD was a lot of original research that focused on Usenet. Gang Stalking (the one deleted today) seems at the very least more notable, though it might also be guilty of original research. I would be in favor of sending the latter to AFD, since it's substantially different from the prior article. Ral315 (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't read it in full while I could still see it, but it looked to me as though there was content worth trying to verify rather than just deleting. Can we do better than just deleting? Joie de Vivre 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- It looks to me like more of the same folklore, without the benefit of the usenet 'citations'. I would not be keen to see this start up again. The way to have a page on this (if there is anything here to have a page on) is for it to grow collaboratively from a cited section on gangs or stalking, or on one of the social psychology pages. I would rather it be built somewhere like that or stay deleted, but if people think it is significantly different from what was deleted before, it could go through AfD. Tom Harrison 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I assume that editors can't see it... what is the next step if we are to try to present any of the missing content for criticism? Joie de Vivre
Request for a qualified person to look at dispute
I am looking to have moderator or qualified third party visit Talk:Zodiac killer#Request_for_Comment:_Link_placement_in_Zodic_killer_entry to specifically address a dispute involving link placement on the Zodiac killer. I have read the entire FAQ of the procedures and know the process well, but haven't had any luck getting an actual moderator to help. Thanks. Labyrinth13 02:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Probably because RfC is just requests for comment. If you want formal mediation you should try a request for mediation.--Isotope23 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Nationalism on Misplaced Pages
Hello, I noticed a certain user who edited the Serbia article (he added the radical term of Greater Serbia as a link ) and I thought nothing more of it than a simple act of vandalism. However, upon visiting his user page, I was shocked at what I saw:
"...fight against the Greater Serbian aggression in which the Serbs tried to repeat the genocide their Nazi Chetnik collaborators committed in World War II..."
If User:CroDome is prejudiced towards Serbs, thats his problem. But going to Misplaced Pages, stating that all Serbs committed or attempted to commit some act of genocide and publically denounce an entire nation is not fitting for Misplaced Pages at all.
He also made obvious anti-Serb nationalistic edits such as this one ("...Serbs wrote this. I just know it. God damnit they are everywhere - you just simply cant track them all down..."), this one ("...Yes I just noticed this great project wikipedia. Though I'm scared if there are any Serbs here; I don't see them so far so so far so good..."), this one (where he removed some Serbs from a list of famous Serbs and claimed they were Croats), even anti-Montenegrin nationalistic edits such as this one and this one, and many more.
He has been warned by User:Sideshow Bob, User:KingIvan and User:Stop The Lies on his talk page and now I think that it's time to raise the question of how to solve this problem right here.
I hope someone will take some sort of action, because nationalism, racism and ethnic hate is something that I think should not be tolerated here. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've toned down the language on his userpage. Suggestions? Yuser31415 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I suggest that in the future, when you have problems with the content of a user's page, you try contacting them on their talkpage and not editing it so that it fits your worldview, since you have no right to do so. KazakhPol 04:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you think that users should contact others before editing their talk page, then why do you try to discredit the contributions of users trying to help others with their pages? You seem very self-contradictory en:User:KazakhPol. Stop The Lies 04:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies
- I do have the right to edit another editor's userpage (WP:OWN), as I do have the right to make any page on Misplaced Pages neutral, no questions asked. Yuser31415 04:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- When a page has objectional content we don't need to ask permission to remove it. I would have actualy simply deleted the page outright... pages that attack people are speedyable. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I suggest that in the future, when you have problems with the content of a user's page, you try contacting them on their talkpage and not editing it so that it fits your worldview, since you have no right to do so. KazakhPol 04:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
CroDome...
...is an obvious meatpuppet whose edits are only meant to anger people. I do not know why he wasnt banned outright after he made this edit. It really doesnt take a genius to figure out the account is a joke. CroDome managed to anger Yuser31415 so much that he decided he would vandalize CroDome's userpage. He's now warning me for reverting his vandalism. I suggest CroDome be banned and Yuser31415 be instructed that he does not own userpages. KazakhPol 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with Yuser's edits. He was removing questionable content off of CroDome's user page, and you were revert warring him over it. No one owns any page on Misplaced Pages, and Yuser was not WP:OWNing that page, either.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of interest, this user's commentary: User_talk:Stop_The_Lies#Post_on_anti-Serb_user.27s_talkpage_.28en:User:CroDome.29 Alan.ca 06:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- The user has continued to make anti-Serb and even fascist comments and I really think that this is enough. I am not a Serb, but i do not like nationalism and ethnic hate, which is evident in this user's case. He wrote the article "Serbian Genocide" and added a link to it on his user page. The article used to redirect the page to the article about how Serbs suffered during World War II due to the attrocities and genocide committed by the Nazi Ustashe, but this user tried to invent his own history, claiming that Serbs committed genocide in WWII, which is nonsense. He also wrote "This user is TOTALLY IMPRESSED by the Croatian romantic feeling of the Montenegrins; their heroism, despite their Serbian affiliations and is simply dying to learn more about the beautiful Red Croatian culture" on his user page, once again claiming that Montenegrins are Croats, that they have a Croatian history, thus insulting an entire nation of Montenegrins. He has also affiliated himself with the fascist nazi Ustashe of WWII, by stating "Bog i Hrvati, Ivane. --Za Dom Spremni! , and "Za Dom Spremni" was the fascist slogan of the nazi puppet state of Croatia in WWII. Isn't there a quick way to solve this problem, because I don't think a user with such extreme radical opinions can change, he will only continue with his POV pushing, and this is only going to get worse. He has committed several acts of vandalism, refuses to cooperate, and we now see that not only nationalism is the case, but also fascism. --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Same old game
When will we start taking notice of all this? I am tired of new users popping up on Balkans and other controversial issues, whose only contributions seem to be to stir tensions, edit war and promote hate in their userpages. Excuse me but people are meant to be here to write an encyclopedia not to get some childish thrill of poking someone else in the eye. Well, I have had enough: Userpages are not a soapbox either. I will blank it and keep an eye on this user. Thanks, Asterion 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Have I done something wrong?
I asked an IP to stop changing British English spellings to American English spellings (I wasn't the first person to request this) but they carried on so I eventually gave them a final warning using {{lang4}}. Their talk page is User talk:70.176.167.204 and their comment on my userpage is at User talk:AnemoneProjectors#Beware of banning IP ranges. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're fine. You're not banning the IP, you'd be blocking it, there's a huge difference. --Majorly (o rly?) 10:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, but thanks for clarifying. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a pretty basic attempt to try and intimidate you to not block the user for inappropriate behavior. If it makes you feel better, this person is on a cable modem, so while they are not a static IP, it isn't the same as blocking a dial-up account; Chances are that any block that is less than a month would not even effect any other users. Regardless, I gave the IP a 48 hour block for incivility a near personal attack on you, and wikilawyering. He/She needs a break here.--Isotope23 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that ☺ — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a pretty basic attempt to try and intimidate you to not block the user for inappropriate behavior. If it makes you feel better, this person is on a cable modem, so while they are not a static IP, it isn't the same as blocking a dial-up account; Chances are that any block that is less than a month would not even effect any other users. Regardless, I gave the IP a 48 hour block for incivility a near personal attack on you, and wikilawyering. He/She needs a break here.--Isotope23 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, but thanks for clarifying. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Deletions
I have asked and it appears that there is not a template that lets other administrators know that an article for speedy deletion is currently being reviewed by another administrator? There have been several time where I go do a quick google search or try to start discourse with the creating editor and by the time i do, the article has already been deleted? I think a template such as {{hangon-admin}}, with similar wording, that notifies that the article is being reviewed (for those non clear cut cases such as possible copyvios etc) by an administrator. Anybody have some feedback on this idea? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- That would be very useful. JoshuaZ 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ehhh. But it's so easy to restore the article if it's mistakenly deleted. -- Merope 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- But, I along with may other admins (as far as I know), do not like to undelete articles deleted by another administartor without talking to them, etc etc. This could be avoided by just saying in a friendly tempate that it is under review. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I have no problem with undoing someone else's deletion if I've got sufficient reason, or having someone undo my own (ie: if in the course of research, it is found that Person X just won Award Y, but the article didn't reflect that, there's plenty of reason to restore it; just note the rationale in the edit summary and drop the deleting admin a note further explaining why). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, maybye I am a bit new and that is why I am a little uncomfterable doing that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Completely understandable; it took me several days before I started deleting anything more complicated than a {{db-author}}. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, maybye I am a bit new and that is why I am a little uncomfterable doing that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I have no problem with undoing someone else's deletion if I've got sufficient reason, or having someone undo my own (ie: if in the course of research, it is found that Person X just won Award Y, but the article didn't reflect that, there's plenty of reason to restore it; just note the rationale in the edit summary and drop the deleting admin a note further explaining why). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- But, I along with may other admins (as far as I know), do not like to undelete articles deleted by another administartor without talking to them, etc etc. This could be avoided by just saying in a friendly tempate that it is under review. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ehhh. But it's so easy to restore the article if it's mistakenly deleted. -- Merope 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict x3) Yeah, sorry: instruction creep. If your researches reveal that an article should have been kept, then undelete, warn the tagger of the article (if it wasn't a speedy delete, they need to be told as they need to learn from the mistake) and drop an line to the deleter telling them what you've done. Don't bother with the latter step if it's me, since I'm fallible and say so on my user page :o) Added: a single revert isn't wheel-warring, it's just normal editing; and you're likely to find the article deleted whilst you're adding the template; and what about templates left forever a la the much-misused {hangon}? Nah, instruction creep. This is a solution looking for a problem, really (he says after 11 months of not encountering this once) 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I can see a bit of instructrion creep. probably better to stick with what we got. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Although I've dealt with the same problem, any editor can add a template, giving admins the mistaken impression that the article is being handled. It would be a nice end-around for vanity page creators. The restore button is the best way to deal with this. --Ginkgo100 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Unblock requests...or Guess who's back?
Recently, there have been e-mails sent to various administrators from MARromance (talk · contribs) that the account be unblocked. And from the title of this thread, Bobabobabo is back and was in full force the other night. However, MARromance's block was based on a checkuser request on the identified home IP of the individual, and MARromance was found, and the editting pattern confirms it for me. There was also another list up at User:Jpgordon/boba for socks that popped up last night and accounts discovered through checkusers on those accounts.
Again, do not unblock under any circumstances. I, in fact, had to reblock the IP so that it was not anon-only, and this may stem the abuse until I can get an abuse report filed with the ISP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please Delete my User Sub-Page
Could someone please delete User:NickSentowski/A2NWO? I'd greatly appreciate it!
Thanks, -NickSentowski 23:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done, but next time you want to delete your own subpage you can tag it with {{db-owner}}, and someone will come along and delete it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
User:MarkThomas
I'm not happy about this user's behaviour User:MarkThomas
To provide context, he has been editing Iain Dale Talk:Iain Dale
Dale is a right-of-centre blogger, prospective Conservative Party Candidate for Parliament, journalist, and is also linked to 18 Doughty Street an online TV station.
He has weighed in on the page adding the following
- The channel is designing and planning US-style attack-ads (not previously seen in the UK) in the upcoming elections for Mayor of London; users of the channel's website are invited to vote on choices including criticism that Livingstone supports "gay rights", or that he has plotted terrorist acts with Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Dale has stated on his own blog that he is gay.
This is clearly intended as a smear. It's absurd and false. The ads are not produced by Dale, and most importantly do not say anything of the kind that Thomas is claiming. The ads attack him, not for supporting gay rights (absurd as Dale is gay), but the apparent inconsistency between supporting al-Qaradawi on the one hand (whom they link with anti-gay sentiment) while claiming to be in favour of gay rights. Equally, the suggestion that the TV station alleged Ken Livingstone plotted terrorist acts is just ridiculous.
Anyway, he edited the page a half-dozen times or so, each time reverting the content, which the subject of the article (Iain Dale) said was libellous, and was removing, but he continued to revert war, claiming that it didn't matter what the user saying he was Iain Dale had said because he wasn't logged-in. Since then he changed his allegations to say that Dale is linked to right-wing Christians Conservatives. I removed this, as it's an attempted smear, just arbitrarily selecting a few of his media colleagues to associate him with. He also referred to the Heritage Foundation as "extreme right-wing", and in the talk page referred to the article's subject as an "extreme-right British conservative". He has also edited related page 18 Doughty Street with the edit summary "just telling the facts" talking about 'homophobic and extremist libels.' See page history .
Anyhow, in this context I removed his attempted smear, which he describes as "Information of great interest to Dale-watchers", saying "remove persistent POV pusher MarkThomas". Unfortunately since this time he has been attacking me. See here . He likes to accuse people of breaking rules, threatening them with permanent blocks. He's since come back twice, weighing in on a dispute with another user (see 'three revert rule'), even when the user's comments were right below his own.
Another user criticised his edits , and he has immediately weighed in with more attacks and threats against me, when I replaced his threat of a permanent block against User Talk:London1982 (simply for suggesting on Talk:Iain Dale that he is biased wrt the subject of the article) with a standard welcome template (the user only has 3 or 4 edits, and no talk page), he has since accused me of being his sockpuppet or something, although that's blatantly obviously not the case. After I got fed up of responding to all his attacks, I removed his content from my talk page, and he's sinced been edit warring it , as well as , somewhat bizarrely suggesting on my talk that I had no right to edit London1982's talk page, when he'd just edited himself (double standards from him are typical: he's happy to threaten others but still is rude himself).
His parting shot has been to say he will file a sockpuppet report against me tomorrow, as apparently to him anyone who doesn't agree that referring to mainstream Conservatives as "extremist right-wingers" must be sockpuppets
I've just wasted an hour of my life on this pointlessness, and am not happy at all about MarkThomas' destructiveness. I would like him blocked from editing the pages Iain Dale, 18 Doughty Street, and my own talk page. I don't want to waste my time here going over this. I really don't have time for it, and won't be able to edit wikipedia if I have to waste my time going through this stuff. Can someone get him away from me - please, I don't want to waste any more of my life on this.
BTW, his username is causing confusion, as Iain Dale thought he was well-known UK left-wing political comedian Mark Thomas. I would suggest it should be changed. Nssdfdsfds 00:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've protected the page and will make a comment about the entering of info which violates BLP.--Alabamaboy 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Image
I would like to know who deleted an image and why the image was deleted. I did not receive any notification on my user page and I specifically asked for assistance on identifying the copyrigh of the image which I clearly stated, cited from the Crowns Website, is a free Image from the government of Canada that may be used for personal, business and commercial use. File:Canada, Routes of Explorers,1497 to 1905.jpg. I'm anxiously waiting for someoneone's answer! --CyclePat 00:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- That would be because either you didn't give it a licensing tag, or that you gave it one that's fundamentally incompatible with the GFDL. See WP:COPYRIGHT for more information about copyrights on Misplaced Pages. Veinor 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- According to the deletion log: "00:10, 10 February 2007 Jaranda (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Canada, Routes of Explorers,1497 to 1905.jpg" (image with unknown copyright status for over 7 days)" The copyright information on the actual image page was {{Don't know}} so I'm guessing it was deleted based on the tags, not on what you said in non-machine-readable text. --W.marsh 00:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I actually did place the {{Don't know}} because I was asking the question. I believe it meets GFDL and I think that every image from that website meets the requirement... kind of like NASA. (I've seen a template for those type of pictures). One reason I left the question open was to see if we could have a discussion towards perhaps even making a template for all pictures from that website. In my text I indicated: Maps in the Atlas of Canada are offered for personal, public non-commercial and commercial use and may be reproduced. For details please go to the important notices. This image was Free to use with the condition the coorporations advise the NRC so they may send them one of the most up to date pictures. I figured out the that is essentially a type of GFDL or Free Copy licences (whatever the term is). The NRC is a government organization of Canada and for this reason it is believed that this image meets the requirement for Free Use. Making thing even more complicated I just made a new picture with that map. Image:Hudson bay explorer.png. --CyclePat 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- The image is copyrighted, and requires an application procedure for licensing for commercial use. It, and any other images from that site, are not freely licensed. Jkelly 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Bad Image
Image:Ampallang Piercing.jpg. Pic of a penile piercing that was just used for vandalism recently. Consider adding it MediaWiki:Bad image list, but leave it viewable on the Penis article.--70.135.89.240 05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Move request
Finally figured out how to rename page "Hawaiian ecosystems at risk project" to "Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk project" (only capitalization is changed), but see below* for what I got in reply. Looks like the move succeeded, but "talk" pages from both the old (previously-redirected) all-lowercase version and new (various-uppercase letters) versions need to be COMBINED on the new page for "Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk project" (capitalized exactly like that), and I don't know how to do that; seems like something an administrator might need to resolve.
Thanks in advance for your help with this!
philiptdotcom 10:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- "below":
Move page Move succeeded Jump to: navigation, search
The page "Hawaiian ecosystems at risk project" (links) has been moved to "Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk project".
Please check whether this move has created any double redirects, and fix them as necessary. For this purpose, you can use the following form:
- REDIRECT Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk project
The page itself was moved successfully, but the talk page could not be moved because one already exists at the new title. Contact an Administrator, but do not just copy and paste the contents.
- Hi Philip. As it says, only an administrator can move a page to a location where content other than a redirect already exists. I have fixed the talk page for you; it's now at Talk:Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk project. Proto::► 11:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Flameviper needs a coach
Flameviper (talk · contribs): I'm not going to take the time to provide a bunch of diffs; a quick glance through this user's contribs or talk page archives will give you the gist. Flameviper is highly disruptive and doesn't take constructive criticism or even conduct warnings seriously. I'm not entirely sure that mentoring him won't be a waste of time, but maybe some intrepid admin or experienced editor wants to take Flameviper under their wing. Perhaps if he is treated like a grown-up he will act like one. He's assented to mentorship (more or less) on his talk page. I honestly don't have the time right now, or I'd give it a go myself. A Train 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- If no-one else wants to can I take him on? I've seen him around lately and do believe that he means well but just needs someone to tame his temperament RyanPostlethwaite 18:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- More power to you. I came across him in his extremely ill-advised RfA and an MfD for his personal wiki's Main Page; I heartily agree that he needs some sort of guidance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I hope he agrees to it, Ryan. You're absolutely right; he's a very good editor when he wants to be, but as it stands right now he's just headed for a long block. A Train 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hopefully someone can get through to him. He's teetering on the edge of a block with one more disruption from about 5 different admins. Metros232 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm actually away tonight, but come tomorrow I will try and get through to him, I just hope he doesn't do anything stupid tonight. I really do believe he has potential to be a useful contributor (possibly not admin though like he seams to think!) RyanPostlethwaite 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That guy is hilarious! I especially like his user page. I'd give him a userpage barnstar, but I'm too tired right now.--Abs Like Jesus 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
I have now blocked Flameviper for one monthh. He's had this coming for awhile. This edit was the final straw. It's edit summary "Let's hope (for both our sakes) you don't piss me off" and threatening to be disruptive is totally inappropriate. If anyone disagrees with this, let me know, but too much has gone on in the last couple of weeks from this account to justify allowing him to continue to edit Misplaced Pages for the time being, Metros232 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly endorse • I would even go so far as to want a strong community ban. Behaviour exhibited on Elaragirl and Jpgordon's talk pages is so clearly unacceptable we may even want to use it as bad examples in WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was reluctant to do a full ban because many people above believe he can be a good editor. However, if the community wants to investigate his actions further towards a full ban, I have no problem with that. Metros232 20:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse I've protected the talk page, this is rather agitating and might warrant a possible WP:RfAr. Yanksox 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, I think this is a bit much. Flameviper is by no means perfect but he should be given a final chance to become a more productive contributor, possibly through mentorship. As for that post on Elara's talk...I have seen worse. There is a sort of implied threat but the edit summary is certainly honest and - am I allow to say this? - sort of accurate as well. I have faith that Flameviper can improve his conduct here. I agree that 24 hours of enforced wikibreak would do no harm, but a month is a bit much. Moreschi 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have to disagree with you on that one. This was enough for me to see that he really doesn't have anything positive planned for us and is acting a tad bit psychotic and will need to take a long break to just chill out. One day would fuel the fire, a month will let him burn out and start anew. Yanksox 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- At first I thought a month seemed harsh (not knowing the history here) but the link above basically shows stated intention to troll. Either an indefinite block or the one-month as a last chance seem appropriate to me. Friday (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, a 1 month block coincides nicely with his recently announced 1 month vacation from Misplaced Pages, so I don't really see a problem here.--Isotope23 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well the "1 month vacation" is really him unwilling to admit he was blocked and try to make it seem like he's not going to be editing because he doesn't want to (note how he replaced my block notice with that announcement). Metros232 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I know... I always forget that irony doesn't always translate well in written communications.--Isotope23 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well the "1 month vacation" is really him unwilling to admit he was blocked and try to make it seem like he's not going to be editing because he doesn't want to (note how he replaced my block notice with that announcement). Metros232 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no drum to bang for the guy, but it looks to my eyes that we gave him the provokation he was seeking, then, when he responded, we provoked him again. He responded again, and then we blocked him.
I'm always happy to block on a threat, but we could be accused of using it as a pretext here. This guy isn't the best contributor in the world - by a long chalk - but we've talked ourselves up from some minor disruption to indef blocking being on the cards in a matter of hours. We block disruptive sockfarmers for less time than this guy has got and with more provokation.
Some coolheadedness would not go amiss here. (Not that I'm advocating unblocking him or anything... just a sense of perspective, maybe?) 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you in general, but in this one particular case, he came right out and said he wanted to stir up trouble. Trolls come in (at least) 2 flavors: people who sit down at the computer and say "today I will troll Misplaced Pages", and immature editors who get into conflicts, are unable to let it go, and start trolling by accident, still convinced they're "fighting the good fight". This guy may have been unfortunately and needlessly provoked, I don't know, but we still got to see his reaction to provocation. He reacted by stating his intention to troll. Trolls of any kind are unwelcome here. Friday (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- The issue though is that it's this pattern with the user. Many people were looking for him to be blocked a week+ ago when he was disruptive during his RFA. He was given many, many last chances in the last few weeks. Metros232 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse: However maybe reduce the block :/, this stuff needs to stop though. ~ Arjun 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't hold your breath on that, user has had previous accounts such as Son_of_a_Peach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked multiple times until an indefblock in September last year. This is an ongoing problem. --pgk 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- This user's attitude seems to have seriously worsened since his most recent unsuccessful RfA a couple of weeks ago. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is one of the reasons I went with a month. This isn't Flameviper's first travels into the realm of incivility blocks. He's been blocked on several other accounts indefinitely, see User:Flameviper/socks. Metros232 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- This user's attitude seems to have seriously worsened since his most recent unsuccessful RfA a couple of weeks ago. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Block I think a ban is a little extreme (...for now...). I think a two-week "cool the hell down" period would work just fine before we permanently shuffle him off the wiki coil. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks pgk, I previously didn't know that he had socks and all that jazz. I support EVula's idea. A two-weaker. ~ Arjun 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse block given the user's history. However, I would also like to see it shortened to two weeks, perhaps. A month is too long at this point. --Coredesat 02:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- But the user's history IS the reason for the longer block. See User:Flameviper/socks. This isn't his first "go around the block" so to speak (no pun intended). He clearly should know what behavior is unacceptable based on the indefinite blocks of his former accounts. If this was a user with no past, sure, a few weeks is okay, but a longer block is necessary to prevent further disruption (because so far this user seems to only cause disruption no matter what account he uses). Metros232 02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose he just began his mentorship, so why is he now being blocked? You missed the edit until after he was picked up by a mentor, so you lost your chances of a ban. Crud3w4re 01:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- His threats came 20 minutes after he refused mentorship. I don't think we "lost" a chance as you put it. Metros232 02:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
24 hour ban
I can totally understand everyones concerns, but please could this be reduced to a 24 hour ban? I am more than happy to work with this user and try and point him in the right way. In my opinion, a month will stop him editing completely and as I've already said, flameviper means well and has much to give to wikipedia. I promise that with any further major disruption I will immediatly request that he is blocked. I really would like a chance to turn this user around into a good editor as he has the potential. (I do believe a 24 hour band is in order as a cooling off period) RyanPostlethwaite 01:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just to let everyone know, I've emailed Flameviper as his talkpage is protected. I've asked what he actually wants to get out of editing wikipedia and what his interests are, If anyones interested, I'll let them know his responses RyanPostlethwaite 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose reducing it to a 24 hour
banblock. This user's recent behaviour certainly merits a block, and his past record merits making it a long one. I support EVula's idea above to reduce it to two weeks, but not just 1 day - that will get nothing into his head. – Chacor 02:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I understand this, but could you give him one last chance? fair enough, a longer ban than 24 hours, how about 4days? RyanPostlethwaite 02:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose reduction - brief contact with this user has convinced me that he's essentially a good kid at heart, but doesn't have the maturity to be consistently constructive in his contributions yet. He needs a good long time-out (ideally the original month, certainly longer than 24 hours). I don't think mentorship will be a productive use of anyone's time, because fundamentally what Flameviper needs is time to mature. Opabinia regalis 03:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm not going to cry if he never returns, given his rather hostile attitude. However, I would like to at least give him the rope to hang himself. How about we reduce the block with the condition that this is the last chance he gets? Worst case scenario is that we have a mild bit of extra work and then he's gone; best case scenario, we get a more mature, productive, and civil editor. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose reduction per Opabinia regalis. Much as I would like to assume good faith and believe in second chances, this user has continued to be disruptive over a long period of time, so I don't think a 24 hour block will be a sufficient "cool down" period. I haven't interacted directly with Flameviper, but I did observe his behaviour surrounding another user's RfA and his taunting remarks on the user's talk page, as well as on User talk:Bumm13. It should also be noted that Flameviper has at least one admitted sock (according to User:Flameviper/socks) that hasn't been blocked, namely User:Flameviper in Exile. The sock account may not have done anything wrong, but a block on one account is ineffective if a user can potentially use another account to dodge the block. I do feel bad for him, but this was a result of his own actions. --Kyoko 04:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- That was a concern I had as well (the open sock). The contribs have been quite on that, though; I'm willing to leave it that way to, as I said earlier, give him his own noose.
- I think it's pretty clear that a reduction to 24 hours is just plain out, but what about my suggestion of whittling it down to just two weeks? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that a reduction to a two week block plus the condition that any further violations would lead to an indefinite block would be acceptable. Hopefully Flameviper will take this opportunity to think more about how he might contribute to the encyclopedia rather than dwell on his disputes with others. --Kyoko 07:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Some #wikipedia chanops and I have recently had an unproductive run-in with this user. Maybe give him a couple of years to mature a little bit, then he can start contributing ... Cyde Weys 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm guessing this guy is a failed /b/tard. He's spitting out 4chan memes like a total newbie. I don't have an issue with this guy's being a 4channer, but his actual contribution to the encyclopedic aspect of this site has been minimal and barely marginal at best. Most of the time, he's just testing our patience. I'm really leaning towards a permaban. Yanksox 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth in that regard, Flameviper is a proud Uncyclopedian (not that there's anything wrong with that), but his contributions to Misplaced Pages are uncyclopedic in nature. Teke 02:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly Endorse I saw no good argument for a permanent ban. Why the mob stack? He deserves atleast a second chance. I saw many violations of Assume Good Faith in here. Crud3w4re 01:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's all well and good, but I don't think you're actually acknowledging the pure facts of this incident. He's alreadly been blocked several times, others indef. on other accounts. This is a text book example of trying our patience. Yanksox 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Email conversation with User:Flameviper
I'm not sure if anyone is interested, but I've emailed flameviper and his responses can be found in my userspace here, I'm not sure what to make of it, especially the last few lines so comments would be appreciated RyanPostlethwaite 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm personally not convinced. And he is on a very tight rope. – Chacor 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't bother spending time trying to reform him. If he wants to edit usefully when his block expires, he will do so. If he does otherwise, he'll find himself running out of chances soon. Not much you can do about it either way. The bit about him enjoying being an attention-seeker does not bode well. The minute he shows signs of putting his desire for attention ahead of the interests of the project, it's time to show him the door. Until then we should ignore him as much as possible- feeding his desire for attention can accomplish nothing useful. Friday (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still on board with my "reduced block/last chance" idea, though the email doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about his reformation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- No way. WP:DENY. --jpgordon 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, and I no longer think that a two week block would be sufficient, based upon the revelation of another sock account (User:HUNGY MAN) that was used recently used in an attempt to evade the block. The HUNGY MAN account recently edited User:Flameviper's userpage as shown in this diff, and he implicitly admits that this is a sock of Flameviper here. --Kyoko 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- After seeing that email (the last two lines) I would probably suggest extending it to a permanent ban. This guy's had 2 RFA's, both stating he's a "reformed vandal", and then openly admits in the email that he "loves people talking about him" and has a troll wanting to get out. And all that crap about writing articles is just a little hard to believe. This is a serial unproductive/disruptive editor. -- Renesis (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm...very interesting; I don't know about a permanent ban but then again...Those last two lines are very bothering. ~ Arjun 17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the majority of the email suggest that he is trying his hardest to make good faith edits, just the last 2 lines are very worrying and suggest he is more than likely to blow again at any point. I also don't feel it is good for an editor to have a major interest in other editors disgussing him. RyanPostlethwaite 17:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- This has gone too bloody far, we can't afford to bicker about this and wait for him to create enough socks. I've indefinitely blocked him for his actions. The threshold has most certainly been passed here. Yanksox 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- He seems to think somehow that threatening Misplaced Pages with vandalism and sockpuppeting increases the likelihood of getting reinstated. A reasonable person would understand that just the opposite is true. --jpgordon 22:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not going to argue against Yanksox's decision. --Cyde Weys 23:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to make any major complaints about his indef block, but I do feel it is a bit of a sneaky way to get rid of an editor, especially when he has done quite a few good faith edits. He should have been given a final chance after his 1 month block with any further disruption resulting in an indefRyanPostlethwaite 23:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)- How many chances should he get? I remember him as one of the first persons I've had to deal with after becoming an admin, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive71#User:Flameviper12. Back then, the user was already troublesome. He hasn't changed a bit in well over a year. Aecis 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I do see your point, its just that he was originally given a 1 month block, if he had disrupted after this block, it would have given a far great weight to a perma ban and this could have been done directly after just one further disruptionRyanPostlethwaite 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- How many chances should he get? I remember him as one of the first persons I've had to deal with after becoming an admin, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive71#User:Flameviper12. Back then, the user was already troublesome. He hasn't changed a bit in well over a year. Aecis 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse indefblock. He can go feed his inner troll somewhere else while he grows up. Since we all pretty much agree that he's going to be disruptive after the month runs out, why let him get that last whack in? (Also, archive this thread; WP:DENY.) Opabinia regalis 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse indefblock - Everyones right, he did have it coming and wikipedia doesn't need disruptive users like him. Maybe he can mature for a few years and then create a new account RyanPostlethwaite 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just curious about the policy here. I saw him on IRC only a few minutes ago. Is someone still allowed to participate there if they are banned here? Or are the encyclopedia and the IRC channels like seperate jurisdictions. I know that Arbcom declined to rule on an IRC case because of something like that. — MichaelLinnear 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I thought he was (completely and totally unrelated to this block) banned from the IRC? And yes, it is separate. Blocks here don't necessarily apply there (unless the chan ops think it should). Metros232 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we initiate a new noticeboard?
A comment here on the increasing number of community ban discussions: although this noticeboard is open to everyone, its title does tend to scare away the unmopified crowd (it certainly had that effect on me before I assumed janitorial responsibilities). So since community bans - and potentially community enforced mediation as well - are in principle for the entire community, perhaps we should initiate a new noticeboard for community-specific action. I'm thinking something parallel to this and listed in the same places rather than the Village Pump (which handles more new user and general questions). Call it Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard. Thoughts, anyone? Durova 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I like it for the very reasons you put forth. HighInBC 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support the idea of the page. Not sure about the name. 'noticeboard' seems to imply that it is for posting notices, rather for seeking consensus on things. Does Village 'Ting' sound more like what we want? Regards, Ben Aveling 00:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the Village Ðing/ðing? Aecis 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect so. But I'd prefer something I can type.
- You mean the Village Ðing/ðing? Aecis 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse ;), great idea. ~ Arjun 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Go for it. It'll make things easier. Acalamari 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Pile-on endorse :) Aecis 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Erm...maybe the introduction should express that this is for community discussion of potential bans and things like that. It isn't a chat room. And some tech whiz could add it to the noticeboard template? Durova 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see the page has been created: Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard. I'd rather have seen a discusion of the name first, but whatever. Let's see how it goes. If it does turn into a chat room we can rename it to Village Ting, or Ðing. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a bit, please feel free to edit/second-guess/slash away. IronDuke 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a better explanation of what this is for would be appropriate. Right now, since it only mentions community bans, it may be viewed by newer users as only for community bans. I must admit, I myself am not entirely clear on what else would go on this board. Natalie 03:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, someone created the board almost as soon as I suggested the idea. The door's very open to discussion. It would work with the new mediation I've been proposing, to welcome the entire community in community decisions. Things fly along fast here and at ANI - a regular editor who doesn't follow sysop topics would probably miss a lot. It seems to me we should encourage open involvement in community decisions. Admins don't carry extra weight at these discussions over any other editor in good standing. It's the equalizing principle. Durova 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it's just for Community bans and the like, perhaps a better name for it would be something like "Community enforcement noticeboard". As is, the title seems to suggest it's just another name for the Village Pump. Actually that might be a decent way of dealing with the title as well: make it be Misplaced Pages:Village Pump (Enforcement). --tjstrf talk 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- In theory it would be open to any community decision making. I'm flexible about name and location. What I want to circumvent is this impression and the people who read the thread but are too shy to participate at all. Durova 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it's for general community discussion/decision making (the two are rather synonymous), then it really is a duplicate of the village pump with one additional subject. The pump already has all the areas it would discuss that aren't community bans/enforcement that I can think of covered, so to avoid duplication we should put it in the same tree as the others. The pump already has problems with duplication here and on various ancillary Misplaced Pages talk:-space pages (for the proposals and policy sections especially), adding another general discussion area would presumably result in even more duplication. --tjstrf talk 05:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- In theory it would be open to any community decision making. I'm flexible about name and location. What I want to circumvent is this impression and the people who read the thread but are too shy to participate at all. Durova 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it's just for Community bans and the like, perhaps a better name for it would be something like "Community enforcement noticeboard". As is, the title seems to suggest it's just another name for the Village Pump. Actually that might be a decent way of dealing with the title as well: make it be Misplaced Pages:Village Pump (Enforcement). --tjstrf talk 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I hope I have not jumped the gun, however, I have made some changes to the proposed community board and transcluded templates of a technical nature. If this is not the consensus, please feel free to discuss or edit, slash, etc. regards, Navou / review me 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The name should be more specific if it is for the new mediation; community noticeboard sounds too close to community portal, new users will be liekly confused. If it is to be more general, we already have forums for that, as pointed above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, how would this be different from the Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard? I mean, how are we going to stop the new board from collapsing onto itself, like WP:PAIN did? Titoxd 06:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I find it amazing that someone has even posed that question. Is that a joke? Durova 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, and not by a far shot. Let's say that I want to go there to ask for a community ban on EvilCat. What's to stop the other user from engaging me there, and writing megabyte upon megabyte of ranting? What is the difference, in principle, of both boards? I still see it boiling down to one user asking for punishment on another. There may be something really obvious that I'm missing, but I still don't see why my question is a joke. Titoxd 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Siteban discussions would proceed there the same way they proceed here or at ANI. The only differences are how a community board title doesn't imply admin-only discussion and a lower traffic board decreases the risk that occasional visitors will miss something important. If a thread gets trolled it'll get refactored or shut down, same as here. That board is for community decisions rather than gripes. Durova 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but the only reason ANI doesn't dissolve into PAIN is that it is watched by hundreds of people. If the community noticeboard is not watched, the same thing will happen there. For the matter, if PAIN and RFI had been watched, there would have been no problem with them. —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- So let's all put Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard on our watchlist. :) --Conti|✉ 22:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but the only reason ANI doesn't dissolve into PAIN is that it is watched by hundreds of people. If the community noticeboard is not watched, the same thing will happen there. For the matter, if PAIN and RFI had been watched, there would have been no problem with them. —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Siteban discussions would proceed there the same way they proceed here or at ANI. The only differences are how a community board title doesn't imply admin-only discussion and a lower traffic board decreases the risk that occasional visitors will miss something important. If a thread gets trolled it'll get refactored or shut down, same as here. That board is for community decisions rather than gripes. Durova 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, and not by a far shot. Let's say that I want to go there to ask for a community ban on EvilCat. What's to stop the other user from engaging me there, and writing megabyte upon megabyte of ranting? What is the difference, in principle, of both boards? I still see it boiling down to one user asking for punishment on another. There may be something really obvious that I'm missing, but I still don't see why my question is a joke. Titoxd 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I find it amazing that someone has even posed that question. Is that a joke? Durova 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Another use for the community noticeboard could/should be the notification of recently closed ArbCom cases IMHO, which are currently put here. --Conti|✉ 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I had that in mind. The heavy traffic on this board makes it easy to miss that sort of notice and ArbCom decisions are of interest to the entire editor community. Durova 19:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the goal of countering the impression that this board or other boards are just for admins is admirable, and should be pursued. I lurked, if the kids are still using that term, on this board for many, many months before I ever posted a single question, much less a comment, and still have maybe posted 3 times. But I think I agree with Tjstrf that this could easily result in more duplication of topics or confusion over where a certain thing should be posted. Natalie 00:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's another good use for it. I endorse the idea of moving closed arbitration case-postings to the CN, seeing as they're of interest to the whole community. Picaroon 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I think I'd rather move AN over CN; from my perspective, splitting the discussion like this seems more confusing than anything. It adds another page for me to watch over, fragments already-hectic discussion, and may add to the unfortunate perception that admins are more important than other users. Well-intentioned, I am very much sure, but a move/merge may be more useful than a split, is my take. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mind having a new specialized noticeboard, but it will only be productive if we move inappropriate posts to the forum where they actually belong. Already the Community Board is picking up policy-related discussions that arguably belong on WP:VPP or WP:VPR. >Radiant< 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. Since it's a general board it'll probably pick up a fair amount of misposted traffic from novice editors. A little maintenance should take care of that. Durova 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing trolling at the refdesk talk page.
User:Loomis51 and User:Barringa are luring us (and by "us" I mean other RD editors like User:SteveBaker, User:Mwalcoff, User:Dave6, and the original remover, User:87.102.9.117, as well as I) into an argument - the latter user attempting to soapbox the RD with anti-semitism, the former attempting to engage me and other editors into a debate and accusing us of "sweeping things under the rug". I've run out of good faith here - I and other editors have explained to them both WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CENSOR, but they continue. As users like Friday, Sczenz and Hipocrite don't seem to be taking any action here when they usually are active in such things, I'm asking for someone, preferably an admin, to come in and check out this situation. Loomis seems to think that the question should have been removed because of its content, something we don't do, and that telling Barringa in good faith that his question was removed due to its intent was somehow aiding and abetting an anti-Semite. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Could you provide a few diffs? .V. 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well you can just have a look at this entire thread for starters. Anchoress 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- It does seem like a flamebait post. I think this is such because it seems (from the text of the post) that the conclusion is already decided in his eyes, and thus it's not an actual question but rather an attempt to "stir things up." Perhaps he re-work the post in a different way as to be non-offensive, but I'm not sure if that's possible... .V. 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- He did, and now the two are going at it in a different post. Both are using the refdesk as sandboxes. one example, the rest are in Anchoress' post and a multitude of diffs in the RD/H history that would take half an hour to all post. edit: Loomis still seems to be under the impression we remove "anti-Semitic" questions for their own sake rather than because of their intent. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- This certainly is a mess... .V. 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- He did, and now the two are going at it in a different post. Both are using the refdesk as sandboxes. one example, the rest are in Anchoress' post and a multitude of diffs in the RD/H history that would take half an hour to all post. edit: Loomis still seems to be under the impression we remove "anti-Semitic" questions for their own sake rather than because of their intent. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- It does seem like a flamebait post. I think this is such because it seems (from the text of the post) that the conclusion is already decided in his eyes, and thus it's not an actual question but rather an attempt to "stir things up." Perhaps he re-work the post in a different way as to be non-offensive, but I'm not sure if that's possible... .V. 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well you can just have a look at this entire thread for starters. Anchoress 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board: Canvassing and vote stacking?
I am concerned that this wikiproject is being used as a forum for Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Votestacking. I was engaged in a dispute over an article that was asserting a very Scottish POV Talk:Hamilton when a posting was made to Misplaced Pages talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. Suddenly, 3 project members joined the debate by simply supporting the original disputant. Not only did they not contribute any fruitful debate, I received further insult for engaging in the debate. Upon reading the Misplaced Pages talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board page, I have the concern this project page may be used to disrupt Misplaced Pages. For this reason, I look for administrator consideration. Alan.ca 05:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm an ethnic-based noticeboard? Hmm yikes. I see a bit of POV-solicitation going on (here for example). I guess wikiprojects kind of do the same thing. It's hard to draw the line between notification and solicitation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- An an attack on an editor with a different point of view, for good measure. Tyrenius 06:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- An ethnic based noticeboard? I think not. It is a regional noticeboard - as is pretty obvious. The Hamilton article is Scottish related and is thus relevant to the board. As pointed out in reply to your post RE:Canvassing Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Talk:Hamilton the dispute involving yourself and Brendanh being stated upon the board does not qualify as votestacking. siarach 06:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- An an attack on an editor with a different point of view, for good measure. Tyrenius 06:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Everyone on that board is interested in Scottish topics. We have Swedish notice boards, and an Irish noticeboard, and many, many WikiProjects which serve a similar purpose. Hamilton is relevent to Scotland. Get over it. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What can I do about continuous soapboxing?
Is there anything that either I or an admin can do about continuous soapboxing? I and another editor have repetitively pointed out that WP is not a soapbox in this one particular Talk page, but it continues. The latest rant appears to be some lengthy diatribe about Jewish people. How can we get these soapboxers to stop? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, it should be noted that one of the soapboxers, User:Mr Phil, has recently been warned by an admin about making personal attacks. His account on German Misplaced Pages was banned because of his behaviour. And he has indicated on his Talk page that he will only edit in English Misplaced Pages because of this:
- Ich werde mich von jetzt an nur noch in der englischen Misplaced Pages äußern, die deutsche Misplaced Pages ist nur für Zensur gut.
- Translation by Dictionary.com Translator: I will express myself from now to only in the English Misplaced Pages, the German Misplaced Pages am good only for censorship.
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet more lengthy soapboxing. These editors are now on a full-blown rant against Jewish people, and even go as far as justifying the Holocaust. Help from admins would be much appreciated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it be considered vandalism if the soapboxing does not stop? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the soapboxers have now vowed to wage an "endless" edit war. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Temple of the Jedi Order (Real)
The organization's agent and major contributor to this articcle had blanked the page, agreeing with the AFD discussion, and has requested deletion. Can we spare his organization any further embarassment and close this AfD early (speedy delete)? I am the AfD nom. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- These aren't the droids you're looking for... EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- As a note, Jerry, you may close any AfD whose article has been deleted. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions. Re EVula - I am not the droid you are looking for. Cheers! Yuser31415 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, non-admin AfD closing should really only be done in the event of an overwhelming "Keep"; an admin is still needed to delete the article (though I suppose if one were to tag it for speedy deletion with a link back to the AfD, that would work in a pinch). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I was talking about closing the discussion after the article was deleted. For example, User A creates attack article, User B doesn't know about speedy deletion and AfDs the page, Admin C speedies the article per CSD G10 but forgets to close relevant AfD, User D can therefore close the debate as speedily deleted by %admin% (linking to the deletion log of the article would be a good idea, however). Yuser31415 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I frequently close AfD's where the article has been speedied and I'm not an admin (eg. in the past 15 minutes I closed 2: ). Of course I close them only once the article has been deleted, not tagging for speedy and hoping it gets deleted. James086 08:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I was talking about closing the discussion after the article was deleted. For example, User A creates attack article, User B doesn't know about speedy deletion and AfDs the page, Admin C speedies the article per CSD G10 but forgets to close relevant AfD, User D can therefore close the debate as speedily deleted by %admin% (linking to the deletion log of the article would be a good idea, however). Yuser31415 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, non-admin AfD closing should really only be done in the event of an overwhelming "Keep"; an admin is still needed to delete the article (though I suppose if one were to tag it for speedy deletion with a link back to the AfD, that would work in a pinch). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. Non-admins closing an orphaned AfD after the article has been speedy deleted is a Good Thing™; closng an AfD as delete because it should be speedied and is so tagged, debateable at best (I did it a couple of times and got a polite "Don't do this message".) Eluchil404 14:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Requested edit for disclaimer pages
This (should be) a fairly uncontroversial matter to review. The issue is a proposal for a slightly enhanced rewording of the disclaimer pages so that the word "article" is either implicitly or explicitly modified. The modification: indicate that disclaimers apply to *all* informational resources on WP, (not just articles). This applies (for a notable example) to the "reference desk" resources. This is a fairly important issue to consider, since "reference desk" responses routinely include content that could reasonably be mis-interpreted as direct advice. More details can be found at: legal disclaimer discussion page. I could not determine if any follow-up was applied on this matter, so I am posting here. Any attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. If this is not the appropriate place for this, alternatives are also appreciated. dr.ef.tymac 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I mentioned this on wikien-l, a few days ago, and still no replies. =\ Perhaps foundation-l will get a better response, I'll post there. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
PRODs not showing up in Category:Proposed Deletion Over 5 days
I have moved the discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#PRODs_not_showing_up_in_Category:Proposed_Deletion_Over_5_days . It looks like we'll need the help of people even geekier than us (and who would probably take that as a compliment) ;) Kla'quot 04:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Legal threats
There are some legal threats on Talk:Earl of Stirling (against editors who request evidence of a chap's claim to be the Earl, including myself). The editor, who edits using the stable IP 68.179.175.185 (talk • contribs) has been blocked before for "hoax" and "clear legal threats" three times. The most recent threats are at the bottom of the page. --TeaDrinker 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Proposing a long block. The IP is obviously static -- it's been blocked for the same reasons, at the same pages, as early as March 2006, and the user on the other end is obviously both well aware that legal threats will lead to blocks, and that legal concerns should be kept off-wiki whenever possible. I'm personally inclined to block for quite some time -- 3 to 6 months, at least. If they're going to sue, that's one thing, but we can't allow the community to be disrupted by someone who threatens legal action at every content dispute. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 6 months, would also recommend dropping a note to the ISP about this nonsense. —Pilotguy push to talk 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tell me, I'm just curious - nothing to do with this matter above, it just reminded me - what is the policy on editors issuing legal threats, I've had one myself from another editor sent off-wiki - naturally being me I have sold my wife and children, changed my name and destroyed the family home before the writ can appear - but what is the wiki-policy, and what should the average editor do if he receices such a threat? - I hasten to say (being me) I just told the editor concerned exactly where to place his writ, but some editors are less forceful than me - so what should they do. Giano 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Giano here is the link WP:NLT Jaranda 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes but that says on wiki - what if the threat it is off-wiki but concerning on-wiki? Giano 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can just report it here or forward the e-mail to an admin. No legal threats means no logal threats. And I thought that was your kids I saw on ebay. Chick Bowen 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah right, don't buy the middle one - he only gets out the shower when the water goes cold! Giano 00:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This fellow first popped up in November of 2005 and has been a pain ever since. Note that he's actually been to court (in Scotland) over these and related matters and been ruled against repeatedly. Honestly, a year-long block wouldn't be amiss. Do we want to revisit this in August or next February? Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mind an occasional "My God, have I been here that long?" moment every 6 months... Thatcher131 05:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-13 Easy question for mediators
Someone might want to remove the guys personal information. I left him a message but he hasn't responed and of course I'm the one he's pissed at so I don't want to do it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Wheels for willys
On User talk:Wheels for willys, a likely sockpuppet of a banned vandal claims, "This Willy on Wheels is comming back. With a new page move vandalism bot. Over 1000 sleeper socks registered and past the checkuser threshold. Get ready for 1 million page moves." I'm just making note of this. We must get "Misplaced Pages will be destroyed" threats at least once a month, but it's probably worth noting them here. --Yamla 00:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Probably not. Even if it were true, the response would be just the same as if it had not been known, and it most likely is just bluster intended to get someone like you to post a famous message. —Centrx→talk • 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ha ha, if you want to make a convincing threat, try running it past spellchecker first. This is practically a caricature of itself. — MichaelLinnear 00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've mopped up his other accounts and placed a Checkuser request. --Slowking Man 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ha ha, if you want to make a convincing threat, try running it past spellchecker first. This is practically a caricature of itself. — MichaelLinnear 00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen a few of those recently, always promising to start tomorrow carrying out all sorts of threats (all claiming to be willy on wheels). I've assumed that it's some troll and if not we'd just deal with any vandalism the same we always do. I've also noticed various questions (like on talk here and on Jimbo's talk page) about Willy On Wheels lately. --pgk 07:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need to know about Willy on Wheels?? He's a pagemove vandal, nothing more... I expect this user's just trolling. Let's just move on shall we.... --sunstar net 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wheels for Willys! Help bring wheels to Willys! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigi30 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
- Do we really need to know about Willy on Wheels?? He's a pagemove vandal, nothing more... I expect this user's just trolling. Let's just move on shall we.... --sunstar net 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Probable spammer
Jsatz23 (talk · contribs) has been regularly recreating pages (spam, in my view) that are just as regularly speedily deleted, and his Talk page is filled with templated warnings. The pages include MedSocial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and its variants Medsocial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Medsocial.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Healthology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). So, is there a "spam-warn 2" template to escalate the notices, since he hasn't responded to regular warnings? {{uw-spam2}}, being for external links, doesn't really fit. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think {{uw-creation2}} and its successors are designed for this situation.-gadfium 01:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno, the wording strikes me as too vague ("inappropriate pages"?), but if it comes up again I'll give it a shot. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
undelete Image:NVMap-doton-McDermitt.png for proper commons transfer
Image:NVMap-doton-McDermitt.png was send to commons last year, now it's up for deletion because of missing information about the creator. Please undelete it so that I can transfer the information. --32X 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Original source information: {{GFDL}} <br> Adapted from Misplaced Pages's NV county maps by Bumm13. HighInBC 01:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Uploaded by User_talk:Bumm13, 20:04, May 18, 2004. 2004, wow, that is old time. HighInBC 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Was a bit more work than with the CommonsHelper, but the problem should be solved now. --32X 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the proper use of Image:Olympic rings.svg on WP?
The permissions on the Image:Olympic rings.svg don't seem to be clear as to how the image can be used on Misplaced Pages. In the past there have been issues that the image was not to be used as a header for the olympic medal table because of fair use. This has come up again and I was going through all pages that linked to the image of the rings and removing the image when it was called to my attention that I should check here for guidance.
If this is not the correct place for my request, someone please let me know and I'll put the request there. Thanks. --EarthPerson 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Normally this would go to Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. I'd recommend uploading a local version of that file to en: and using it only when it meets Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria, per the note at Commons. Jkelly 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've taken the question to WP:MCQ. --EarthPerson 04:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
CAT:CSD
Nicely backlogged, if everyone cleared a letter it would soon be gone! Viridae 08:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all over U. Wait, that doesn't sound right. I'll take care of U. No, that's not good either. I will make U my b- ... ah, forget it. Proto::► 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
An RfC
Just wondered if anyone who commented on this discussion would like to certify or comment on this RfC. Thanks. Worldtraveller 10:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:La
Persistent vandal just changed {{La}} to read shit. I've protected it, but people might want to rack their brains (again) to think of similar templates that will cause a shitstorm if so amended, as I really have to leave the house now. A starter might be all the other templates listed for use at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. What were the objections to making the entirety of template space semi-protected again? I blocked the anon, 218.186.8.12 (talk · contribs) for a month based on the user page, allowing account creation and disabling the autoblock, but looking at the blocklog there may be issues with that. I leave it to people who understand the intricacies of blocking anons better than me to have a look at the correct course of action. Sorry to dump and run, but life is seldom uninteresting. Steve block Talk 11:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just protected {{lt}}. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that all templates mentioned in the table under instructions on WP:RFP are all in the same league. Eli Falk 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
redirect: Otto Warburg
A "go" on "Otto Warburg" was originally redirected to Otto Heinrich Warburg. I recognized confusion between this person and another of the same name Otto Warburg (botanist), so I created an article for the botanist. I then attempted to change the redirect of "Otto Warburg" to this latter gentleman, as he is the one with the name (and no middle name). The redirect source appears to be correct, but when a "go" is made, it is not redirected anywhere. Why is this and how can it be fixed? --JohnDoe0007 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- nevermind...it seems to be working properly now. Must take a short while for the redirect to take effect. Thanks for all your great work admins. --JohnDoe0007 12:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Block Review
User:Jfell is apparently creating a number of alternate accounts for vandalism. I've not requested a checkuser, but if you take a bit of time to review the edits of User:Jfell, User:Theslothkills, & User:Fatman05 (as well as User:Jfell11 & User:Jfell2) I think you will see what I mean. The editor is using the same template for all the userpages as well as similar statements about "babies" etc. The editor also used User:Jfell to "adopt" new user User:Fatman05. WP:DUCK this is the same person and since this individual has been warned about vandalism multiple times and is just creating new accounts to continue to vandalize articles, I blocked all of these accounts to nip this in the bud. Since some of these were indef blocks after 1 edit by the account I figured I would submit this series of blocks for review. Thanks.--Isotope23 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I should also mention that before I removed it, User:Jfell awarded himself a barnstar "from User:Thadius856".--Isotope23 14:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- A big thanks for removing the barnstar. Having never head of Jfell, I'm glad somebody caught this fake 'star. A big thanks to Shadow1 for alerting me to ANI raising my name as well. I'm a bit flattered all the same — am I really so famous on-wiki to warrant such fandom, or was I just chosen at random? thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 00:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure... sorry, I meant to hit your talkpage, but I got sidetracked. There is more going on here; I don't want to say to much at this point per WP:BEANS.--Isotope23 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- A big thanks for removing the barnstar. Having never head of Jfell, I'm glad somebody caught this fake 'star. A big thanks to Shadow1 for alerting me to ANI raising my name as well. I'm a bit flattered all the same — am I really so famous on-wiki to warrant such fandom, or was I just chosen at random? thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 00:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Vandal block posted for review
I have just blocked 69.92.184.84 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for continuing vandalism at Gail Simone. Relevant edits are , , and . I think this edit demonstrates sufficient knowledge of the vandalism and blocking policies to make the need for warnings unnecessary, but believe that needs to be reviewed by fellow admins. Steve block Talk 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah that last edit suggests they are well aware that the actions aren't acceptable here. --pgk 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers, my thoughts exactly. Steve block Talk 13:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Bad image extension
I would like to place Image:BreastImplantSilicon(picture2).jpg in the article breast implant, to illustrate potential risks of implants, but currently the image is only allowed in capsular contracture. Can an admin please allow this image to be shown on breast implant? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Thanks wub. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Block review requested
I have soft-blocked 66.172.165.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 6 months. Looking through the contributions, I found nothing productive and a great deal to indicate a static IP--repeated jokes about the same names for example. Though the edits are juvenile, the IP address does not resolve to a school. I won't be offended if anyone unblocks, shortens, lengthens, or changes the blocking parameters--you don't have to contact me. But I do not believe we are likely to get anything useful from this IP. Chick Bowen 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I endorse your block. (Just in case you're wondering - I changed the {{vandal}} template in your comment to {{IPvandal}}.) Cheers. Yuser31415 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- No objections here. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
User User:Jegnome
It appears that 100% of this user's contributions have been hoaxes; he's inventing new species and even assigning them binominal Latin genus/species names (and then altering the corresponding genus's page to include his latest creation). I've already reverted all of his changes and prod'ed all of his new pages, but I'm not sure if an admin wants to issue warnings, block him, or both. Cheers. --Hyperbole 05:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Spider/Cow hybrid was patent nonsense and I deleted it as such. The others can go through the WP:PROD or AfD processes. I'll leave a note on his talk page, but note that anyone can issue warnings. Chick Bowen 05:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion
We could use some more contributors at UCFD. As of right now there are discussions that are as old as 13 days that are long overdue for being closed, as well as others that are 10 days old that still only have two contributors adding their input. It looks as if I'm going to get the mop shortly, but even then I don't feel comfortable closing the discussions that I was the original nominator of (which happens to be the majority of discussions). If we could get a few editors to help close the overdue discussions that would be helpful (as well as add your input to any discussions). VegaDark 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, to deal with a backlogged page, use {{backlog}}. If the backlog requires admin attention, use {{adminbacklog}}. Eli Falk 09:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm obviously aware of those tags. We have so many backlogged pages now that tagging something as that doesn't exactly get instant results. I highly doubt anyone who doesn't already visit UCFD would go there simply because I tagged it as a backlog. VegaDark 09:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The trouble is that closing UCFDs (as with CFDs) often requires (as I've said before) a black belt in Bot. I could merrily close every discussion on there in an hour, but would have no clue what to do afterwards, as the instructions provided are very complicated. Proto ► 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The trouble might also be that many people consider UCFD a relatively low priority, as opposed to, say, dealing with copyvios, vandalism, or other processes. >Radiant< 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm obviously aware of those tags. We have so many backlogged pages now that tagging something as that doesn't exactly get instant results. I highly doubt anyone who doesn't already visit UCFD would go there simply because I tagged it as a backlog. VegaDark 09:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
We have too much policy
I've compiled a list of policies that are partially or wholly redundant with one another, or overlap in a significant amount. The list is here. It would seem that we can roughly halve our amount of policies by doing some effective merging. I think this would be a good idea, but must note that people have objected to such merging in the past. >Radiant< 10:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- But see, my problem with this is that we have these separate for a reason. Deletion and undeletion are 2 different things. They should not be all in one. That's just one example. --Woohookitty 12:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would not like to see Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy and Misplaced Pages:Banning policy merged, as blocks and bans are explicitly not the same thing. Same goes for undeletion/deletion (as Woohookitty states), and protection/semi-protection. Copyright violation and Copyrights are separate for good reason. I am not even sure how Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry and Misplaced Pages:Usurpation are meant to overlap. Libel and BLP could be merged, though. Proto ► 13:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The two protection policies merge quite nicely. User:Steel359/Protection policy. -- Steel 13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is probably best to take any further discussion of this to Misplaced Pages:Overlapping policies and guidelines, rather than have a parallel discussion here.--Doc 13:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Abdy batman vandalise PlayStation 3 page
S/he has received temporary ban and several warnings. The latest: 09:44, 15 February 2007 (hist) (diff) PlayStation 3 (j90n)
From PlayStation 3 history:
cur) (last) 10:46, 15 February 2007 Notagoodname (Talk | contribs) m (→Form factor and power consumption)
(cur) (last) 10:13, 15 February 2007 Dancter (Talk | contribs) (rv: it still seems to be in effect)
(cur) (last) 09:55, 15 February 2007 RexImperium (Talk | contribs) m
(cur) (last) 09:47, 15 February 2007 W Tanoto (Talk | contribs) (reverted to prev version, because of vandalism by Abdy batman)
(cur) (last) 09:44, 15 February 2007 Abdy batman (Talk | contribs) (j90n)
(cur) (last) 01:59, 15 February 2007 Dark Knight6 (Talk | contribs) (→Graphical user interface)
I hope actions will be taken soon. I have reverted the page to previous version.--w_tanoto 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I warned the user with a test4 for the PS3 article. If he continues again, report him to WP:AIV. Hbdragon88 19:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
RFA on speedy?
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/JJGD was listed on CSD by User:JJGD, its author, after one day of self-nomination. We're not supposed to delete RFAs, right? Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not usually, but I would be OK with deleting that one. It's not as if he's trying to wipe a failed nomination off the map. It appears he decided to run for adminship and then decided against it the next day. It wasn't transcluded to RfA, nobody voted, etc. -- Steel 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Moved from WP:AIV
Note: I just blocked User:Fuskamu for pagemove vandalism and attacks, but need to go into a real-world meeting for a couple of hours. Could someone please make sure to un-do all the pagemoves and post the indefblocked notice. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. Took care of this before spotting this message. Taken care of. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Alex Hernandez
Why was this article deleted? I'm pretty sure I created it a couple of years ago and now it turns up as a dead link. I can't find any AFD either Spearhead 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because it was vandalised, with someone adding their own biography, then two people - the person who tagged the vandalised version for speedy deletion, and the admin who deleted it - were both very lazy and didn't bother to even glance at the page history. It's restored now. Proto ► 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
personal attacks by 82.29.229.116
82.29.229.116 (talk · contribs) has taken a content dispute at Wolf Blitzer personally and resorted to personal attacks and false accusations of vandalism. GabrielF 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Your racism is disgusting and reflects only on you but thats your problem."
- "No, the only problem here is your attitude."
- "Your use of that particular location out of literally millions of worldwide locations tells a different story. Your bigotry. Your problem."
- "Clarification of your racist remark noted"
- "You should apologize for promoting conspiracy theories and racism"
- "And just for the hell of it heres some more physical evidence to rebut your conspiracy theory nonsense. I will re-edit the article and cite the details of Blitzer's work for NER/AIPAC, I don't believe you can be trusted to do this with an evenhand and attention to the facts."
- (In responding to my NPA warning on his talk page and why the above do not constitute personal attacks): " Hopefully on the next occassion when you decide to promote what you think above physical and sourced evidence you will remember how embarassing it was to see that attempt fall to pieces. I am glad to have helped you with that. By way of being constructive again, can I suggest you actually read WP:NPA, apply it to your own public comments, then when you believe you have a firm grasp of it, come back and we can discuss how applying it to your own work will improve you as an editor. "
- I then placed an AGF template on his/her user page, which s/he removed as vandalism.
- The user then placed two vandalism warnings on my page based on the NPA and AGF tags I had placed on his/her talk page.,
- 48 hours. Thatcher131 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Images with no copyright tag
Hey folks, Category:Images_with_no_copyright_tag's backlog is currently a week old which works out to about 1,400 images. All hands helping would be nice. This includes non-admins, there is sorting to do as the bots tag some pages that have the source but no tag. We have fun with dramatic issues, but copyright violations are the core of keeping the encyclopedia running. Any help is welcomed as I'm in and out for the next three days. Teke 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Calton Removing Warnings from his page
I warned Calton to stop harassing me; he is continuing to revert his talk page to remove this warning. I request administrative action in this matter. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I warned Calton to stop harassing me The term for this is psychological projection: your pop-psych lesson for today. Meanwhile:
- My talk page, and I have the right to remove anything which is not a legitimate and necessary warning. This is a long-established practice (you all know this, but let's be clear).
- Mr. Ray Lopez (talk · contribs) is, in fact, Ray Lopez (talk · contribs)/Ruy Lopez (talk · contribs), once blocked indefinitely for trolling as an abusive sockpuppeteer and troller, but allowed a second chance under a "new" name by the blocking admin Theresa knott (talk · contribs). Details can be found at her talk page. Looks like he's resumed the behavior which got him indef-blocked, including edit-warring at Joe Scarborough again (ask Gamaliel (talk · contribs) about THAT).
- Maybe it's time to restore the indefinite block and make it a community ban? --Calton | Talk 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the name "Ray Lopez" was indef blocked because it was too similar to "Ruy Lopez." Furthermore, I was performing my own contributions before you started wikistalking and harassing me Calton. Get your house in order. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, to show your further ignorance in this matter, "Ruy Lopez" is not related to "Ray Lopez" in any way, shape, or form. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest you stop harassing Calton. There's no rule that says people can't remove things from their talkpages. --Carnildo 08:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but what about Calton's harassment of me? He is going around to every single talk page and basically trash talking me, even though he's the one who started this latest round of drama. Where's his warning? Mr. Ray Lopez 08:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Diffs or it didn't happen. Viridae 10:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but what about Calton's harassment of me? He is going around to every single talk page and basically trash talking me, even though he's the one who started this latest round of drama. Where's his warning? Mr. Ray Lopez 08:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm I am not impressed. I think the best thing to do is block your new account too as it is clearly too associated with your old one. If you wish to return do it under a completely new username and stay away from editors that you have clashed with before. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Moving a page over edits?
I'd like to move Public health in mainland China back to Public health in the People's Republic of China which is apparently where it started. However there have been edits to the redirect. Could someone move this for me? Or, if I need to put the proposal up for discussion, where do I do that? --Ideogram 07:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would be Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, but given that "foo in the People's Republic of China" is the format of every other article in the series, I have just moved it. Proto ► 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Nuremburg
Nuremburg (talk · contribs), created February 6. Two edits only in its history, both to the user page, which reads:
- {{Template:User Nazi}} I AM A NAZI. I live in the disgraced country of Germany. I am against the treaty of Versailles and want the french to pay back ALL the reparations they stole from us. I believe that there should be one strong leader in Germany and I think he would provide Lebensraum for the growing population of the worlds 12th largest country. It would be just like 1942....... anyone still interested? here are some pics!!
Either a troll or an actual wannabe Nazi, makes no never mind, it should be gone. I posted this at WP:AIV several hours ago, but it was kicked off after an hour with the edit summary This really isn't the place for this. Perhaps this is. --Calton | Talk 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- In violation of WP:SOAPBOX? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- WP is not censored, but this is clearly a troll, and there is no need to have a philosophical discussion about a troll. Indef blocked and page deleted.--Doc 13:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)