Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:51, 24 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)

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)

Maybe some adminbots would help here? You hardly need great judgment to delete these images. Even a non-adminbot that removed images from articles once you'd deleted them would help: I don't think that exists. Moreschi 09:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Down to ten days, I'll be offline for a bit but I'll swat some more later. Fair use is a joke, we should get rid of it altogether. And get some more bots! Moreschi 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the first thread on wp:ani. It's obvious that many of these deletions wouldn't be uncontentious, since some people tag the pages without looking at their content. It's a lot better to have a backlog than to get rid of that backlog through mindless deletions. - Bobet 10:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and the deceased

I've let this drop for a bit as there was some hot feelings but it is continuing currently and needs clarifying.

The main point of this post is that there seems to be a step to apply WP:BLP to the dead. It started with the article Adrian Adonis in which Burntsauce (talk · contribs) removed most of the article citing WP:BLP. I reverted the changes citing the fact that BLP does not apply to a person who has been dead for nineteen years, resulting in a rather unneeded full protection that was soon lifted.

During this time wikipedia foundation member Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) and myself had a discussion on our talk pages over this article. Most of the postings related to Jimbo stating the articles needing sources which I agreed with however I argued my revert was based not on the lack of sources but the application of BLP to a dead person being entirely out of the scope of BLP leading to this comment: "Arguing that the guy is dead, and therefore BLP doesn't apply, is really a stretch."

I decided to leave it there however it seemed very odd to me at the time that we are now applying BLP to dead people. Thinking it may be over I didn't post here for a time because it seemed like an isolated incident however the same thing has occurred at Chris Candido, Orville Brown and Rodney Anoa'i. All of these articles relate to deceased individuals however each has been reverted and full protected under the grounds of violating WP:BLP.

I am not here to debate whether the articles need sourcing, which I believe they do, I am however here to inquire as to whether BLP is being misused or should be re-written to apply to all persons, past or present. –– Lid 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• There should probably be a different set of standards. The articles of the recently deceased frequently get vandalized, especially when they're controversial figures (such as Jerry Falwell recently). There are different impulses. It's a lot of work, but I think it would be worth the effort to have separate standards for the deceased. JuJube 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• BLP does not create new restrictions on content, it just mandates removal, and exempts that removal from 3RR. Unsourced negative information is not allowed anywhere, it's just more imperative that it be removed on BLPs. -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• The information removed was neither negative or controversial. –– Lid 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Then it would be a misapplication of BLP to remove it. Either way, saying "BLP doesn't apply!" is silly. -Amarkov moo! 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm trying to figure out why that is, because to me saying "BLP doesn't apply to the dead? that is silly" is... well silly, hence why I brought this here. –– Lid 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that BLP applies to the dead; whether or not it should, it self-evidently doesn't. However, there is no material which may be removed under BLP that shouldn't be removed anyway. So it doesn't matter if BLP applies or not. -Amarkov moo! 00:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• The thing is these particular articles refer to people that could be argued are "recently" deceased, as far back as 20+ years ago. The application here of BLP to me signifies that there are stricter reasons for material removal than for much older deceased persons. As an example I chose Chester A. Arthur which has been pretty much entirely unsourced since creation and has been tagged since December 2006 however there aren't people currently removing the unsourced information on the page despite six months of tagging resulting in no improvement. It seems like either misapplication or a double standard. –– Lid 00:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• If WP:BLP can apply to dead people, then up is down, black is white, night is day. It says "living people" in WP:BLP over and over and over. It doesn't say "persons living or dead". However, I'd like to think that Jimbo misspoke and was really just saying that there are other reasons besides WP:BLP to remove the offending material, such as that it was unsourced crap. wikipediatrix 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The first line of the "Rationale" for WP:BLP is: "Misplaced Pages articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life." This is the basis of the policy requirements to edit sensitively and conservatively, etcetera. This rationale clearly does not mean that negative material must be excluded, but it stipulates that unsourced negative material, or non-encyclopaedic material (tabloid allegations, etc.), must be removed. This stipulation is not only about defamation laws, but rather, as the rationale states, is due to the fact that Misplaced Pages can affect people's lives. And, even though this rationale states that information can affect the subject's life, it is also clearly the case that it can affect those people close to or surrounding the subject. Thus there is a difference between writing about Henry VIII and writing about somebody who has recently died, and who may have a spouse, children, etcetera. Misplaced Pages editors ought to be sensitive wherever the potential to negatively affect people's lives is clear. Again, this does not mean negative material must be excluded. But this requirement is a very good reason why, in my opinion, WP:BLP continues to apply to those who have died but whose relatives and associates remain alive. There is nothing to be gained for the encyclopaedia by asserting that this policy does not apply in such situations. FNMF 01:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Where is the line between "recently deceased" and "deceased"? A year ago? Five years ago? 20? A century? Are we meant to be catering these articles until every person that person could've been known or loved by will be dead as well? –– Lid 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this is an artificial and unnecessary question (this is not meant to sound hostile). Where there are reasonable grounds to think the material can affect someone's life, editors ought to adhere to WP:BLP strictures. A case could be made for including something more explicit about this in WP:BLP. But, until that happens, editors ought to be able to use good sense and judgment about such questions. The fact that editors do not always use such good sense and judgment is one argument for introducing such a clarification to the policy. FNMF 01:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a statute of limitations defining a period after which claims against the dead persons estate are not permissible? Six years? While the estate is still active I should think BLP should be applied rigorously. After that period then it is not as urgent (but still important). LessHeard vanU 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is so, and we enforce this position, it still doesn't apply to 3 of the four articles currently locked as BLP as they have been dead for longer than 6 years, up to 4 times as long. –– Lid 05:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I'm finding it slightly odd that, out of thousands more articles, so far all those that have been "nuked" happen to be pro wreslters'. There are exactly 3 references in Rick Rubin, one in Kris Kristofferson, and none in Tom Petty or Jimmie Rodgers (country singer), I wonder what would happen if I nuked everything unsourced over WP:ATT or WP:BLP concerns... Circeus 03:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

50-50 you will be blocked for WP:POINT/vandalism or be held up as a crusader for upholding WP:BLP, every previous discussion on the focus on professional wrestler articles being cropped down has prettyu much resulted that way if we go off previous experience. –– Lid 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps we need a new page Misplaced Pages:Biographies of dead people? >Radiant< 12:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If one of the primary intents of BLP is to reduce the risk of Misplaced Pages's liability, then BLP should apply to all persons recently dead inasmuch as their estates could be an issue. Reasoning would dictate this is a number less than 100 years. It would be impossible to assign a specific number or rule as this it would be a matter for individual courts to decide. Quatloo 20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you are suggesting, we wait for the courts to decide what? When we can start to edit these articles while not under the umbrella of BLP? –– Lid 05:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying only a court can decide when an estate has standing in a libel case. Quatloo 06:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple: BLP = Biography of Living Person. If they're dead, they're not living anymore, now are they? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That would seem like the obvious position, but it seems there is some dispute over this hence this posting. –– Lid 00:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The individuals are not living but their estates are living entities, capable of filing lawsuits. Quatloo 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If BLP applies to the deceased, then the title of the BLP policy needs to be changed then.--Wizardman 03:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's unblock of VK35

I'm concerned by Jimbo's recent unblock of VK35 (talk · contribs). I became suspicious that VK35 was a sockpuppet of banned user Dereks1x (who has a considerable list of socks) a few days ago. Jimbo's explanation for the unblock was that he has "reasonable confirmation that this user is a real physician." Per the original community ban, Dereks1x was banned in part for using a confirmed sock (Doc United States), for whom he claimed medical credentials, to bolster his own arguments (i.e. Dereks1x's) at Talk:John Edwards. Doc United States was confirmed to be a sockpuppet via checkuser here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x.

In that very checkuser request, Doc United States attempted to prove that he was indeed a doctor, even uploading a photo of a medical degree and posting it in the RFCU in an attempt to demonstrate that he was a doctor and was not Dereks1x. Checkuser confirmed that Doc was a sock of Dereks1x.

The community ban discussion followed. Joining in the discussion was Atlas87, who argued that we should provide greater "legal safeguards" for banned users while also agreed to revert Doc United States' edits per WP:BAN. Atlas87 was eventually confirmed to be a Dereks1x sock as well via checkuser. Community consensus was unanimous in supporting a ban.

Several other Dereks1x socks eventually surfaced, which were accompanied by more RFCU requests in several circumstances.

Then I recently noticed VK35, who expressed a similar concern (to Atlas87) regarding Misplaced Pages's approach to banned users. Additionally, VK35 used the word "dictatorial" in describing an RFA candidate (later striken by VK35), a word that had been used by at least one other Dereks1x sock (and I believe others if memory serves) regarding administrators. Additionally, VK35 volunteered to be a checkuser clerk just a few hours after an IP check was submitted regarding Dereks1x on May 18. In fact, VK35 appeared to have a particularly acute interest in both check user and the banning policy for a brand new user. Finally, I noticed that VK35 created his account less than 2 hours after Dereks1x was indefinitely blocked.

I confirmed that I might be right to be suspicious with another user in good standing familiar with the situation off-wiki. I then e-mailed Dmcdevit, asking him to run a checkuser on VK35. Dmcdevit's e-mail response stated that though VK35 was editing from a dynamic IP range, Dereks1x was editing from the same range. He indicated that the probability of sock puppetry in this case was very likely given corroborating evidence. I blocked VK35 and began rolling back his edits at that point per WP:BAN.

Thereafter, Jimbo unblocked VK35, making the physician comment at my talk page. As I asked Jimbo, I'm curious as to why this user decided to try to prove he was a physician when it wasn't even the reason he was blocked . . . unless he was familiar with the Dereks1x situation. I am not certain whether Jimbo is aware of the user's prior attempt to claim medical credentials, though I did note it at Jimbo's talk page. I still think it is more likely than not that Dereks1x is attempting to pass false credentials, as I'm not aware of exactly what evidence Jimbo has been provided to prove VK35's credentials (given the degree photo that was provided previously, however, I doubt it has great probative value in any event). I do not completely discount the possibility that VK35 is a doctor, either. Like everyone else who was familiar with the situation at the time, I assumed Doc United States' attempt to prove his credentials was insincere, meant merely to bolster his puppet master's talk arguments. Even if the user has medical credentials, that doesn't excuse the behavior in my opinion, as sock abuse is improper regardless. The full conversation between me and Jimbo (and others) is here.

Thus, given that check user confirms that VK35 is editing from the same IP range as Dereks1x and his other socks and given the corroborating evidence, I am wary of the unblock. I think administrative input would be useful in this case. · jersyko talk 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I suspect the best thing to do is keep an eye on VK, and ring the bell if he starts getting in the same patterns as Dereks did, which does not seem to be the case right now. Although Dereks is known to be highly deceptive, I don't believe there is a reason to really worry until VK gets in trouble with pages relating to Democratic party members. Circeus 03:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I failed to mention above that VK35 had begun serving as an RFCU clerk before I blocked him. Whether that affects your opinion or not, Circeus, is obviously up to you. Thanks. · jersyko talk 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely concur with Jersyko on this. Several of us have been following the trail of Dereks1x's disruption and repeated instances of sockpuppetry, and his community ban for falsely claiming to be a doctor, and VK35's approach is strongly reminiscent of how one or another of Dereks1x's 20+ socks responded to the accusations. While VK35 has not gotten involved in the same content disputes as some of the other puppets, he has shown an unusual, and very early, interest in Jersyko (the admin who blocked and/or gave evidence against most of Dereks1x's sockpuppets), a good example of which is what would otherwise be a random AN/I discussion, except that it was VK35 coming in to comment on a false RFCU accusation that one of Dereks1x's confirmed sockpuppets made a few days ago (in defiance of his ban of course) against another editor who had participated in previous Derek SSPs and had initiated a couple of IP checks on Dereks1x suspected puppets. Even his edit summary is reminiscent of the dozens of Dereks1x's that I have read. What is the likelihood of the coincidence of an unrelated observer -VK35 - coming in out of the blue to comment on that particular AN/I thread out of the hundreds of administrative matters that are discussed every day, and then that user being erroneously confirmed by checkuser as a Dereks1x puppet as we would be led to believe? The easier answer is usually the better one - and that would be that the checkuser confirmation of independently formed suspicions about VK35 and Dereks1x was not mistaken, and they are one and the same.

And I truly do not understand why Jimbo feels that VK35's sudden claims of being a doctor - whether or not they are true - are somehow proof that he is not a puppet of Dereks1x who falsely passed himself off here as a doctor, complete with photo of a bogus diploma. I don't really find the doctor issue to be relevant - at least not in a way that it supports VK35's claim of not being Dereks1x's sock - but maybe I'm missing something.

I have written elsewhere about my concerns regarding VK35 as a checkuser clerk - he volunteered for the job a few hours after one of Dereks1x's new socks was listed for an IP check. I see that as a result of the unblock VK35 has been reinstated in this role and I again say that if he is a sock evading a ban, one that has undergone numerous IP checks and checkusers, having him on the inside of that process to glean whatever insights there might be about the checkuser process is a matter of concern, and I would urge that there be more oversight on the selection process, even if there are no privacy ramifications.

Finally - this description by VK35 captures what Dereks1x did when he created User: Atlas87 when he was undergoing an SSP. Atlas87, a few days after being created, came into the discussion about Dereks1x's community ban and was soon revealed to be another sock. Is VK35's description another coincidence?

I completely share Jersyko's conclusion that VK35 is another Dereks1x account, and I am disturbed that the checkuser that confirmed it is being disregarded here. I strongly encourage adminstrative input on this unblock as well, as I would like to understand this. Tvoz |talk 06:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want to unleash Dereks1x's "editing style" upon Misplaced Pages again, but based upon Jimbo's confirmation of his medical credentials should the community ban be revisited? A stroll through the community ban discussion indicates that some of those voting in favor of the ban did so because they thought the credentials were false in addition to his use of socks to support his viewpoint. If the community banned him for just the sockpuppet use, then Jimbo's reasoning for unblocking VK35 would be moot and this latest account could be sent back into blocked-land.--Bobblehead 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like most people wanted him banned for the false credentials. Funpika 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

GordonWatts

I blocked GordonWatts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for egregious WP:POINT violation. If anyone can find a productive edit since his last block expired they are welcome to look, I can't find one but then I didn't look to hard because what limited patience I have with him expired some time ago. Enough already, I'd say. He is, in his own opinion, always right, and will continue to explain why in excruciating detail until you lose interest or die of old age. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to see the discussion on Gordon over on ANI or CSN, Guy. CSN, especially might be a moot point now. SirFozzie 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Friday has just re-blocked him, I think he can be considered banned unless somebody unblocks him. I certainly won't. Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nor me. Endorse Friday's judgement on the block. Daniel 08:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ganging up

I hope an administrator can handle this situation: I left this original message on admin User talk:Jayjg - ganging up a few days ago. It looks to me as though there are several editors ganging up against one Bus stop - here http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_notable_converts_to_Judaism and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity, can you look into it? Modernist 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:JJay seems particularly vindictive against User:Bus stop. Thanks Modernist 11:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Each day the situation appears to be getting; is getting worse, there and on other pages like Talk:Bob Dylan. User:Cleo123 has attempted to help User:Bus stop, but the abuse by John Carter, JJay, Logan, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, and several others continues. I think an administrator should intervene, as a somewhat outside observer it looks ugly to me. Kind of like a hornets nest. Is there anything you can do? Modernist 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I'm mentioned along with the editors above, I'd hope you'd articulate the full reasoning behind your accusations, and moreso those reasons concerning my own involvement in 'ganging up' on Bus stop. Bus stop has never allowed the possibility that the editors who disagree with him might actually be arguing behind a point of reason- he appears to have always assumed that such editors (myself included) have been operating from behind a heavy bias. He often makes accusations which, I believe, are quite libelous and without support. Every opposing suggestion and personal defense of character made by the accused editors have been dismissed by him, and it seems that he refuses to believe that any other editor is operating for neutral reasons, preferring instead to see the motivations behind the editors involved as "proselytizing for Christianity", "winning a victory over a Jew", and 'warping' the article (which has had the same parameters since its creation, apparently) to "capture Bob Dylan on the list" (and it should be noted that Dylan has been listed on the article since the article's creation.) Thankfully, Cleo has tried to discourage him of such behavior, but I've seen no change as of yet. The discussion, which should have ended long ago, has persisted for... I believe it's been exactly a month now. Now, as a form of compromise has been proposed by Cleo, myself and John Carter (although we all seem to disagree on the specifics of it), you would think the discussion might cool down a bit. Well, I've yet to see it, but I have my fingers crossed.

Also, it should be noted that there's been no conflict, as far as I know of, on the List of notable converts to Judaism. The only real involvement of the editors mention was Bus stop's unwarranted(?) removal of a 'citation needed' tag (referring to the claim that 'Judaism is not a proselytizing religion', which is challenged by recent proselytizing efforts made by some branches of Judaism), and JJay's restoration of the tag with an explanation.

It would seem that Bus stop's own perception of a 'gang mentality' in the opposing editors is based more on the perception of one who holds a minority opinion being faced by a strong majority than in any actual 'ganging up', although I haven't thoroughly observed the behavior of the other editors involved, so I can't defend them. However, in regard to the route taken by the discussion, it would seem that Bus stop prefers to mold the discussion to work around whatever argument works best for his ultimate goal of removing Dylan from the list. Note the escalating demand for quality of sources, which peaks at the point where Bus stop rejected (and still rejects) 3 published biographies (reliable in accordance to WP:BLP standards), the Encyclopedia Britannica, the New York Times, and a Jewish Newsletter's study of Dylan's faith (at one point, baptism records were suggested to be 'sufficient'- a strange suggestion, considering that many Christians do not find baptism to be a necessary step in conversion. Additionally, if we begin to require baptismal records for conversions, many actual converts to Christianity would not make the list because of the difficulty in finding such sources, or because of the non-existence of such records in the first place). After the sources became generally accepted, he switched the argument to one regarding the merits for inclusion- and this is the point where personal attacks against the motivations of editors opposed to him intensified. I can't claim innocence in action for any editor involved, but Bus stop is not a defenseless individual, and he has committed equal, if not greater, errors in comparison to the other editors involved. Therefore, concerning this issue, one should keep that in mind before vilifying any single side in the discussion. --C.Logan 15:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to second everything Modernist has said. I've been keeping watch over there, and, although the subject falls outside my own area of knowledge, there does seem to be a great deal of hostility and bad faith editing going on against Bus stop. Freshacconci 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please follow WP:DR or bring up on WP:AN. Tyrenius 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am hoping this can all be amiably and reasonably worked out, so they can all edit articles in peace and with quality. Thank you, Modernist 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I’ve watched this issue since coming across it some time ago (it’s rather hard to miss), but have avoided becoming involved due lack of time and the apparent futility of engaging in it. From my perspective, the putative “ganging up” is more a result more of exasperation over Bus stop’s persistent pointism, as he makes clear in various places. Cf. Bob Dylan shouldn't be on List of converts to Christianity and You do not put a Jew on a list of Christians for clear expositions by Bus stop of his or her position on the issue. While the advisability of having “Lists of notable converts to XYZ” on Misplaced Pages may be readily debatable, it is a historical fact – according to Bob Dylan’s own testimony – that he at one time became an evangelical Christian. It is likewise “reliably reported” (in the Misplaced Pages sense) that he has more recently participated in Jewish worship practices, and later since that Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion. None of this changes his Jewish ethnicity, but since Mr. Dylan has always been rather private about his personal religious beliefs, it’s unclear what his current religious preferences may actually be at this time. The status of the “Jewishness” of ethnic Jews who are non-observant or apostate (or formerly apostate) is a controversial issue in Judaism, so it is unhelpful for someone to arbitrarily conflate them in Misplaced Pages – least of all simply to preserve a “body count.” It seems to me in any case, that Bus stop’s chief complaint would be better addressed on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) as to whether or not “Lists of converts” are properly encyclopedic, and if not, deprecated as such. However personally offensive he may find the issue to be, trying to unilaterally enforce his objections on a single such list can only be disruptive over the long run without there being a consensus to support it. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You've made some very good observations. I don't want to go into both sides of the argument here, but it seems like Bus stop is motivated by personal offense and unwarranted assumptions about why opposing editors are opposing him, while I, at least, am more concerned with transmitting information that is relevant to the article at hand in an un-conflicting way, and fighting censorship on Misplaced Pages. Bus stop has a legitimate point buried somewhere in the accusations, assumptions and dramatic language, but it's become too integrated to analyze one element without the other. --C.Logan 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My monobook

Could an admin please blank my monobook.js page please? I'm user:GrooveDog, and I accidentily put a script on it that won't let me log in.GrooveCat 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I looked (via WP:RPP) and the page is already blank! - Alison ☺ 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I blanked it and then realized GrooveDog had already been working on it; apologies. Chick Bowen 00:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

User: Blehhhahaha!! appears to be a vandalism-only account. I have reverted all his edits. --Eastlaw 04:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, but please see WP:AIV next time. — MichaelLinnear 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul series of articles needs an admin to adopt them

We could use an admin or two to watch over the Ron Paul article and its associated articles - the main article is semi protected, but we have people new to wikipedia who don't get all the nuances - like 3RR, edit summaries, NPOV, consensus - and I think some administrative oversight would help. A few people have tried to flesh out the article and keep it neutral, but as a presidential candidate article there are some very partisan people over there and it's getting tedious. So - does anyone like politics? Thanks (I wasn't sure where to post this - let me know if there's another more appropriate place.)Tvoz |talk 09:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of 69.134.117.202

Hope I'm not taking up space just an FYI that when 69.134.117.202 was blocked I was on this IP and I am confident it did not happen in my building. Is this a shared IP? Thanks for the help! --Trumpetband 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For abusive sockpuppetry involving the accounts Audiovideo, Facethefacts, and SE16, the administrator privileges of Henrygb are revoked. He may reapply at any time, either a) by appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or b) after giving notice to the committee to allow verification that no further abusive sockpuppetry has occurred, by reapplying via the usual means. Henrygb shall edit Misplaced Pages from only a single account. Henrygb is banned until he responds to the Arbitration Committee's concerns on this matter. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. That kind of jumped ahead of the line, didn't it? I suppose it was a relatively straightforward case then. hbdragon88 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Line"? There's no particular order in which we handle cases. --jpgordon 23:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, wrong word. I was surprised to see this case be closed so quickly based on the usual length of cases. hbdragon88 01:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Some cases are way easier than others. --jpgordon 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cowboy Rocco's block

Cowboy Rocco has been constantly calling me and asking me to request his block extension be reviewed. He asked me to tell you all that he was "unjustly blocked" because the unblock template should be removed because it said

"This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer."

at the bottom so please review his request so he will shut up and get back to acting normal when he talks at school. --Kkrouni 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like Raul654 (talk · contribs) was the blocking administrator, probably acting as a checkuser. Have you discussed the block with him? Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well kind of... I don't think that he thought that he was trying to cover up his sockpuppetry incident. He even wrote in his edit summary's that he was trying to obey the template. --Kkrouni 00:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

CoybowRocco was a large-scale sockpuppeteer. I caught and blocked dozens of his sockpuppets. (Note - Kkrouni is one of them who I have, against my better judgement, decided to allow to continue editing.) When I made a note of this on his talk page, he tried to remove it. Raul654 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I swear to GOD that we are two different people! We have known each other since the third grade!--Kkrouni 01:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, where do I remember this name? Oh yeah, Susan Walton's RfA, who has been blocked as a sock. Note that I typed the first half of that, then checked the userpage fully expecting to see the sock tag. No alarms and no surprises, move along folks there is nothing to see here. Teke 03:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Supplemental reading, in case you can't just move along: Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Cowboy Rocco. Checkuser cleaning. Teke 03:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but Raul blocked him for a month for sockpuppetry, and added two months for that template. I don't see how removing a template that says "remove me" warrants an extension of a block. --Kkrouni 11:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Monobook JS (Again)

For the third, yes, the third time, I have messed up my monobook (My memory of bad scripts is horrible). Could an admin please blank "GrooveDog"'s JS? Thanks. GrooveCat 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done --Deskana (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't know, you can disable javascript in your browser and revert yourself, unless something is blocking changing the settings. Prodego 02:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remember that in the future when I messup again. :) GrooveCat 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem at Dennis Kucinich

I have been contacted by e-mail by Aivazovsky (talk · contribs) (formerly User:Clevelander), who said he didn't want to have the articles Mayoral administration of Dennis Kucinich and Cleveland recall election, 1978 available to the general public anymore but wanted to keep them for personal use. He asked whether I could delete these articles, which I declined.

• Aivazovsky has redirected both articles to Dennis Kucinich and replaced the link there with a summary account.
• Aivazovsky is not the sole editor on these articles.
• By publishing these texts, Aivazovsky has put them under the GFDL, a non-revocable free license.
• The GFDL allows Aivazovsky to use his contributions to these articles elsewhere, too (for instance, for publication in some journal), though if doing so, it would probably be a good idea to state that the text has been published on Misplaced Pages already, which in practice may mean that it could be hard to get the text accepted at a journal.
• I have not checked whether there is a potential WP:BLP or WP:COATRACK issue here.

I'd like to see more input on this case, from Aivazovsky and from others. My initial reaction was to un-redirect both articles and undo the changes made at Dennis Kucinich. What do you think? Lupo 06:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If he put his work up on Misplaced Pages then he agreed to release it under the GFDL, it's no longer his place to say what can or cannot be done with the work. Ben W Bell talk 06:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The combination of your 2nd and 3rd points - that he's not the sole editor and every edit screen explicitly states that you agree to license under GFDL - seems to me makes this an open-and-shut case. In fact, even if he was the sole editor it wouldn't matter. (If he wants to get an article on the topic published in a journal, then he'll just have to write a new one if he can't separate out his own words from the words of other editors here. This isn't our problem.) As for the redirects - unless the material in the main article completely encompasses the material in the redirected articles, which I doubt, I think the redirects should be removed and the articles reinstated. Tvoz |talk 07:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:CSD#G7, if not for the second point - he would have the right that the article be deleted. Od Mishehu 07:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben restored one article and I restored the other. We should talk about controversial mergers before doing them. Jehochman / _✔ 07:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The one I restored I did as it covered a lot more detail and was a specific article not solely pertaining to Dennis Kucinch and didn't deserve to be redirected to the later. The other one I left as I was a bit more unsure over that one as a lot of the info has been recently incorporated into the later page. Ben W Bell talk 07:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The mayoral article can not be covered by CSD G7 as he is not the author of the article, and thus him redirecting it makes it even odder, while the second article which he did author does not relate solely to Dennis Kucinich making the redirect unfeasible. In both cases the articles should remain as sngle entities. –– Lid 07:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me anymore. I'll just rephrase myself if I decide to use this information. -- Aivazovsky 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No need, you can use it exactly as-is, provided you either include the text you submitted, verbatim, or attribute the text you take, to Misplaced Pages. Releasing under GFDL absolutely does not preclude publication elsewhere under other licenses. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting proponent

I've come across a user who is trying to improve Misplaced Pages. Good I hear you say, normally I'd agree with you and they are acting in good faith. Unfortunately the User:Mathiastck has just discovered the #Redirect command and the meta soft redirect and is setting up many redirects. Some of them are fine, don't get me wrong, but some are just bad going to double and sometimes triple redirects, and also creating redirects to end articles that really aren't directly relevant to the initial redirects. I've tried mentioning some words to the user and they are truely acting in good faith, but it's becoming a bit of a frustrating exercise. Can anyone else have a look and put forward their views as maybe I am being a bit hard here. Ben W Bell talk 07:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it and try to discuss the issue with them. Vassyana 08:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with your view, and you are warning him appropriately. Redirects aren't bad, and there's nothing wrong with being inclusionist, but creating too many irrelevant redirect pages and causing double or more redirects becomes a problem. I'm sure those edits are done in good faith, but he's pushing it a little bit. After all, there are other ways to improve the encyclopedia, such as adding content to articles and sourcing. Sr13 08:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

I've copied over the commons version of this article because it's more complete than our version. Unfortunately there are a few differences when viewed side by side (mainly encyclopedic tone and formatting). I'm going to integrate the versions later, but I have to go to work. If somebody else wants to take crack at it in the next 12 hours, they are welcome to. -N 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh. Look, the commons page is not for nothing in the "Commons:" namespace. Would you ever had the idea to take a "Misplaced Pages:" namespace policy or guideline and copy it to article space? Probably not. This will need a lot of work if it is to become an article. In particular, the whole list of countries should go and be replaced by a link to the page on the Commons. Lupo 10:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert if you want, the version we had before was virtually identical, except for a few sentences. You do bring up a valid point though, maybe this is in the wrong namespace. Anyhow I'm off. Cheers. -N 11:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous version was also copied from the Commons... Lupo 11:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention

Could we get more admins to watchlist and patrol Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention? It's getting quite a bit of activity (especially from the bot) and yet reports are sitting for more than 2 hours at times. It's a pretty straightforward board. Just need some assistance. Thanks. --Woohookitty 11:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Uncle G has made a thoughtful and wlel-reaosned suggestion for WP:BLP to clarify what we should do in the problematic cases where all the sources on an individual refer to a single incident. I added this to WP:BLP because it seemed to me to make good sense, but needless to say a brief revert war ensued. I encourage people to review Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#The new section people are putting in and pitch into the debate. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards