Revision as of 19:45, 26 November 2007

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Current issues

Auschwitz (& in general) lengthily protection violates policy

Enough. This is a content dispute; go to Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp and discuss there. —Kurykh 03:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

From Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection#Auschwitz concentration camp by -70.18.5.219 (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC):

"Unprotect please: No valid reason given nor existing for indefinite protection or - in other words - this indefinite protection is arbitrary, unjustified, and - so - in violation of the policy (see Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp#End the excessive and abusive protection. -70.18.5.219 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Declined Jmlk17 10:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But vandalism ended with the protection on May 29, '07, right?! So, you just have imagined it that, if vandalism happened in the past, it shall continue. But you have had no evidence, only supposition that vandalism will return once the protection is lifted before vandalism actually returned (occured). That lack of occurence has violated the fundamental rule of WP:PROT#Semi-protection that "Semi-protection should not be used: As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred.". So, please lift that unjustified protection of Auschwitz concentration camp. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)"

I am sympathetic to this request. It appears standard to lift semiprotection after 3 months, and there has been virtually no discussion of why long-term semi-protection is required on that page, till you brought it up at least. If no one objects, I am going to lift semi-protection. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I object. I notice the anon IP is also editing the Oświęcim article, where Auschwitz is located, and using a source celebrated among Holocaust deniers to lower the death toll there by half. Could your desire to have the Auschwitz article unlocked have anything to do with wanting to revise the death toll in that article, too? I have reverted your edit to Oswiciem, using the toll from the Auschwitz museum, and providing a ref. That seems a reliable source, to me, rather than a Holocaust revisionist. Jeffpw (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What has happened to assuming good faith? Also poisoning the well doesn't help. If 70.18.5.219 decides to run a revert war we can just block him, and besides, he seems a dedicated good-faith user. I am not sympathetic to holocaust deniers (and this stance has not been admitted by him, so we cannot just assume anyhow), but extended semi-protection is generally a bad idea. If anything starts happening again I will reinstate semi-protection. Is that agreeable to you? Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at his contributions and saw what he had added, and how suddenly in one article that he could edit, the death toll was halved, in spite of extensive research supporting the higher figure. You call that poisoning the well? I find that odd. Though I am not an admin myself, I would prefer to gain a wider consensus among admins before you unprotect.Jeffpw (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with unlocking this page. Permanent semi-protection is a must for some articles. Things related to the Holocaust like the articles Adolf Hitler, The Holocaust and Auschwitz will probably be mushed into the same category. I'm not sympathetic to letting POV pushers or blatant vandals persistantly editing these articles. — Save_Us_229 21:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the consensus is that the semi-protection is to be permanent to prevent POV edits? The original protection was for vandalism. Remember that we are potentially keeping constructive edits out with semi-protection, and there was a great deal of controversy when the idea of semi-protection first came forth. Also, I didn't mean to accuse anyone, but simply because the IP might have a vested interest at stake does not mean his argument is invalid -- that's what I meant by poisoning the well. I took your pointing out of his "contribution" with good faith, but I do not think the fact that he tried to modify the death toll necessarily invalidates an unprotection request. But I appreciate your caution and I will definitely wait now.

Anyway, if for example a congressman's intern requested that a page on the congressman be unlocked because the last protection event was half a year ago, I understand that the intern might have a vested interest. Still, I would unprotect it and monitor said intern's actions, since I would have unprotected it had it been brought to my attention by someone else. Perhaps the intern really wants to make good faith edits, like correct stuff. And if he/she doesn't, then we can reinstate protection or make a simple block. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent / ec) Much as it pains me, as it is not in the spirit of the project, I must agree with Jeffpw and Save_Us 229 here. We must remember that Misplaced Pages's reputation for accuracy and reliability are now been called to account daily by the media, and high target/profile articles are most likely to both be abused and also commented on by external entities. I should also add for clarity that Jeffpw and I have communicated regularly in the past, and that my belief in his argument has nothing to do with our "wiki-friendship" or similar. Pedro :  Chat  21:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Elle. While I am not against POV edits per se, as they can lead to a solid neutral article if watched carefully and counter-balanced by others, I consider holocaust revisionism to be vandalism. Misplaced Pages has had a lot of problems with this in the past, and it makes for a lot of work (and stress) for editors who truly want to build a great encyclopedia. Some POVs are better confined to the article about that POV--the Holocaust denial article, in this case. Jeffpw (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Happening to have a POV is fine. After all, most of us edit in areas we're interested in to at least some degree, and so have some viewpoint regarding that area. On the other hand, attempting to push that POV into the article is unacceptable and should be stopped at once. Dedicated POV pushers are far more destructive and harmful than vandals, especially with lunatics like the Holocaust-deniers. Seraphimblade 21:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that I tolerated POV-pushing, perhaps I was misunderstood. I meant to say that it was rather bad-faith to assume that the user would immediately compromise the NPOV of the article (if it has been NPOV in the first place). In any case, I am also concerned that such a lengthy semi-protection has stopped many a useful contribution from anons. Also, have we established that this user is in fact, a holocaust revisionist, or is that merely our suspicion?

On the other hand, I would also request the IP outline the full scope of his proposed changes. It is rather frustrating not to be able to edit an article yourself, but if there are inaccuracies as you say, Mr. 70.18.5.219, and this request is denied again, surely you would not hesitate to outline your changes for someone else to perform instead, perhaps on a talk page? Or do you expect immediate opposition to your changes? In that case, then we have a content dispute, and it would not be a good idea to implement the changes anyway, at least till discussion is resolved at least. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The center for genocide studies says there were approx 1.5 million killed at Auschwitz.

The BBC, a neutral source, gives us this toll of over one million.

Here we see the anon IP lowering the death toll by half, based on a holocaust revisionist article.

This site debunks the source the anon placed in the article he could edit.

Here the Auschwitz Museum directly refutes the source the anon IP used.

I am not saying the anon is a Holocaust denier. It could be that he was simply taken in by the bullshit put out by deniers on the net. But do we need to spend countless hours correcting the inaccuracies of well-meaning anon IPs, who have no stake in how this project turns out, while they are operating as the tools of venomous anti-Semites? S/he could just register and edit at will, if s/he was sincerely interested in improving the 'pedia. The fact that they have agressively tried to get this unprotected on more than one page, while at the same time introducing inaccuracies into another article on the same subject, speaks volumes about the need to continue to protect and be vigilant on this subject. Jeffpw (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Careful though. I have come across many dedicated anons (although the side-effect is that their address is hard to recall off the top of one's head) who refuse to create an account, either out of principle, or they enjoy the attention of being a prolific anon editor. Besides, there is still a concern over blocking legitimate edits from others. Are expecting a flood of undesirable edits, save those by this IP or his friends? Semi-protection can always be reinstated -- but it's been six months. Take Turkish people for example -- there is a long-running dispute over that too, and content disputes between Turks, Russians and Greeks are so common that if I had a penny for every time one occurred I would probably be a millionaire, but protections for that page are common but irregular. Furthermore, the article doesn't look like it suffers waves of vandalism, unlike George W. Bush for example. It seems that the page does not suffer as much infamy as the Holocaust page itself, the Iraq War, etc.

Going over the protection policy, I also note that indefinite semi-protection is valid for pages that suffer heavy vandalism, but vandalism is not equivalent to a content dispute. Otherwise, we should lock the global warming page indefinitely as well. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Elle, I think we have a very basic difference of opinion about what constitutes vandalism. To me, the deliberate insertion of material which would cause the average reader to consider that the Holocaust either did not occur, or was not as terrible as has been presented, is outright vandalism. It not only perpetuates anti-Semitism and is considered a hate crime in many countries, it is bad science and brings this project into disrepute. This is not a mere content dispute I am concerned about, but something much more insidious. I looked at the history of the article, and saw the protecting admin's, Anthony.bradbury, summmary of his edit. It was unusual and I would like to know what he meant and how he feels on this issue. I have asked him to join the discussion. Jeffpw (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that it brings the project into disrepute, but the main thing here is that I am worried about blocking constructive editing. At this point, does long-term semi-protection do more harm than good? If a content dispute broke out -- i.e. a revert war -- it would be appropriate to fully protect the page, not semi-protect it. (I'll also add that though I don't excuse holocaust denial, accepting only evidence that augment the estimates of the death toll but never accepting studies that decrease it is potentially unhealthy.)

Semi-protection is for dealing with "obvious" cases, where you know you will have a flood of things that are clearly to be reverted, obvious vandalism, obvious POV insertion, etc. but where logistics forbid admins constantly reverting each one. So, indefinite semi-protection is to resolve this infeasibility, at the expense of any constructive anon edits.

The situation you describe is to remedy "non-obvious" content disputes. In this case, you actually had to look into his source to verify his claim, and you had to cite evidence to show why his post was a bad edit. Semi-protection is not a remedy for these types of disputes.

It is also a rather bad idea to expect the revisionism to come only from anons, and I suspect you mean the semi-protection to be a sort of filter for POV content. That is why semi-protection is generally not used in content-disputes, e.g. where the registered users are not blocked but the anons are, in order to filter out the anons from being able to revert war. This is not what semi-protection is meant for. Even though the global warming article endures constant POV insertion from random people and revert wars are somewhat common, the article is currently not on indefinite semi-protection. The people who watch that page know that this means they will have to revert POV-pushers quite often. During times of rampant vandalism however, the article is put on semi-protection.

Why is this the case? Well, sometimes POV-pushers also have legitimate claims in their edits (among the bad ones), or they do point out important qualifications. I just dealt with this in the Augusto Pinochet article. This is less the case for here, but even so, you just remember while the response to simple vandalism is knee-jerk, the response to a more complex issue of a POV dispute should not be. If a person inserts POV material into the article and cites a source, immediately reverting it is the "easy way out". Rather first, we should take a look at the source, to see if it's of merit, then we should see whether any of the edit is salvageable. Then, and only then, do we perform the revert, if one is required. This is in contrast to where we just automatically rollback simple vandalism. Too many times I have seen people revert POV edits but neglecting to restore the stuff that was legitimate. Semi-protection is like a "last resort" bot. It is like an automated, automatic reversion of all anonymous edits. We use bots for simple vandalism -- we don't use bots to replace discerning editors who are intervening in content disputes or dealing with violations of 3RR. Furthermore, there is a reason we don't classify POV-pushing, however disreputable it may be, as clear-cut vandalism. There is a reason why the exception to 3RR applies for simple vandalism only. The distinction is important, even if both types of edits (holocaust-denying POV-pushing and vandalism) are bad faith.

Again, if we had a bot in the MediaWiki script that immediately and accurately detected obvious vandalism and stopped it-- but did not intervene in content disputes, then semi-protection would be obsolete. Semi-protection is not supposed to catch people who POV-push. That is for editors to deal with directly. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was going to support keeping the protection, but now I agree avec elle. The real reason for having it protected is the frequency of disruptive edits. That can be remedied by having eyes on it.--victor falk 02:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

United States was semiprotected for several months. Someone unprotected it; it had to be reprotected within 3 hours due to high volume of anon vandalism. Sorry, but we have to protect some of our more targeted articles, I can imagine this is one. --Golbez (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

From: -70.18.5.219 (talk):

So, what a big deal that you had to re-protected it within 3 hours, please?! At least you knew that it requires re-protection instead of guessing, which is against the fundamental rule of WP:PROT#Semi-protection that "Semi-protection should not be used: As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred." Auschwitz deserves the same test for 3 hours every 3 months in a gesture of civility.

There are two separate issues: unprotecting Auschwitz clearly protected to support one POV against the other, so absolutely not NPOV by any stretch of imagination, and - the second - my edit of the same subject in Oswiecim, which was one sided - I admit - because I found the existing to be insufficient and started a process oriented on collaboration with other editors hopefully civil, who could have pointed the deficiencies, so they would have been subsequently corrected, but instead, my edit there was brutally erased killing any collaboration or cooperation, and - actually - seeming to be a first step in a war. So sorry, sad, and regretful action against a slow, but civil way of editing.

Thanks Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!), and it seems that Jeffpw (talk) does not understand, what NPOV actually is. A neutral point of view (NPOV) represents the middle of extremes (if possible) or both sides of the issue (this seem to apply to Auschwitz). You do not need to protect Auschwitz, but just allow both views to be presented in different chapters. The truth will prevail. THIS IS NPOV! Yes, Misplaced Pages is also about the Earth considered flat... you like it or not!

BTW, almost all of my mother's side of family died in Belzec, and of my father's - in Treblinka (which is well edited possibly, because it remains unprotected), I had to flee the Communists, who jailed me after protesting at the 40th anniversary of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising their holding in house arrest the only surviving leader of the Uprising (Marek Edelman); I can still talk to an Auschwitz survivor in my neighborhood. I do not believe that protecting Auschwitz - that protects mediocrity of its current editors - serves well the article and the integrity of Misplaced Pages at large.

I edited the subject in Oswiecim just to demonstrate a higher level of consideration Auschwitz sadly lacks. The same way since May I edited Intel's microprocessors. There were some initial mistakes, and people PLEASENTLY helped to fix them, so a much higher level structure of leads remains up to this day. That synthesizing structure of leads is difficult to achieve, and many Misplaced Pages leads remain quite primitive. It is easy to fill in data, as you did it Jeffpw (talk), but it is difficult to write well even with mistakes, as you did not, but you insist to kill the effort of others under a pretext used by all dictators in all anti-democratic systems without freedom of expression. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Elle, if I am reading you correctly, it seems you are considering the anon's request to lift protection even though it has been shown he is following a Holocaust revisionist line in editing other articles. To accede to this request is simply to open Misplaced Pages to another avenue of extreme point of view edits and vandalism (and yes, I see POV edits in this situation as vandalism, plain and simple). I have stated my case at length above and will not weigh in again unless I see something here that requires direct comment. However, I will say that the time spent discussing this anon's request, even after it was shown he had added disreputable sources to a related article, is symptomatic of the problems we will be opening ourselves up for if semi-protection is lifted. I have a lot better things to do than police articles against vandals, but seemingly spend half my time here doing just that. Jeffpw (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

From Protection policy: specifically says semiprotection should not be used to lock out anon editors in a content dispute and should be used only to prevent continuing disruption]. From WP:VAND#NOT about POV-pushing "Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned." Naturally this we don't want anyone linking a Denialist website to this article, but that is not different from standard, common or garden POV-pushing. We can't lock out POV-pushing. We can, however revert it continually. These are major articles on everyone's watchlist, and people revert on sight for things like this. Relata refero (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Relata, using your logic, we should also unprotect George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein, as they are on even more watchlists than the Auschwitz article. A little common sense is needed. If an article attracts a disproportionate number of vandals (as this one has, based on the 8 protections it has received this year alone) then it deserves long-term protection. Jeffpw (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Look again. Extreme POV edits are not vandalism by our definition. If you disagree, go and slug it out at WP:VAND. Therefore your analogy falls by the wayside. Relata refero (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"and yes, I see POV edits in this situation as vandalism, plain and simple" -- this is a dangerous assumption to make though -- they are both bad, but for different reasons, and different responses are needed. Semi-protection is meant to block clear-cut cases of vandalism, not to filter people of a specific view. Like if it happened that semi-protection only blocked holocaust deniers, I myself would care less. But the fact is, constructive editors are being left out. George W. Bush faces lots of obvious vandalism, not POV-pushing. Be wary of using "vandal" as some sort of catch-all term for "worthless editor". The other question is, do we expect waves of POV-pushing? Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I don't think our anonymous editor's definition of NPOV is correct. NPOV is not achieved by listing the two different sides of a story -- that just makes for a very disjunct article. NPOV discusses various points of contention. A bipolar article is not an NPOV article. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The key phrase in that post was "in this situation". In any event, administrators have had to protect this article eight times this year alone. So yes, I would expect to see waves of POV pushing and vandalism. Articles don't get semi-protected on a whim. Nor should the protection be lifted on a whim. I am glad we are discussing this so thoroughly, though I must point out that there is as yet no consensus to lift the protection. Jeffpw (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply because it was semi-protected eight times in a year does not mean that currently it will experience a new wave of vandalism. If you examine the history actually, there was only sporadic vandalism in May that triggered the protection, and it was generally not the waves of POV-pushing as you feared. Otherwise, we should semi-protect all our controversial articles -- this is not what semi-protection is meant for. Global warming was put up on semi-protection again -- it routinely is, but it is not on long-term protection. Perhaps I am old -- there was a time when people used semi-protection as a last resort, assumed good faith and cared about the potential block of constructive edits. POV-pushing can always be reverted -- do you expect waves of POV-pushing too? But the loss of good edits cannot be easily be reversed. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Santayana comes in handy here: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Though it is only my personal sentiment, WP:AGF is often mushy headedly applied on Misplaced Pages. Vandals and POV pushers have been given gar too much leeway to achieve their goals due to those policies. If an article is protected more than once a month on average, then obviously AGF is not going to be very effective. While the Utopian ideals of Misplaced Pages may have looked good in theory, in practice they have led to a lot of extra work for editors who could better be editing article sthat interest them than reverting bad faith edits. If I had my way, policies regarding anon editing and POV pushing would be much more strict than they are now. Since that will never happen, I do strongly plea for protection and care of articles most vulnerable to damaging edits. Auschwitz is among those articles. Jeffpw (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection is done to save the work of CVU and RC patrol; editors do need to consider other edits that are not clear-cut cases of vandalism. Have we seen waves of POV-pushing. There are many other cases where articles have suffered nasty anonymous edit wars -- take communism for example, but again semi-protection is not meant as a remedy against them. When I mentioned AGF, I meant to say that it was not healthy to assume that all anonymous editors were going to be malicious. Perhaps we need an RFC on this semi-protection question, if there isn't one already. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those articles that realistically has to stay semi-protected, partly because of random vandalism, partly because of Holocaust denial. If people want to edit it, they can register an account. SlimVirgin 17:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is an unacceptable fringe theory we don't want on major historical articles. However, fringe POV-pushing is not a reason for semiprotection and never has been. If this page in particular is subject to sustained vandalism, then its OK, but I don't see that in the history. Diffs? Relata refero (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Everything comes to the issue whether to allow unprotection every 3 months (or so) or not for - maybe - just a few hours; is it really so big deal to do it knowing that data is protected, instead of speculating, please? My understanding of NPOV is close to that expressed by Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) despite my simplified description above just corrected. Please, do not forget that the revisionists managed to lower the Auschwitz death count from 3-4 millions to just 1.1 quite rightfully - despite their questionable motives - proving that NPOV means accepting results of digging regardless, who is digging and why, and not discriminating against anyone, because of... a point of view (neo-fascists won their First Amendment Skokie case; remember?). The protection policy is widely abused, as I mentioned in Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy#Can vandalism be remedied by protection?, so I suggested improvements to the vandalism definition (Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort") to make blocking easier to use for replacing the abused protection. The main question remains whether Misplaced Pages can afford cutting out valuable anon IP editors, when protecting articles, or not. A short unprotection every 3 months or so does not seem to be a big price to test a possibility of such an inclusion, or does it, please? -70.18.5.219 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you genuinely misunderstand WP:NPOV or you are deliberately not listening to us. NPOV means "discuss there are two sides of the issue", not "present both sides of the issue and think for yourself." Your casting us as censoring fascists do not help your cause. We do not see policy as the glorious answer to all of our problems, hence we have WP:IAR, a principle that lets us ignore rules when rules get in the way of us improving the encyclopedia. We keep the Auschwitz article de facto permanently semi-protected because whenever we have removed it, there's too much vandalism for us to keep pace. It impacts good-faith anons, yes, but we are willing to pay that price. You will be better served if you discussed on the article's talk page instead of railing here. —Kurykh 20:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I will not engage in debate with the IP about the merits (or lack thereof) of Holocaust revisionism. This is not the place or the issue. The issue is whether this specific article will be improved if it is unprotected. It will not. The IP has options open if s/he wishes to edit the article. S/he can register. It's free and easy. S/he can also ask an admin to make the edits for him or her, after setting the text in his or her sandbox or talkpage. In answer to the last question of whether Misplaced Pages can afford to lose the "valuable" contributions of anon IPs, in this case I think Misplaced Pages will actually be improved without them. Jeffpw (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't know for certain. Just because a particular IP has asked and has shown a distressing tendency to quote from denialist websites doesn't mean there aren't ten others with no such intention who can't edit and aren't pushy enough to come here. Relata refero (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

All you need to do is check the diffs in the article history. The amount of crap from anon IPs (and, to be fair, from registered POV pushers) far outweighs the stellar contributions of the others. AGF only goes so far before it turns into a synonym for naiveté. Jeffpw (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is only whether to unprotected Auschwitz or not, but NPOV is at its core (please, distinguish between <historical> revisionists and Holocaust denial loonies out of consideration here). Right now, administrators disallow debating revisionists' position, revisionists are pissed off and damage the article, so it is protected. To me, it resembles shutting up opposition, allowing for only one point of view, and controlling press, like the communists have done. Kurykh, you do not like the comparison, so tell, what would you call it, please? The history of the issue can also be viewed as the fact that the revisionists caused the reduction of the initial number of dead from 3-4 millions to just 1.1 everyone else conceded, and, despite that, Misplaced Pages does not debate their quite extensive work, so they vandalize the article. But nobody damages unprotected Treblinka, which is not disputed. So, it is logical to infer that the discriminatory position of Misplaced Pages administrators is at least partially to blame for the vandalism they subsequently use as the excuse to keep the discriminatory protection. Very clever way to degrade Misplaced Pages's credibility and... integrity.

Coming back to the essential NPOV (which is much older term than Misplaced Pages), the phrase "First: Negotiating neutrality with others" does not imply, how the neutrality should look like, but the WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view phrase "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in" clearly encourages to present "both sides of the issue" in a neutral manner - exactly the opposite of Kurykh claim, which is a completely unsupported (by any inference) personal opinion just composed as: it is, because it is. So, debating the revisionists' position also in Auschwitz is actually encouraged by Misplaced Pages. Unprotect the article, and I will show you, how to do a neutral article presenting bipolar issue, please. Imagine someone browsing Internet in search of Auschwitz, who stumbled on one of many seriously looking revisionist's articles, and who than wants to consult it with Misplaced Pages. What can be found there about their position? Nothing! So, how Misplaced Pages's neutrality looks like, if it does not debate also the revisionists' position? Like incomplete, biased, and - so - without credibility and... integrity thanks to you.

The Soviets had constitution worded similarly to American, only the meaning of words was... different, so when you ask Russian refugees, if they are for democracy, almost all say yes, but when you ask them, what does democracy mean, they usually say... hmmm? Similarly is with Misplaced Pages's neutrality on Auschwitz. When you ask, does neutrality mean without bias, everyone says yes, but, when you ask, is the revisionists' position debated, you would hear hmmm?, and then... we do not like them. It is a "funny" kind of neutrality (in violation of the policy: "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized..."), don't you think so, please?

Great things are often attributed to individuals, and not masses, which are synonymous with commonality or mediocrity. If you protect article, usually the editing fervor dies up, and only mediocrity remains. That explains a relatively poor level of protected articles versus better quality of unprotected ones. The protected ones simply lack inspiration from anon IP editors. Poor quality means low credibility, means deficiency of integrity, which is most desired. I have nothing else to add. -Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The revisionism you cite, the lowering the death toll from 4,4 million to 1.1, is not revisionism at all, but a figure agreed upon by multiple governments after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The revisionism you used in the Oswiecim article had at its core an agenda of lowering the Jewish death toll in an effort to dilute the profoundly unique horror of the Holocaust. It is worth noting that the research you cited was debunked by Holocaust scholars familiar with the subject, and the article was rejected for publication by Der Spiegel, for which it had been written. That you would conflate the two examinations of the death toll at Auschwitz is troubling to say the least, and makes one wonder if you are simply cherrypicking in an effort to make your case.

The "debate" you wish to see in the article has no place there. Those wishing to discuss Holocaust denial can edit that article. The Auschwitz article is about what we know happened there, not what anti-Semitic quacks think about it 60 years after the war's end. NPOV is not achieved by including every fringe theory of every event. And Misplaced Pages is not a website to tolerate hate-mongering masquerading as scientific research. That we have wasted so many hours here even discussing this is, to me, a sign that unprotecting the article will only lead us back to a situation where protection will once again have to be instituted. Jeffpw (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: Jeffpw (talk), the "revisionism" I have talked about has always been the only legitimate revisionism there, i.e. historical revisionism and nothing else. If I wanted to talk about Holocaust denial, I would have called it as such. You are mistaken calling Holocaust denial just "revisionism"; it is Historical revisionism (negationism). Have you ever seen me using the word "negationism", please? No, I have NOT used it! My arguments have always been strict and precise, and my almost whole family died in Holocaust, so how I could have support Holocaust denial in any way, please? It is nonsense! Please, do not imply saying things, which were not said, to support your argument. This is not a good way to discuss anything!

The figure agreed upon by multiple governments article you quote includes "The revised Polish figures". Can you see the word "revised", please? This is the kind of historical revisionism I have been talking about. Polish government revised the figure just around July 17, 1990 shortly before signing the German-Polish Border Treaty on November 14, 1990. That Polish claim of 4 millions dead has always been a matter of contention with Germany. In other words, 'the Poles wanted German monies, so they admitted the truth about Auschwitz death toll just before receiving them with the treaty! I clearly stated sever times that by revisionism I meant the "reduction of the initial number of dead from 3-4 millions to just 1.1".

But politics (in Germany and everywhere else) is usually initiated and probed by think tanks. The latest German attempt to reduce Auschwitz death toll I cited before() is such a think tank debate (by Fritjof Meyer, Dipl. DHP, Dipl.-Politologe, Dipl.-Kameralist, Leitender Redakteur. Der Spiegel, Hamburg) - though flawed, but serious enough to meet the qualification of the Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy phrase "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized,...". Its synthesis deserves to be mentioned (next to a neutral synthesis of the rebuttal analysis of Franciszek Piper - Fritjof Meyer) according to NPOV, as I also argued previously.

I have suggested to unprotect Auschwitz just to make that Misplaced Pages policy possible to strengthen the article increasing Misplaced Pages's credibility and integrity, and nothing else. Your arguments have been to continue to violate the Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy! Even, if the mix up of legitimate historical revisionism with illegitimate Historical revisionism (negationism) is disregarded, your arguments are biased and - so - unacceptable. That is very regretful and discouraging, please. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me. The link I provided to revised figures from the Auschwitz Museum is historical revisionism. The link you were using to lower the death toll by half was Holocaust revisionism. If you clink the last wikilink to revisionism, you'll see that it redirects to Holocaust denial. Further, you'll see that Holocaust deniers prefer to call their work "revisionism", and that legitimate scholars are quick to point out how it differs from legitimate historical revisionism. As a quick aside, I never called you a denier or Holocaust revisionist. In accordance with WP:AGF, I also postulated that you could have been taken in by the site you used in your research. However, the net result was the same: pseudoscience and Holocaust revisionism was introduced into the article, from a discredited source. Jeffpw (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PS #2: No, I did not. "Historical revisionism" pertaining to Holocaust can be called "Holocaust revisionism" according to the generic meaning of these 2 words. The link, I used, refers to Holocaust revisionism the same way it does lowering the death toll from 3-4 millions to the accepted now 1.1. "Holocaust revisionism" is just semantics or generic, harmless term by itself. The same way your arguments "legitimate scholars pointed out..." or "discredited source" are without any substance, because they can cover anything. An abuse of a that term do not preclude using it according to its generic meaning, as I did. E.g., using "Negro" as an offense does not discredits "United Negro College Fund". Hence, juggling terms or semantics - you do - does not prove anything. The substance counts, not the labels, and - effectively - you advocate continuing violating WP:NPOV, as I previously inferred.

Before Poland got money from Germany in 1990, they denied 1.1 million death toll at Auschwitz calling it "Holocaust denial", but after they had got money, they stopped. Before that, Galileo's books were on the Index, and the Copernicus' theory was called a heresy, etc. WP:NPOV includes characterizing, representing, and describing debates within topics - you deny - and "debates" mean disagreeable aspects (there are no debates, when all agree). The 1.1 million death toll - considered now as an Auschwitz's truth - was called "Holocaust denial" only 20 years ago (German payment to Poland changed it). Since that Holocaust truth was achieved through a paid revision, it can be called "Holocaust revisionism" too. So, Auschwitz actually includes "Holocaust revisionism" from just 20 years ago. WP:LEAD explicitly advocates "briefly describing its notable controversies". It means, that there is place in Auschwitz for a chapter presenting the facts of its very notable "Holocaust revisionism" controversy including governments, treaties, etc. (in a neutral way). Misplaced Pages readers have a right to know it all according to WP:NPOV! -70.18.5.219 (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That belongs on the relevant talk page, in this case Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp. Now will you please go there? This is a content dispute, and content disputes do not belong on this board. —Kurykh 03:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Problematic user User:Donreed

This was declined at AIV - but it seems like something should be done, so I'm raising it here. Donreed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He makes reasonably decent copy edits most of the time - but these appear to be aimed at hiding edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Professor&diff=prev&oldid=173019441 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gun-type_fission_weapon&diff=next&oldid=173235680 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Urban_legend&diff=prev&oldid=172270300 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alice_Guszalewicz&diff=next&oldid=172267384 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sally_Bedell_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=172257513. I'm not sure it's worth anyone's time to trawl through this user's edits to dig out the nonsense he is inserting. I would suggest blocking as the user has been warned many times before Megapixie (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that there is a good deal of salvagable encyclopedic content in the diffs you provide, but neither can I say that any of the edits is strictly nonsense or is plainly vandalistic; indeed, in the absence of something compelling to the contrary, one would do well to conclude that each is made in good faith. To be sure, we (generally) block users the net effect of whose contributions on the project is negative and appears likely to remain negative, even when those users act, by any measure, in good faith and simply cannot (or elect not to) act consistent with our policies and guidelines and mission, and so this isn't so much a comment on the propriety of a block here as on the characterizations of the edits adduced as nonsense and of other copy-editing work as having been undertaken to "hid" the offending edits, which seem, even if it matters little to the disposition of the underlying issue, a bit off.

On the underlying issue: David Broadfoot has suggested to the user, rather sensibly, IMHO, that the latter might do well to confine his Misplaced Pages involvement to reading articles. Joe (Wake me from my food coma) 10:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problematic pattern here. I'm sure Donreed's anecdotes are entertaining at parties, but they aren't exactly encyclopedic. I have asked Donreed to join in this discussion and explain what he thinks the purpose of Misplaced Pages is, and why he thinks these edits fit with that purpose. ··coelacan 10:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He's ploughed ahead with 40 edits since you wrote on his talk page "Please do not make any other edits to Misplaced Pages until you have joined in the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard." --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And another 18 edits since then... ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE PACIFIC: The fairly aceptable "volumes which they have purchased in hard copy form" has been mangled into "volumes that have purchased been in hard copy form"; BERETS: a detailed exposition of the difficulties matching sizes between continents; a crushingly boring anecdote about LINUS PAULING: "In 1992, a Silicon Valley technical writer got a call from his former girlfriend, asking him to pick her up at the airport. When he approached the jetway, wearing his usual leather jacket and beret, he saw her talking with an elderly man wearing a blue suit and a beret. He later found out that Laura had been seated randomly by the airline-reservation computer next to this mysterious man. She had asked: "Are you Linus Pauling?" "Yes," he replied. She learned that Pauling was returning from his wife's funeral in Los Angeles; Laura had returned from a family visit herself."; an edit premised on the misconception that being a Unitarian Universalist and being an atheist are mutually exclusive; a supposition about AEROBIC EXERCISE; and, finally, some good copyediting on BLACK HOLES. --David Broadfoot (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite six requests, from various users, that he use Edit Summaries, I note that he has only done soonce for the last 100 edits. And that was to assert "I've corrected this fictitious quote to the way it is most often quoted.", when in fact, as I wrote below, that it was most often quoted the other way, but a factor of 1,000:1. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This takes the cake (all but the first paragragh was added by User:Donreed, and reverted by User:Megapixie). We've got it all here: chatty conjecture; questions; suggestions; discussion of his Google searches; a list that contains one numbered entry, and one bullet point; and to cap it all off, a suggestion that the much-published journalist in question may never have been born! Lucky he only touched on what is "not known" by him, else the article would have exceeded the size limit (of the Internet.) He even ended those edits with his nickname: 'disinformation' --David Broadfoot (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Donreed - a two-day synopsis (phew!)

I'm quite sure that User:Donreed's multiple contiguous edits are not designed to hide previous edits, but they do make it very difficult to revert - forcing one to either throw out the good with the bad (as I've seen several editors doing with Donreed's contributions), or waste a lot of time correcting them. The multiple edits are a result of lack of thought and preparation: many typos are subsequently fixed in dribs and drabs; additional nonsense and anecdotes are added in dribs & drabs; invalid internal links he has added are repaired; etc.

I am convinced that Donreed's edits are all made in good faith. It's just that he has no idea regarding what is proper (style or relevance), and he is extremely careless and presumptive. I have trawled through his edits of the past couple of days, and note that nearly all of his edits, especially those of a substantial nature, have been reverted by other users - so he is really wasting not only his own time, but that of many others as well.

His contributions include:

• numerous edits to swap "that" for "which", his use of the appropriate restrictive or descriptive pronoun always being correct.
• insertion of commas, mostly in the appropriate places, though often far too heavy-handed with them.
• re-phrasing attempts that are sometimes good, sometimes resulting in worse phraseology, and, very worryingly, attempts that end up changing the meaning of the sentence to inadvertently change its meaning to one that is incorrect.
• inane chatty comments like these: and (reversion by User:Ryulong) and (reversion by User:Megapixie) and (reversion of Amazon shopping advice and other crud by User:David Broadfoot) and (reversion by User:Key to the city)

• careless entries like (wrong book title corrected by User:David Broadfoot)

• this pay-for-porn--amazon-is-best--no-it's-free-after-all sequence (which was all reverted by User:Megapixie) is a classic:
  • at 17:49 he added useless chatty info about an adult site's details and price of $950 (when what he should have been doing was deleting the link to the copyrighted text instead)
  • at 17:54 he added Amazon pricing/buying tips
  • at 17:55 he decided that you don't have to pay the porn $950 after all to view that link - it's free

• in he contributes legal advice regarding copyright, that is not only US-specific, but also incorrect in any case. (See - one only needs to deposit works in the Library of Congress to avoid fines; and even then only if the work is "published". The requirement, as loose as it is, does not even extent to private/secret copyrighted works.)

• included fluff like "It is surprising that dozens of men and women who deal with aviation emergencies or possible air war every day had not read Tom CLancy's novel Debt of Honor".

• In the article 'Professors', he launches into a lengthy diatribe about Silicon Valley real estate prices, and the 99-year Hong Kong lease and the quality of campus libraries here which he further elaborated into a comparative analysis of various libraries here and then launches into a completely uninteresting account of how libraries handle the problem of overdue books; followed by a self-admitted "apocryphal tale" ending with "Apparently, he was never charged with an indiscretion, much less a crime." ending with an admonition to himself to cite a reference - fascinating reading here: . Yes, that was all in the Misplaced Pages entry for Professor!

• More false information contained in an alleged "correction" by Donreed here where he asserts that his version of the alleged quote is more the more common one. However, a Google search shows that the allegedly less common quote is actually 1,000 times more common. Reverted by User:David Broadfoot

• in he added two commas to the sentence: "The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization" to give: "The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, which hangs in the National Archives, had slightly different capitalization" which imparts a different (and incorrect) meaning to sentence. He then added more junk, misspellings, and missing punctuation.

• his entry was deleted by User:Flowanda as unencyclopedic.

• his entry is unencyclopedic, contains unnecessary edits, incorrect punctuation, and even an aside inserted into middle of a quotation!

• he mistakenly believes that "non-mainstream" is the same thing as "not peer-reviewed" and edited the article to include this mistaken 'information' as a clarification. Furthermore, he presumptively adds that those reports were all in "physics journals" - a mere assumption, and an incorrect one at that. He is turning Misplaced Pages into a collection of conjecture masquerading as fact.

• in he edited a literal quotation to correct grammar / punctuation.

• his contribution was reverted by User:TEB728 with the comment: "(this is true but irrelevant to an article on English)"

• in he changed "Indian literary and vernacular language" to "Indian literary and vernacular languages" - subtly changing the meaning.

• his contributions and and and and and another addition as well, were all reverted by User:Brianyoumans here:

• in his edit he added the words "electorions", "engaglged", made an unnecessary reword from an acceptable "were once" to a tautological "had formerly been". He also changed "malpractice" to "malfeasance" because he thought it was more appropriate - it would have been better usage, except for the fact that they were actually charged with "malpractice".

• in User:Cloonmore reverted what he called Donreed's "unsourced claim that the song's about a Jane from Tudor English history"

• in he changed the sentence: "She was never crowned because of an epidemic of plague in London where the coronation was to take place" to a very torturous, and comma-loving: "She was never crowned, because London, where the coronation was to take place, was hit by a plague epidemic." It was reverted by User:Secisek here:

• User:David Broadfoot reverted to remove classic Donreedian gems like "elderly people often die, even if they are not killed" and the word "differinging".

• and and were all reverted by User:Secisek with the comment "(Tell me you didn't just add WP:OR and then fact tag it yourself. Revert)" here . Yes, amazingly, Donreed makes a habit of introducing 'original research' and opinion - and fact-tagging it himself.

• and and and and and and and (containing classic Donreedisms like "A person with unlimited funds could simply buy all back issues of Penthouse,—except for a few that have been withdrawn from circulation or become extremely rare, like the Vanessa Lynn Williams and Traci Lords issues—read them all, and maybe find the article." were all reverted by User:Oneiros here

• in he ventures into the finance world, changing the accepted accounting phraseology "General Media had been cash flow positive for the prior 10 years" to an obtuse "General Media had had a positive cash flow for the prior 10 years". Reverted by User:Oneiros here: .

• was reverted by me with the comment that 'his pen name wasn't "Latinized to" anything... his real name was Latinized to produce his pen name' - another well-meaning attempt to copyedit that actually balls things up.

• in he changes "money" to "themoney". Another undesirable edit, even if he had bothered to write "the money" instead.

• in he gives us shopping advice for "goatskin leather jackets" from LL Bean - very inappropriately included in the "Memorials" section too, but let's just dump the trash anywhere. Reverted by User:Dbrodbeck.

• in he moved into the field of Corporations and Securities advice when he changed "traded on the public markets" to "public companies". However, there is no requirement that a public company has to be listed, so his edit left the article factually incorrect.

• and and [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jean_Paulhan&diff=next&oldid=173356028 were reverted by User:Megapixie for "uncited additions". Actualy, by this time I think that Mexapixie was simply exhausted.

• in he changed "hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability" to "hydrodynamics and hydromagnetic stability", but that changes the meaning: the scientist didn't work on "hydrodynamics" - he worked specifically on "hydrodynamic stability", as stated in the original version of the text. Also, his addition of "((The footnotes themselves do not reveal the contents of the papers cited. Any scholar with access to a good university library can track them down)" here is again unencyclopedic, apart from the unmatched parentheses. Those two edits, and another two were rolled back by User:Megapixie.

It's very easy to make voluminous edits to Wikipeda when you don't have to concern yourself with getting the facts right. If User:Donreed restricted himself to changing "which" to "that", he would be providing a useful service - almost free of danger. If Donreed continues how is is, and the Admins don't step in, then (to maintain our sanity and have some time left for more important things, like drinking beer, or even scratching our arse) our only recourse will be for all of us to automatically delete any of Donreed's edits on sight (without first reading them), on the basis of probable cause! We need a WP:DONREED tag. Hmmm... "DONREED" is awfully close to "DONTREAD" anyway. -- David Broadfoot (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration with this user, but there is no need to conclude your account with the words you have chosen. If he does read this detailed critique, those words will simply insult him, & we'll have one more disgruntled user -- if not a vandal -- on our hands. And have missed an opportunity to educate him about how to write an encyclopedia. As for insisting that we Admins do something about a user who is making marginal contributions to Misplaced Pages, Admins don't have any abilities that a competent, articulate editor doesn't have -- except for blocking him, & I'm not convinced that blocking him is the proper solution in this instance. -- llywrch (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I think "DONTREAD" and "delete on sight" are reasonable responses. Not pefect, just reasonable.
2. You wouldn't have a disgruntled vandal on your hands if he is blocked (he would be blocked.) You have many disgruntled users on your hands because he is not blocked.
3. I never insisted that Admins do something about it.
4. His contributions aren't "marginal" - they are disruptive.
5. I am convinced it he needs to be bocked. He is ignoring all feedback from the Wikipdia community, and he is doing more harm than good.

Cheers --David Broadfoot (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So in effect, you are proposing that "too stupid to edit" is a proper critereon to block/ban people from Misplaced Pages. That is, in effect, what you are proposing -- & you can't state in one place that he's "editing in good faith" while in another claim that he's being disruptive. Need I explain why banning people for marginal or mediocre edits is a bad idea? -- llywrch (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no need to characterise it as "too stupid to edit". You should just stick to the facts: no matter what the cause/reason leading to all the disruptive editing, it's a simple matter of violation of Misplaced Pages policy, so I can't see why you are so keen to defend it (and you are the only one posting here who is not in favour of blocking.) Others have also characterized it as "disruptive editing", so why do you continually downplay his disruption by describing it as "marginal and mediocre edits" when a more accurate description is "voluminous and unencyclopedic". And I can state that I think that his edits are in good faith (though I could be wrong) and also claim that he is being disruptive - the two things are not mutually exclusive. For example, as in this case, (a) the user repeatedly fails to satisfy verifiability, and (b) rejects community input - both examples of grounds for being blocked as stated here. The Misplaced Pages policy on that is clear - why don't you wan't to follow Misplaced Pages policy? --David Broadfoot (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't think that it is Misplaced Pages policy -- pure & simple. (I'll also admit that some of the points you criticize him for are so subtle that I don't see where he errs, for example the difference between which/that. Maybe that's why I have some sympathy for this person.) Remember, part of the concept behind be bold is that an editor shouldn't have to worry about being second-guessed by another editor who, without prior warning, decides all of his mistakes are disruptive & calls him to be banned -- perhaps permanently. This editor is clearly showing a lot of bad judgement -- I won't deny that -- which is why I call his edits "marginal and mediocre". I don't follow your reasoning, however, why his mistakes are disruptive: contributors to Misplaced Pages have their edits reverted or changed all of the time, & often for mistakes. For example, many of my own edits are modified due to typos, misspellings -- or because I have quoted some fact incorrectly from memory. Does that make me disruptive?

However, I think Guy has shown the proper solution below: focus on the fact that people have offered to help him improve his edits, but because he has ignored their offers to talk with him, he is blocked until he opens a discussion -- which was my original point. You would have us block him for punitive reasons, for of his mediocre or "disruptive" edits; Guy extended a good-faith block to get this user's attention, to get him to talk about his contributions & see if someone can't educate him about this problem. And I'd go a little further, & state that if this block doesn't get him to talk about the quality of his edits then perhaps he be given an indefinite block (and not a permanent ban) until he does talk with another Wikipedian.

One last point. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy: the fact it appears that I'm the only one disagreeing with you should not be a factor in this discussion. Until now, I have not set forth in detail my argument, so it may be that other people reading this thread are waiting until I did so to either agree -- or disagree with my opinion here. After all, I am not saying that this user is a problem -- obviously he is; I am instead saying that taking the time & effort to pillory a user here for his mistakes -- which is what you have done -- is not a constructive way to handle this. Because it is hard not to read the final paragraph in your lengthy post on Donreed as an unnecesary, & perhaps disruptive, personal attack. -- llywrch (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Re your answer: "Because I don't think that it is Misplaced Pages policy -- pure & simple." is not much of a response given that I had pointed out the specific policy breaches causing the disruption when I wrote: "For example, as in this case, (a) the user repeatedly fails to satisfy verifiability, and (b) rejects community input - both examples of grounds for being blocked as stated here"

Re your comment: "I'll also admit that some of the points you criticize him for are so subtle that I don't see where he errs, for example the difference between which/that" - I did not criticise him for that - I complimented him for that. You might categorise certain grammar rules as subtle, but incorrect use of of the restrictive and descriptive pronoun can result, at worse, in the wrong meaning being imparted, and, at best, anoyance for those who know the grammar rules. The other subtle change he made, compounded by another user's even more subtle edit, resulted in a sentence that put a positive spin on something (Cold Fusion) that the sentence had previously put a negative spin.

The issue has nothing to do with being bold - it has to do with the quality of the contributions and the refusal to accept commuity input. You keep trying on straw man arguments.

Your justification "This editor is clearly showing a lot of bad judgement ... which is why I call his edits 'marginal and mediocre'." Well... a lot of bad judgment is quite different to marginal and mediocre.

I didn't decide that "all of his mistakes are disruptive" - I decided that many of his contributions are disruptive due to their unencyclopedic nature and his repeated failure to satisfy verifiability along with his rejection of commnity input.

I respond similarly to your next question: "because I have quoted some fact incorrectly from memory. Does that make me disruptive?" Donreed didn't just quote some fact from memory incorrectly - Why do you repeatdly try to distort the facts? Another straw man argument.

You contradict yourself when you say that Guy did the right thing by blocking the user, when you had only just argued "I'm not convinced that blocking him is the proper solution."

Where do you get off making an accusation like: "You would have us block him for punitive reasons". Another straw man argument.

You then state that if this block doesn't get him to talk about the quality of his edits then he should be given an indefinite block. That's not necessary. It is only necessary that changes the way he edits.

As for accusing me of making a personal attack, I have only made three ad hominem comments:

1. "I'm quite sure that User:Donreed's multiple contiguous edits are not designed to hide previous edits"
2. "I am convinced that Donreed's edits are all made in good faith."
3. "It's just that he has no idea regarding what is proper (style or relevance), and he is extremely careless and presumptive."

The first two support him - quite hte opposite of an attack. The third is a direct deduction based on the evidence.

On the other hand, it was you who categorised him as "too stupid to edit".

I make no apologies for stating that his disruption is causing a great waste of our time, and that his contributions are not worth reading. Meanwhile, you continue to be the only one arguing that Donreed is not being disruptive even after he was blocked (which makes me wonder one what basis you now agree with the block.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Broadfoot (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You seem to have overlooked the following comments (emphasis mine):

It's very easy to make voluminous edits to Wikipeda when you don't have to concern yourself with getting the facts right. If User:Donreed restricted himself to changing "which" to "that", he would be providing a useful service - almost free of danger. If Donreed continues how is is, and the Admins don't step in, then (to maintain our sanity and have some time left for more important things, like drinking beer, or even scratching our arse) our only recourse will be for all of us to automatically delete any of Donreed's edits on sight (without first reading them), on the basis of probable cause! We need a WP:DONREED tag. Hmmm... "DONREED" is awfully close to "DONTREAD" anyway.

After reading those words, your claim that you complimented his work cannot be read as anything other than disingenuous. And it is this kind of commentary that muddies the waters in conflicts, leads to those passionate edit wars which make Admins reluctant to get involved, & which wind up in ArbCom. At this point, it is obviously clear that you apparently do not want to listen to gentle suggestions along the lines of honey, flies & vinegar, so I'm discontinuing this thread. Enjoy editting Misplaced Pages. -- llywrch (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Does any of this guideline ring a bell in light of Mr. Reed's edits? I'm giving him a final warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• So, he's continuing to add uncited content to articles, and has not responded to two comments on Talk. Blocked 24h. What next? Guy (Help!) 16:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Donreed's last words

Last words before being blocked: "After Sears was bought by ], many customers believe that Lands' End's quality has declined: navy-blue blazers are not the very dark midnight blue they formerly were.... {{fact}}" (yes, a fashion statement, complete with a 'fact' tag.) --David Broadfoot (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Donreed still at it

Well, he's back. This edit is just another anecdote, but on the other hand, this edit is sensible. Graham87 06:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to learning or responding to the comments left on his talkpage - take his two most recent edits - This level of violence, although not directed at people, was surprising in a group of gay men that had been expected to act like "sissies" and It is possible that she culd have taken over Sandra Day O'Connor's role of basketball coach in the Highest Court in the land. Blocking is intended to preventative rather than punitive - I suggest he's blocked again until he engages with dialogue with other editors about concerns. It's not malicious but his editing is disruptive. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another example of this ongoing problem - having to follow the guy around reverting over 85% of his changes is a waste of everyone's time. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. This user has used an edit summary 10 times in his last 1,000 main space edits (1% rate). He has made three talk page comments in his 1.5 years with the project. (2 to his own talk page, 1 to a category talk page.) Can we say failure to communicate? I've undone this set for WP:BLP violation. He needs at the very least to notice discussion and modify his behavior based on it; also joining the discussions would be even better. GRBerry 15:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also...

1. in the article on Neil Young, he added: "His nearest neighbor for many years was chemist Carl Djerassi, who owned an adjacent property. After 1978, Djerassi's cattle ranch became the Djerassi Resident Artists Program, an art colony, which is owned by the Djerassi Foundation." reverted for unsourced and irrelevant guff about a neighbour's property.
2. getting into problems again by writing on technical issues that doesn't understand, he added this sentence "The name Auric refers to the one valence state of gold that allows chemical combination." For a start, "Auric" gold has valence 3, not 1. Valence 1 is "aurous" gold.
3. added unencyclopedic language in Chemistry set: "dangerous—even in the hands of idiots"
4. and added "antisterrorisn police agencies usually looked only in the wrong part of town" both reverted by User:Fredrick day
5. added another unsubstantiated anecdote on hacking, reverted by User:Graham87
6. in the article on Cyanide he added: "According to the fictional so we have fictional input to science articles.
7. He change "The urethra is the tube that carries urine from the bladder to the outside of the body." to: "The urethra is the tube that generally carries urine from the bladder to the outside of the body; during ejaculation, the male urethra carries semen outside the body (and typically into another person's body.)" http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cystoscopy&diff=prev&oldid=173872687] reverted by User:GRBerry for including an inappropriate comment.
8. inserted a comma between the subject of a sentence and its verb

I echo what User:Fredrick day said: "having to follow the guy around reverting over 85% of his changes is a waste of everyone's time". Even then, I've still come along afterwards and found more clear examples that had been missed. User:Donreed he edits full-time from 9am to midnight every day. There must be lot of old stuff that's slipped through the net, undermining the quality of Misplaced Pages. --David Broadfoot (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is it possible to block a user from editing the main namespace, but still allow him/her to edit Talk pages? If it's technically feasible, such an action might encourage Donreed to engage in a conversation with other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it is not. --Deskana (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Swalwell, Alberta

A few of you will be familiar with the history of Swalwell, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a hamlet where Misplaced Pages Review has decided one of their pet targets lives. This article has been recreated many times and then used to harass various individuals (for example linking it from their user page). This time a slightly different approach has been taken; the article was not deleted, even though it is plainly deliberate trolling (wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13578&st=0&p=60109&#entry60109 as an example) but it has been protected, along with its talk page. I have left a note asking for edit protected requests to be brought here. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The version that I restored was not created by the WR lunatics, but by an established editor with 24K+ edits who is active in the area. I was reluctant to bring this to public light because of its sentitive nature, but since the cat's out of the bag I welcome review and comments. east.718 at 11:23, November 24, 2007

Yes, I noticed that's what you did. It needs to be said because the talk page is protected through two protected transclusions and a protection, which might cause confusion. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The assumption on your part that any creation of an article on a particular hamlet is "plainly deliberate trolling" is an assumption of bad faith on your part, and untrue in this case given that the current version was actually created by a legitimate editor unaffiliated with the "attack sites". Since Misplaced Pages normally aims to have articles on every populated place no matter how small, the history of knee-jerk deletions of this one as "trolling" is the sort of thing outside media might be interested in when they're looking for examples of WikiAdmin pettiness. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

...except that every single creation except for the last was trolling. Somehow, I don't think articles created by accounts impersonating the editor in question or containing "LOOOOOOOOL <redacted>! <redacted> LIVES THERE!!!!!" are good-faith contributions. east.718 at 16:46, November 24, 2007

That and the thread on WR which outright admits to it, yes. And Dan, the current version isn't a troll becuse it's not the last one that was created, the history was reviewed and a veriosn found - the ony version as far as I can tell - that was not actually trolling. The creator of yesterday is blocked as a sleeper sock, his version is gone. Perhaps we should invite Dan to quietly remove that comment and these replies, to save his embarrassment. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan, could you please, please, please cut it with the histrionics, and actually educate yourself on the issues before you go on one of your rants? It would make the editing atmosphere so much more pleasant. --Iamunknown 19:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly well educated, thank you. And all that that WR thread admitted to was tweaking the noses of the oversensitive admins by writing a perfectly reasonable page about that locality and having it predictably deleted as "trolling"... so the admin deleting it was actually feeding the troll in this case, since that's exactly the action they were trying to provoke. And WR actually has a point when they say that this sort of knee-jerk deletion (even in the absence of any direct evidence that it is actually written by a troll, or any actual problem with the content) shows a silly tendency to put petty grudges over improving the encyclopedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not the whole story is it, Dan? The list of blocked usernames of past creators, for example, which features variants on the supposed RWI and Misplaced Pages usernames of some of those "oversensitive admins", means that is not quite as hilarious as perhaps you think. Maybe you've mistaken us for a site where it's fine to do these things "for the lulz"? It's not. Seriously, it's not. I know it's a kind of game for your mates over at WR to try and get this laughable theory into Misplaced Pages, and I'm sure they either know it's false or don't care whether it's true or not, but actually it does matter because someone is being harassed and this "tweaking the nose" of "oversensitive admins" is a part of that harassment. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I would ask you to consider posting in the manner of your 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC) post rather than in the manner of your 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC) post, and to continue engaging in discussion (i.e. reply, as opposed to hit and run) ... its amazing what can be done, and how much more productive discussion can be, when you cut the histrionics, and actually engage in discussion. --Iamunknown 20:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious how Dan claims to know so much about this page, if the edits are deleted? When I first glanced at the deleted edits, I was wondering why the page was deleted, as it seemed perfectly harmless. But then I took a second look, and the accounts involved usually went on trolling sprees or otherwise showed their "true colors" within a few minutes/hours of creating the page. When I block a throwaway, harassment account, it strikes me as a waste of time to go checking their two contribs for usefulness, just revert/block/ignore unless something else comes to light. The page itself is harmless, I'd say, but some of the people (previously) editing it, the usernames and behaviors those people opt for, are nevertheless an important context. Who cares what WR says, here? Just deal with it as we normally would. "Special treatment," good or bad, isn't a territory I'd like to wander into. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the first few incarnations of the page were fairly blatant trolling; while the content of each was generally a benign stub, I can understand the desire to delete them given that the offensive usernames would be forever interred in the page history otherwise. Deleting the version by an established contributor on Alberta-related topics was a bit hasty, but thankfully this reasonable version is now restored, and we no longer have a hole in our coverage. Further protection seems fine, since it's obviously a troll magnet, and since it's a sleepy little hamlet with little to say on it, it seems reasonable to ask for an editprotected request. --krimpet⟲ 02:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where one would ask, given that the talk page is protected too, but you're probably about right otherwise. Nowadays, with the Durova scandal in full drama, all of the "innocent" mistakes in the course of pursuing the War on Terror Trolls are being scrutinized to an extent not seen before. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bit of catch-22, unfortunately -- protect the article, disruption shifts to the talk page and renders the effort moot; protect the talk page, and where can we talk? Appreciate the insights, both of you. Hopefully we can unprotect the talk page, at least, eventually? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan, there's a message there that says to post here. If someone were to deface the talk page for the hamlet with "OMGWTFBBQ SHE LIVES THERE!!!!!" it would be dangerous; if somebody were to do it here it wouldn't last five minutes. At the same time, legitimate edits have a well-trafficked venue to be requested in. east.718 at 05:59, November 25, 2007

I have restored the legitimate edits to Talk:Swalwell, Alberta and readded the banner in those edits. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures, and unprotection would cause many headaches for the oversighters. Graham87 12:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Swalwell, Alberta. -- Jreferee t/c 15:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a chance on earth that AFD passes. Real places are inherently notable, no matter the size, as years of precedent has established. Resolute 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a few lines should be added to the talk page to explain why the article has been protected. Those unfamiliar with the situation who in good faith want to add material to move it beyond stub territory should be given some context as to why they can't unless they're admins. 23skidoo (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We should avoid feeding the trolls and also consider the sensitive nature of this issue. east.718 at 02:49, November 26, 2007

Everyone take a bow

A few moment ago CAT:CSD was actually completely empty, including no image backlog. That is a first in my experience.-- Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What?!?!? That's amazing!--Phoenix-wiki  15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You may thank us CSD patrollers by donating us rogue points in the sekrat cabal channel. east.718 at 15:40, November 24, 2007

It's the same now. I must get back to new page patrolling again, that ought to get another 15... :) Rudget.talk 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP is empty now too! — Rlevse • Talk • 18:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work, team! Your salaries are going to be doubled. Look under the mat in the hallway. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

New copyright law in France

Just informing people that there will maybe be a new copyright law in France, which obliges ISPs to monitor people's connections for copyright infringement, and ban the users from the Internet if they are caught. So any French users should be careful, and remember there is no such thing as fair-use in France, so you won't be able to view or upload fair-use images anymore, or you risk being banned from internet. Perhaps wikipedia should prepare a system that blocks IP addresses from France from viewing Non-Free media or it will loose almost all French users as there really is no way of being sure to never see a fair-use image, they can crop up anywhere unexpected. Jackaranga (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This really sucks by the way, it's the end of the internet, there is copyright infringement all over the place, so many sites display images they don't own the rights to :( Jackaranga (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That article says nothing of the sort. east.718 at 16:12, November 24, 2007

You do of course mean any user of any nationality located in France, not any French user, and while it might affect our copyvio policy (ie a user in France posting a copyvio would be breaking Frenchj law) hard to see it would affect our fair use policy or us. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If this law goes ahead wikipedia might consider blocking French IP addresses from viewing non-free images out of courtesy, to avoid them being being banned from internet. It's so easy to see non-free images by accident, just browsing articles. Just a thought anyway. If this law spreads to other countries, wikipedia will have to do something or else all the users from those countries will be lost, either banned from internet, or too scared to browse wikipedia in case they see a non-free image. Jackaranga (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think it will be our job to make sure that French users are babysat into not viewing a part of the site. I think if they want to avoid being banned from the internet that they will avoid it anyways. If they don't, the risk is theirs, not ours. — Save_Us_229 17:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting, Jack. It means nothing along the lines of you can't access a fair use document from another country. What it means is that you can't keep uploading copyrighted material to YouTube, and having YouTube be complacent in it. It also means that you can't say "I took this picture" when you didn't. And amen and thank Heavens for such a law. But if you credit an image, on the English Misplaced Pages, on American servers, then you do not fall under this law. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that they will be able to view fair use images. If they weren't able to then they wouldn't be able to view anything that's copyrighted, which is about 99% of the internet (I've always hated fair use, by the way)--Phoenix-wiki  20:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that the French law will allow for some use along the lines of article 5(3)(d) of the EUCD, namely

quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, unless this turns out to be impossible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose

Fair use material on Misplaced Pages (including images) should largely fall within that exception. Jheald (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Any new law the French government enacts will need to be compatible with the treaties they, and most of the western world, have signed related to copyright law. I belive (but am not sure) that the treaties require "fair use" of some form or another. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that section 122.5(2) of the French law, even as amended by DADVSI, also explicitly permits

copies or reproductions strictly reserved for the private use of the copyist and not intended for collective use

That should put into the clear anything you see in a web browser and don't redistribute. (Though the DADVSI page says not P2P networks). Jheald (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevo-723

Looking at the contributions of Kevo-723 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log), it seems highly likely that he is the same user as DX-Kevo (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) who was blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. DX-Kevo was blocked on 21 June 2007; Kevo-723 was created the following day. A large proportion of DX-Kevo's edits involved inserting plausible-looking but incorrect information into existing articles about Joe Tompkins (a real person) , ], Ben Milan (a non-notable, perhaps non-existent person) , ], or both , ]. Kevo-723 is now showing exactly the same modus operandi , , , , ]. It would be unfair to say that every one of Kevo-723's edits were vandalism: there is constructive work on the Liu Song (snooker player) article, but that plus correcting an odd missing full stop seems to be the extent of his/her useful contributions. — ras52 (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Category approved for deletion over month ago still there

I couldn't figure out where else to bring this up, or what other avenue to take. The category "Watchmen" as approved deletion Oct. 14 at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 14#Category:Watchmen, yet it's still up. What do we do at this point? Thanks for any information. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• It was deleted on the 23rd October, . It's since been recreated. Let me refresh my memory on speedies for categories and I'll be right back. Steve block in Hiding T 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll do the legwork, it can get deleted as recreated material. Steve block in Hiding T 23:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy for the discussion of policy

See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Policy for discussion of policy policy. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I'm concerned that page Misplaced Pages:Media help (Ogg) is not protected. We're telling people: go ahead, download and run these programs, we say they are safe... It wasn't until after I'd downloaded and installed a new codec that I noticed it wasn't protected and anyone could have gone and change the links...to who knows what malware. I'd like to suggest permanent protection due to its links. RJFJR (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good point. I've protected the page indefinitely. --krimpet⟲ 02:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving without consensus

What is the proper procedure when an editor moves an article to a new name when such a move is under discussion on the talk page and no consensus has been achieved? Anoshirawan moved Dari (Afghanistan) to Dari (Persian) in just such an instance. He had been warned about edit warring in that article and as Kavaiyan pointed out on 2 November 2007: "There he goes: Anoshirawan continues his edit war." I don't want to edit war, and previous RFC's have gone relatively un-responded-to. I am trying an RFC here, but my last one at RFC on Template:History of Afghanistan received no responses in 22 days. Previous to that my RFC Request for Comment: Persian Cromwell, fact or fiction? did get a response, but was unsuccessful in generating consensus. --Bejnar (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Try listing the move at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, with a pointer to the location where the RfC is in progress. You would then have the services of an administrator to close the discussion, and you might get some help if an editor goes against the consensus. Also, posting an issue at a related Wikiproject is sometimes useful. All three of the above RfCs seem very esoteric and most people might be scared off from participating. Surely there is an active Talk page somewhere in the topic area where you can find experienced editors to ask for advice. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP Policy and Family Portraits

I would appreciate if an admin with background in BLP policy would take a look at this Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#Family Portrait Wanderer57 (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg

Hi. Please check the article on Gettysburg. The first paragraph is pretty bad. I do not have an account, and I don't know how to edit things or join the "talk." I'm hoping a "wiki" professional will be able to clean it up. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.200.154 (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the vandalism. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Simmons Arboretum

Could someone check this article's discussion page and let me know why it won't let me edit/create it? I'm trying to add the {{WikiProject Mississippi|class=stub|importance=low}} tag to it but it won't let me do anything. It's just this article as I can edit any other article. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 16:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done east.718 at 16:12, November 25, 2007

Thanks, but what was causing the problem?? -- ALLSTARecho 16:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Who knows? All's well now. east.718 at 16:46, November 25, 2007

Deletion review - new admin

Hi. Im a new admin. After testing the deletion function at the new admin school, I deleted the article, Khancoban (band) per CSD:A7 after performing a google test and checking the history. Could an experienced admin check that I have done it correctly and if I was right in deleting the article. Can I also ask if there is a template I can use to inform users that their article has been deleted. Thanks. Tbo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about a template, but delete looks good to me, the ref was myspace (not reliable), and they've only released one album. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Tbo (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

For notability deletions, you can inform the creator via {{nn-warn-deletion}}. Other CSD notification templates can be found at Category:CSD warning templates. -- JLaTondre 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tbo (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you get twinkle you can warn much easier. Spartaz 20:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

David Berkowitz, Son of Sam

I am having a dispute over the religious background of David Berkowitz and his family. My sources clearly state Berkowitz, his birth parents, and adoptive parents are all Jewish.

For some reason unknown to me, User:Brewcrewer fanatically removes this information from the article despite being aware of supporting quotes from Berkowitz himself.

He refuses to discuss why he is deleting my edits, and instead slurs me as an "anti-semite". I am Jewish, which makes the whole situation even more absurd. He also systematically trolls my many other contributions. I am suspicious of his motives to say the least. Graham Wellington (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• On a very early view, it looks as if both of you are edit warring and may have broken the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• • User:Brewcrewer is systematically trolling my contributions in a targeted manner. Can you put a stop to it? I'm not sure if its allow in Misplaced Pages, but sure does feel like cyber-stalking. Graham Wellington (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspected misuse of {{PD-self}}

What is the correct manner for reporting the suspected misuse of {{PD-self}}? Image:Arrivavoyagernew.png is listed this way, but it turns out that it has been screen-grabbed (or something) from this online magazine. --RFBailey (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PUI. east.718 at 19:35, November 25, 2007

Thanks! --RFBailey (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary vs Teaser

I'm not involved enough with Misplaced Pages to try to solve this situation myself, but if someone feels like attempting it... I have noticed in many film and novel articles there is a plot summary, but it is not actually a plot summary at all. It is a 'teaser', ending with something along the lines of "and then things get interesting", or whatever. The point is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a movie and novel advertisement or fan site. There should be no fear of spoilers, of giving away the ending of a fictional work. At least, that's how I view an encyclopedia. I thought someone who knows how might want to create one of those boxes that goes at the top of an article saying "the plot summary is not encyclopedic" or something like that. Just an idea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyandy68 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but we should've seen this coming when it became a crime to transclude {{spoiler}}. —Cryptic 22:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Some of us did. Jheald (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I've noticed this too — I don't think it's a result of the spoiler guidelines, but rather a result of people getting lazy and just copy-pasting from review sites, or being influenced by them. --Haemo (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe teaser plot summaries do have a higher chance, in practice, of being copyright violations than detailed plot synopses. Whenever I see a one-paragraph plot summary that reads like advertisement copy, I search for it on google to see if it was literally copied from a promotional site. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:FIGHT

A new essay decree essay. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The shortcut WP:STFU ("Shut the fuck up") should go. I can only see that upsetting people. The essay itself is ... well, I suppose if you found it funny it would have a purpose. Neil ☎ 10:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly perplexed by this cabal decree, I mean everything it says is true, as in first degree truth. Normally these cabal things contain gross exaggerations based on the worst behavior observed. This one contains no exaggerations, it's a reformulation of basic policy, I don't know why it's a cabal decree. Jackaranga (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take STFU off the page. I think it's funny and appropriate, but acknowledge it could be abused. Whether it's an essay or a decree is obviously still up for debate ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d'Abrera

• Bernard d'Abrera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

OTRS ticket 2007080210005311. Bernard d'Abrera has complained that his biography consistently belittles his work, which is a fair criticism - he is not, as the lead stated for some time, a "butterfly photographer", he is a respected taxonomist whose work cataloguing the Natural History Museum's collections has been cited in many independent works. A user, Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is rather hotly disputing this, and also inserting {{peacock}} into a section that (IMO) factually describes a very substantial reference work covering the collections of the Natural History Museum. The problem is that d'Abrera stuck his head over the parapet and signed a petition in favour of creationism. This has not affected his access to the museum, at which he has high level clearance, and has not prevented his publishing company from contracting with the museum to produce fine-art reproductions of the works of John Gould. Mr. d'Abrera freely describes himself as a polemicist. That does not mean we need a hatchet job, of course. Some additional eyes would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of what is in dispute (the details about his career) seems to be sourced to the references that are already present in the article; there is simply a lack of footnotes, which can be easily remedied. Some of the language is rather flourished (throughout the article), perhaps I'll have a go at reworking it. --bainer (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• As the subject of this complaint, may I chime in? I was not venturing an opinion over whether d'Abrera is a taxonomist or not, merely that the statement that he is one was (and remains) unsourced. The peacock-tag was perhaps over the top, and I apologise for it. I have already reached a resolution with JzG on one of the errors contained in his edits (the official title of the NMH), the other remains the statement that "PhD researchers must embrace evolutionary theory" is a "fact", which appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV (and now that I think of it outright untrue, given a fair number of Creationists with PhDs). I am not a major editor of this article (three edits, one of which was a revert, prior to this incident), but was concerned with the addition of statements in advance of, and in two cases in contradiction of, factual support. Hrafn_Stalk 14:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• In this case "NPOV" appears to equate to belittling the subject, in very many past revisions. He has published a scholarly review of the entire British Museum collection of butterflies and moths; he describes himself as a taxonomist and is cited by scholarly works on lepidopterae. Why would we have a problem with that? It's certainly a good deal more neutral than "butterfly photographer", which completely fails to do justice to the fact that he provably has a British Museum security clearance and a publishing contract with said museum. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you have a reliable source for the statement that "He has published a scholarly review of the entire British Museum collection of butterflies and moths", then this statement should most certainly be included in his article. I have seen numerous misrepresentations of the qualifications and affiliations of people associated with the Creationist movement, so yes, I do have a problem with accepting d'Abrera's self-description at face value. Given that no organisation with the official name of 'British Museum (Natural History)' has existed for 15 years, I will admit to having doubts if he has current clearance or contracts with said organisation. Can you confirm that these were issued later than 1992? Finally, I have not expressed any objection to removal of previous material, and have only raised a NPOV issue over the statement, as fact, that "PhD researchers must embrace evolutionary theory". Hrafn_Stalk 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Have you checked the citations of his work by independent authors? It is pretty clear that in the field he is respected. It looks to me as if your rather obvious bias against creationism (a bias which, incidentally, I share) is colouring your judgement. This level of rhetoric is not really appropriate when discussing a living person, especially when they are already sending complaints. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have attempted to (finding full articles is problematic). The first I was able to find cited dA for the identification of butterflies, the second gave him as one of a long list of citations for diversity (including morphological) of a family of butterflies. This would be consistent with his book merely being a photographic record of the NHM's collection (and listing pre-existing museum classifications of that collection), which was my prior understanding as to their content. Taxonomy involves the assignment of classifications to new (or I suppose previously misclassified) species. While it is possible that dA does this, these citations are no evidence that he does so. Such evidence would involve him classifying of previously unclassified species, or discussing methods of classsification. You have provided evidence that his books are notable and respected (which I have not disputed), not that they contain original taxonomic research. Re: "level of rhetoric", if you don't want an honest answer, then don't ask the question. And you still have not addressed my NPOV issue. Hrafn_Stalk 16:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest "biologist"? There appears to be a scholarly reference that him as such. A biologist who specialises in entomological taxonomy, or in the publishing of biogeographic catalogues, should serve as a useful compromise, besides being impeccably referenced. Relata refero (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with biologist, whether the subject will or not I don't know. He believes his work lies in taxonomical cataloguing. Whatever, it's being dismissed as a mere photographer that he clearly finds most offensive. Actually I think a good photographer is a great thing to be, and those collections are very fragile and kept in dark conditions to avoid fading, so it's almost certainly a very specialised skill, but that's what he complains of so let's do our best not to gratuitously offend him. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, colour me confused. The above Google-books link was to a book by Philip J. DeVries, I could find no mention of dA on that page (let alone reference to him as a biologist). A review of this book states "The photographs are of high quality and were taken under the supervision of Bernard D’Abrera who remains in a class of his own when it comes to assembling photographic plates of butterflies."

I would have no problem with calling dA an "author of entomological taxonomic catalogues" or similar -- though why he should wish to be known primarily as such when it is his photography that is "in a class of his own", I don't know. Hrafn_Stalk 16:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Search within the book for his name. He's included in a concluding list of relevant biologists, and the writeup says that his catalogues are "famous ofor their lavish illustrations" and are "the only readily accessible references to global butterfly diversity." Relata refero (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He is mentioned on a number of pages: pXV, he is thanked for his help with "photographic techniques", p58, he is cited as a source of a photograph. I presume you are talking about p61 where he is listed as part of a section on "Modern-Day Workers in the Neotropics" as part of a chapter on "Butterfly Biologists and the New World". Citing the chapter title for "biologist" seems a tad tenuous, but I must admit that I'm tired of this argument, so if people are insistent I'll let it slide. Hrafn_Stalk 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent>As the primary author of the article being complained about above, I think it is appropriate that I weigh in. I am stunned at the misrepresentations here.

Where is the evidence that BdA is a biologist? He is in a list of biologists in some non-peer reviewed publication? He has no degree in biology. He has no position as a biologist. He never had a professional position as a biologist. As far as a I know, he has no peer-reviewed publications as a biologist in a mainstream biology journal. There is no and I mean NO evidence that this person is a biologist, or a taxonomist. Has he been responsible for any changes of the accepted taxonomies of lepidoperta based on published peer-reviewed taxonomies? Or has he merely provided the raw data used by lepidoperists by performing the invaluable support function of photographing these collections? I think the literature supports the latter, although I am open to correction if someone can find WP:RS and WP:V sources to the contrary.

RE: the statement This has not affected his access to the museum, at which he has high level clearance, and has not prevented his publishing company from contracting with the museum to produce fine-art reproductions of the works of John Gould. I am stunned at this. The museum has "high level clearance"s? What sort of clearances does the museum use or issue? Are these comparable to the cryptologic clearances of GCHQ? Of the UK military? Clearances for diplomatic security, such as those issued by Foreign and Commonwealth Office? What sort of state secrets or proprietary information are inside the Natural History Museum? What evidence do we have that BdA is in possession of such a clearance, if these clearances even exist? What sort of evidence do you have for his current "access to the museum", any more than a member of the public visiting the museum? I am curious to know if this putative evidence contradicts the official statements and unofficial statements of the NHM that I am in possession of regarding the past and current relationship between BdA and the NHM.

A lot of the other statements above I find so misinformed as to be comical. I researched the subject of this article extensively for weeks. I contacted several outside organizations and individuals about him, including his alma mater, the National History Museum, his colleagues at the NHM and other organizations associated with creationism that know him or have had contact with him. This is just ridiculous. If the subject has published third party statements for some of his claims, that contradict the official position of the NHM about his relationship with the NHM, let him produce them.--Filll (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange

Can anyone explain why when I checked this diff yesterday, as well as the actual edit being highlighted, I think all the categories were replaced by the word "personal" (which is why I reverted as vandalism)? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem with the diff engine, I'm not sure precisely what. The same thing's happened to me on occasion as well. The diffs tend to fix themselves after a while, making figuring out what happened difficult. It doesn't cause any problems on the actual page, though, unless (as has happened many times) a user sees the diff and mistakes the software error for vandalism. --ais523 15:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New users impersonating Rokus01

Hi Rokus01, it seems there have been new users creation that impersonating your user name and they only edited once of an unsourced fact about the Netherlands. I guess from your user page that you're a Dutch. Here are the new users and you can check their contributions:

• Rokus00 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus02 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus03 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus04 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus05 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

If they are in fact a vandal and you know who (s)he is, then perhaps you can report them at WP:ANI. Dekisugi (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is a vandal and a sockpuppet of someone that somehow must have a record of opposing my edits. Other sockpuppets may have been created previously just for this same purpose, like Schonken (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). If this has any relation: to this sockpuppet I might have a clue since he performed edits like this: , that after being addressed from my side, was answered "(AFG has nothing tro do with it)" and restored by User:Paul Barlow : . The strange thing about this action was it was withdrawn shortly after: . Maybe because he discovered he was not logged on as Schonken? The last edit of Schonken was ten days before I denounced him as a sockpuppet, so "maybe" the person discovered too late this puppet account was invalid? Just speculation, because my opinion was asked for explicitly and I am not an administrator that can check accounts or ip-numbers. The last action of sockpuppet "RokusXX" accounts was followed by this comment of, again, P.M.: Why he should comment anything on what is none of his concern? In other instances I silently suspected him of alliance or aspirations to WP cabalgroups and crypto-fascist ideologies, although before I never esteemed this urgent enough to dedicate much of my time. I have strong indications he fears my intervention or even anticipated my intervention by already putting the ideological suspections on me. A strategic move that lately might have been taken over by a possible cabal-grouping around Dbachmann, according to some loose accusations of some of his most vocal protegés and corresponding to the last incident I recently opened because of such an unwarranted accusal by him directly. Sorry for brainstorming in public, I just want to comply to the explicit request for giving information in order this abuse can be tackled in a proper way by the proper people. To be sure: I am not interested in Atlantis at all, and I am not aware of any sourcable claims of Atlantis being located in the Netherlands. Rokus01 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I've really heard it all. Wow. "possible cabal-grouping around Dbachmann". cryptofascist cabals at that. Perhaps do some more brainstorming in private first, yes? I have no idea who is behind these RokusXX edits, but I must say they are doing a rather funny impression of the general gist of the original Rokus :) dab (𒁳) 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not bothered. Just curious how far opponents would go when they run out of arguments. By the way, do I sense here in you some kind of intermediate state of an evolving "faculty" towards humor? Rokus01 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems

Could use a hand here if there are any admins experienced in this area. Normally it is just me and Alvestrand working this page but I have been busy with school and the backlog is reaching the one month mark. Sometimes people breeze through and delete the obvious ones, but the most help is needed on the tougher cases that take time to investigate and solve. Feel free to message me with questions on how to work this page. Thanks --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Article mistakenly tagged as copyvio

I recently created an article Richard Quiller Couch with public domain text from the old Dictionary of National Biography. Another editor tagged it as a copyvio, he has agreed that he made a mistake, but neither of us are sure what the proper way to get the tag removed is. Any help please? DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed... in the future, you can just edit it out the same way it was edited in...--Isotope23 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - neither of us was sure if we could do that, as the tag says to wait for an admin to deal with it. Good to know. DuncanHill (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Any more discussion needed? (Deeceevoice)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deeceevoice. I added archive tags there after the link from the main noticeboard (ANI) got archived because the thread had gone inactive. Deeceevoice has queried this, so I am noting this here to help decide how to handle this. There is confusion at the moment over whether subpages should be used at AN and ANI at all, and if so what for. Are they are to separate out large threads, or to encourage (or discourage) continuing discussion? My view is that they should be archived as normal if no new discussion has taken place for 2 days, hence my placement of the tags and the note to continue elsewhere or start a new thread. Thoughts? Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First banned from editing Afrocentrism, then banned for a year, then temporarily reinstated for commenting on the ANI -- and not for article main spaces? And on ridiculously trumped-up/completely unsubstantiated charges? U betcha there's more discussion needed! deeceevoice (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the terms of Misplaced Pages:Probation, any editor placed on probation can be blocked from editing certain articles or content. As the question seems to be about the editor's conduct regarding certain content primarily, I could see the one-week block indicated in the ArbCom decision (I think this is the first incident since that decision was handed down, right?) and perhaps blocking the editor from problematic content for a month or longer, however the rules apply in instances like this. I am, however, not an admin, and want it noted that I'm not so familiar with these matters that I might not have made a mistake in what I said above. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That might make sense -- except the diffs used to substantiate the charge of POV pushing have been roundly debunked as essentially bull. The entire case is flimsy as hell. With all due respect, you might want to bother to familiarize yourself with the case before you suggest any sort of "remedy". Indeed, if you're taking the time to comment on a case, then I should think you have a responsibility to do so. People offering uninformed opinions about precipitous admin actions are not helpful;indeed, quite the contrary -- and are precisely how this case got to where it is now. deeceevoice (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To make it easier to find the archive, I renamed it to be included in the normal AN/I archive hierarchy at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive332. I do think that if further discussion is needed, a new thread should be opened. Thatcher131 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is the sense in opening a new thread? Simply de-archive the old one. This is time-wasting and counterproductive, further buries the matter and convolutes things. deeceevoice (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the first post of this thread to see the rationale. Really, for someone who offers as much "advice" to others as you seem to seek to do, you yourself have apparently acted without familiarizing yourself with the opening statement of this thread. And, with all due respect, the violations of civility seem to even be possibly continuing here as well. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I read the rationale here and the one the user gave when he archived the ANI. That rationale assumes a lack of interest in continued discussion, and such clearly is not the case in this matter -- which is why I inquired about the matter, which is why we're discussing it here. And with all due respect, carter, you have absolutely no basis for any concern about violations of civility -- unless, of course, you're referring to your own comments. ;o deeceevoice (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If the thread had been on ANI, instead of a subpage, a bot would have archived it. The discussions on subpages shouldn't be prolonged merely because the bot doesn't cover them. ANI is not for prolonged discussions. If a discussion needs to be moved elsewhere, archive the ANI discussion, copy and paste the discussion to a new venue (or link to it), and notify the original ANI thread of the new location. If ANI is still the right location, start a new discussion or unarchive the original discussion. But beware of forum shopping. Carcharoth (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that de-archiving the discussion thread is the more sensible route. It's direct and uncomplicated. This business was already spread across two, separate venues. No sense in adding a third. People already have to read what's been said about this matter in two places. Adding a third is just counterproductive/pointless. deeceevoice (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to dearchive it then and see what people say. Just make sure you do it properly. And archive this disucssion at the same time. Personally, I think a summary from you, starting a new thread, would be best. Then we can be clear on what you want from this, and what issues need to be examined. People are more likely to read a summary than re-read the entire discussion again. Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been unblocked, what is the purpose of continued discussion? To beat up the blocking admin? Wrong web site. To discuss ongoing poor judgement by the blocking admin? Open an RFC. To have all your editing restrictions lifted? Appeal to ArbCom. What else needs to be discussed at this point? Thatcher131 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not exactly correct, Thatcher. As it stands now, I've been unblocked only temporarily to comment on the ANI, with the proviso that I not edit article main spaces. There has been absolutely no formal decision reached with regard to the ANI. The bogus charges haven't been withdrawn. I'm still in limbo. My accusers need to come up with something meaningful/legitimate -- or formally drop this. If they've backed off, and my editing privileges have been reinstated in full, then someone needs to make that plain, and if "discuss ongoing poor judgement by the blocking admin" for abuse of their authority is the result of continuing this until some sort of reasonable resolution is reached, then so much the better -- ;p -- because, IMO, no one is more deserving of a sound thrashing, figuratively speaking, than those who've wasted our time in this trumped-up matter. deeceevoice (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps the fact that the requisite three admins agreed to a block/ban, which seemingly is all that is required in this instance? But I don't see how that requires discussion. I can't myself see how any sort of "innocent on all charges" verdict is even a remote possibility here. Presumably the request was made to allow the editor to be allowed to edit mainspace articles again, based on deeceevoice's first comment here, but that would be appropriate to ArbCom as stated above. I agree there doesn't seem to be a real rationale to keep the discussion open, other than simply to keep denegrating those who disagree with the editor. Having said that, it would be nice if this page had at a dedicated subpage for prolonged discussions, particularly for cases like this one where discussion may have been reduced due to the civil holiday in the United States. Alternately, just keeping discussions open over 3- or 4-day weekends might help as well. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Those on the other side of the pond can forget things like Thanksgiving. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If three admins agreed to blocking for one year, then they should reimpose the block and all sign the log at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Documentation_of_blocks_or_bans. In which case Slrubenstein or any other admin who wants Deeceevoice unblocked needs to appeal to Arbcom. If, following the discussion (which died on the vine), there are no longer 3 admins willing to block for one year, then Deeceevoice should consider herself free to edit everything except Afrocentrism and ask Slrubenstein to clarify whether he meant to lift the topic ban as well as the block (and if so, ask him to log it). In this case I would advise any other admin who thinks you need to be reblocked to file an Arbitration request, since that is the appropriate venue for good-faith disputes among admins. Thatcher131 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no clear decision reached from what I can tell; the discussion just petered out, and that's the problem. Since I remain unblocked from Afrocentrism, the charges not having been substantiated, and from editing article main spaces -- again, the charges not having been substantiated, I will assume the status quo (my freedom to edit wherever I will) unless and until I hear otherwise. Because the unblock by User Slrubenstein was from both these venues, and because he never recanted either -- and in fact specifically addressed the matter of alleged POV pushing at Afrocentrism, I must assume that was his intention. If someone has another take on this matter, then say so now or hold your peace. deeceevoice (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of procedure, please ask Slrubenstein to confirm on the Arb case log page that he also recinded the topic ban. Your talk page is not clear on the matter, and it could be read either way. Best to avoid any ambiguity. Thatcher131 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unrevertable vandalism

For the second time this month , I find myself unable to revert vandalism on the Wonders of the World article. Every time I try (using either the undo link or by editing old versions of the article from its history), Misplaced Pages just times out. If someone could revert back to the pre-vandalism version (diff), I would greatly appreciate it; warning notes (, ) were already left for both anonymous editors. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Will 19:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards