Misplaced Pages

Actually I just removed that entry since the poll has clearly been withdrawn to userspace and the originator has made it plain that he does not want any further work on it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Copy and paste move

Could somebody move the history of Welsh Assembly Election 2007 to Welsh Assembly Election, 2007. Thanks, sjorford →•← 12:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Similarly, could somebody move the history of now-deleted Misplaced Pages talk:Schools/Deletion_principles_poll to User_talk:Neutrality/Survey? Radiant_* 13:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Could someone move Al Khobar to Khobar. -- Eagle 18:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean create a redirect? Done. Radiant_* 07:13, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Page with history but no text

Paul Underwood exists as an article, but the text is missing from the database. This might have happened because it was speedy deleted and edited at the same time (17:14, 26 May 2005). The missing revision probably does exist but is deleted; could an administrator take a look at the top deleted revision and check if it's worth restoring? (The original speedied content was 'paul underwood' according to the deletion log). --cesarb 01:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• All the page said was Paul Underwood. I have deleted it propperly now.--nixie 01:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleting WoW and WiC

I am intending to propose the deletion of Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress/Willy on Wheels and Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress/Wikipedia is Communism. I have made my proposal entry on User:Sjakkalle/WoWVFD, but will wait for a bit more input. I am worried that if such a VfD fails, it will be adding another trophy to these vandals' already too big collection. Sjakkalle 07:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have now listed the page on VFD. Sjakkalle 08:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• And I'm afraid it makes tracking them harder. Is there an alternative method in place for that yet? Mgm| 22:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism

As an experiment, I've created Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism ("WP:AIV") as an attempt at a slimmed-down version of WP:ViP for getting quick administrator intervention against vandals. The problem that caused me try this is that on the whole, administrators rarely read WP:VIP, and it regularly grows so large that it's a major hassle to add things to. I hope that with a simple, archive-cruft free page the reporting of vandals and the handling of those reports will be easier for both reporters and vandals. Admins: Please add Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism to your watchlist and check it regularly. I think that with a simple interface, and given that we have nearly 500 administrators, we should be able to get the latency between reporting of vandals and blocking (when necessary) down to 10-15 minutes, which would be a huge improvement over the current state of affairs. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. (The brief discussion that led to this on WP:VP is WP:VPM#Is_ViP_working.3F here) --W(t) 06:03, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we add at least some info on what the vandal did? Finding the offending edit may otherwise be quite hard. Not as wordy as VIP. A few words should suffice. For example: "George W. Bush blanked repeatedly". Mgm| 10:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm beginning to realise that I might have slimmed it down a little too much. Updated to allow for a brief reason to be added (without that nonsense-spammers that got speedy deleted were rather incomprehensible too).

  For some reason the vandals are on their best behaviour today, so no test run yet :( --W(t) 16:41, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin

Just boasting, really; if you're not on this list, you're surely doing something wrong. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• The page looks like a provocation to me, but I'm not sure I really understand the dispute between Mel Etitis and Sam Spade, so I might not be in a position to comment on this. Isn't this redundant with the RfC page, though? Combined with the "Detective agency" thing, it makes me wish an important user like Sam Spade settled his issues in the open, instead of making private pages to "investigate" and amass "evidence" against other users. Phils 22:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  The page looks like the response of the provoked, had those in dispute with Sam Spade refrained from continuing to involve themselves with him and refused to escilate the argument, we wouldn't be in this state now. Sam's page is open, and he seems to be making ..too much of an effort to spread its popularity. I'd say we should encourage him to file RFCs but it seems that he already says he will be. --Gmaxwell 23:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats the whole point, I am trying to be out in the open about what I'm doing. An RfC is forthcoming, of course. I am in the information gathering stage. Click here to report admin abuse 22:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sam_Spade. Click here to report admin abuse 23:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I've now reported Sam Spade's abuse of administrators on his page. If any administrators are feeling abused by him you may wish to click above to report the admin abuse. 00:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats exactly the sort of laugh-in-your-face attitude we need less of among admins. Sam Spade 01:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• My appologies Sam, I didn't intend it as anything personal (a personal attack, or a joke against you or anything of the sort). Obviously my attempt at being light-hearted didn't come off as intended. Thryduulf 10:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Some might see this latest venture SS as something of an advance. After all, it's not long since he was thrashing around, threatening legal action because one of his private e-mails was made public by another editor, and now he's making public a whole string of mine. It shows that, contrary to all beliefs, he's actually capable of learning. Of course, in this case, the learning seems to have been somewhat faulty, but you can't have everything. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin/Mel Etitis Email. I had intended to ask your permission, but after you posted an excerpt, I thought that was good enough as a precedent. Sam Spade 10:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh my. This is laughable. Of all WP users, Sam Spade should be stopped acting as if he was some authority. -- 790 15:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It also conflates quoting one sentence from an e-mail with reproducing a series of e-mails in their entirety. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apologies. Sam Spade 23:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

User and article talkpage abuse?

I don't think this is quite in the remit of an RfC yet, but I have noticed a user (I use the term as there don't seem to be (m)any article edits as opposed to lots of talk page edits) making comments and then some minutes later deleting those comments. They have not replied to myself or others on their talk page, indeed they requested their talk page to be deleted. Sometimes the added/deleted edit is a fair comment to the discussion, many times it is not, including occasions where another editor has replied to their comment after which they have deleted that leaving the follow-on comment without a context. I haven't reverted (ie re-inserted) these edits as yet but would seek comments from others first ... --Vamp:Willow 11:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Who is the user, Vamp Willow? SlimVirgin 19:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping to review the matter without specifying, but User:R Sio. Sample comment removals at , , , , , . In the final one removing their own attribution but leave the comment, in the rest they remove the lot. --Vamp:Willow 20:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Weird. Here he is deleting his signature from posts , ,

He should definitely be approached about it. By the way, this report probably belongs on WP:AN/I. SlimVirgin 21:07, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments here and here. It's me, just not putting tildes.

ok. so your/this user's intent is to "withdraw from wikipedia"a dn is removing all still-visible comments and attributions. In many ways this is why I was trying to keep this in the non-identifiable realm in that posing the question "Is a 'live' talk page mandatory for becoming a registered user?". In this particular case, of course, the removal of what is visible does not remove any of the comments nor attributions from the database and all can easily be located from the history of those pages, indeed it could be argued that removing them actually makes them more obvious as there will be two edits in the history not the one. Generally speaking though, it must be inherently wrong in the nature of a collaborative effort to subsequently remove ones comments and input, especially where someone else has responded to those comments or input. --Vamp:Willow 09:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted where the user removed votes he had cast on matters that have already been closed (VfDs, for example). I left a note on his talk page and suggested that in those cases, he replace his signature in the vote with , but leave the date and time stamp intact. I agree that the extra edits call more attention to his disappearance, but remember that this applies only on Misplaced Pages. Our content, often including user and talk pages, is mirrored by a large number of websites. Removing his signature will create a higher profile here on Misplaced Pages, but greatly reduce the overall profile. SWAdair | Talk 10:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleting comments and signatures can affect the readability of surrounding discussion. Anyone has the right to remove their email address from WIkipedia and their userpage in case they want to leave, but comments - once made - should remain to protect the validity of the discussion they were posted in. If everyone does this, some discussions just really wouldn't make sense anymore. Mgm| 22:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I'd say comments already made on talk pages are not part of RightToVanish. If you want to remove them don't make them in the first place. - Taxman 23:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Don't Panic - Palm Browser optimized Misplaced Pages!

Seeing as this glorious compendium is rapidly becoming a standard repository for all knowledge and wisdom, it seems that the ability to access it easily from any connected browser would be te most vastly useful contribution to society since the towel. For the most part the current site does the job, but what if you're on a Treo or WiFi enabled PDA? These are the hoopiest gadgets since the digital watch, and using them to access a PDA browser optimized Misplaced Pages would make them the closest thing to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy since, well, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy! Any chance of the collective Misplaced Pages community being a squeaky enough wheel in the MediaWiki dev group to make this happen? I should think there's some crossover in the dev community between these two projects...

For that matter, I also feel that it would be only appropriate to post the words "Don't Panic" in large friendly letters on the splash page of this site, but that's another matter... Ganjuror 23:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, and my wife was just commenting on how writing for WP sounded a lot like writing for HHGG. Perhaps all that's really needed here is a minimal stylesheet that would suppress most of the links on the left in the standard stylesheet. I'm not up enough on writing css to do it myself. slambo 23:55, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I sometimes browse Misplaced Pages (and occasionally edit it) on my wireless-enabled iPaq and find all but a few pages render adequately on my 480x640 screen (those that don't are the very graphic-intensive ones, which cause memory corruptions in Internet Explorer). For non-wireless PDAs, or for those with smaller screens, there is a downloadable version of Misplaced Pages in TomeRaider format, available at Misplaced Pages:TomeRaider database. TomeRaider isn't free software, but there is a crippled version available. The main drawback is that the Misplaced Pages database is rather large, and you'll need a substantial memory card to hold it.-gadfium 00:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Main Page maintenance: ITN

Greetings, Administrators. I was directed here from Talk:Main Page#admin help needed for news section. Please be encouraged to put Misplaced Pages:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates on your watchlist, as User:Trilobite has suggested. Your attention there would be much appreciated. Not everyone can edit Misplaced Pages:In the news, YOU can. Please help keep the Main Page neat and tidy and up-to-date. Thank you. -- 199.71.174.100 02:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads up. On my watchlist now. Phils 19:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Official Request for Study between the correlation of admins and freenode#wikipedia

I just voted on User:Linuxbeak's RfA. I hd a comment to make:

Comment: On principle, I will refuse to vote on any more RfAs until a formal study has been conducted between the correlation of the people hanging out in IRC://Freenode.net/#wikipedia and the people RfA'd in the past 12 months.

This is an official request for a study to determine how many regulars in #wikipedia have been RfA'd in the pas 12 months. My hypothesis (which can be either true or false0 is that there's a number of popele who get rfa'd mostly because they are regulars in #wikipedia, and not based on their meritocrasy status, as a free software project should be.

Project2501a 01:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To all: I hang around on the wikipedia channel on Freenode ( irc.freenode.net , channel #wikipedia for those interested in joining) during the 6-8 months since I got a user account. I have noticed that people who hang around the IRC channel tend to get adminship easier than anybody else. mind you: this is an objection against the the process of RfA, not the people, not the channel and not the admins. Free (as in liberty) software projects hold esteem because of the meritocrasy status of the project and not on a who-knows-the-people-that-know-the-people status. In all cases, (I, for one, welcome our beer-drinking, beard-growing, long-hair-growing, computer-programming geek overlords! oh, wait, i am one.)

Philis: I've been known to be handy with a compiler/interpreter or two. BUT

: I just read WP:POINT (which i didn't know existed before) and, well, yeah, insert( long foot, wide mouth ) and let Eris do her job. Thank you all for replying though. I apologise for any inconvience i may have caused you. :) Project2501a 10:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand; are you asking for advice on how to conduct the study or are you saying you want someone to conduct a study for you? I don't really know how IRC works. If there are logs, you can go through those; if not, you'll have to spend time there and take notes (and it'd have to be a prospective, not retroactive, study). You'll also have to come up with some criteria for determining who is a regular and who isn't. Also, as this isn't a randomized, controlled study, even if you were to find a correlation it wouldn't imply causation. It could be that people who spend a lot of time on Misplaced Pages, get to know other contributors, and enjoy working with others are the kinds of people who spend time on IRC and who also make good administrators. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I may be in the minority here, but I was made an admin in the last 12 months, and I haven't a clue what this Freenode thing is. Perhaps that means I'm not part of the secret cabal after all... Grutness.

..wha? 06:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • You and me both, Grutness...I don't even know how to use IRC (and I became an administrator a few months ago). — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You two are not alone. I'm very likely to become an adminsitrator in the next few days, and I've not got a clue about the IRC stuff (and I'm not on the mailing lists either - I simply don't have enough time to read them). Thryduulf 07:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm number four on this list of the ignorant/innocent. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:53, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • Number five. We're half way to a minyan (I'm making assumptions about ages here, of course). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Number six, so long as we're not Orthodox, because then I wouldn't count. SlimVirgin 09:11, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm number seven then. also, I think it's perfectly normal you tend to vote for people you know and like, regardless if you know them from talkpages, irc, or meatspace. so, duh. I'll look at the study, though, for curiosity's sake. dab (ᛏ) 10:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I pop into IRC from time to time, (the Netscape browser makes this very easy), as do a lot of regular users. Indeed, sometimes I think there are more Misplaced Pages vandals on the channel than there are admins. ;-) func(talk) 07:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I must be fairly unusual in that I do know about the IRC channel, but in the nearly 2 years I've been an admin I've rarely used it - usually only when the 'pedia's fallen over and I want to find out how long it's going to take to come back... oh, and there was the time a few months ago when a user in Belgrade and I kept up a live conversation on that night's UEFA Cup matches, which no doubt confused many followers of the odd-shaped ball in the west! :) -- Arwel 00:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I suppose the easiest thing to do would be to visit Misplaced Pages:Recently created admins, make a list of them, and ask all of them on their talk page whether they frequent IRC or not. Radiant_* 08:29, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• If you have moderate programming skills, and time and a minimum of bandwidth to waste, you could write a script that checks wether newly created admins were on freenode during a set period of time before their promotion. Once you have that basic functionality (you could probably do a lot of cut&paste job, since there is so much IRC scripting code available around), you could easily extend it to count the number of votes and compare it with time spent on IRC, etc. However, that would probably be overkill. As for myself, I had been on the IRC channel a grand total of 20minutes or so before I was made an admin, so I don't think it made a difference. Phils 09:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I've visited wikipedia on IRC only 3 or 4 times since becoming an admin, so I'd also be on the list of the ignorant. Anyway, don't most IRC-names not correspond to wikipedia usernames? I can remember asking people who they were on wikipedia, because I didn't recognize their names. Mgm| 22:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm on IRC somewhat regularly, generally for short periods of time, but almost entirely after I became an admin (last October). This will give you some idea of the most active IRC-ers. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 03:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm sure there's correlation between IRC regulars and people who become admins, but it's not a terribly big deal. People vote for people they know and trust, and IRC is one place where you might get to know and trust someone. As for me, I've been an admin for well over a year, and have never used IRC. Isomorphic 03:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "People vote for people they know and trust". I don't vote for people whose names I don't recognise. As they and I are active in different places, I have no idea whether or not they would make a good admin or not. For example I viewed the Saw article for the first time yesterday, and in the entire history the only name that I've seen anywhere on Misplaced Pages before is RickK whose only contribution was a disambig link to Saw (movie) which he presumably worked on. Whether any of the other editors there would make good admins I wouldn't have a clue. Thryduulf 08:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some newbie admin questions

• How can you tell the difference between a page protected against editing and a page protected against page moves only? The clues of "view source" versus "edit this page" and the disappearance of the move button don't appear on the admin interface, and the logs don't help either. (In particular, WP:TFD seems to be protected against page moves only, but I only know it because the log says the protection is old and I've seen it being edited recently.)
  • Good point. I don't think there is one yet for admins. The separation of protection between the article itself and just moving it is fairly new I think. (I don't do a lot of page protections). Your option now is to log out, and if the move option is not there, but non admins can still edit the article, then it is only protected from page moves. :) You are correct, that is the case with TFD for ex. The protection from moves only is a good idea though, and I'd think a large amount of pages in the Misplaced Pages space such as FAC, etc. should have that. There is no reason to move those. - Taxman 14:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think a "protected against page moves" note at the top of pages so protected would be a good idea. Do others think it worth a feature request or not? Thryduulf 11:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes certainly, non admins can tell if a page is protected from moves, we should be able to also. But it wouldn't need to be that much of a note. Even a simple (p) next to the move tab would be enough to let you know it was protected from moves. So the move tab would appear as move (p) instead. The same could be done for editing, to make it really clear what is protected and what is not. - Taxman 15:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• How can you view the wiki markup source for a deleted revision? (In particular, I wanted to see the markup source of Template:Tooinnocent to add it to BJAODN, as I found it really funny.) --cesarb 00:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Look for the link at the top that says "View or restore 4 deleted edits?" in small text. Unless you click on the restore button, you can look at old versions just like any other history without causing the article to be restored. - Taxman 14:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I know that, but it does not show the source, it shows the rendered output. --cesarb 15:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

      You could restore it, copy the code and then delete it. This link is Broken 21:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

      • Ah, yes you're right, sorry. For the few times it would be needed to see a deleted page's source, BrokenSegue's method seems fine to me, as you have done, I see. - Taxman 15:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck is now closed. The account "User:LevelCheck is to be blocked indefinitely as a disruptive potential sockpuppet. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 22:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm trying to not let this bother me too much, but A) the behavior I see looks pretty harmless and B) I don't see how you can distinguish a sockpuppet from a quick learner without technical evidence. I don't understand how a ruling like this does any good at all. Everyking 14:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What part of the concept of "disruptive" do you not understand? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, how many potentially "disruptive" people are there on Misplaced Pages, really? By that logic we would be permablocking 500 users a day. Phils 21:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drink! --Calton | Talk 21:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree I have a tough time with that concept. I don't consider it a simple thing. A person can be disruptive, but there are varying degrees of it, and moreover one might have some good work to one's credit which outweighs it. For example, Calton's frequent snide and insulting comments on various matters could be considered disruptive, but I don't think that alone is sufficient to ban him. Everyking 22:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calton's frequent snide and insulting comments See Psychological projection. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, you use that insult a lot. Everyking 11:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Snarkiness and smartassedness per se are not disruption -- they are, rather, annoyance. Disruption is when snarkiness and smartassedness (not to mention malice) pour over into the mainspace. It's pretty easy for most people to make the distinction. Those people that can't learn the distinction or refuse to make the distinction are the ones that are made officially unwelcome. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess that means I'm marked. Uh-oh! Everyking 07:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:-Ril-

I'm not sure what this behaviour counts as. I noticed yesterday, while going through the Speedy deletes list, that -Ril- (talk · contribs) had tagged a large number of articles as speedies, for no obvious or very good reason. I brought this to his attention, but had to stop editing for the night after dealing with only a few (I have a horrible feeling that many other articles were speedied by someone else who didn't look too closely at them, because I'm the only one who's warned him about it). To one of the articles, Capnography, he'd also added a "PoV" template, again for no obvious reason (it's a medical article, and his user page suggests that he has no medical knowledge). He gave no explanation, not even an edit summary. He's since re-added the PoV template three times, despite my pointing out that he has (or has given) no reason. I've looked up, and placed on his Talk page, a link to a search page at the American Society of Anethesiologists Web site, on which capnography is mentioned in numerous places, and I'm hoping that he'll give up.

Even if he does, I'm wondering what this behaviour counts as (officially, I mean; I know what it counts as in the vernacular...). I've described it to him as getting close to vandalism, but is that a fair description, or is there some other neat and tidy term for it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Ril was User:Lir. This one probably is, too. RickK 23:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's still adding "speedy" tags to non-speedyable articles. I have to stop editing for a while now, otherwsie I'd try to rein him in myself. It sounds as though a permanent block is in order, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's made several hundred edits in the last couple of days. He's starting to worry me ... Where do we ask for IP checks? RickK 23:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• User:David Gerard and User:Tim Starling may be able to help you there. Radiant_* 13:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Have these been articles that no reasonable person would ever want deleted, or are they more like standard VfD candidates that some people could legitimately think should be deleted? Of course either way excessive tagging like that is unacceptable, but I think the former is outright vandalism while the latter is more like borderline obnoxious behavior. Everyking 14:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're a mixture; they include Collegium Aureum and Dancing on the Ceiling, for example, as well as Capnography. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I asked David Gerard to check IP addresses, and he has come to the conlusion that this user is not Lir. RickK 04:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Fine — though he's still a menace. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm also not very happy with ], nor with his signature. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:OnwardToGolgotha

This user needs some attention for vandalism and extremely offensive stuff. Thanks for your consideration. KHM03 00:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• See WP:AN/I. Mgm| 10:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

error in current anniversaries page for June 3

In the selected anniversaries page for June 3, in the entry about the first long-distance power line, there is an extra e in the word "between". Would someone with administrative access be able to fix that? The page appears to be protected. Graham 08:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) That has been fixed. Now the pedant in me wants to change the word 'to' in the line: between Willamette Falls to downtown Portland, Oregon, to an and. Maybe i'm crazy, but ... Graham 11:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Backlogs

Please take a look at Category:Misplaced Pages backlog; this is intended to list areas that require admin attention for cleaning up a backlog, such as WP:VIP presently. Radiant_* 13:58, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

IP blocks and User accounts

Under what circumstances do editing blocks on IP addresses affect users who have accounts, and try to log in? I'd understood that opening an account meant that you weren't affected by IP-address blocks, but it seems that that's not always the case (my recent block of 207.35.188.13 (talk · contribs) stopped Seahen (talk · contribs) from being able to edit). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, IP blocks also block user accounts from that IP. See Bugzilla Bug 550 for the wish to change this behaviour to just block account creation from blocked IPs. andy 10:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This needs to be made better known, I think, as I've seen many editors telling anon users of blocked IP-addresses that they can avoid being blocked by opening an account, and I've followed suit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi all; please be on the lookout for changes in the wikipedia sandbox. We've got a bunch of spammers advertising this site called "matchstickcats.com". After the phrase was banned in Wikimedia, the spammers started pushing another site which is directly connected to matchstickcats. Just be on the lookout; that's all. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 04:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hey everyone, just to let you know that we've got a spinoff called newsburp.com. If you go to the site, it says itself that it's a spinoff from matchstickcats.com. I think we're getting the problem under control, but I'll keep a tally here of how many times these sites are mentioned. Cheers! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 10:56, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

User: Mr Tan

I'd be very grateful if someone could explain to Mr Tan (talk · contribs) that it's not acceptable to place the "cleanup" template on Zanskar on the grounds that he thinks that it should be organised differently, and that it contains (unspecified, and so far as I can see nonexistent) grammatical errors. He won't listen to me – in fact, he won't listen to anybody – and I know that a few admins have already tangled with him and beat a hasty and sensible retreat, but who knows, someone might do what everyone else has failed to (see also the RfC on him).

I've asked three members of the arbcom if they think that a request for arbitration would be suitable, but none of them has responded. I may have to go that route, and perhaps my reluctance is silly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: I think that Mel meant this RFC. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks — yes, I've corrected it in my message. I've decided to take the plunge, and am beginning the long and painful process of working out how to request arbitration, using a temp page in my User space (I've never done it before, and had hoped that I'd never had to). In the meantime, I'd still be grateful for any help in trying to get through to Mr Tan without arbitration. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having decided that arbitration is the only route left, I created a temporary page in my User space in order to experiment and develop my request. Within minutes, Mr Tan had started adding his comments to it, and continued to do so after I'd asked him to stop. He then created a page in my User space (User talk:Mel Etitis/Arbtan), without even telling me, and added his comments there; he's now wiped it. His antics are driving me (and other editors) to distraction; could someone else at least try to get through to him? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The rest of this discussion has been moved to User talk:Mel Etitis/Discussion from noticeboard.

User:JohnKenney

An impersonator of User:John Kenney, who is adding fake death notices to the articles of several prominent Democrats, including Walter Mondale. Searching for "Walter Mondale dies" and "Walter Mondale died" return three google hits, none of which refer to him dying recently. Normally I'd assume good faith, but this user cut and pasted his userpage and talk page from John Kenney. →Iñgōlemo←  00:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

As penance for having fallen for his Walter Mondale hoax, I've blocked him indefinitely. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 00:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. Mgm| 08:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Why didn't anyone tell me about this? I've got somebody pretending to be me! Very exciting. john k 20:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Someone adding hoaxes isn't acting in good faith, even if they aren't also spoofing another user. Isomorphic 04:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt

Seems the user Halibutt (talk · contribs) is currently on an edit spree to demonstrate either a parody or some form of breaching experiment (see WP:POINT). Someone should have a look at this. Since I am currently in a related dispute with him over the naming of Polish cities, I'll watch by the sidelines. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm acting in accordance with the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. It says specifically that For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names. Since this rule is often interpreted very broadly (see Chris 73's revert war on Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, for instance), I took the liberty to act accordingly and add the cross-naming to German cities that have a mixed Polish-German history. If someone wants to question the vote itself, then the Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion page would be a good place to start. Halibutt 16:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

How does this apply to Mainz, pray tell? It manages to not mention one word of this extensive Polish history in the article. Remind me, when was the upper/middle Rhine Polish, exactly...? Alai 17:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Talk:Gdansk/Vote, the rule applies to all cities in the region, as long as there is at least one English-language reference which uses the Polish name. No doubt Halibutt can tell you exactly which reference this would be. Eugene van der Pijll 17:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It only applies to cities "that share a history between Germany and Poland." So far as I am aware, there is no Polish past in Dresden, Mainz, Hanover, Aachen, and so forth. john k 18:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that Halibutt could provide some specious explanation of why Aachen shares a past between Germany and Poland, but this is clearly against the intended meaning of "sharing a history" in the vote - it is quite clearly against the spirit of the policy, and is very clearly an example of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. john k 18:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not support what Halibutt is doing right now, but I think he is trying to prove a valid point, namely that often the literal interpretation of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote results leads to gross violations of common sense. Thus trying to insert the German name Stettin into every single article about the modern suburbs of Szczecin (all stubs by the way) misses the point, as those articles have nothing to do with the history of Szczecin.

There has been some discussion on how to add some common sense into this issue, and refine the results of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote so that the range of its applications is reduced only to articles relevant to the shared Polish/German history of various places. For some reasonable proposals, on which some comment by Chris73 is still eagerly awaited by some users, see Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. Balcer 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think he is trying to prove a valid point. Click here ---> WP:POINT.

In any case, it's clear to me that the voting was done to be as decisive as possible to avoid edit wars -- and Balcer and others are trying to do an end-run around it to refight their petty battles. The vote was held, you lost, deal with it. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the vote was held, a new set of rules was introduced. Some of them worked, some of them them clearly seem not to be working as the revert wars have not stopped. I am now suggesting some new ways to compromise and work further towards reducing edit wars. Why do you find this so objectionable? Also, your aggressive attitude that this is some kind of a contest with losing and winning sides is not helpful to say the least. Balcer 01:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No Calton, that's incorrect. What was a fight in some Polish city articles has now spilled over in to German city articles which were not involved due to Halibutt's editing spree. I agreed with the Danzig/Gdansk decision, but these edits are clearly not a part of that spirit. DirectorStratton 01:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the actions of Halibutt violate the spirit of the vote. I also maintain that the actions of Chris73, Carlton and other users involved in adding German names in obscure articles about locations in Poland completely not related to shared Polish/German history violate that spirit in a similar way. This is why the results of the vote need to be amended/clarified to avoid these unfortunate problems. Balcer 02:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps my actions violate the spirit of the voting results. But the spirit is a matter of personal oppinion. We've been trying to reach some more reasonable solution at the relevant talk pages - to no effect. So, I've decided to stick to the letter of the voting instead. Like it or not, I have a right to do so.

For instance, the city of Dresden used to be the Polish capital for more than half a century and a large part of Dresden's nobility moved to Warsaw. If that's not a shared history, then what is it? If other users have a right to demand the cross-naming be applied to such obscure articles as Lacznosciowiec Szczecin and Amber, then why don't I have the same right to demand double-naming on the former capital of Poland? Double standards?

I agree that the voting results are bad and could be misinterpreted, but unless we change them, I have a right to follow them. The same right as others. Halibutt 07:38, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

" For instance, the city of Dresden used to be the Polish capital for more than half a century and a large part of Dresden's nobility moved to Warsaw."

Or the Ruhr Area (west Germany) - "In the 19th century Ruhr area pulled over 1 million Poles from East Prussia and Silesia due to the event referred to as Ostflucht. There are until today a large Polish minority. According to the vote result the cross-naming applied also for that part of Germany. --Witkacy 08:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While it has been correctly pointed out that this borders on POINT, and I'd ask Halibutt to stop this, I'd like to note that this serves to illustrate the fact that the vote needs to be reexamined. Also, Halibutt's behaviour is not far from that of Chris or several other users. We need not only to redo the vote, but well before we do this we need a clear policy on such votes, or no matter what the results, this will happen over and over again, and affect whatever future votes we may held. Plese check the Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a sidenote to what many of you said: I'm not trying to prove any point here, I'm merely following the rules set by the voting and the interpretation established by User:Chris 73 and many others. If it made you understand the flaws in the rules - I couldn't be more happy. However, it was not my intention to show it to anyone or to prove it in any way. And please stop accusing me of breaking the WP:POINT since it's not the case.

Also, what exactly would be the point I'm allegedly trying to prove? Finally, what exactly is wrong with my behaviour? I'm only enforcing the Misplaced Pages's Community Consensus, reached through wikipedia-wide voting. Perhaps if I tried to break it or fight against it you could ban me or question my behaviour. But it's the contrary: I'm trying to enforce it - yet I'm being bashed and reverted by as honourable wikipedians as User:Mackensen, User:John Kenney or User:RickK (the latter even threatened me on my talk page that I will be blocked from editing - yet without stating a reason). They revert my edits to the article on the former Polish capital - without explanation - yet they claim that it is my behaviour that should be changed... Strange? To me it seems so.

And now User:Chris 73, who established the same rules I'm following now, has listed me here as someone who is trying to demonstrate a parody. What the heck is that? Gentlement, the voting might be right or wrong, it's none of my business to judge it. But once some of us are allowed to follow it literally, all should be given the same right. Or perhaps I am wrong? Perhaps some of us have more rights than the others? Perhaps the voting was applicable only to Polish cities? If so, please be so kind as to cite the exact place where it is written.

BTW, once you establish a new, clear, wikipedia-wide rule or change the current one, I promise to abide by it. So far I am simply following the current rule. What is wrong with that? Halibutt 13:34, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Your actions and those of User:Chris 73 are not similar. The exact text of Vote 9 at Talk:Gdansk/Vote was:

The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Now when Chris 73 adds "(Stettin)" to the first reference in an article, it follows the most reasonable interpretation of this text.

However, to interpret the text of the proposal in a way that it applies to, for example, Braunschweig (city), see this edit, you have to use a very unnatural interpretation of:

1. "the region": Braunschweig is not in the same region as Stettin or Gdansk, as most people would define regions;
2. "share a history": most people seem to interpret it as "was a part of both countries", only you use the definition: "there were some Polish people there";
3. "commonly used names": Brunszwik is not a commonly used name (at least not in English);
4. "English language reference": both on Talk:Braunschweig (city) and Talk:Mainz, you pointed at a google search, which only returned a very few pages in badly-written English by Polish authors, that weren't even about those cities.

Seeing that those are all tenuous interpretations; that you yourself think that it's absurd what you are doing, and that you don't like doing it; that you are only doing this because of the community's consensus, but that you haven't found a single supporter of these actions; that none of your changes actually stick, as all of them are reverted immediately; and that the only thing you accomplish is to annoy your fellow contributors; wouldn't it be better if you ended this crusade?

(Please note: I've taken one of User:Chris 73's edits at random; there may be some that are of more dubious validity. If so, I apologize, and would like to be shown a better ("worse") example of his wwrongdoings). Eugene van der Pijll 16:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some additional comments to the comment by Eugene van der Pijll. Since the outcome of the vote i have not really added any double naming to an article. However, I have reverted mass removals of double naming while enforcing the vote. While doing so, there may have been a few questionable reverts (i.e. a handball team in gdansk), where double naming may or may not have been neccessary. Additionally, some users complained about Germanic language vs. German language links (as in the revert link you randomly picked). Hence I also occasionally change a Germanic language link to German language as suggested by halibutt. My edits are not perfect, but I try my best to work in the spirit of the vote. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 16:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

(My apologies for mischaracterising your edits. The original mention of "Stettin" at the page I referenced was indeed inserted by someone else. I didn't mean to pick on you (Chris) personally; so Halibutt, if you have an edit by someone else than Chris, that you feel: 1) contravenes the outcome of the vote, and 2) is accepted as a valid edit by "us", the other wikipedians; that would be a good example too.) Eugene van der Pijll 17:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, if you are being reverted and warned by three separate admins, I would tend to take that as evidence your edits are not in good faith. That, in addition to Eugene van der Pijll's well reasoned comments, and your own comments, lead to a clear indication that you are not editing in good faith and are violating WP:POINT. If you were being clearly helpful and trying to improve Misplaced Pages, and achieve consensus on these issues, it is likely you wouldn't have so many different people claiming you are not being helpful. Please stop, and instead keep in mind we are all here to help Misplaced Pages, and realize that what you are doing is not achieving that. - Taxman 17:09, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73 protecting Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice

Individual users are messing around with the vote count on Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, changing the reported outcome of the vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. These edits were were always promptly reverted by other admins to its proper state. Because this template is visible on numerous pages, I have protected the page. This protection can pe permanent, since the vote was closed since quite some time ago. As i am involved in the dispute, I have listed the protection here so other admins can look at it and comment if necessary, but I strongly believe this protection to be neccessary. Sorry for all the confusion. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:39, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you removed the "disputed tag"? Because: "... this template is visible on numerous pages.. " hm?

The outcome of the voting is still disputed on Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice--Witkacy 20:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it is disputed and you are one of the sides in that dispute. Thus protecting the page could be understood as an abuse of your admin rights. Halibutt 07:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I must agree, you are a party to the dispute, so you should not have protected the template. Instead, post here, and ask another admin to do it, don't do it yourself. So please unprotect it, and someone else can protect it if they agree it should be. I do however, tend to agree with the protection, because inserting disputed in the template is disruptive, as the template appears on a lot of pages. Also Witkacy's changing the vote results in the template appears improper, since clearly there were a number of questionable votes. The criteria for what votes would be counted was applied equally to all votes (and favored each side in different cases), so using the removed votes now as a basis for changing the template is improper. Consensus would be needed on the talk page for that change to the vote results. I would actually suggest re-voting, only for the disputed period in order to clear up the issue. - Taxman 14:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that changing the vote results in the template is not the best option. However, both the result of the voting and the template itself (its shape and usage) are disputed on the talk page, so adding a {{disputed}} tag is appropriate. I believe that the tag should be added until all controversies are resolved. Also, retaking the vote seems a decent option. Halibutt 15:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the disputed tag in the template, is that it then appears on the talk page of each article the template is used as saying "this article is disputed", which is most likely incorrect. It is not the article that is disputed, but the template message. Further, it's not really the template that is disputed, but the results of the vote. So the disputed tag can go on the template's talk page, but not in the template. So while Chris73 being the one to do the protecting was somewhat improper, it looks like it was the right thing to do. And to be pedantic, since what he did was the right thing, even though he shouldn't have been the one to do it, there aren't any sanctions that should be placed on him. I would consider this the end of the matter. The template's and the vote's talk page are the place to carry this further. If the results of the vote are to be changed (and therefore the content of the template), consensus on the talk page would be required. For the record, I have no stake in the dispute either way, and I would consider myself as neutral in this matter as it is possible to be. (Bordering on I simply don't care, except that the discussion is civil and conducted fairly.) - Taxman 16:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Are deletions broken?

I have now tried to delete Ben Wyrosdick ten times, and have gotten the ERROR message each and every time. Am I the only one this is happening to, or is there a problem with deletions? RickK 22:40, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Update:I have created User:RickK/Test and it deleted with no problems. RickK 22:43, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I got Ben Wyrosdick on my second try, but deletions do seem to be failing more often than they should. It makes clearing out VfD/Old especially annoying. - SimonP 23:06, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

This has been happening to me a lot lately, but today has been very bad. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And today it is even worse, usually takes up to one hour of retry until a deletion is performed. See also Bugilla Bug 2195 andy 18:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a good time to ressurect our good old friend, the template which was called {{pending deletion}}. ☺ --cesarb 21:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Query about my behaviour

I was upset about the non-neutral language and content of Zoroastrianism, so I noted what I was unhappy with and placed an NPOV tag on the page. I noted that there were several weasel words. I said:

"The timing of Zoroaster's life is significant for understanding the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Should it be before 1300 BC (prior to Akhenaten), then Zoroaster would be the earliest monotheist known in any religion. Even a later date could make Zoroaster a template for Biblical figures who introduce monotheism over henotheism. Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC. Even the first commandment reflects the henotheistic nature of early Judaism. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" implictly accepts the existance of other gods."

So much for not reading in our own points of view!

Let's have a look at other POV statements:

• Many modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, and Christianity because of Persia's connections to the Roman Empire and because of its earlier control over Israel under rulers such as Cyrus II the Great, Darius the Great and Xerxes I.
  • Which scholars? Weasel word.
• Because Zoroastrianism is thought to have emerged from a common Indo-Iranian culture that preceded Vedic Hinduism, many scholars also use evidence from Zoroastrian texts to reconstruct the unreformed earlier stage of Indo-Iranian beliefs, and therefore to identify the culture that evolved into the Vedic religion. This has also informed attempts to characterise the original Proto-Indo-European religion (e.g. the god Dyeus who became Jupiter, Sabazios, Zeus, and Tyr).
  • "many scholars". Weasel word.
• Zoroastrianism teaches many concepts we today find in the major Abrahamic faiths, concepts of Heaven, Hell, Day of judgement, the concept of Satan, the prophecy and coming of the Messiah and the extensive teaching of Angels and Evil spirits.
• Implies that these concepts in Abrahamic faiths comes solely from Zoroastrianism. Most evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Muslims would dispute this.

Until these can be fixed (and the whole tone) with proper footnotes, I doubt this will be an NPOV article. It's going on my watchlist, btw. --Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I got this response from User:Paul Barlow:

Your arguments are little more than an attempt at censoring entirely commonplace scholarly views about Zoroastrianism. There is nothing NPOV about them, nor does the phrase 'many scholars' in any way constitute "weasel words". In fact they mean exactly what they say. It is very easy indeed to find examples of such many scholars. I will do so later today or at the weekend. In fact the point about Proto-Indo-European religion is so utterly commonplace you can find it throughout Misplaced Pages on the many pages devoted to Indo-European studies. It has been a fact of the study of religion ever since Max Muller.

I personally find this to be ludicrous. However, I would like to find out from admins what they think of my comments and whether I was really trying to censor discussion. I was not aware that I was actually arguing anything, and as I hadn't actually taken any thing away from the article at that point and just expressing my concerns, I was suprised to find that I was a censor of Misplaced Pages!

Would someone please tell me whether I was incorrect in placing my concerns on the talk page? Has something changed in Misplaced Pages's general policy of raising concerns on talk pages during my absence? Also, Paul B has stated that my post to the talk page was arrogant and inflammatory. I might be a bit close to the situation here, but I was positive that the first bit was POV writing, and I'm pretty certain that my tone wasn't arrogant in pointing out weasel words in the next few points.

For the record, Paul B wrote the following on my talk page:

I had read it yes. And have explained repeatedly what I was attacking - the tone of your initial comments and the assertion of "POV" before acquainting yourself with the subject. Useful comments, IMO, do not take the form of your interventions, which were were almost bound to have a negative effect because their over-excited and judgemental tone. Paul B 09:22, 12 June 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, feedback here would be much appreciated. If I have apologies to make, then I'll make them. I just want to find out from a 3rd party, and I figure that most admins are pretty good at looking at things like this objectively. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find the text OK. It is a well-known theory that Zoroastrianism may have preceeded and inspired Judaism and Christianity, or at least that it was an important contributor to Christianity.--Wiglaf 21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK... I'll take that into consideration. I guess I more want to know if my behaviour was out of line. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apart from sounding a little bit testy, you should ask for sources. That is what improves Misplaced Pages. I can't see that you have done anything wrong.--Wiglaf 07:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to ask about a content dispute. But IMO you are justified in asking for specific citations for the phrase "many scholars". If many scholars hold this belief then it should be very easy to cite. Rhobite 07:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think I would say every word Rhobite just said. - Taxman 23:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know :-) That's why I was specifically asking people to comment on my behaviour and whether I was out of line. I appreciate everyone's feedback. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Be careful of the term "weasel words" It sounds negative, and it implies that the writer is trying to distort the truth somehow. If it's true that "many scholars" believe something, then that's a fact, not an attempt to be weasely. Someone familiar with the scholarly literature won't feel the need to cite a source, because to them it's obvious. There probably aren't any surveys saying "46% of scholars of Zoroastrianism believe X", either.

Also, remember that bold comments in a subject you aren't well-read on isn't always the best idea. Better to ask questions, and make statements only once you're sure of your footing.

All that said, I don't think this is a terribly big deal. Certainly not an attempt to "censor" anything. Isomorphic 03:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I'll take this on board - that's good advise! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, last note: Paul B has won. I was going to assist with the issues that I saw in the article, but after reading the following:

"Paul B wrote the following:

"Quoting of rules, guidelines etc is not done by objective Pan-Dimensional Beings. It is done by people with POVs, because they feel strongly about particular positions. The demand for NPOV is often in practice motived by resistance to one POV or the desire to promote another one. It is hardly a coincidence that you, Guy Montag and "Ta bu shi da yu" have been challenging particular passages and insisting on references is it? This is surely the very problem of systemic bias. People with strong religious opinions tend to be very committed to promoting or defending those views."

I'm stepping away from this article while people believe that I am acting in bad faith. Out of interest, how does he get away with such outrageous statements? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe stepping away is best, but maybe you could still be effective as long as you try to keep the relevant policies in mind, which I am sure you are doing, just keep it in mind. You are obviously involved in the dispute so as long as you don't exercise admin powers on the article, you should be fine. As far as "getting away with" anything, nothing in the above quote is abusive or improper. It may be off the mark (though I don't think it is), but that is not a behavioral issue. As far as the comment quoted above, he is correct in many cases, but that same statement can also be used by someone that simply doesn't feel like doing enough research to back up their material. I suspect that may be going on too. And again, nothing in this conflict appears to have ever needed admin rights, so please look for other ways to get extra input on the dispute instead of this page. - Taxman 12:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fine... understood. Please be aware that I will not be using any admin powers on that page. Mainly because I'm not an admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Lost and Found

Answering to a plea for help at the Village pump, I found the article Mixedfolks discussed about here some time ago. It was originally Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox, which was moved by Dontblush (talk · contribs) to a broken article title, and then moved to its final title by someone else.

I managed to move it to Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Lost and Found and split off the contributions intended for Mixedfolks. In the process, I managed to somehow duplicate what I believe is every revision except the last (shouldn't it be an atomic transaction?).

My question is, what should I do with the 2177 remaining revisions? Keep them deleted? Undelete and keep them there? Undelete and merge with the page history of Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox? Ask Brion to fix the duplication? Or something else?

--cesarb 20:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor persistently disruptive on Qur'an abuse page -- surrealistically high number of page moves

Admin -- Uncle Ed (talk) has executed a ridiculously high number of page moves, and has been generally disruptive, at the page currently titled Qur'an desecration by US military.

He has obvious political motivations for the pattern of disruption and title confusion he has sown on this page in recent days. (Check out the titles of his edit summaries on this page if you doubt my assessment of this.) Please. please review the history of this page and consider taking appropriate administrative action. BrandonYusufToropov 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here are examples of what I mean:

FROM TALK PAGE HISTORY

• (cur) (last) 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (Was it desecration? - That's the anti-US point of view, all right. So let's describe as such.)

FROM ARTICLE HISTORY

• (cur) (last) 21:21, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (moved Pentagon "admission" down to 4th paragraph, as intro to "critics continued belief" - could be moved up)

• (cur) (last) 20:06, 27 May 2005 Ed Poor (anti-US POV needs to be labeled. Don't put the argument in the text of the article as if you wanted Misplaced Pages to endorse that reasoning)

... not to mention the avalanche of page moves, resulting in confusion and perpetual redirect challenges for those trying to actually find the article ...

I agree with these complaints. Ed has not only continually made objectionable edits to the main page and acted intentionally obtuse about it in the discussion page; he even went so far as to go to my user page and threaten me with administrative warnings because he claimed my edits were "personal attacks." You can judge for yourself if you think they're personal attacks; I don't know Ed at all and was only responding to his claims on the discussion page for the quran desecration article. --csloat 02:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I sent a message to Ed, and got the following: "It's a long story. The short version is that every time the other contributors changed the scope of the article, I would change its title. It should be stable, now that Brandon tweaked it." As for personal attacks by csloat? I don't think they were, to be perfectly honest. However, the language used when replying to Uncle Ed (and I've been guilty of this, so don't think that what I'm about to say is unique) was rather inflammatory as it personalised issues and implied motive. I suggest that csloat review Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I normally do assume good faith. I was simply responding to charges of bad faith, after I also saw way too much evidence of bad faith on user Ed's part. Just for the record, my language was not especially any more inflammatory than what uncle Ed posted to that page. I will assume that he has turned over a new leaf and try to keep my inflammation in check as well. --csloat 06:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question for Ed Poor about various moves of page currently entitled Qur’an desecration controversy of 2005

You moved the following pages without first discussing the title on the talk page. I’m not saying you needed to discuss the title with me personally, but that you didn’t discuss it with anyone before doing it, which seems to me an abuse of admin authority. It may also represent an attempt to move the page in such a way that people would be unlikely to find it easily or read it.

• May 19 Page Move to Newsweek desecration controversy
• May 27 Page Move to Qur’an desecration controversy
• May 27-June 13 Page Moves - I seem to recall there were multiple page moves on your part shortly after May 27, too, and your posts on the Talk page seem to reflect this, but the record is sketchy for some reason. So please help me clear up the record. What specific page moves did you make after May 27 and before June 14? If you don’t want to tell me what page moves you made during this period, why not?
• First June 14 Page Move to Allegations of Qur’an desecration at Guantánamo Bay
• second June 14 Page Move to Allegation of Qur’an desecration at Guantánamo Bay
• Third June 14 Page Move to Allegations of Qur’an desecration at Guantánamo Bay
• fourth June 14 Page Move to Qur'an desecration by US guards

Maybe I’m wrong, though. Why did you do that? BrandonYusufToropov 18:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I choose not to enter the discussion of whether the page move was appropriate but as a purely procedural comment, I see no use of admin authority. Pagemoves are not an "admin" power. Any editor can make a pagemove. Since no admin power was used, I don't see how this can be considered "an abuse of admin authority". I can understand a desire to question him on a potentially controversial move, but why are you bringing the question here? (By the way, your comment would be received with more weight if you signed your request.) Rossami (talk) 17:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that I forgot the sig. (And I will post this elsewhere if this is not the right forum, my apologies for that as well.)

Yep, anybody can move a page -- only an admin can move something back to where it actually belongs, though, which makes for an interesting dynamic. Question is: Is it appropriate for an admin to play this kind of three-card monte game with a page -- constantly springing these page moves without any warning or discussion?

Note that someone removed the rest of my post, which is no big deal to me, but the effect is that it looks like I'm complaining about a single page move, which I'm not. This admin sprung this on us multiple times (four times in one day, by my count) while doing his best to disrupt the content of the page itself -- by, for instance, suddenly insisting on splitting the page in two and renaming it. In moving the page around, he was also, of course, a) using up potential names for the page, including those around which consensus had developed, and b) leaving a constant trail of dead redirects in his wake.

Net effect -- hiding the article from all but the most persistent reader. Is that really cricket for an admin? BrandonYusufToropov 19:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. By the way, I am the one who removed the rest of your comment. The system occasionally duplicate edits. You made your original edit in multiple sections with only minor changes to each section. The differences were so small that I overlooked them and incorrectly deleted all but the first section as duplicates. My apologies. I have attempted to repair it (in a hopefully cleaner format?). Please fix it if I didn't get your intent right. Rossami (talk) 20:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, you 've got it right, thank you very much for the reformat. Mine was quite clumsy, for which apologies. BrandonYusufToropov

• For the record, today I filed a complaint against Ed Poor at Misplaced Pages:Requests for Mediation.

• Ed Poor, who is himself one of the members of the mediation committee, immediately transferred my complaint to the talk page there and, in so doing, "happened" to delete more than half of it.

• I believe he should recuse himself from this matter. Anyone who agrees may perhaps be willing to say as much .

• I have posted the entirety of my complaint against Ed Poor on my userpage, which I trust (?) to be safe from his editorial help. Interested parties can find my complaint at: BrandonYusufToropov 20:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion backlog

Currently the backlog on WP:VFD is just over two weeks. Help would be welcome closing the discussions, deleting what must be deleted, etc. Please see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Old. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is there is a 25 step process for closing a VFD. If it weren't so work intensive, it might not get so backlogged. Yes I'm exxaggerating, and yes I should probably just go learn the steps, but it is certainly not appealing. Any way to simplify the procedure? - Taxman 19:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

If I knew how, I would already have done it. I agree with your plan. Learn the steps, do a dozen or so and be bold in proposing changes to the procedure. Maybe new eyes will see new possibilities. We're always looking for help controlling the backlog. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will be starting to help out with the backlog when I get back from my business trip. I would appreciate if someone could meet me on IRC this weekend or next week so I have someone to walk me through the first few. Kelly Martin 22:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ok so its a date, er group class? How about 17:00 or 18:00 UTC this saturday? We can open a new channel for VFD learning and get the hang of it and slog through a few hundred. Later on Sat would be fine too. - Taxman 23:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

If someone drops me a message to tell me what IRC is, I'll try to join as well. I have to drop out. Will be out of town that day. Rossami (talk) 02:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've run over the deletion process with a weedwhacker. I did away with the redundant archiving of the day logs, which are by far the least easily searched VfD archives, in favor of keeping the deletion pages themselves and the standard posting to talk pages. This let me do away with the templates. The result is a six step process with no substeps. Much less instructionally creepy. I look forward to being reverted for undoing a bunch of changes that were made without gathering consensus prior to gathering consensus. Snowspinner 01:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Good work, this brings the system back to more like it was a year ago. I'm not sure how it happened, but in the same period that VfD tripled in size we also tripled the amount of work it took to deal with each vote. All we seem to have lost in your changes are the not very useful daily log pages. Something I would also like to see is going back to the old system of moving the votes directly to the talk page. It was impossible to do this and to keep the log pages, but now that the log pages are gone we are free to go back to the old system. Moving the templates would eliminate the linking to the closed debate, which is one of the more time consuming parts of the processes. Returning the closed votes to a more prominent position on the talk page is also a good idea as editors should generally read through them before working on the article. - SimonP 02:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Snowspinner's changes on Misplaced Pages:Deletion process were reverted, but only because it is a significant unilateral change that should be discussed beforehand. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I have nothing against the 25+ step process -- it fine for me. My problem is dealing with those discussions that have such a relatively huge number of voters that it takes too long to determine whether or not there is a real consensus and confirming who are sock puppets. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, is Template:Oldvfd well publicized? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it's not. And Template:Oldvfdfull is probably better. --cesarb 14:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't even know there *was* supposed to be a procedure for closing. I just close them. It's not rocket science. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Language links on main page

Hi, I'm not sure this is the right place to post this, but the main page http://www.wikipedia.org/ needs some updating, as several languages passed the 10,000 article border (according to the milestone page Korean did, Hungarian is well above 11,000 and it seems the Bahasa Indonesian is over 10,000 too.) Thanks. -- Alensha 16:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is the official stats page appears not to have been updated in a bit. Also, the portal is not a wiki page, so it would require contacting a developer. Admin's can't do it. - Taxman 12:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Someone did it. Thanks! Alensha 22:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess "they" watch here too. :) - Taxman 23:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, all it needs is a Meta administrator, since it can be edited from the protected m:Www.wikipedia.org template. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 12:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Totse

Someone might want to keep an eye on this... Kappa 17:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet template

Grace Note (talk · contribs) seems to have launched a personal crusade against the sockpuppet template, removing it from the User pages of people like Elkabong (talk · contribs), and calling editors who place it there "vandals". Given that Misplaced Pages policy is to place the template when there is, for example, evidence of IP address-sharing, etc. (as there is in the Kainthescion/Elkabong/Enviroknot case), could someone explain the Grace Note that he's misunderstood the situation? He bears some animus towards me, so it would be good if someone else explained it to him. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is clearly disruptive behaviour. I would recommend a warning and then blocking him/her for a short period. After this, gather evidence and then take them to the ArbCom. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see. Harassing a user is fine but disagreeing with an admin is a blockable offence. Take me to the arbcom? You guys are demented. You are so keen on pursuing your personal campaigns against editors you do not like that you'll consider any lengths, and witchhunt anyone who disagrees with you.Grace Note 02:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harassing whom? If you are implying that I have harassed you, I doubt that. If you are implying that the sock puppet template is harassment, allow me to introduce you to User:Choosedreams, er User:Cheesedreams, ummm... User:Cheese Dreams, no no that's not right... maybe User:Cheese Dreams, uh... User:Cheese-Dreams? Actually, the real account is User:CheeseDreams. So much for harassment. As for disruptive behaviour, are you denying that you removed the sock puppet template from user pages? If you have, this is clearly disruptive behaviour, and for this you risk getting blocked by an admin. We are not your personal playpen. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I seem to recall David Gerard saying something about their sockpuppetry; maybe you should ask him? Radiant_>|< 09:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, there you go. "Enviroknot = ElKabong = KaintheScion. But while he behaves himself (i.e. not spouting personal abuse under whatever name), people are mostly willing to put up with him and take his edits as they come - David Gerard 10:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)", from his talk page. Radiant_>|< 11:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the evidence is certainly up to the standard demanded on the policy page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What evidence? "Dave Gerard says so" is not actually evidence. Grace Note 02:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard has the power to do IP checks of users, so yes, "Dave Gerard says so" is actually evidence. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry man, it isn't. He didn't produce any evidence. He just suggested they were the same. Even using the same IP does not make two people the same person. I think it's better to be circumspect about accusations of sockpuppetry, especially when it doesn't actually matter! It's the behaviour that counts, not the user. Grace Note 07:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The constant pushing of this template and nonsensical attacks against an innocent user by Mel Etitis and his various lackeys/sockpuppets need to end. Bravo to Grace Note for finally doing something about it.

As a side note, the fact that Etitis was given admin powers at all proves what a shit-poor process adminship is. (Comment by User:136.145.54.123, known vandal (and probably a sockpuppet of Enviroknot) --Calton | Talk 20:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

It's certainly at the same level as Enviroknot's usual contributions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know under what policy you propose to block me. Disagreeing with an admin is not, so far as I know, a blockable offence. Unfortunately, while harassing other users ought to be, it is not. Grace Note 02:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are removing a template which was placed in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy; the fact that you're making personal attacks on editors who placed the template in good faith is aggravating, but not the central point; they're not vandalising the pages by placing the template, but by removing it for no good reason, you are behaving like a vandal. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing a template is not a blockable offence. Disagreeing with you isn't either, unless you've written a new policy that I'm not aware of. Harassing a user by attacking their user page is vandalism. Go and read the policy. I have, and it's there in black and white. I am removing the template for very good reason. I think it is being used to harass a user. I certainly haven't made a personal attack on you, Mel. Disagreeing with you, or with your behaviour, isn't one of those either. Grace Note 07:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Deletedpage

What's the deal with this template? I thought the common way of protecting a page against recreation was to lock it onto a blank page? This is presently in use on a couple of heavily disputed things, e.g. hellenic genocide, but also on some deleted vanity pages. Radiant_>|< 10:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• This template was debated on TFD to a no consensus result and the discussion is archived here. Those that voted keep argued that this template is an alternative to the blank page which may be confusing to new users. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks on controversial pages

I would like to propose that the following message box be added to articles deemed controversial and where there is a history of editors making inflammatory remarks and personal attacks:

Template:Personal

The very first article I would add this to is Jihad. Last year I had my first taste of just how bad things could get, now after a year I have gone back and found the article in just as bad (if not worse) a state with even more inflammatory comments and personal attacks which have caused editing to come to an almost complete halt. Warnings do not work here, with at least one user being blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR by User:SlimVirgin, but who has just created a sockpuppet account and also started editing anonymously. I feel that the only way to deal with this sort of bad faith is to give a global warning on the top of the talk page and then start blocking those who feel the need to make personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like a solid idea, go for it. Radiant_>|< 11:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say yes, too. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'd say a qualified yes. (Incidentally, for the specific situation described I thought that admins were permitted to shoot the sock on sight; it's being used to circumvent a preexisting block, yes?) In order to avoid WP:AN/I turning into a river of flame, there will need to be specific consensus-driven changes to the blocking policy outlining circumstances under which the template can be added to an article, when blocks are justified (this may require modifications to WP:NPA, too), and the duration of block permitted. To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, it should be emphasized that admins directly involved in a conflict should not place the block. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am asking for policy ammendments on WP:BP and WP:NPA. Check their talk pages and comment there if necessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I support this. A number of Islam-related talk pages have been reduced to chaos recently by anon IPs, sockpuppets, and some regular users making personal attacks. We can block the ones who've made no useful contributions for disruption, but we can't block editors who've contributed properly in the past. Even short blocks of a couple of hours until they'd calmed down would help a lot. SlimVirgin 01:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

No, we don't need a special template telling people to obey the rules. When you get in your car, you don't see signs telling you which side of the road to drive on -- you're SUPPOSED to follow the rule, even if there's no sign around telling you to. →Raul654 02:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Years ago, I was on holiday in the UK, and we rented a car and drove on the divided highway from London to Dover. Near Dover, where the cross-channel ferry docked and let off European drivers who were used to driving on the right instead of the left, we passed several highway signs facing the other direction. The reversed signs, it turned out, warned drivers -- in 4 languages -- that they were driving in the wrong direction and should immediately turn around. The furthest out, as I recall, was at least ten miles away from Dover. I don't see why Misplaced Pages can't be at least as cautious as the Ministry of Transport. --Calton | Talk 03:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Raul, could I ask what rule you are referring to? You should be aware that we don't currently have a blocking rule that immediately blocks personal attacks, nor should we. People must get a warning. However, on certain controversial articles, such as Jihad, there are editors who create sock puppets and edit anonymously - all done on purpose. They target these articles and therefore I feel that a specific warning should be added to the article that we won't accept personal attacks in the article. This would be the warning that editors are given, and will mean that they have no excuse for making personal attacks - excuses like "But you never warned me!". - Ta bu shi da yu 02:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just ignore them? Remove the attacks if you want and just move on. What purpose does it serve to block users and then have them abuse you? What is likely to happen is that someone says something to an admin that they don't like, they call in a buddy, and the person who disagrees with them is blocked. Meanwhile, the admins will have absolute impunity, because no one will block them, and in those cases that they do, they will have others who unblock them for some reason or other. There are damned good reasons for not making "personal attacks" a blockable offence. We are all surely aware of them. Ultimately, why don't you just leave Jihad alone, Ta bu? Do you know anything about it? Do you actually have anything to add? Given your POV on religion, which you've often expressed, you'd probably be better advised not to work on that article anyway. Grace Note 02:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with you on this one. No, we cannot just "ignore them", because these POV pushers basically ruin any discussion relating to controversial topics. Also, just out of interest, what is my "POV on religion"? I would be most interested in finding out what this might be. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I have not been editing that article, I have made one comment in many months, and that was to respond to a self-admitted sock puppet. However, I have every right to read the damn thing: what else do you think our encyclopedia is here for, for goodness sake! Incidently, do you think that the article as it stands is well-written and neutral?! I don't. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of personal attacks, care to explain this, where you call Kapil a "right wing troll", or perhaps this, where you wrote: "I'll stick to calling you a cunt in future, since you feel that that is a more reasonable epithet to use."? Or maybe where you wrote, "By the way, I'll be referring to you as a "rightist troll" until the day you are banned, Kapil, because that is without doubt what you are, and I'll refer to your reincarnation as one as soon as you come back." Methinks you would be one of the first beneficiaries of this proposed policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is this unneccesarily specific? Obviously there are cases where personal attacks are the crisis of the moment, but what about generalizing it to address Wikiquette more generally, something like:

Stay Calm

This article pertains to a highly controversial topic. It can be very difficult to write neutrally about it, and insults and personal comments do not assist in improving its factuality, verifiability or neutrality. In the interest of civility and productivity, all participants are expected to review and follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. By participating here, you agree to respect these rules, follow good wiki editquette and abstain from personal attacks. Failure to do so may result in an administrator blocking you from editting for a short period of time. There will be no additional warnings.

I've removed the "should not be construed..." as I feel it is superfluous, since I can't see any honest editor imagining the policies only apply to controversial issues and I can't see the dishonest ones being deterred by it. Also, I'm not sure about the virtue of saying notices will appear at WP:AN. Seems to me that you put it on the user's talk page and potentially the talk page for the subject in the dispute and after that the user wouldn't care where else you put it. Most of the other edits reflect my desire to frame this as a more general admonition towards good behavior. Obviously, changes to the blocking policy would still be needed to address things in the way Tu bu shi da yu intends. Dragons flight 03:41, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The point of WP:AN being on the message box is to give admins the ability to reverse decisions: this gives some checks and balances to the system. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection of User:Enviroknot

I protected User:Enviroknot due to a prolonged revert war. However, it was pointed to me by User:Mrfixter at User talk:Mel Etitis#Enviroknot, et al. that I might have been mistaken in protecting that page. I would like to ask for more opinions on whether I was right or wrong on protecting that page, what to do now, and what should I do on similar situations in the future. --cesarb 01:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem in protecting it, and I don't think that you acted at all improperly. I should like, however, to see the "sock puppet" template replaced, as its presence on that page was in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. I'm reluctant to replace it by editing a protected page; any opinions from other admins? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it's true that they edit the same pages using the same IP, it's a no-brainer that these accounts are the same person. I'd support replacing the sockpuppet tag. Isomorphic 04:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, where is the evidence for this? Did you check with a developer? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard did a sock check -- I can't remember where he specifically discussed the results, and who was whose sock, sorry -- and Elkabong/Enviroknot's response was to call him a liar.

And there's this bit of circumstantial evidence, courtesy of SlimVirgin:

...take a look through these: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive22#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive24#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong, and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive25#User:ElKabong. Here's the diff for where ElKabong posted something but KaintheScion signed it. SlimVirgin 12:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

--Calton | Talk 01:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But what do those have to do with me? All I've seen so far is that I had the misfortune to get someone else's IP address after a power outage, and that's been the only thing the rogue admins can come up with. They have just been using it as an excuse to persecute me and vandalize my user page.Enviroknot 01:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But it's not true, has never been true, and now my page is again vandalized while I was out for the weekend. Thanks for nothing.Enviroknot 04:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. They are at it again. I won't protect again, since protection didn't work. --cesarb 01:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My recommendation, for what it's worth, is to get a developer to compare what IP addresses that Enviroknot, ElKabong and KaintheScion used over a period of time. Let them make this decision. At the very least, it will give us some peace, and be as fair as possible to Enviroknot. I am always reluctant to accuse someone of sock-puppetry, because unless you are a developer there is no way of knowing for sure. Even developers must make a judgement call based on IP addresses. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've protected again. When Mel Etitis reinserted the sockpuppet notice, he gave a link here, but all I see that supports keeping the sockpuppet notice is Isomorphic's comment — nothing else. I personally favour keeping it, but this situation is getting ridiculous. I strongly recommend establishing more consensus supporting the tag before we reinsert it. Ingoolemo  05:27, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• David Gerard and Tim Starling have the same sockchecking options as the developers (who, generally, have more important things to do). Since David proclaimed two of this trio to be socks of the third, personally I'd take his word for it; we're unlikely to get better evidence than that. See User talk:David Gerard#Environknot. Personally I don't care whether or not there's a big honkin' box on their userpages stating so. Radiant_>|< 11:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned there's no question. Since first spotted this guy has been acting like a troll and his socks were blatant before David Gerard sock checked them. . He's been lying like a trooper since that moment. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, there's more evidence in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/KaintheScion_et_al. Radiant_>|< 15:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, given David Gerard's opinion, I'm convinced of sockpuppetry. Ingoolemo  20:19, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

You shouldn't be. (removed personal attack) unsigned comment by anon user:69.144.179.212. later edited by anon user:212.218.64.68

Attention all admins

I believe you would all like to express your reactions to Misplaced Pages:Administrators_cannot_vote. I know it won't pass, but for that to happen, we need the reactions. Come and reply, please. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls: stuff like this is best ignored. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's on VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's not trolling. Maybe it's just a proposal. Don't poison the atmosphere. Everyking 02:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That page comes to us courtesy of User:MARMOT, who has <50 edits, few if any of which are useful contributions to articles. Enough said. Isomorphic 03:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even if it passed, it would not be valid because, as we all know, admins are just editors with some special powers, it's not a big deal, yadda yadda blah blah blah, and therefore should be treated as editors. Taking away the rights of admins to vote and participate on Misplaced Pages would therefore not be valid. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accounts

I believe that User:sumal, user:Muralikumar and user:Bidyotp are sockpuppets of user:Sumalsn; created to ballot stuff the Indian Collaboration of the Week. What should be done about these accounts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)