Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:44, 21 May 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Protecting the recently deceased

I wanted to come here and share with you what can happen when we don't protect the high-profile recently deceased fast enough: Negative Publicitay! As soon as I heard that Falwell has kicked the bucket, I ran over to the article, and semi-protected it as fast as I could. It was being vandalized one or two times per minute around the time if memory serves.

I think people should take heed and sprotect when in doubt, because subjects in the news are invariably googled, we invariably come up at the top, and understandably receive unwelcome negative attention when people read about Pat Robertson's appendage. In other words, failing to prevent this kind of vandalism hurts us a lot and is easy to remedy without giving up all we stand for.

Either that, or we need stable versions - yesterday. -- Y not? 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not semi-protect to pre-empt vandalism that may happen - it's extremely bad form, particularly considering the amount of legitimate contributions anonymous members make. -Halo 08:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this kind of attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. We're nota fledgling website anymore: our reputation will increasingly depend on how we appear in high-profile situations. It's extremely bad form to allow what we allowed with Falwell -- Y not? 12:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - sometimes this can prevent valid new content being added. But I confidently predict that when Margaret Thatcher snuffs it at least one anon will add "ding, dong, the witch is dead!" to that article... Guy (Help!) 12:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Guy, it's very bad form to bet on certainties. With stable version, presumably we'd update the stable version to reflect their recent decease? Moreschi 12:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This "kind of attitude" is called a well-established policy that was deliberately introduced to stop kind of abuse of semi-protection that you're suggesting. Please don't abuse admin features - we're not a fledgling website anymore, and as such admins abusing their features and going against policy isn't going to generate Misplaced Pages any positive press, or improve the media's already tarnished view of Misplaced Pages process and policy-making. People who edit with an IP address are already treated as second-class citizens despite making significant valuable contributions to the site, and rogue admins deciding to sprotect against policy certainly isn't going to stem that tide. -Halo 20:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And that policy is exactly what I was trying to discuss by bringing up this thread. Don't call me names, Halo. -- Y not? 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and I'm expressing my point of view that the actions you're proposing are wrong, against policy and abuse of admin features. I don't appreciate being told I have an attitude when my entire attitude stems from well-established policy which you're suggesting people ignore. If the purpose of this is to start legitimate discussion about changing the current policy, rather than quite wrongly encouraging people to go against it, this is totally the wrong place - you should do it in the WP:PUMP. -Halo 13:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How doctrinaire of you. Btw, attitude != bad attitude. Attitude is a neutral term. -- Y not? 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it doctrinarian to suggest that admins follow both the spirit and explicit word of policy when using an admin feature, particularly when it comes to a policy that was intrinsic in its arrival? How is it doctrinarian to disagree with misuse of an already misused feature that prevents a significant amount of contributors to contribute? How is it doctrinarian to believe that suggestions to create unofficial moderation rules made without discussion that make Misplaced Pages less wiki-like are a bad thing? How is it doctrinarian to speak for that silent majority who edit using an IP address and don't follow policy discussion? Please justify your comments when throwing around big words with major implications. I'm not bound to policy, I just strongly believe in the sentiment behind it and admins not deciding to use their additional features on a whim against policy, particularly when it's increasingly apparent that they don't have to justify their actions unless they delete the main page. -Halo 00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember folks, Misplaced Pages is something that cannot possibly work in theory, it only works in practice. Yes, someone might make bad edits to an article after a high profile someone dies, but the wonderful thing about the project is that someone else will fix it. Pre-emptive protection is from the 'works in theory' camp, it assumes that the project cannot function properly and that every day the site stays up is a miracle of god and that at any point we're just one determined vandal away from total collapse. I'm throwing my hat in with the "works in practice" group, who has confidence in the community to deal with this stuff. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh. The person who wrote that article about the vandalism of the Falwell page is probably the one who vandalised the Falwell page. Anchoress 15:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't pre-emptively protect high profile bios. They are not the problem. Hight profile bios get vandalised - but they get quickly reverted. And if crap is added - people know enough about the subject to spot and remove. Further, the subject or her relatives are unlikely to be upset by a few min of vandalism before the revert. All that really happens is we look silly. Protection also discourages people who go there for the first time and wonder about this editing bit. However, low-profile bios should be semi-protected a lot quicker. Here vandalism goes unnoticed - POV and lies are not easily identified - and the subject can get very upset as this may be all the info people can find on them.--Doc 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See above thread about George Washington being vandalized yesterday. The vandalism was reverted two minutes later, but unfortunately Googlebot visited during the intervening time, and an obscene sentence was shown all day long whenever people Googled George Washington. When we have 1,000,000+ articles, odds are this will happen again and again. I suggested that we only show stable versions to Google. Stable versions can be created automatically based on user profiling. Misplaced Pages has become big. With great power comes great responsibility. Jehochman / _✔ 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; it's past time to be more protective of good content. It's not always '2 minutes' - I've seen just in the last few days vandalism that remained for 7 minutes, 90 minutes, 36 hours. The "most vandalism is reverted in five minutes or less" myth is actively becoming harmful to the project if it makes us suffer Google caches of that ilk on high-profile subjects. -- nae'blis 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think public perceptions of unreliable content are hurting Misplaced Pages more that than the benefits of allowing anonymous edits across the board. I see this in the media regularly, and it is now common parlance in the general public. I think empirical facts are required on this issue (e.g. a survey) rather than the largely ideological debate about "free editng" vs "reliable editing". Editor's opinions don't really count for much. One negative incident is equivalent to the effect of ten positive ones. I think some pro-active precautionary measures to protect quality of content such as the suggest to semiprotect the bios of deceased is prudent. Peter Campbell 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We realy need to encurage google to use our live-feed features. I'm fairly sure they subscribe to it already, but it dosn't seem like they use it all the time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Same goes for TFAs. A year ago, the argument that "we get good anon edits" was valid. Now? A valid edit will probably cause conflict with a vandal one. Not so long ago, I restored an ENTIRE SECTION that had been missing for weeks after a MP appearance.Circeus 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Admin vitriol formula

Are you a math geek? Or an observer of admin related flame wars? Then please, look at, and improve if you can, Misplaced Pages:Admin vitriol formula. _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 06:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The equation lacks the critical variable of "c" which is how crazy is the editor against whom the admin action was taken. The c-factor multiplies the vitriol in a similar way as the speed of light does in Einstein's famous equation.:-)--Alabamaboy 10:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also filled in formulae for G, V and O.Circeus 20:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I love it. A masterpiece of mathmatics!--Alabamaboy 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not clear on the purpose of pages like this. .V. 00:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It was used to explain how my seemingly-innocuous action at an AfD turned into this. Daniel 08:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaargh!- Misplaced Pages is not MySpace

I'm afraid we have to go to greater lengths to get the message across that Misplaced Pages is not myspace - I've found about 100 myspace user pages today and probably will come up with more if Special:Linksearch can be coaxed into namespace specific output...

It's time we made it clear to lusers who think it's OK to create personal profiles intertwined with links to Photobucket without any intention of contributing to the encyclopedia that they are not welcome here. This is a call to arms against this scourge, which is a serious waste of time. We cannot let Misplaced Pages degenerate into the stupidity and childishness that is that stinking pile of vanispamcruftisement that is myspace.

Sorry, I had the urge to blow off some steam. But the problem is still there and its getting worse. MER-C 14:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think you are way overreacting. I would wager that many people come here with the intention of participating, but without a real understanding of Misplaced Pages. They quickly find out that it's not for them and drop out. If they were really using their user pages as MySpace, then they would be more frequently editing them. Most of these type pages seem to get created and never edited again. To me, that implies they set up the page with the intention of contributing, but then left. -- JLaTondre 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

But they still need to be deleted. --Spike Wilbury 16:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's an idea to solve the underlying cause: how about soft-blacklisting all Myspace links (ie. only established editors can add links to myspace.com)? I assume most people who intend to just spread their personal profiles for fun, profit and Google juice won't stick around for four days (just to use the semi-protection as a benchmark). The only downside I see is that we might lose some new potential editors (I've found that some of them do end up becoming productive editors if you explain to the them exactly why the page they just created got CSD'd, which admittedly tends to require a lot of patience and more than a template.

Another possible solution (which, I reckon is even less likely to get consensus) would be to implement prod2-like system for links: a bot goes through RC/NP and tags suspect pages based on a scoring system. If the tag doesn't get removed by an established editor within -say- 4 days, it removes the links or comments it out. -- Seed 2.0 18:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My talk page is open if people don't feel like prodding these. User:Christianreeve in particular was a real gem: i am christian reeve, born 12/5/93, i sk8(sk8board),drink big amounts of alcohol,smoke fags and sumtimes weed, ima random fuck, apprently im sxc , but most peeps are blind,i do stupid things for the fun of it, and i neva stop talking lol, i cud say more but cba x. – Steel 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone reading this have SQL access to the database? Let's get a listing of all users whose only contributions are to userspace, and who have no edits in (say) the last two months. I completely agree that this "myspacification" of Misplaced Pages is a problem. Misplaced Pages is hugely popular and visible, and it's become a cool place to be.

I used to "userfy" vanity pages more often than I do now (i.e. move an autobiography from the mainspace to the user's page). What I learned was that most of the time those userfied pages just stayed on forever, and the author rarely did anything else; he had successfully gotten himself to the top of Google rankings by creating an autobiography here, and userfying his autobio just assisted him in making it permanent. Antandrus (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Userfy spam just moves it. Secretlondon 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I update my userpage far more often than my MySpace profile... I don't see this as quite the earth-shattering problem that others are apparently seeing it as; if it's not linked to from anywhere, the chances of someone stumbling across it are fairly slim. I'm all for deleting vanity pages or telling editors who only want to make a userpage to shove off, but I'm not going to get riled up about this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think there is much of a way to get rid of them; it's up to the editors who db them and the admins who delete. David Fuchs 18:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As for a better way to find such user pages, I recommend Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch. This wikiproject creates lists of all pages containing external links to the primary spam websites including MySpace, Bebo, etc. The lists are sorted in alphabetic order so it's easy to go through the User: pages. -- JLaTondre 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A preliminary compiliation of likely myspace pages is available here. There's about 3000 of them. MER-C 03:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to check their upload logs too, as Misplaced Pages isn't Photobucket. MER-C 04:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend being very careful when using User:MER-C/Burnination and User:MER-C/Spam. In fact, it seems wise not to use the former at all until some very serious problems with it are rectified. The former gives no indication of whether the user is actually contributing to the encyclopaedia and includes on the list pages such as User:Phaedriel/Soundtrack of Wikipedians (Phaedriel (talk · contribs) is an administrator and has 1754 contributions to article space), User:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 6 (an archive of the talk page of Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs), also an administrator and with 39708 contributions to article space), User:Alison (Alison (talk · contribs) is an administrator with 5269 contributions to article space), and User:KF/For future reference (KF (talk · contribs) is an administrator and has 12233 contributions to article space). The latter includes pages such as User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult/archive1. Uncle G 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe MER-C was recommending everything that contains a MySpace link be deleted. I believe he intended his page simply as a listing of pages with such links to make it easy to review user pages and determine which ones should be deleted. He could have picked a better title, but there is nothing wrong with the list itself. Whether one uses that list, the WikiProject Spam lists (which has the same user pages you mention), or Special:Linksearch (which also has those same pages), one still needs to think and not blindly tag / delete. -- JLaTondre 12:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I haven't looked over the majority of the contents of the first list in detail - I just copied and pasted the linksearch results. Before deciding whether a page is deletable, I check the user's contributions, in fact I have removed a few false positives already. As for the spam list, the archives contain copies of deleted vanity in the userspace. I made them a different colour to distinguish them from the rest. MER-C 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I started going through them last night, and yes, I bypassed any that had any valid mainspace contributions, ever. Some who had only contributions to their own userpages, and who hadn't edited in many months, have on the other hand been "burninated." I found it interesting that those on the livejournal list tended to be ok, while those on the photobucket list had a much higher probability of being here only to make a vanity user page. Antandrus (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment earlier about userfying autobiographies, one solution to avoid Google ranking is just to userfy it and then blank to a (polite) warning, with a link to the history version. That way the material is still there in the history, and you can then wait a few months to see if the user comes back and does anything or not. After those few months, you can probably safely assume it was a drive-by self-advertisement, and start deleting stuff. In general, blanking pages to a warning is a good way to avoid Google exposure. Carcharoth 12:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a random thought: why not mark user pages as "ignore" in the robots.txt file? Doing that will result in no one's user page being indexed oon Google, & all incentive for vanity pages are gone. Personally, I don't care if my Misplaced Pages user page is indexed on Google or not. -- llywrch 18:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then how are we going to search user pages and archives? Also, I see no reason why preventing Google searches would discourage vanity pages. Even if these people knew about it, which is highly unlikely, they generally aren't creating vanity pages to get Google hits. —Centrx→talk • 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam userpages is an issue and we get renaming requests so that their "article" is named right. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Szymanski is an example of this stuff. He asked for renaming and his user page is an article listing credentials. We turn him down for renaming and prune his userpage. He responds by moving it into the article space. It gets put on Afd and people vote userfy! We don't want this *anywhere*! People impressed by wikipedia credentials are not necessarily going to pick up the difference between User:Fred Bloggs and Fred Bloggs. Secretlondon 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Images in templates

I have just run a bot that detects fair use images in templates, (along with removing fair use images in userspace). I have a listing of them at User:Eagle_101/fairUseInTemplates. None of these should exist per criteria number 9 of our non free media policy. Anyone who wants to get to work on removing all of these images from template space feel free. The list is structured <Image>;-;;-;<template location>. If someone wants to organize the list into sections or whatever thats fine with me. In a week or so I'll re-run the bot, so that we can pick up stragglers. —— Eagle101 20:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Any reason we can't just delete them from the list, rather than mark them as done (which is what was already there, so I followed that standard)? It'd be easier to wade through the list if it got consistently shorter... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you like :) The list will get re-generated some time next week. —— Eagle101 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you open yourself up to all sorts of trouble with "whatever"... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a wiki, I trust you, and anyone else that happens to want to help :) —— Eagle101 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Boy, that's a big list. Removing from the list makes sense, if you make a new list next week we can see how much of the removal of images has stuck. Garion96 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all items marked as done, and added headings every three letters (roughly), which should help make removing items as they get resolved a bit easier. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just found Image:Blackmoonr.jpg on the list; it was on Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/February 25, 2007 (it got removed, but I restored it). I'm pretty sure that the project namespace is fair game (for the front page and the like), no? If I'm wrong, feel free to remove it again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well non-free images shouldn't be used on the main page (see this for instance) but that isn't really the same issue now that TFA has been and gone. Will (aka Wimt) 21:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be no fair use images outside of mainspace, per criteria number 9 of our fair use policy. Cheers! —— Eagle101 22:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've reverted my restoration. Back to the list... EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• A late comment. See Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article#Replacing deleted images in the archives for my attempt to discuss this after my pass through the archives doing a lot of bold replacement of deleted (usually fair-use) images with (hopefully) free images (I did check, but any double-checks would be greatly appreciated). While checking the archives, I did noticed that a lot of fair-use video game covers, album covers, book covers, and similar images were still being used. Whether those need to go or not, I don't know, but is there a reason these have not been picked up yet? Carcharoth 12:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Actually, since I last looked, a lot more have got removed. Some are still there, such as Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/March 20, 2007. Carcharoth 12:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

History merger

I am currently translating the Spanish version of the China Poblana article at User:Nardman1/China poblana (sandbox). Would it be possible for someone to perform a history merger at the mainspace article for GFDL reasons (and possibly so I can recruit other editors to help me finish it)? Thanks. When you're done you can delete the sandbox version.

Since you are the only editor of your version, why not simply copy your latest revision into a new revision of the mainspace version? The only GFDL need is for attribution, and from that perspective it makes no difference if all your work appears in one edit. --pgk 22:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. Thanks. Nardman1 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Still an unresolved problem

Now User:Northmeister has gone too far! Sorry that I cannot assume good faith any more.

• A devoted Elvis fan (see his user page), Northmeister repeatedly deleted well sourced material not only from Elvis Presley (see , , ) but also from other article pages such as Graceland. See , , . He even denies that there is an Elvis cult at Graceland, although many sources say that this is the case. See . As I am frequently citing my sources, this behavior is not acceptable.
• What is more, Northmeister not only removed my well-sourced contributions from article pages but has now copied from old talk pages blocks of material which had already been discussed exhaustively in a very heated manner two years ago and placed it in the current talk page in order to harass me. See . Significantly, this is exactly the same material that my old opponent, multiple hard-banned user Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202 frequently removed from talk and article pages in the past. See , . In his recent edit, Northmeister even confuses me with another user who edited under the IP 129.241.134.241 and was also part of the 2005 edit war with Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202.

Query: why should Northmeister be so interested in this old stuff if he was not deeply involved in the edit war with me at that time?

• Furthermore, the expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeister here, which refers to the world-wide Elvis industry, was only used once by me in this edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Wilkes's IPs!

Query: how should Northmeister, who, according to his contribution history, first visited Misplaced Pages on 5 February 2006, know that I posted such an expression more than two years ago, if he was not involved in the dispute at that time? It should be noted that the said edit of 2005 was immediately deleted by IP 66.61.69.65 alias Ted Wilkes. See .

• Interestingly, Northmeister reappeared on the scene removing Elvis-related topics at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of User: Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo were revealed as edit warring with me on the same topics. See .
• More significantly, Northmeister addressed me in the current heading on the Elvis talk page as a user from Duesburg (see ). The only other user doing so was Ted Wilkes with his IPs and his sockpuppet, User:Duisburg Dude, a user identity that was only created in order to harass me and also repeatedly deleted my contributions (see , , , , , , ). Consequently Duisburg Dude was banned from Misplaced Pages on 6 August 2006.
• Some additional facts concerning Northmeister's edits of 2006. As already mentioned, this user first appeared on the Misplaced Pages scene on 5 February 2006. It should be remembered that around the same time Ted Wilkes had created some other sockpuppets: User:Danny B. and User:Cynthia B.. The history of Northmeister clearly shows that his aggressive behavior is very similar to that of Wilkes. Like Wilkes, Northmeister is very interested in Elvis Presley and, apart from some edits he called "improvements", this user, from the beginning of his appearance, frequently removed well-sourced paragraphs from the Elvis article which were not in line with his personal view. See these old edits: , , , , , , , , . This is also very similar to Ted Wilkes's deleting tactics. Furthermore, it is very interesting that, in the past, Northmeister was repeatedly blocked by different administrators for WP:3RR, incivility and disruption, etc. See, for instance, , , , , , , . See also these comments concerning Northmeister's accusation that User:Will Beback allegedly violated the three revert rule. , . Interestingly, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes also frequently violated the three revert rule and repeatedly accused me of "outright fabrications" or "vandalism" in the past. Is it just by chance that Northmeister accused Will Beback of "outright vandalism" (see ) and of harrassing him (see )? Compare also these edits: , and .

To conclude: Northmeister's recent edit certainly proves that this user must be identical with hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude alias User:DW alias alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202. By the way, IP 24.165.212.202 once claimed to be someone who knew Elvis all of his life. See . IP 66.61.69.65 claimed that he is "in close contact with many of Elvis' friends, former employees and family." See . Furthermore, the same IP is somehow related to entertainment reporter Bill E. Burk, who runs a fan site on Elvis, and to Elvis's former friends, the members of the Memphis Mafia (MM). See , . This would explain why Northmeister is so keenly interested to remove all material which isn't in line with his personal opinion of Presley. Therefore, as his aliases User:Duisburg Dude, User:DW, etc. etc., Northmeister should be banned from Misplaced Pages. 80.141.230.18 22:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you repeat that, but be concise?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the main facts:

• User:Northmeister repeatedly deleted well sourced material from Elvis Presley (see , , ) and Graceland. See , , . *Northmeister has now copied from old talk pages blocks of material which had already been discussed exhaustively two years ago and placed it in the current Elvis talk page in order to harass me. See . This is exactly the same material that my old opponent, multiple hard-banned user Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202 frequently removed from talk and article pages in the past. See , .
• Northmeister falsely claims that I am identical with another user who edited under the IP 129.241.134.241.
• The expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeister here, was only used once by me in this edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Ted Wilkes's IPs! This means that Northmeister must be identical with multiple hard-banned user Wilkes alias User:DW.
• Northmeister reappeared removing Elvis-related topics at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo were revealed as edit warring with me on the same topics. See .
• More significantly, Northmeister addressed me in the current heading on the Elvis talk page as a user from Duesburg (see ). The only other user doing so was Ted Wilkes with his IPs and his sockpuppet, User:Duisburg Dude, a user identity that was only created in order to harass me and also repeatedly deleted my contributions (see , , , , , , ). Consequently Duisburg Dude was banned from Misplaced Pages on 6 August 2006.
• In the past, Northmeister was repeatedly blocked by different administrators for WP:3RR, incivility and disruption, etc. See , , , , , , . See also these comments: , , , , , , .
• To conclude: Northmeister's recent edit certainly proves that this user must be identical with hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude alias User:DW alias alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202.

Um, just a wild guess but is it possible that this could be more efficiently resolved at WP:SSP? Please also remember to sign your comments - it's easier to follow the conversation that way. Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 23:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As DW was an editor hardbanned by Jimbo Wales himself, maybe it would be better for administrators to deal with this directly. — MichaelLinnear 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This complaint seems to have been filed by Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a/k/a Anon 80.141.et al. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone, User:Duisburg Dude and User:Willy on Wheels. Onefortyone was topic banned from Elvis Presley on April 27, 2007 for two months, but the ban was lifted because of sockpuppetry by one of the users requesting the ban. I am deeply suspicious that we are being trolled here, and suggest that this material be removed to WP:SSP for thorough investigation. Jehochman / _✔ 05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be added that it was my old opponent Ted Wilkes alias hardbanned User:DW who requested this arbitration in 2005. However, there were subsequent arbcom cases (see this case of 2006 and this newer arbcom decision) which proved that my edits are O.K. now. Therefore, my opponents were banned from the Misplaced Pages articles in question. For instance, in the case of 2006 the arbcom said that my former opponents "Ted Wilkes and Wyss have repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor." Therefore, according to the arbcom, "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality," and they were both placed indefinitely on Misplaced Pages:Probation. If Northmeister is identical with Ted Wilkes, who was banned from Misplaced Pages for one year, he has clearly violated his probation. The third, more recent arbcom case concerning the Elvis Presley article confirmed that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content." Furthermore, the arbcom said that my opponent Lochdale, who, to my mind, is also somehow related to Ted Wilkes, "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley" and that he "shows evidence of misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view." Therefore, Lochdale was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." It should also be noted that Wilkes and his supporter Wyss even harshly attacked arbcom member Fred Bauder. For more details, would you please contact Fred Bauder and the other arbcom members. 80.141.193.38 17:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some further additions. IP 209.247.5.139 also seems to be identical with Northmeister and Ted Wilkes who repeatedly claimed in the past that my edits were "outright fabrications" and that I am a liar, etc. See these recent edits by IP 209.247.5.139:

• "Every single thing this Harvey Carter has put here about Elvis is total nonsense and outright hateful fiction. ... The lies about his sexual preferences...it's total BS!" .
• Concerning some sources that IP 209.247.5.139 doesn't like: "Bill Dakota is another hack like Dee Stanley, who Elvis openly never excepted as his stepmother and she was trying to make a buck off his name with a book full of lies after his death, and Albert Goldman was even worse. Goldman clearly had nothing but disdain for Elvis as his entire book showed" .
• Concerning Professor Goldman's critical book on Elvis: "The quote above from Goldman's book should NOT be included in Elvis' bio page and I would like for it to be removed. This is not only just Goldman's OPINION, but an opinion from a guy who had intense disdain for Presley and whose entire book demonstrated this! The entire book was condemned as trash by fans and critics both" .
• Applauding Northmeister's deleting tactics: "I am happy to see what I think are some nice improvements in this Elvis page since the last time I was here, including seeing some misleading and totally unsubstantiated garbage by people like Albert Goldman and others, removed..." .
• On user Onefortyone: "It's clear what his intent is, (smear) and it shouldn't be tolerated in Elvis Presley's page or anybody else's"

By the way, User:Steve Pastor also repeatedly removes sourced content he doesn't like from the Elvis page. See , , , , , , , , , , , , . And he places hyperlinks to fan sites in the text of the Misplaced Pages article. See .

Part of the Elvis fan group endeavoring to whitewash the Elvis article may also be one-topic editor User:Nigel77 who frequently includes hyperlinks to fan sites in Misplaced Pages articles. See , , , , , , , , , , , , . 80.141.244.117 14:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Another unfortunate Google grab

Jim Carrey Sancho 00:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• One resolution strategy is to use an allowable form of cloaking, called "content delivery." It should be trivially easy to apply the semi-protection criteria (not semi-protection itself) to article history to determine that last version that was saved by "good" user. This version can be accessed with an additional URL parameter, such as ?version=stable. When a search engine bot, such as Googlebot shows up and identifies itself (through the user-agent field in the http request header), you program a conditional redirect via .htaccess to append "?version=stable" to the URL. This isn't a big deal, won't slow down the servers, and would avoid further embarrassment to Misplaced Pages, and unnecessary harm to subjects of articles. Jehochman / _✔ 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The people that you need to take changes to MediaWiki up with are developers, not administrators. Uncle G 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If you have a specific idea on how to implement this, make a feature request at mediazilla:, the MediaWiki bug tracker. --ais523 11:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I fix this? Urgent!

It's me, RyanGerbil10. After reading about the fiasco with admin accounts being hijacked, and changed my password to strngthen it. Unfortunately I changed it on a German keyboard (I was in Germany), and I don't remember/can't figure out what it was changed to because the keyboards don't map out the same here in the United States. (I changed it by using the same keys as in the original password but by holding the shift key down for certain characters. For example, if my password had been "thisisnotmypassword111" it was changed to something like THisNOtmYPasSWorD!11." I requested another password be e-mailed to me, but it doesn't work! What can I do? If this is better discussed by e-mail, I have e-mail enabled on my account. 208.104.117.109 01:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I guess I'm just an idiot sometimes (like that time I blocked myself.) RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 01:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly did you manage to block yourself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viridae (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't know, but here's the evidence: . howcheng {chat} 02:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen four users accidentally block themselves. It isn't a hard mistake to make if you are in haste. Don't act in haste :) I have one block for one second during a Colbert vandalism spree when I was mistaken for a vandal during a revert. No harm, no foul in that case because we were all tossing out blocks like candy. Moving along... Teke 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done it too ... it was early in the morning, and I was swatting vandals just a tad too fast ... Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done it to myself multiple times on purpose. Still trying to work out how you click the wrong name etc. Viridae 12:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image speedy deletion backlog

The backlogs have crept up again, after going down to manageable levels sometime last week. Please lend a hand if you're bored - even if you clear 20 images a day, it helps. Thanks guys :) – Riana ⁂ 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Im bored and im reading this for fun but I have no idea what it is. HELP! Lmc169 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Brent Corrigan

Talk:Brent Corrigan, which appears to be the discussion page of a minor male pornographer, has been summarily locked. If I were to need to mention suggestions to the page, this appears to be currently impossible, Thank you. Also, octopuses 07:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The page has been semi-protected, because of the repeated attempts by John celona (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) to post an unsubstantiated accusation against the article's subject there, placing it in edit summaries and in xyr signature at one point. Xe has been directed to our Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy. I note in passing that John celona's latest edit was at 2007-05-19T20:07:29 UTC and the creation of your 10-edit account was at 2007-05-20T03:07:55 UTC. Uncle G 12:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maria Callas and fair use problems

Do we really need all those fair use images? Are they all legal? Does the inclusion of so many really comply with policy? Could someone with better knowledge of copyright than me sort this out? The number's ridiculous, something like 10 fair use images there. Moreschi 12:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not one of those images has a fair use rationale. Since they were uploaded after the bright line date, I have tagged them all. MER-C 13:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MER-C. In addition, plenty of them are book covers, which are, apparently, meant to discuss just books, rather than anything else. Moreschi 13:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Feature Request: display of logs of user block by the user name of the blockee

Hi. I was recently looking at the logs, described as "a combined display of upload, deletion, protection, user block, page move, user creation, user renaming, and user rights logs." at Special:Log. That description doesn't tell the whole story, as logs of user block are currently filed by the user name of the blocker, rather than the user name of the blockee. Please enhance the logs (or the logging of user blocks) to allow display of logs of user block by the user name of the blockee, without reducing the functionality of being able to display by the user name of the blocker. For reference and an example of what I'm writing about, please see User talk:Gwernol#User:GOD HATE FAGS AND SO DO I. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bugs and feature requests should be made at the BugZilla since there is no guarantee developers will read this page. --Deskana (AFK 47) 15:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've now made one.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, the "user" field is for the user who performed the action and the "title" field is for whatever the action was done to. For blocks, "user" is the admin who placed the block and "title" is the user account which was blocked. So to find all blocks placed on User:Example, you would type "User:Example" into the "title" field on the log. Don't forget the "User:" in front of the name. --bainer (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's still counter-intuitive, though.  :(   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Community ban

There is an ongoing community ban discussion here. Further input is required to determine consensus. Navou 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A request, there might be a ban conversation in progress there at any time, if you're posting a notification, it would be helpful if you mentioned who it was regarding. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

777a (talk · contribs)

This is a "heads up" to admins about this user. Although also a sockpuppet issue (compare contribs of A67 (talk · contribs) and A87 (talk · contribs)), the more pressing problem is their uploading of images with incorrect source information. Either no source is given, or the GFDL licence is used, but for images which appear to be professional portraits or magazine shots. Please see their contributions to understand what I mean. The pattern is so obvious and consistent, only a look at a number of image uploads and one should see what I'm getting at.

Another editor has already posted about this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyvio_uploads_by_User:777a — superbfc — 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand again

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

Discussion ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tagging for non-free logos (formerly: Betacommand appears to be at it again. Chick Bowen 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While I completely understand wanting to clamp down on bad fair use images, Betacommand's bot edits are a bit suspect. What's happening is that the bot

1. tags images with no fair use rationale (fair enough), but then...
2. removes them from the articles they're used in
3. then tags the images with an Orphan tag!

Thus circumventing the system, as unless an editor realises this has happened within the 7 days, bang go the images. As many {Non-free album cover} images were uploaded a long time ago, the original uploaders may not be active, and they are the only ones notified.

Edit: Oh, and it's also breaking articles EliminatorJR 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you put an example of the orphaning stuff? I checked the last edits and there wasn't an example of that. Also, I thought the {{non-free use disputed}} tags should be reviewed by admins, per the template text... -- ReyBrujo 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my bad - I didn't read the template correctly and removed it once I'd FUR'd all the images - should I put them all back? I've used the standard FUR for all of them thus . EliminatorJR 00:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my fault, I'm afraid. Betacommand was applying the {{no rationale}} tag to images uploaded before 4 May 2006 (despite knowing that it contained an explicit claim to the contrary), and I advised him to use the {{non-free use disputed}} tag instead (without realizing that this would necessitate sysop intervention). The sole justification is the complete lack of a fair use rationale, so it's reasonable to ignore protocol and simply remove the tag when a fair use rationale is added.

Is there another template that would be appropriate, or do we need to create one? —David Levy 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Example orphaning

Commented out of the article at 03:44 14 May

tagged as orphaned at 03:27 20 May

..and then tagged as fair use disputed at 06:59 today EliminatorJR 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the diff listed for the "broken" articles doesn't appear to be the bot - it looks like that's Betacommand himself... let's not confuse the issues, m'kay? Philippe 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is running some kind of script or bot on his main account. Nardman1 23:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, he's running the BetacommandBot code through his main account. In many cases (such as this randomly selected diff), the edits are even labeled "BetacommandBot." —David Levy 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably the bot uses the current login instead of login itself, so he may have forgotten to log as a bot. -- ReyBrujo 00:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless a 'bot is a script that is executed by a web browser, it usually won't work like that. My 'bots, for examples, have cookie jars that are completely independent from the cookie jars used by my web browser. Uncle G 00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that is the reason, it was not a bot but instead Betacommand using a semi automatic tool. He edited at a fast speed, but was active (note that after someone complained, he solved that by hand. That may explain why he was not using his bot account for these edits, because he was interactively working. -- ReyBrujo 01:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to assume good faith, but given the fact that the bot continues to edit through Betacommand's main account (but no longer identifies itself as a bot), it seems more likely that he initially forgot to remove that bit of self-identifying code. —David Levy 00:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely the point is that this insinuates that low-res scans are allowed as fair use in music articles as long as they're tagged with the boilerplate {Non-free album cover} - you have to dig a lot deeper (for instance, buried in a single sentence in WP:NONFREE) to find out that a separate FUR needs to be attached to these images. So wouldn't simply tagging them have been enough? EliminatorJR 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know, simply tag them properly if they're on album articles. But that would require reviewing instead of mass tagging. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• When one person comments out images from articles and then tags the image as orphaned seems like gaming the system to me. .V. 00:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is he making bot edits through his main account? What's wrong with the bot account? // Pilotguy hold short 00:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• This has already been covered at ANI. Take a look at the discussion there. N 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, Betacommand wants the community to believe that he's performing these edits manually (and claimed in that discussion that he isn't using a bot). If only he'd remembered to disable the "BetacommandBot" identification from the beginning, perhaps this blatant lie might have been slightly believable. —David Levy 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you are using a week old edit to justify that? -- ReyBrujo 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I selected that diff at random from hundreds of such edits. Less than a day later, Betacommand claimed not to be using a bot, but the "BetacommandBot"-labeled edits continued long after. —David Levy 01:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

<!-- BetacommandBot message Top-->yeah I used that label so that my tool could Identify pages that it had used. and to create a regex-able field that I could remove when viewing the page and to assist with how I Identify bad FU images with a separate read only script. <!--BetacommandBot message Bottom--> Betacommand 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Then why did you use the label "BetacommandBot" instead of an accurate descriptor?

2. Then why did you stop doing this in your newer edits?

3. Do you honestly believe that manually inserting "BetacommandBot" tags in your reply somehow proves that the other edits also were performed manually? —David Levy 02:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's/he's breaking articles is new though, plus the bizarre orphaning of images. EliminatorJR 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I do use a simi-auto tool like AWB, that I have designed for reviewing fair use images, and tagging /handleing accordingly. I remove the image from a page, tag the image with appropriate tags and leave a note of the images that I removed said images from. then I notify the uploader. please tell me how I am gaming the system?. If my bot tags it ORFU then that is just by chance as I havent gotten any ORFU list from gmaxwell recently I just decided to run it from the links of {{non-free media}}. When I have the code presentable I will publish it. right now the code works, but is a mess (has a lot of debug code and no code comments). and as David Levey pointed out there was the issue of the error with tagging of old FU images. (that has been fixed) Betacommand 01:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But when it's you that's orphaning articles by removing them from articles and then hitting them with orphan tags, that's gaming the system. Why not just tag them with disputed, give it a week, and then tag for deletion? That's surely process. EliminatorJR 01:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this item here? I see no evidence that EliminateJR has ever attempted to communicate with Betacommand on his talk page. We should be routinely scrubbing out attempts to raise non-urgent problems such as "Betacommand's bot edits are a bit suspect" and asking editors to follow the Misplaced Pages:dispute resolution process. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I raised it here because (a) a bot that breaks articles may be doing other things as well - how do you know it's non-urgent? (b) if that's the case I hoped to stop another few hundred examples, and (c) Betacommand's talk page suggests he doesn't respond well to criticism or suggestions EliminatorJR 02:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

the reason my talkpage is so full? Im enforcing policy and people dont like it. for a perfect example see User talk:Gnome (Bot) and those archives. people tend to complain when they have zero ground to do so and dont follow/ignore/dont understand policy. the ones that people actually raise valid issues I deal with those. Betacommand 02:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, to prove that its not an automated script, will you publish the source code? —— Eagle101 03:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify, to show that it is a semi-automated tool. —— Eagle101 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

He already did that in a sandbox. -- ReyBrujo 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That code (which took some time to produce, supposedly because he needed to make it look "presentable" for some inexplicable reason) proves nothing. No one has disputed his ability to write a script that could be used to perform user-assisted edits of this nature, but it simply isn't plausible that all of the edits in question occurred in such a manner (even ignoring the fact that they included a "BetacommandBot" identifier). —David Levy 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

2 hours to clean up code is not unreasonable, especially if he had to clean up scattered about debug statements. —— Eagle101 03:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply dumping the code on a page (and then cleaning it up) would have established its existence at that point in time. But even if Betacommand had done that, it still wouldn't have proven that he actually used this script to perform the edits in question. —David Levy 03:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also when you made that post I was not at home and didnt have access to my home PC or the PPK access key to get it from the toolserver. Please ask a checkuser to confirm that if you dont believe me. Betacommand 03:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To which post are you referring? —David Levy 03:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please dont move my comments, but the one were you basically ask for the code. Since I wasnt able to access it then it had to wait. until I could get access ~2hr later. Betacommand 04:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet, you cited a need to make the code look "presentable" as the reason behind the delay.

But this doesn't make any difference. I never asked to see the code (which you had several days to write). —David Levy 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

that code isnt presentable, I only released it because you said that my statement was a lie. I did not want to release it and was plaining on releasing it within the next 1-2 weeks. I would have delayed more but you forced me to defend myself and prove that i am not a liar. Betacommand 04:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a red herring. The code (which you had several days to write) proves nothing substantive. Given your history, I have difficulty assuming good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. —David Levy 04:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

see the source code. I wouldnt normally publish that. Ask any good programmer, that code doesnt have documentation, and still needs a lot of cleanup. but because you called me a liar, I decided to publish it in that form. I didnt deliberately inserted a false tag I looked for the appropriate template for the images, I coundnt find it. so I used the template that best fit. Betacommand 03:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

someone please run that and prove me wrong please, I want to be proven the liar that David Levy is calling me. Betacommand 03:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I did not call you a "liar." I referred to your claim as a "lie."

2. Seeking an appropriate tag, failing to find one, and using one that you know contains an inaccurate statement is deliberately inserting a false tag. Why didn't you simply create a new template for this purpose?

3. Again, I don't doubt that the script does what you say it does. I simply don't believe that you've been using it to perform these edits. —David Levy 03:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this. It's absolutely uncalled-for. You are deliberately and without evidence stating that Betacommand is lying, and then weaseling about it when challenged. This isn't acceptable. --Tony Sidaway 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Without evidence? Have you read this discussion? The edits contained "BetacommandBot" notations.

2. What "weaseling"? There's a major distinction between calling someone a "liar" and stating that he/she lied. The former implies that the person lies habitually, while the latter refers to a specific (and possibly isolated) instance. —David Levy 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

David, from what I see (I'm testing it out on gentoo linux) it is possible to do these edits at a rate of about 6 or so per minute. The interface is rather intuitive, you are given 8 choices, you pick which one you want to do, the script (I suppose, as I never edited with it) will do the task. I would test it out (with actual edits) if it were not locked to Template:non-free media, as it seems that all the hits I"m getting have already been done, so all I'm doing is hitting "skip" (which is option number 7). —— Eagle101 04:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't doubt that the script performs as advertised. —David Levy 04:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh... as a side note, can we talk on ANI, or AN, but not both. :S I don't think talking in two places is helping anything. —— Eagle101 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Take your pick. I'll reply to the posts wherever they appear (though I will have to sleep at some point). —David Levy 04:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Second note: When I said 6 edits above, I really mean I can probably check 6 images per minute, I don't know how many edits the tool will make in response to each of my options, but I can see a rate of ~4-~6 images a minute, as it puts the description, the upload date, the uploader, and the template that the script detects on the page in a nice easy to read manner. The only thing I do see missing is the uploader's summary. —— Eagle101 04:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I also doubt this is a fully automatic process, a fully automatic process could not tag something as no fair use rational, then in the next edit tag something as no source, then tag something as no rational. There is *no* way to make a bot do that type of determination by itself. All the bot can see is text and keywords which the programmer has programmed into it. See this link from 4 days ago here that I found. I think he has been using this script the whole time, either that or he has written a damned good bot that can some how make that type of determination (no source versus no fair use rational) with no errors. I think I'd lean to the former rather then the latter, as I don't think the latter is possible. —— Eagle101 05:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which edit(s) you're referring to, but I don't see what's so difficult about determining that a page containing nothing but templates with no parameters lacks a cited source and fair use rationale. —David Levy 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tagging for non-free logos (formerly: Betacommand appears to be at it again. Chick Bowen 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Potential userspace violation

Could a few sysops look over User talk:Nik Wright2? It appears to be a violation of WP:USER#NOT. Specifically, it seems to be a "polemical statement". It also seems to be in violation of the inappropriate content section which specifically notes that soapbox restrictions apply to userspace. This user's contributions are limited and directly related to his soapbox campaign. It was recommended to me that I seek input from request for comment, but I wanted to receive some additional input before proceeding. Thanks for your time and attention. Vassyana 22:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Through examination, I have come to these conclusions:

• • This user has violated the usage of user talk namespace.
  • This user's pure purpose on Misplaced Pages is to lead a soapbox campaign, namely to make aware to everyone that Misplaced Pages is defamatory (on the user's talk page), similar to a single-purpose account, except on a wider scale.
  • A RfC is appropriate in this matter.
    

Others? Sr13 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I can agree that the page in question does not represent the recommended use of a talkpage, and parts of it are also very hard to follow, upon reviewing the page I am concerned by the underlying allegations described there. In substance, the editor alleges that he has been critical of a certain religious figure, that external webpages maintained by adherents to that figure have published a spurious affidavit never filed in actual legal proceedings in which the editor is described as a member of a "hate group," that the links from Misplaced Pages to these pages are contributing to a situation in which this allegedly false accusation is being given enormous publicity, and that the editor's concerns about this matter have allegedly not been taken seriously or addressed by anyone within Misplaced Pages.

I have not had the opportunity to study this matter in complete detail as yet and some of the fine points of the personalities and legal proceedings involved may prove inscrutible to anyone not already steeped in the dispute. However, my first impression is that novel BLP-related issues concerning the potential effects of our links upon this individual, who is not himself alleged to be notable, may be presented. I will try to look into this matter further in the next day or two, and would urge others to do the same. In the meantime, I think it would be ill-advised to open an RfC on the content of a user's talkpage before considering whether the substance of the page, even if stridently or "soapbox"ishly presented, discloses that the editor has a genuine and substantial grievance. Newyorkbrad 05:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, an admin is not needed here I don't think, if you want to open an RFC, feel free to do so. I don't think alerting admins here is going to give any result. —— Eagle101 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user wanted an external opinion on the matter by admins to see if RfC was appropriate. RfC would be the solution in this case. Sr13 07:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if an RfC is started then it should involve all the related issues, not only the concern about Nik Wright's talkpage, and notice of the matter should be given to all affected editors. Newyorkbrad 16:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Huge Backlogs

Images without a fair use rationale currently has a 11 day backlog. These images need to be deleted. mrholybrain's talk 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We admins definitely do realize that the backlogs are growing. We are trying to take care of them as quick as possible. Sr13 01:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What can we do to reduce the bureaucracy and nit-picking that surrounds WP:RfA? I've seen a lot of good people being discouraged by comments like "You need to have at least X edits," or "I won't support a candidate without a WikiProject endorsement." More administrators could mean fewer backlogs. If people seem reasonable and want to help, hand out mops. You don't need to know the fine details of every Misplaced Pages process to be able to tear through some of these backlogs. We should encourage more people to become admins. Jehochman / _✔ 04:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my perception that mops are currently being passed out at record rates, but I would be receptive to seeing some statistics to the contrary. --After Midnight 04:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been temporary spikes before. Also, the backlogs are growing at record rates. To really keep them down we would need a rate of admin creation on a totally different level: not 20 or 30% higher than normal but 200 or 300%. Chick Bowen 04:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We definitely want more sysops, but at the same time, we don't want to be too careless in our decisions. I agree with what Jehochman said above, though. We shouldn't be nitpicky just because of one or two "bad" diffs. Sr13 07:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There might also be possibly helpful ideas away from RfA. Grandmasterka 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by Tfoxworth

Hello;

I am being harassed, or "WikiStalked" (if there is such a term) by the user Tfoxworth. Many months ago, he was involved in creating several POV forks for articles regarding members of the previously-sovereign Russian Imperial Family and had his various articles deleted on those grounds.

His last edit at that point was on December 1st, 2006. Recently, Mr. Foxworth has returned to editing (under this name on May 18th, 2007) and all of his edits so far have been reverts of my edits (for no reason) or unfounded and unwarranted chastisement and insults on the talk pages for some of the articles. Mr. Foxworth's first recent edit was outside of his usually "territory" and was directed at me on the talk page for Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case. Just before that edit under his username, there was an edit by the anonymous IP address 68.3.40.59. At this point, the user's only edits have been at the two pages that Mr. Foxworth has edited at. If this user is not Tim Foxworth, it is a peculiar incidence that the user's only three edits have been at the two pages where Mr. Foxworth has been attacking me.

He also edits from the IP address 12.146.101.146, as evidenced by him signing the IP address' posts. From this IP address he edited the Maria Vladimirovna talk page, even creating what is problem an unauthorized subpage. Additionally, there is a new user called I_vonH whose first edit was one in agreement with Tim Foxworth's 12.146.101.146 IP address. I have a suspicion that this user is probably also Tim Foxworth.

For what it is worth, I feel that Mr. Foxworth, who has a somewhat extensive warning history, should be dealt with in a manner in which he will no longer be able to harass me. He has not made any constructive edits and for the most part, all of the history differenced between his edits and mine are him reverting my edits (, , , , , , ), inserting his specific point of view about certain people () or him running his mouth about me on talk pages (, , ). Many of these pages are ones where he has no previous edit history and has been stalking my edits. Charles 03:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Request some independent assistance

Could another admin have a serious word in the ear of StuRat (talk · contribs). He is a consistently disruptive editor who regularly accuses admins of abuse and cabalism. This evening alone he has been:

• Accusing an admin of "an abuse of Admin authority" in protecting a page being targeted by a persistent banned user (whom, incidently, StuRat was an erstwhile colleague of and still occasionally adds content on his behalf).
• Goading an editor who indicated they are leaving the project (after a run in with a new editor with a suspiciously detailed knowledge of the project)
• Replacing the goading comment after three independent editors expressed disaproval (the aforementioned new user gets in on the act too).

I have already warned him, but he ignored me, and I am a bit too close to take any action without stoking the claims of abuse. Thanks. Rockpocket 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with User:Light current? —Kyриx 05:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How did you guess? Rockpocket 05:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The names are familiar, and I commented in Friday's admin recall mess. —Kyриx 05:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Y'all are a pretty useless lot. Maybe try supporting deserving editors instead of coddling the disruptive ones.—eric 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Eric, I have discussed the matter with Clio privately, and I don't really think my actions today could be described as coddling. Rockpocket 07:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hm, the user has a history of incivility and a talk page full of warnings. Looking through his recent edit history reveals many incivil remarks or attacks , as well as complaints of abuse and vague threats . I think this is well beyond what we usually tolerate with respect to wikiquette, and have blocked him for 12 hours. >Radiant< 14:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite his unblock request being denied StuRat is is claiming that the muliple admins are "involved" and inferring they are biased. I encourage anyone who has never heard of StuRat to review his case (User_talk:StuRat#Request_some_independent_assistance). David D. (Talk) 17:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Malomeat dodging removal of links to play-asia.com

Over the past couple months, I've noticed that Malomeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding a number of suspicious links that are described to be originating from Play-Asia.com, a site that sells video games. Previously, he made direct links to the site that were removed quickly (usually by bots like Shadowbot), but his more recent edits are rather fishy:

• on Gyakuten Saiban 4
• on Moero! Nekketsu Rhythm Damashii Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan 2

In both edits, the links go to a Lycos site, but clicking on the links reveals they're actually mirrors to Play-Asia pages that allow someone to buy the game. When I've warned him about this spamming, he's removed the warnings despite leaving everything else on his talk page intact () and has done the same to warnings he recieved when he was directly linking to Play-Asia (, , ). Considering that WP:EXTERNAL recommends not linking to "sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" (which Play-Asia is) and the zealousness with which he's been removing spam warnings, I'm really suspicious of all his linking. Would anybody mind dealing with him? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What he is doing is forwarding users through his site, which then goes to Play-Asia.com to purchase the game. The trick of it is that when it is sent to Play-Asia it is including his affiliate code so if the person buys the game or anything else from the site, Malomeat will get a cut of the money as a forwarding affiliate. Kill this type of behaviour on sight and warn them about it. It's not appropriate to link to a site so someone can buy something anyway, but to do it and put your affiliate code in so you get a cut of the profits is definitely not on. Ben W Bell talk 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And if I've warned him before and he's still restoring the links? He's made the same link to Gyakuten Saiban 4 three times already and he's removing any and all warnings he's recieved. It's obvious he's not going to stop. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a warning that if he does it again he'll be temporarily blocked for spamming and attempting to circumvent anti-spam policies. If you spot him doing it again, let me know. Ben W Bell talk 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of power block

This IP User talk:70.171.38.69 block is an abuse of power, however, in order to not disclose my username I registered a new one. I would like to not be known, seeing as this administrator abused power. --Uuy 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• And you're using a sockpuppet to evade a block. You don't get to do that. --jpgordon 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Account blocked indef; IP reblocked for a week.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are bad. So is blocking after only a single warning. No real problem with the block, but I'd expect more from an admin. --OnoremDil 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Which block do you object to? In the case of Uuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry policy mandates we block them. In the case of the IP, how many warnings would you suggest before blocking for sockpuppetry and lying (as shown above)? Picaroon (Talk) 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the original block of the IP was quick. Sorry, I must have missed the above section which shows the lying and sockpuppetry that led to that block... I have no problem with the sock block. --OnoremDil 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one, since the IP was clearly aware of policy and behaved in an unecessarily querulous fashion. Using a sockpuppet to evade a block is unacceptable. However, I have to say that a) the IP has a history of good-faith contributions and is not a vandalism-only address, b) this was not blatant vandalism (I don't see bad faith, just stubborness), and c) El_C was correct about the need for sourcing, but reverting someone twice and then pulling out the banhammer without warning is inevitably going to lead to bad feelings, charges of abuse, etc. that outlast the 24 hours that the encyclopedia is "protected" from the user in question. You have to wonder if it ends up doing more harm than good to the encyclopedia. It only takes an extra minute to say "Don't reintroduce that unsourced material or you'll be blocked", or even better, to get an uninvolved pair of eyes to handle it. MastCell 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this user changed the order of the The Bible. A little context helps. El_C 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And they are now claiming that El C created the sock account. HOW COULD YOU?! Veinor 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have Template:Uw-vandal's 1-4 for a reason? I'll just start reporting them to AIV after the first bad edit. Yes, it was vandalism. Yes, I would personally still like to see more than a single warning...even in cases of blatant vandalism. I see the context, but still think that it was a quick block unless there was further history here. --OnoremDil 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The blocking policy leaves it to my discretion. El_C 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Habibz edit warring on Criticism of Islam but also a suspected sock of User:His excellency

I didn't know where to post this (i.e. 3RR board, sock board) because of multiple violations. The user Habibz appears to be a sock puppet of indefinitely banned user His excellency (who has had multiple socks blocked recently). At this time, the user (presumably H.E.) is totally out of control, in a mad revert war on his user talk page and at Criticism of Islam. --ProtectWomen 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for twenty-four hours. You are free to make a request for checkuser at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/His excellency. -- tariqabjotu 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank u Tariqabjotu ♥--ProtectWomen 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited to include cited content, credible sources, pointing to the use of criticism of Islam as a pretext to incite or denigrate Muslims. My sources are strong, and my interpretation of them perfect. ProtectWomen's userpage and talk page shows he makes a habit of inciting Muslims through his provocative display of an Islamic userbox surrounded by pro-gay flags. He made comments that homosexuality is evident in the Hadith and Quran. I have nothing against gays, but he is clearly aiming to anger those muslims of a conservative mindset. His reason for objecting to my edit on Criticism of Islam is obvious- he is one of the types of people those articles talk about. Bigots using 'legitimate criticism' as an excuse to hate monger. Habibz 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the conversation, His excellency. I knew you'd have no problem finding the Administrators' noticeboard. Why do you keep referring to me as "he" and "him" ? Anyway, it appears there is an unlimited number of socks in this users' drawer. For you in your anti-gay bigotry to try and call me a bigot is quite sad. Please remember Misplaced Pages's policy WP:NPA... or is that why you were permanently banned in the first place?

Anyway, there are millions of gay Muslims- there is nothing wrong with being gay, we were born this way. If you want to claim that being proud of being gay is wrong, because it incites conservative muslims, then you have a lot to learn about the civil rights movement in the U.S.A. A lot of bigots (such as yourself) were incited and made angry by the black leaders who made the controversial demands that they be treated as equals. Well now it's our turn, and someday the anti-gay hatred you espouse will become extinct. --ProtectWomen 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks against other users should not be tolerated. Please don't make any considerations about P.W.'s edits based in his/her user page. You may consider it an 'offensive' presentation, but that does make such a thing the intention. Either way, the your ad hominem arguments do not excuse you from moving to the talk page when your edit does not pass consensus opinion. Please, if someone takes an issue with your edit, move to the talk page for discussion. Do not continue to add the text amidst accusations of 'discrimination' and 'Muslim bashing'. And if you do happen to be a sockpuppet, then I would suggest you cease this habit and find something else to do with your time. --C.Logan 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

His behavior, with his edit history, makes his reasons obvious enough. One article specifically mentioned 'baiting' as a tactic of the bigots-clothed-in-critic's-clothing. The reason he and Merzbow jumps immediately after that edit is because the content exposes their own behaviors here. And Misplaced Pages cannot be allowed to be turned into a megaphone for the bigots out there. You claim to be a Christian, is this hatred what Jesus inspires in you? Gridges 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards