The bot talk page needs a number of editors who spend some time there & respond to complaints - most of which I'm sure are unjustified, but which usually get the same non-response whether they are or not. They should also be able to improve the quality of the edits the bot makes. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Or better still, kill the bot. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What would you replace it with? "nothing" is not an acceptable answer. There is a real problem to be dealt with and unless you have a better approach, taking shots at the basic concept is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If a bot is necessary, someone in the community will step up to make it. Betacommand's approach often creates problems in the course of providing a solution to the fair use image concern. These problems fit in a few general categories:

1. Poor communication - Although many volunteers monitor BC's talk pages, he often neglects the responsibility of explaining the reasons for tagging an image. Also, when tagging images BC often falls back on WP:OMGWTFBBQ, which leads users to posit confused pleas to his talk page, which are then unanswered, etc. etc.
2. Extreme immediate solutions to long term problems - This is actually damaging to the project as thousands of viable images are flushed because admins don't have the time or want to sift through the hyper-populated deletion queues which appear after BC runs his bot.
3. Poorly thought out experiments - Most bot operators have to deal with difficulties when implementing any new task, but BC has a history of running unapproved tasks with poor results.

BC means well and appears to be an able programmer, but these problems, coupled with occasional lapses of civility, continually lead to drama. Many admins appear inclined to overlook such instances since BC's bot gets results and in most cases BC is clearly within policy. However that approach fails to address the fallout of disgruntled editors and the deletion of useful images. Mindless tagging will never completely solve the fair use problem and I don't think giving BC carte blanche is ultimately a good thing. I doubt BC would be willing to voluntarily cease any controversial actions, as he is fervent in enforcing WP:NFCC to the letter (and beyond). I equally doubt that BC's bot is irreplaceable or vital. ˉˉ╦╩ 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What if he was the programmer but someone else was the operator, and a team of someone elses fielded questions, updated the FAQ to point people to, etc? ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That would address the communication concerns. If this team also kept a clear schedule for bot runs and reviewed the deletion queue, I think the resulting process would eliminate most of the discussed problems. ˉˉ╦╩ 21:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've discussed this issue with a very small number of my fellow administrators and we share the concerns of editors here, we appreciate that there is a perception that BCBot is evil and needs to be killed, but realistically, all that will happen is replacement bots will be introduced. One of the most chronic problems does appear to be the tagging of images as "orphans" that should not ordinarily be orphaned, and this is an issue that is outwith anybodies control, the problem occurs when an image with a well thought out rationale, detailed source is replaced, on a whim, with a different image, quite often, a higher resolution image taken from the day's press, and frequently uploaded without source or rationale. This can take several days to be resolved, and by that time, the image can end up being deleted. One proposal I am keen to push in this area is that a new, dedicated OrphanedImageBot is created and has it's own database so it can record, initially, which images are used in articles, and what articles those are. The bot would then run (continually, once every 24 hours, once a week, or whatever is deemed necessary) and if it notices an image that was previously used in an article is now orphaned, it informs the uploader and perhaps places a small template on the article talk page informing users that the image, if still orphaned after 7 days, will then be tagged for deletion. A second, totally seperate bot should run and look for images without source or Fair Use Rationale and tag those images as necessary, and ideally, list images once weekly in a central location together with details of where the images are used. Volunteers could then make the necessary fixes to prevent the image from being deleted. I'd also like to see Polbot with it's rationale fixes being used, it could be used by volunteers to automatically add a fair use rationale to images after a review, so it could look for a template placed on an image by a trusted user (a bit like the Commons Flickr review scheme) and if it finds a tag added by a trusted user, it would then automatically add a fair use rationale to the page. Details about the rationale could be changed by variables in the template. We also need make the warnings and notices much easier to understand, it's fine if you've been to Harvard and studied law, or been at the wrong end of Misplaced Pages dealing with image licences and copyright policy for many months or years, but a new user trying to upload a useful image will end up angry and frustrated at incomprehensible user warnings. Any comments, there's probably something I've meant to propose but haven't. Nick (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

About the orphaning of images, the major problem seems to be is that the checking for them does not occur often. There might be images that are orphaned for days that are not tagged, but some images will be tagged if orphaned for just a few hours. I still think we should seek out what images are orphaned, but we need a more stable way to do it. An idea me and other administrators I spoke to want to have some sort of database of images, then scan that for oprhans maybe once a week. This will allow discussions, vandalism replacements and other stuff. As for running it, I am not technically skilled to make one, but if I was given the code and allowed to execute said bot, I will do it. The problem with BCBot is that people will always assume he is an admin, though he is not. There is still a lot of core issues with BCBot that still exist, but I feel like a change of hands could make things better. Also, more precise messages could help too. User:Zscout370 21:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the best approach would be to have lots more people answering the queries thrown up by BetacommandBot's work. To do that would require Betacommand to give advance notice of tagging runs, so the 'team' can get ready to answer queries. Would Betacommand be willing to do that? Also, there needs to be a serious overhaul of the wording of the tags. Generic references to NFCC don't really help. An example is the 10c tagging. Most images fail 10c for one of three reasons: (1) No rationale at all; (2) Rationale fails to refer to the article by name; (3) Rationale doesn't make sense. A short, clear set of instructions advising people on how to fix the images, would do wonders. The problem then is if everyone fixed their images, we are back with the same problem of having to check all the images for NFCC#3 and NFCC#8 compliance. And that can't be done by bots. I'll repeat what I've said before - all this NFCC#10c stuff (most of the current work) is redundant to the work that will be needed for NFCC#3 and NFCC#8. But that's beside the point, because BetacommandBot can't (reliably) do NFCC#3 or NFCC#8 stuff. Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On the usability front, at the moment BetacommandBot is actually repeating stuff in the tags, which is doubly confusing. Compare the following:

• Long-winded and unclear:

  This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.. Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale, or in some other way, the file will be deleted or removed from some uses after Sunday, 30 December 2007. Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern. Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. If you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page. Administrators: check the image talk page for comments before deleting the image. Usage: {{di-disputed fair use rationale|date=26 December 2024|concern=invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.}} Notify the uploader with: {{subst:di-disputed fair use rationale-notice|1=Administrators' noticeboard}} ~~~~ Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption|Sunday, 30 December 2007|CSD}}

  
  

  • Shorter and clearer:

    This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed. Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale, or in some other way, the file will be deleted or removed from some uses seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern. Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. If you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page. Administrators: check the image talk page for comments before deleting the image. Usage: {{di-disputed fair use rationale|date=26 December 2024|concern=concern}} Notify the uploader with: {{subst:di-disputed fair use rationale-notice|1=Administrators' noticeboard}} ~~~~ Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

    
    So yes, I agree that more people working on this has always been needed. What was wrong with just having a team of 10 people tackle 100 images each a week. That's a 1000 images a week and 52,000 images a year. Scale up as needed. Should have had a system like that operating years ago, rather than using bots. Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    So I assume you are up for the tedious task? _→AzaToth 21:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, I am. If you review my recent contributions, I think you will see that I do a fair amount of work on images. I would be happy to be part of a team handling the work BetacommandBot does now. Of course, with only three months or so to go, this sort of proposal is a bit late in the day. but still, I intend to be doing my bit in the run-up to March 2008, identifying and rescuing historical images. Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Current BCBot practices were influenced in part by the inability to scale admin activity to properly deal with the problem image load. If we were to implement a more careful and scheduled approach, this could be corrected. That, and I can't think of many admin tasks which aren't tedious :) ˉˉ╦╩ 21:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    It's not going to happen. The only reason the backlogs are manageable now is because several admins secretively run powerful adminbots to delete images - at my count, Misza13's one nuked around 60,000 orphans and unsourced images this past week alone. east.718 at 21:32, December 24, 2007

    These adminbots delete the good images with the bad. Further, deleting fair use images does not guarantee future compliance, e.g., deleting an album cover because of an incomplete rationale will not stop other editors from re-uploading the same cover under a similarly flawed rationale. The backlogs are only a concern as far as scheduling goes, as long as the problem images are identified, admins are made aware of the total workload. The difference between cleaning out a backlog in one week or two is of negligible impact to the project. ˉˉ╦╩ 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    
    

    BetacommandBot Section Break

    As everyone knows, handling non-free content and the abuse related to it wears down on anyone, Ive been talking to Several users, Kmccoy, and FT2 most notability. I have a multi-phase, multi-part plan for the future. One major part of that is giving the NFCC tagging task to a separate bot account and stepping back from direct NFCC interaction. I am working on getting a team of users who are willing and able to field all those questions. I hope that I will be able to reduce my role to merely a code writer and bot host service. (back end service) I was hoping to wait until I had most of the details worked out and that I was able to announce that it was just going live. As for concerns that I dont care about "the article writers" is bullshit. I personally dont write articles for several reasons. due to real life concerns what ever I write about would give my real life identity away. that said I have written and or improved some articles using alternate accounts that cannot be traced back to my main account. (which is allowed under policy) I value all of our editors, everyone from the random longterm good-standing IP contributers to article writers, to vandal fighters, to our FA writers, to the stub writer, to the wikinome, to the non-free uploader (those who follow policy and dont abuse NFC), to those editors who create, upload and use free content. As for the messages that the bot leaves I have always asked for suggestions and improvements . (at one point I posted here on AN looking for suggestions). I am sorry that I am un-civil at times but the long term abuse (all the "fuck you" and "your a Nazi" and other similar abuse) and constant threats tend to wear down a person. β 01:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Betacommand, if you want you can direct all inquiries about the bot, or its activities, to another editor. It might be a good idea to put a line of defense between the people who run the both, and the public — that way, a front-end "staff" can filter the good complaints and suggestions from the dross. They will get burned out less quickly, since there would be more of them and they would be "fresh", while you can focus on actually running the bot. I know that I would volunteer. --Haemo (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    that is my goal, to have a group of editors field those questions, and phase out my direct interaction. any other volunteers are welcome, and Ill give a heads up when I make the switchover to the new account, and start the implementation of my future plans. β 03:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Shut down BetacommandBot

    BetacommandBot was blocked many times because of bugs. The way it works also bites many newcomers and drives away article writers. For example, it does not explain clearly why it tags an image and how to provide a proper fair use rationale. Also, Betacommand is an irresponsible bot owner and he was desysopped by ArbCom because of that. Please shut down BetacommandBot. If not, at least file an RFC against it to decide what to do with it. We cannot ignore the problems with the bot. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    The bot runs at a remarkably low error rate, and the one time it really went off the rails and caused serious damage, it was because the Misplaced Pages API malfunctioned and caused all bots that rely on it to break. To address the second issue gentler templates can be used, such as the ones Carnildo currently employs. Also, just becase Betacommand went Sideways with adminbots once doesn't mean that he's an irresponsible bot operator. I'm sure with BC pledging to take more of a backseat role, these concerns will be addressed in the coming weeks. east.718 at 04:30, December 25, 2007

    Doesn't the bot violate WP:POINT, though? For example, the bot tagged some images of mine because they did not include a man-made link to the page in which they were used, even though such links are created automatically on each page. I understand that someone put that detail into the image fair-use policy page, but is it worth deleting an image over details such as these? Let's not discuss that one loophole, because Betacommand can figure out as many such loopholes as he wants. And it is a loophole, rather than a valid rationale for deleting an image. When I removed the tags the bot was putting on the pages, Betacommand reverted me and called my edits vandalism. He did not tell me why the bot was putting the tags on the pages. If he really cared about the policy loophole, he would have made the image compliant himself. But he didn't, which is a pretty clear indication that he was looking for an excuse to get the image deleted, because he dislikes Fair Use.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    It is a requirement to have the article explicitly named in the rationale, and for good reason. The automagically generated Mediawiki link changes as the image is put in and out of articles, regardless of whether the image is valid for use in those articles or not. I agree that fixing is a better approach than deleting in such cases, but there is currently no obligation for anyone to carry out such repairs. Theoretically admins should do that instead of deletion, but that doesn't always work in practice. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    "The bot runs at a remarkably low error rate." Nonsense. Look at the block log. I agree that "gentler templates can be used". Another problem is that there are like 100 rules about fair use and there is no page which explains all the rules. You don't expect everyone who uploads an image to know all the 100 rules. If someone follows 99 rules but forgets 1, the bot will still tag the image. A bot is not a good way to check for image problems. I still think that if you don't want to shut down the bot, an RFC is the best way to think how to fix all the problems. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I agree with the original suggestion in this sub-section completely. i've had my own problems with this bot, and it seems somewhat excessive and problematic. thanks.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    The real problem

    The real problem is not the bot; it has a very low error rate and is doing a necessary task. The problem is how complaints/concerns/questions are handled. Most go to Betacommand's talk page where they receive a response that is often not very helpful as it uses the same jargon as the tags and may be uncivil. Or they go to ANI, the bot gets blocked, and drama ensues. I would suggest that we create a fair use help desk with a FAQ in language that will be clear to new users where people can go to ask for help and assistance and it can be staffed by more than 1 person. Mr.Z-man 21:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    And I am willing to help with the creation of such a board. User:Zscout370 08:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    And so am I. And I also wish to note that images are being deleted per board resolution, but there is no problem with helping fix them. --Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think a fair use help desk is a good idea, and would be willing to help. Should it be a sub-page of the main help desk? Addhoc (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    We need to do something. The more general problem is that we have multiple bots which don't fix problems, they generate to-do lists for humans. We need to have requirements for bot smartness - any bot which demands unnecessary work from humans more than 1-2% of the time needs to be shut down.

    There's also a policy problem in image space. The general policy in Misplaced Pages is that once you've made an edit, you have no further responsibility for maintenance of that page. But in image space, Misplaced Pages takes the position that the original uploader has responsibilities that continue long after the upload. It's the reverse of WP:OWN - you upload it, you're responsible for it. This needs to be addressed. Maybe we need a time limit - once an image has been up for 30 days without objection, it's no longer the uploader's responsibility to correct licensing problems associated with it. --John Nagle (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Nagle, the problem users were having earlier is not enough notification. We have increased the notification procedures, but we do notice that many users who were contacted about image problems are not longer editing on Misplaced Pages. With images, the only reason why we say it is your responsibility is that it was up to the uploader to say that all sourcing and licensing information is correct. User:Zscout370 20:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    I agree with John. In the United States, we call new laws that apply to actions already committed ex post facto and have banned them in our constitution. This bot is tagging images for some pretty trivial reasons, loopholes in the policy really. Those things change all of the time.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Mr Z-man has put his finger exactly on the problem: it's not the Bot, but the operator. I have little sympathy for people who abuse the concept of Fair Use, but I have far less for BetaCommand. From the first moment I encountered him, about a year ago (on an entirely unrelated matter), he has been brusque, condescending, & relies on obscenities to make his point -- which is why he lost his Admin bit. Contributors in good faith who find their contributions chewed up & mangled because of nit-picking mistakes in their Fair Use rationale end getting chewed up & mangled when they complain about the rought justice they've received -- unless they happen to be lucky enough to attract the attention of a level-headed Admin. His actions & language show that he thinks he is doing God's work in running his bot, & is not answerable to anyone except the Foundation.

    If people believe this bot is doing useful work, its operation & responsibility ought to be taken away from BetaCommand & given to someone who can be far more civil -- which, IMHO, would be practically anyone else. I believe the best step now would be to move this discussion from this page & open an RfC to determine whether this -- or any -- solution has a consensus, but after reading the steps on WP:RfC, it appears that using that mechanism for this purpose would only lead to useless wikilawyering -- & returning this chronic problem to the pages of WP:AN or WP:AN/I. -- llywrch (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    How is finding loopholes in policy and using them as excuses to delete images useful? Is the issue of manually versus automatically linking an image to the article it's used in pivotal enough to warrant deletion? Is it important enough to warrant widespread disruption?--Gnfgb2 (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    The policy is, in its simplest form, that non-free images should be used as little as possible. The disagreement between the various schools of opinion is what "as little as possible" means. One party believes that this means almost none -- if that many. The other party (to which, I admit I am a member) believes this means that if it would be unreasonable or unexpected for an article not to have an image, & it is difficult to impossible to obtain a free one, then a non-free one may be used under the rules of Fair Use. I agree with you that there should be a non-disruptive path to resolving this disagreement. However, I think assuming good faith in the members of the other faction would get us there much more quickly, which means both that we try to use temperate language -- as well as finding someone with better interpersonal skills than BetaCommand has demonstrated. -- llywrch (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    The reasoning for not relying on the automatically generated Wikilink - it changes - was explained to you above by Carcharoth. Betacommand has stated (again, above) that he is working on passing the user interaction aspect of bot operation off to other users. If you have an issue with the fair use policy (i.e. loopholes, complexity, etc.) address it at the fair use policy talk page. Avruchtalk 18:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Does opening an account at a "bad site" get you in trouble?

    Resolved – OK, groundless paranoia on my part. Awaiting my verification E-Mail from you-know-who. <eleland/talkedits> 02:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't like skulking around under a different pseudonym, but I want to register at... uhm, I'm not allowed to say it, am I... Let's just say it's a site which Reviews the goings-on of Misplaced Pages. Yes, I know there's trolls and stalkers and LaRouchies and banhammered ripened socks there. I'm not one of them. I've been editing this site since 2002, my only other account opened in May 2003, and this one was registered in late 2004. So, if I sign up there just to shoot the shit about Misplaced Pages, in a non-abusive and non-personal manner, is that a problem?

    (The irony of the fact that I feel a need to pre-emptively guard against off-site stalking and harassment on the basis of a policy against off-site stalking and harassment may have broader implications for Misplaced Pages...) <eleland/talkedits> 02:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    As far as I am aware just your mere presences at WR isn't grounds for a block or ban. If you violate someone's privacy (or do something else equally silly that people tend to associate with such sites) it might result in a block or ban. I occasionally glance over there at WR and notice the occasional post from regulars here at WP. I don't have any examples off-hand, but I've seen it before. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    There was a list, some time ago, on WR of admins which are registered there with the same username they're here. Snowolf 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    I get demonized and sneered at for my presence there, but not actually banned (so far...) *Dan T.* (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Such reactions are a commonplace of life, not unique to Misplaced Pages. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Many Misplaced Pages editors in good standing, including some arbitrators and bureaucrats, have accounts at WR or other sites critical of Misplaced Pages and contribute regularly there, often under the same username that they use on Misplaced Pages. There is no penalty of any kind for doing so. Of course, it would be hoped that unhelpful activities such as making gratuitious personal attacks on editors or seeking to expose the real-life identifying information of editors who edit here anonymously should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    (ec)I'll put my hand up and state that I have an account "over there", and have had for at least 6 months. For honesty and openness, I have the same username there as I have here. I'm not a regular poster by any stretch of the imagination, but I've found it useful in order to reply to some things, especially if there's something I've been called on and I need to reply to set things straight. I haven't been banned here yet, on the contrary, I was made checkuser lately :) Needless to say, issues of privacy and security of information apply over there as much as they apply here. Don't reveal private or confidential info either on or off-wiki - Alison 02:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Well, if all these Wiki editors are over there, can someone inform them I don't have Tourette syndrome or OCD, have never said I do, and I don't plagiarize? Much obliged; so much for the fact-checking and reliable sources of that Wiki editor, who went there only to malign me and claims Jimbo's blessing. Oh, 18 Brownie points if you can figure out who has a crush on me. (Honestly, the idea that you can "pre-emptively guard against off-site stalking and harassment" on the internet is a bit naive.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    When Misplaced Pages has issues like Durova blocking !!, the issues are poorly handled and Misplaced Pages does not have a place for users to discuss and criticise when such things happen, some good users will join Misplaced Pages Review even if there are trolls and stalkers there. I remember a newspaper article about Essjay, and another about Durova blocking !!, which say good things about Misplaced Pages Review. If Misplaced Pages is doing a bad job, the winner is Misplaced Pages Review. But if Misplaced Pages is doing a good job, why will good users go to Misplaced Pages Review and why will newspapers mention Misplaced Pages Review? Everybody, think about this. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Sometimes people need a place to air complaints when things go wrong. Sometimes people need a place to air complaints because, well, they think complaining is fun and they like taking potshots at others. I gather a bit of both goes on at WR. (Not that different from WP:ANI when you think about it.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    A bit? Some threads are all about how to bring about the downfall of wikipedia... Anyway, maybe we should cut this short - the issue at hand has been resolved. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Like you say, there is "good" criticism to improve Misplaced Pages and "bad" criticism to destroy Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages Review has a lot of "bad" criticism. But because Misplaced Pages does not have a place for "good" criticism, people go to Misplaced Pages Review to give "good" criticism. If Misplaced Pages has a place for "good" criticism then people who want to give "good" criticism will not go to Misplaced Pages Review. Issues like Durova blocking !! will also make more people join Misplaced Pages Review if Misplaced Pages handles them poorly. If you want to mark this as resolved, you can discuss my point in another thread. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Regarding your comment about the irony of feeling the need to pre-emptively mention this was pretty shocking to me. I fully expected the topic to be scoffed at as quickly as the idea of Nelson Mandella locking up people because they are white. I mean, this is a place where basic freedoms of association and speech are unconditionally supported, I thought. The fact your topic has received such comments as "I get demonized and sneered at for my presence there, but not actually banned (so far...)" tells me you had good reason to be a little concerned. And that, Id'say, does have broader implications for Misplaced Pages. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    " this is a place where basic freedoms of association and speech are unconditionally supported" Eh? This is not a society, it is not an experiment in governance, it is not a place for free speech on any topic. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. All else is secondary. You may want to review WP:NOT, and if the goals of the project don't align with your goals, consider other venues. FWIW I actually have been (after saying I never ever would) considering getting an account at WR... Alison seems to be able to participate constructively over there without serious bad effects so far. You have to realise that there are a large number of very very confused individuals there, and a large number who mean WP serious harm for one reason or another, and a large number that no amount of fact, no amount of logical argument, will ever sway. And... some considerable number who mean well, but whose actions are a net negative. But if that's all kept in mind ?? To me, it is not opening an account that is worrisome, it is what is done with the account that would be cause for concern, in certain cases. (I most emphatically do not subscribe to the notion that your online life is subject to compartmentalization... what you do elsewhere will very much affect my perception of you there, here, and everywhere else, and that is as it should be) ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Lar, just a friendly difference of opinion. I read WP:NOT and I do not see where it expresses what you seem to think it does. I do agree that building a NPOV encyclopedia is the #1 objective but I also think the societal and governance aspects of WP (which you bring up) are obvious while not being very experimental (its all been done before in many venues). I have never visited WR but would it not take a mindreader to say whether people at WR mean WP serious harm? and who are you to say there are "a large number of very,very confused individuals there"? Isn't that in the realm of psychotherapy? Of course Misplaced Pages is a place where basic freedoms of association and speech are unconditionally supported; why? because WP is part of a free and open internet and this internet is such a place in its very essence. That's my opinion on the matters you address above. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    I was placed under severe arbitration restrictions for making criticism intended to improve Misplaced Pages here on Misplaced Pages, so I began making such criticism on Misplaced Pages Review instead. My "good criticism" is a minority view over there, and I am sometimes intensely annoyed by the anti-WP viewpoints I see there, but no one there has ever taken any punitive measures against me whatsoever, making it a vastly safer place for Misplaced Pages criticism as long as the present political environment prevails on WP. As for consequences on-wiki, I believe that the extraordinary duration of my restrictions (two whole years, merely for expressing opinions, which I largely stopped doing well before arbitration due to controversy) is primarily a result of my participation on WR. Everyking (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    "Making criticism"? Is that what they're calling "offering to provide deleted articles" now? Will 02:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    You obviously are talking without knowing anything about the situation on which you are commenting. You should be careful: that's one of the things the ArbCom claims it sanctioned me for. Everyking (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think I'd trust the arbcom over a user who had a significant block log even as an admin. Will 02:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    So basically, you don't know what you're talking about, but you do trust the ArbCom, even if you don't know what it is you're trusting the ArbCom about—because I got blocked for some things, related to the ArbCom issues you know nothing about, two to three years ago. Everyking (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    There has to be a reason you were banned from AN and related subboards for nearly two years. Or is that the AC out to get you? Will 03:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    I didn't say there wasn't a reason, I just said you know nothing about the reason and you attacked me in this thread based on an absurdly tangled misconception of events. I even mentioned one of the official reasons above: commenting without sufficient knowledge of circumstances (exactly what you are doing here). Everyking (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Your point is? Pretty much everyone who's responded to this thread has said they've got accounts and some have even posted. If you got heavily sanctioned, I don't think you have the wings and halo you say you do. Will 03:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    After the Durova thing hit the fan, I popped over to WR to get another perspective on the issue. I stopped short of registering an account (mostly because I had nothing original to say on the matter). I was surprised, however, to see my name pop up in two threads. I thought it odd considering that I'm a relatively new admin who has thusfar steered clear of any severe ugliness. I'd recommend lurking there for a) the sake of devil's advocacy and b) to see who's been gossiping about you. Caknuck (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Totally not at all. I've actually asked there a few times for critcism about me. Will 16:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    I actually have an account at WR, though I havven't used it yet. I intend to take part in discussions there sometime.--Phoenix-wiki  16:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    I have an account at WR, and I also post comments from time to time. If contributing there does not adversely effect your editing here then I suggest there will be no problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Wait! LessHorrid vanU is you??? I did not know that! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Er... no, I'm Foamy Semolina Jimmy Rash Is He Banned Lamented Yorkshire E H... yes LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think WR is a great website to participate in if you want to set some preliminaries for a future lobotomy. On Misplaced Pages you at least have a shot at enriching your mind...knowingly conversing with the most active WR loons is not likely to increase your knowledge base. If I ever joined (which wouldn't happen, even if I was at gunpoint), I'd be banned after one comment.--MONGO (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    but let's face it, you like the hairshirt and it gets really fucking boring for rest of us. --Fredrick day (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    I knew there was another reason I opened an account there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Re: WR: "If nobody's shooting at ya', ya ain't doin' enough things right." I heard that somewhere and I think it's true, so I look at WR as a good thing; a sign that WP might be doing a lot of things right. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Up to a point. This is actually a function that is fulfilled by the wikien-l mailing list. The major problem with WR is its "assume bad faith and extrapolate form there" attitude, plus the fact that occasionally good people get sucked in by a small group of abusers who hang out there; this is what got Alkivar desysopped. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Well, there's also nothing stopping anyone from starting a blog to post about their experience (or shoot the breeze). There are aggregators for Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia-related blogs at http://en.planet.wikimedia.org & http://wikiblogplanet.com. That's one reason I have a blog (which is listed in both of those aggregators). Lastly, I would have appreciated a dozen responses from other Wikipedians, whose usernames I recognize, calling me an idiot for my recent bog posts on Carolyn Doran far more than the ones I did receive. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Speedy deletion under the biographies of living persons policy

    • Naftali Tzvi Weisz (AfD discussion)

    I have deleted this news report masquerading as a biography. See the AFD closure. As noted therein, this deletion is subject to the requirements for restoration that a deletion under that policy implies. I caution against any attempts at undeletion without consensus. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    • I expect a rapid reversal of your decision, either here or at deletion review. It would have been enough to delete the last paragraph. The unanimous keep comments at the AfD seem better judgment than your opinion on this well-sourced article on an otherwise well known figure who would be notable anyway, and was indicted for a major financial crime. DGG (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you should not have done that. If you really felt inclined to so misinterpret the BLP policy (which has no bearing whatever on a properly sourced article) you might have thought to move the content to "Spinka Tax Fraud Scandal" or some such. You should consider that the article was on a topic of highly specialised knowledge, IE "hasidic Judaism", and 5 somewhat expert editors on the topic felt that the guy was notable even without the scandal. You might have at the very least let the AfD run its course, your actions seem to display contempt for other wikipedia editors in good standing, though I hope you do not harbor such feelings. What makes you think that you know so much better that everybody else what wikipedia needs? Especially in the face of experts on a topic? Lobojo (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I see that some are missing the point, WP is not a news paper and that article was a news story. While the content if put under a biographic article would have and should have been allowed, on it's own (that article had nothing else in there) it violated all the policies outlined in the AFD closure.--Shmaltz (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Well then, the content should have been moved to article on the controversy or moved into the main Spinka article. Lobojo (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
            • There is no controversy. As I pointed out in the closure, there have been no trial and no convictions yet. A publicly documented subject does not yet exist. Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
              • "A "publicly documented subject" certainly does exist, and that subject the arrest of a significant religious figure by the FBI on international racketeering charges spanning a decade and relating to huge sums and his seven-figure bail bond. Lobojo (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't. You didn't read what I wrote in the closure. Deleting the last paragraph, or modifying the article in some other fashion, would not have changed it from a news report into a biographical article for an encyclopaedia. This is an encyclopaedia. Its articles are not news reports. The unanimous keep arguments are entirely defeated by policy. We do not have biographical articles that magnify out of all proportion one event in which a person is included alongside a lot of other people into a biography of that one specific person. We do not have articles that are news reports. We do not have biographies where there are no sources to actually write about the person that is purportedly the subject of the article.

        They are also defeated by actually reading the sources (which non-administrators can find in the Wikinews article) and seeing that those arguments were simply false. When one reads the sources and sees nothing about the subject in them apart from one single fact, which fact happens to be true for several other people named in those sources that no-one is even suggesting we have biographical articles on, "The article provides sources about the subject." rings entirely hollow.

        I suggest thinking long and hard about what I have regularly done at AFD for the past several years. If even I, whose list of article rewrites at AFD is quite long indeed (Start at Temporal Finitism (AfD discussion) and work backwards from there. Stop at Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre (AfD discussion) and Murder of Hannah Williams (AfD discussion) along the way.), cannot rewrite and refactor this from a misplaced news report unjustly masquerading as a biography of a single person into an encyclopaedia article about a case or an event, then one should consider the possibility that an article cannot yet be written with a great deal of thought.

        Speedy deletion does not preclude the creation of a different article in the future. Since this article was a news report of a news event, a proper biographical article, that actually was a biography, would not be a substantially similar article. I left the article's talk page undeleted so that people can present biographical sources there. I suggest that the editors who have noticably failed to back up their arguments with any sources at all, put their citations where their discussion comments are and cite a few articles that really do tell us about this person in depth. When they have some sources giving biographical information about this person, or when some actual case appears and has been publicly documented and reported by reliable sources, they will have the ability to be encyclopaedists rather than journalists. Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    • If a news story calls the person to our attention, and, either, the person is notable anyway, so that we could justify an article on the subject quite regardless of the story, or the story is so important that the person will be and remain notable because of it, then the article is justified. I think we could certainly justify that someone who is head of a Hasidic dynasty--described by the NYTimes as "grand rabbi of Spinka" is appropriate for an article, and we should have had one previously. -- NOT NEWS says that "something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right.", and the key word is necessarily, and that "BLP... may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." Again, the word is "may". It says further that we reject tabloid journalism, but it also says we accept reliable sources that "practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial" Substantial bylined stories in the NYT and the LA Times about a fraud involving several countries continuing over a decade meet that requirement. I note that some of the eds. who have sometime been hesitant about stories involving orthodox rabbis charged with crimes but arguably not otherwise notable, supported this article. BLP does not say that whoever chooses to speak up first gets to decide, it says the decision must be by consensus. Nobody at WP has a veto. DGG (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Strongly disagree with this deletion. I don't intend to debate the merits of deleting or not deleting here, that's what the AfD discussion is for. I believe it is inappropriate for an administrator to delete an article that is undergoing an AfD except if WP:SNOW obviously applies, and the AfD discussion shows several keep votes. I strongly believe that once an article is in AfD, administrators should be limited to closing the AfD and implementing the community's informed consensus. We need to remember that otherwise we're just editors just like everyone else and if we have an opinion we can voice it in the AfD and it doesn't carry any more weight than anyone else's. Our role is to implement the community's informed consensus and ensure the orderly working of community processes, not to ignore them and substitute our own judgment. --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I've gone ahead and proposed a deletion review as follows:

        An editor has asked for a deletion review of Naftali Tzvi Weisz. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wikidemo (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

      • Discussion on this specific case should go to the deletion review now, but I want to disagree with Shirahadasha's claim that speedy deletion of AfD'd articles is never appropriate. I disagree. Speedy deletion is always appropriate for articles that clearly and uncontroversially meet the speedy deletion criteria. But speedy deletion should be uncontroversial; if the AfD already contains comments clearly demonstrating that the basis for deletion is a matter of controversy, speedy is the wrong process. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    It looks like BLP means admins can delete/protect any article and block any user with no discussion and anyone who opposes that will get into big trouble. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Cunt

    This article has been semi-protected for a month due to anon IP vandalism; as a regular monitor of the article, OK, it does attract a fair number of vandals with varying agendas, but semi-pp is not normally considered necessary. Major vandalism is usually caught either by User:ClueBot or User:VoABot, and anything else by myself and other watchers. recent vandalism is not abnormal for this article. I'm just posting here for opinions on this departure from usual practice. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Have you asked the protecting admin, User:Jmlk17, for their reasons? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    He has been offline for about six hours, so I can't. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Hi Rodhullandemu, are there many good faith edits by IPs? Addhoc (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    A few actually, mostly referring to local custom or "in popular culture", which I try to restrict to properly-sourced & notable instances, but generally, no. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    This article was getting enough vandalism for semi-protection to be called for, in my judgment. The last 50 edits go back 5 days and contain only 1 non-vandal edit, which was of questionable usefulness anyway. At any rate this is really more an issue to discuss with the admin when he's online than something for WP:AN, allowing IPs to edit an oft-vandalized page is not a very critical issue. --W.marsh 15:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    OK, that's fine. We normally manage without pp but it will give us a rest for a while. Festive Greetings. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Well I respect that regular editors/maintainers of a given article are best qualified to decide on protection issues. If you really wanna revert this stuff every day I'd support unprotection, but vandalism was at the level where I'd probably semi-protect if this was an article I watched. --W.marsh 16:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    I agree with W.marsh; and I think, like shit and fuck, it should be indef protected as a vandal magnet. Will 16:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    I certainly wouldn't object if it became indef-p. The rate of vandalism has never been so high that I ever considered requesting protection, but clearly it's on a par with shit and fuck in that respect. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    My two cents: While I agree that good users like Rodhullandemu help keep the vandalism down, it seemed (at least to me) that it was slowly getting a bit crazy around there. True, while most of the vandalism was reverted rather quickly, the number of vandalism edits from IPs was quite high. So while it is reverted quickly, why leave it out there for further vandalism, when a protection solves most of the problems? That's just my opinion, and definitely not the only one out there. Jmlk17 21:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for that. Maybe I'm unlucky in being able to be around here twelve to sixteen hours a day (OK, I have no life), but that also means that I can react when other users are offline. Unfortunately, only being an ordinary editor, all I can do is report egregious policy violations rather than deal with them myself once my options are exhausted. Fortunately, there are also admins that, time-zones permitting, can also react.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Another thing to consider when it comes to persistent vandalism. It's not always a matter of how fast the vandalism can be reverted, but also, the page history can become cluttered to the point where it is hard to locate when the positive edits occurred in the mass of vandalism. I believe for articles where this has become an issue, semi-protection is a tool to help keep the page history uncluttered (in addition to stopping vandals).-Andrew c  13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    why a cunt and not a prick?

    It seems that we have no prick article. What's up with having the 1 and not the other? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Probably because it's generally regarded as less offensive and would probably redirect to penis anyway. Actually, the DAB page does that already. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    If the encyclopedia can get along without prick it can also get along without cunt, I think. Maybe an afd is in order? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Or... start the article prick. Other than commenting that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary there may be quite a few reasons why there is no such article; there may simply not be the cultural taboo's and history attached to the word as is cunt, and there may therefore not be the sources to make anything more than a stub (no pun intended, but ha ha ha ha ha!) from the subject. Prick is also just one of a number of slang terms for penis that are also a term for a useless or ineffective person - others being "dick", "tool", "cock", etc., - whereas cunt is a word of singular meaning. Finally, just because we have no article on X does not invalidate the article on Y (or should that be the other way round, as in XX and XY?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) 11:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Old pages

    Resolved – Done. Deleted many, "whitelisted others". JERRY _contribs 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    We've got quite a few old pages in the Talk: namespace that should probably be moved or dealt with. This list shows /Delete subpages and /Temp subpages. Some of the /Temp subpages are pure vandalism, others are getting to be quite old. The /Delete subpages are (I presume) from before AfD; my view is that these pages should be moved to the appropriate place (i.e., Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/whatever) and then have the redirects deleted and perhaps have the links updated with a bot. Anyone care to weigh in? Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    There's no good reason for the redirects to be deleted. Please do not do this. --- RockMFR 21:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't really care, but why would we not delete the redirects? Presumably, if there is a redirect, it was where someone created a /Temp copy while WP:CP was dealing with the original; then the original copyvio was deleted and the temp copy was moved on top of it, leaving the redirect. What use would that redirect serve? --B (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Deleting redirects can be harmful and redirects are free. Dureo (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Neither of those situations applies here - the redirects are simply the result of moving the temporary page to the live one after a copyright issue was resolved. --B (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Redirects are cheap, but not free. If nothing links to those redirects, they should be deleted. — Edokter • Talk • 11:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    All of the Blahwhatever/delete pages have been renamed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Blahwhatever.

    About half (~300) of the /Temp (including redirects) have been deleted. 55 of them (so far) were found to be still required.

    There is now ~300 more to do. This list now has instructions and archive boxes for the completed items. JERRY _contribs 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    130 left to do. JERRY _contribs 14:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    50 left. JERRY _contribs 16:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Done. JERRY _contribs 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Claim of abuse of administrator privileges

    Section title refactored to a less strident form, as the claim was considered unfounded. The original claim is preserved below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    The account was blocked for a myriad of reasons, and most can agree on "username violation." Arguing about hypothetical alternative reasons for blocking is less than productive for an encyclopedia. —Kurykh 01:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    For the record the account referred to by Kurykh was User:No i wont talk with u, not User:DGG--CastAStone/ 14:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    I've just seen this--nobody mentioned to me that I was being discussed here. I have indeed removed obvious spam links a number of times from this article over several months; there appears to be a need to pay considerable attention to this one, and others on the general subject. People keep inserting links to their favorite projects. I see the article has just come under attack again, by User:Certified planner, whose contributions are limited to adding duplicate links to this article; there were earlier editors named User:Urbancity and User:Nighttemper doing just the same. DGG (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    you should have been notified, especialy due to the absurdity of the claims made. You were in the right nuff said.--Hu12 (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. Apologies on my part as well for taking part in this thread and not notifying DGG. Following talk page discussion, I agree that it would be best to change the title. I'll do that now, and then we can let this thread archive in peace. Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

    Resolved – Spiritual violation of Godwin's Law, SPA blocked thusly. Will 11:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    User DGG has REPEATEDLY ABUSED his/her administraror privileges and deleted USEFUL external links from Urban Planning. To top that, he/she offers NO SOUND LOGICAL REBUTTAL to my arguement . He/she is in the habit of LURING editors-at-large into discussions and talks over minor edits. Frankly, most editors-at-large have better use of their times, but User DGG is acting like MONKEY-WRENCH for us editors-at-large.

    Note that User DGG claims to be a librarian, NOT a planning professional. Therefore, according to his/her OWN ADMISSION, he/she has ZERO DOMAIN EXPERTISE in this subject- planning.

    1. (cur) (last) 04:10, 25 December 2007 No i wont talk with u (Talk | contribs) m (41,504 bytes) (Undid revision 179920031 by DGG (talk) don't be a jerk. top links are very relevant as they represent the sum total of what is in vogue.) (undo)
    2. (cur) (last) 06:56, 24 December 2007 DGG (Talk | contribs) (41,007 bytes) ("top links in google" is irrelevant here. Discuss on talk page.) (undo)
    3. (cur) (last) 00:43, 23 December 2007 No i wont talk with u (Talk | contribs) m (41,504 bytes) (?External links - These are all top links in Google for this domain, and therefore useful. Please do not remove them.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by No i wont talk with u (talk • contribs) — No i wont talk with u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    DGG is correct - ever heard of Google bombing? Just because they are the top links Google returns doesn't make them reliable or even useful. This looks and smells like a content dispute; AN/I is of no use here. Sorry.

    And as a side note, just because he claims to be a librarian DOES NOT MEAN HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT. -Jéské 04:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) I'm afraid that you're wrong here. DGG and the other administrators that keep removing the links from the article are just in doing so. One of the things that Misplaced Pages is not is a repository of links. "Top" Google links have no value here as they are for advertising or promotional purposes, and are not encyclopedic sources. Please do not continue to add those links to the Urban Planning article or you risk having your editing privileges revoked. Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 04:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Agree with the above. We usually don't just take top links, we look for the few that are solid reference material, ideally of a neutral informative kind in many cases. That's usually not top links. DGG is most likely right. And addressing content issues that way is usually normal editorship, not "administrator privileges". FT2  04:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    OK. I'm an architect. I'm an administrator. I've looked at the external link. It doesn't appear to add much to the article. Top links via Google don't count for very much - we are looking for solid reference material, not links to opinion pieces. Are you saying that only people with a degree in the field can evaluate the validity of links? If so, you're in the wrong encyclopedia. Acroterion _(talk) 04:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    The user campaigned on WP:UAA and only has the three contribs. Either a single purpose account or sockpuppet. --Sigma 7 (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    I'm willing to type up an RFCU request, if there is no objection. -Jéské 04:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    No objection from me...in fact I would encourage you to since they are acting like a sockpuppet. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 05:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    He says he's had his IP blocked, so I call sock. Acroterion _(talk) 05:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    I already blocked the user, but just keep on getting into an edit conflict. User:Zscout370 05:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    How does this score on the troll-o-meter?

    • CAPITALS - check.
    • ABUSE! - check.
    • WP:SPA - check.
    • External links - check.

    OK, I think we're done here. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Huh? indef? Surely I'm missing something...Who was he a sockpuppet of? The block reasoning was that he created a sockpuppet to violate 3RR, at no point were there 3 reversions in 24 hours. Or anything remotely close to that - it's been 16 days since the last one. So this is an indef ban for adding external links to a page twice. That's not even against policy! Whatever happened to Don't Bite the Newbs?--CastAStone/ 14:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Read Guy's post. BITE, AGF, and CIVIL are not suicide pacts. Will 16:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Not a suicide pact??? Indeed. I thought for a second we were going to have to pull the plug on the entire project because this newbie added external links to a page twice. Thanks Jebus some admin came along and blocked this user with a completely non-sensical rationale before he struck again, or all would have been lost. -- Kendrick7 17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    (Edit conflict) Look, WP:SPA specifically makes an exception for newcomers, and again, he didn't violate any policy. I disagree with any ban, but an indef ban for being brash with your first edits (who among us wasn't) is exactly what biting the newbs is defined as, imho. This is the first ban I've complained about in my 2+ years. It just seems harsh.--CastAStone/ 17:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Based on what I read between the lines (with ALL CAPS and !!!), this is not someone who can contribute constructively. I'll leave issues of content for elsewhere: he's made it plain that he'll add links over any consensus or discussion, because he possesses The Truth , and we're all against him, unworthy to even discuss matters on his level. While I would have personally opted for a lesser initial block, the latest talk page comments indicate that a permanent block is highly likely. However, I am willing to babysit this guy, if Zscout's willing to unblock. I suspect it won't take long to return to the current state of affairs. Acroterion _(talk) 17:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    I would, however, ask that I have a chance to set some ground rules on his talk page first: the reaction to those terms would determine whether any unblock is feasible. Acroterion _(talk) 18:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    I would leave it be. Perhaps the best thing for this user, assuming good faith, it that he/she go read our policies, and then request a new account and get a fresh start. He/she would only lose a sum total of 3 edits from history aside from those made here, so not too bad of a loss. We do not need to coddle him/her or in-fight over this, it is not the heat death of the universe. JERRY _contribs 18:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Eh, not really. They'd simply be blocked as operating "more" socks. If we want to permit them to return after a week, we should just make that explicit per WP:BURO. -- Kendrick7 18:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    To assume that this is a genuinely new user requires rather more of a stretch of credulity than I am prepared to contemplate, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Then I'm just glad the project is blessed with administrators with psychic powers, because I know you didn't just endorse WP:ABF, right? So, if you could just please indef block such users before they make any edits at all next time, rather than all of four or five, you'd be putting your powers to much better use. His use of capital letters has, frankly, scarred me for life. In fact. we should preemptively ban all new users -- they are way more trouble than they are worth. If they were ever going to be good contributers, clearly they'd already be here. -- Kendrick7 21:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Even in the current climate, I hope we can agree that a "new" user named "No I won't talk with u", who makes 2 disruptive edits and immediately goes to AN/I to claim "admin abuse", is properly indef-blocked. MastCell 21:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    WP:DUCK... or have we lost our ability to make simple and obvious calls such as this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    No need to pretend we can divine sockpuppetry. Inappropriate username. Block for that reason alone. As for blocking accounts suspected of being the same person, three edits is not really enough evidence for that, unless another account tries to make exactly the same edits or self-identifies, so yes, the person behind that account could come back with another account, and no checkuser worth their salt will grant a checkuser if the suspected new account is editing productively. End of story. Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    (undent) Have we gone collectively effing mad?! Why are we even considering brandishing AGF and BITE in a case like this? We're already so repeatedly lenient and "forgiving" with obvious trolls (just in case!) that we, collectively, long ago moved from "naive" to "suckers". And don't think the trolls don't fully take advantage of this!

    Let's presume, arguendo, that is really was a new editor. We do not want that kind of editor here! I'm tired of seeing people rush to place welcome mats at the feet of trolls; because that makes welcome mats of us all! — Coren  01:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Wow. Well enough said as to make Raul's words of wisdom page. I'd add it to my userpage... if I had one. Seriously, are we still discussing this? Half the WP:DFTT factor is watching people trip all over themselves to argue how much of a troll the troll is, and whether we should have banned him or just blocked him temporarily. This is the wrong response. The right response: "spurious argument, case closed, stop trolling, period."The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yes. So why are you and Coren responding? And regarding what Coren said "We do not want that kind of editor here!" - that can be said about a lot of people, but it is not a license for indiscriminate blocking based on presumption. There is no harm in waiting until the evidence becomes overwhelming that there will be no change in behaviour, and a lot of harm in acting too soon. I can't stress enough how harmful the attitude of "must block on sight to save Misplaced Pages from trolls" is. In 99% of cases, strong warnings followed by blockings if the behaviour continues, is all that is needed. The correct response to bad editing is better editing, not blunt use of admin tools such as blocks and page protections. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

    Potential Sneaky spam?

    • cruisecritic.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    This caught my eye as I was removing some redirecting links. A pattern emerged as I was going through the links, they all (200+ at the time) seem to have been added by a single user, Splamo (talk · contribs). This raises several policy issues, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. On the surface all of this users activity seems like it might be good faith, however, all the links that i came across were added to wikipedia by Splamo to cruisecritic.com, adsense account (pub-4131962432578484). The big question is, does this apear to be someone who is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests?--Hu12 (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Just restating what I posted at User talk:Hu12 regarding the above information:

    I agree that the Adsense issue is a concern. Unfortunately, I believe that the alternative is for WP to not link to any cruise ship reviews. The Cruise Critic star ratings, based on their reviews, are utilized by multiple travel sites (Orbitz, Travelocity, and Expedia, are three of which I'm aware) so they seem to be viewed as a standardized rating tool within the industry, and I've seen them referenced as a source on NY Times articles about cruising. The only other review sites of which I'm aware tend to be more biased, or are directly owned by various travel agent sites and would certainly be inappropriate.

    The problem, of course, is their Adsense usage, and if that outweighs the information above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    FYI: further discussion on this at WT:SHIPS#Cruise_Ships_and_use_of_review_links --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Barek, I think you have missed the reason and point of this inquirey. It is not the content of the links that interest me by the time it has got to this stage. Wether they are "referenced as a source on NY Times articles about cruising' or not, is irrelevent and does not make for exemption of official Misplaced Pages policy. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links..--Hu12 (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    • cruisecritic.com/Splamo diffs;
      
      I forgot to add diffs --Hu12 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Splamo, a high-school student, has done Misplaced Pages a valuable service by starting dozens of articles on individual cruise ships, as shown by the differences shown above and the histories. In those articles he relied on information from CruiseCritic.com. Some of that information can be problematic as I mentioned here, but that does not mean there should be a search-and-destroy mission to remove the links. Personally I prefer to use more direct sources (and in some of these articles I have added references to those sources) but the site can be and is a useful source of general information, and apparently was used by Splamo for those purposes, as I mention here. We should assume good faith on the part of the editor who relied on that site to make infoboxes and add content; the edits linked above demonstrate that. Kablammo (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    It is not only spammers who concentrate on particular types of articles, or make multiple additions from a source. it is a perfectly feasible and even desirable way to work, to find a good neutral reliable source that is applicable to improving a number of different articles, and add it, and then go on to the next source. People working this way with particularly useful online or printed content could greatly improve our sourcing. The assumption of good faith extends to instances like this. DGG (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Disruptive editing (not mine) on a user subpage (mine)

    Resolved – 98.195.24.26 given 31 hour block for personal attacks (since extended to 1 week, see below)
    • 98.195.24.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    The above IP has admitted to being one of the editors who previously caused much disruption on Talk:0.999... and Talk:0.999.../Arguments, albeit under a different address. Recently, they have taken to commenting at a page I created, User talk:ConMan/Proof that 0.999... does not equal 1, mainly debating with User:Tango, User:A math-wiki and myself on that point. Fair enough, that is what I created it for, and since I have once again been hugely frustrated by the whole thing, I've taken a step back and decided to stop arguing his points since we seem to be at cross-purposes. However, back on the old pages he (amongst others) was labelled a "troll", and from his behaviour here it is hard to find an alternative description. From his contributions, from December 13 - 26:

    • Edits Talk:Area (geometry) for the sole purpose of disparaging the entry in particular, and Misplaced Pages in general.
    • Edits Talk:Knol, praising it as a haven away from "narrow-minded Misplaced Pages sysops and administrators." (And here's me not even realising they were different!)
    • On my subpage, refers to us (Wikipedians in general, I assume) as "fools", although admittedly uses the same epithet to disparage Cauchy, Weierstrass, and "the rest who I don't care to mention", and several other fairly uncivil remarks about several Misplaced Pages editors - some by name, the rest grouping us as "pawns who have to support their 'view' of the math-world".
    • Well, just read the last two paragraphs and decide for yourself.

    Note that between the last two edits, I had placed a warning on their talk page (Permalink) which they obviously read since they responded to it, although that response was then removed by User:Fromgermany.

    To put it simply, this user is not here to build Misplaced Pages, but to disparage it and attack its editors, and since a not-so-gentle hint that maybe everyone would be happier if they took an extended break from it, I am asking for help - perhaps a block to demonstrate just how such a break would work out. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 14:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    (addendum) User has been notified of this discussion: diff. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 14:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Have given 98.195.24.26 a 31 hour block for this among other things. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    The block has been extended to 1 week and 98.195.24.26's talk page semi-protected due to continued unpleasantness. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Village pumps

    Resolved

    A dynamic IP user was vandalizing all of the Village pumps. (See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)‎, Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance), Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical), Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy), and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)‎.) I have s-protected all of them. Because they are always kept move protected, I wasn't able to use expiring protection. If I'm not around to do it, can someone remove the s-protection at some point in a day or so? (Optionally, if you can figure out the right range to block for the IP and are satisfied that it won't cause collateral damage, that's fine too.) --B (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    I considered a range block and it's just not feasable in this case. --Deskana (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    I have yet to try one because I wouldn't know what I'm doing and would probably wind up blocking most of the planet. ;) --B (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    There are days when I think that wouldn't be a bad thing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    FYI, I have removed the edit protection on all five pumps, leaving in place only the move protection that was already there. --B (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Template:Contents pages (footer box)

    Resolved – template fixed/image from meta blocked)

    I can't edit this template because I'm at work - and I recommend you don't if you have co-workers or people under 18 around - could someone please fix it?--CastAStone/ 16:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Fixed, user blocked. Thanks! --B (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you B! P.S. Is that image on our servers? can we delete it? I'm gonna go wash my eyes out with bleach now...--CastAStone/ 17:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    It is on Commons so we can't delete it - I have added it to the bad image list, so it cannot be used. --B (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think that m:DICK needs expanding to include "don't upload photographs of your dick". Guy (Help!) 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    hahahahahahahahahaha...that's terrific. Seriously you have no idea how scarring it was to open List of decades and see my whole monitor taken up by four penises spraying...then I had to go revision by revision to figure out where the problem was - ahem - coming from...while I was at work no less...i couldn't look at that photo anymore...thanks for taking care of it again B--CastAStone/ 04:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    fake move attack

    • OK, Let me explan this, some guy keeps using variant ip adress to add information of a fake move Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into DreamWorks Animation,Droopy.Screwball Squirrell,Spike (MGM),Barney Bear,Spike and Tyke,Nicktoons,Piracy,John Goodman,Long John Silver,Butch (Tom and Jerry),Lil' JJ,Jack Black,Mammy Two Shoes,Wanda Sykes,Tom and Jerry Tales since 30 November 2007
      • 30 November 2007, this guy was using 63.215.28.109 ,I reported to User talk:Luna Santin ‎and WP:AIV
      • 1 December 2007, this guy was using 172.132.65.29 ,I reported to User talk:Satori Son ‎and WP:AIV
      • 2 December 2007, this guy was using 172.131.135.201 ,I reported at WP:AIV
      • 5 December 2007, this guy was using 172.135.171.74
      • 6 December 2007, this guy was using 63.3.0.1
      • 7 December 2007, this guy was using 172.168.14.245
      • 8 December 2007, this guy was using 172.163.145.36 ,I reported at WP:AIV
      • 9 December 2007, this guy was using 172.163.10.210 ,I reported at WP:AIV
      • 10 December 2007, this guy was using 172.133.24.150 ,I reported at WP:AIV
      • 11 December 2007, this guy was using 172.132.218.98 ,I reported at WP:AIV
      • 19 December 2007, this guy was using 63.3.0.129 ,I reported at WP:AIV
      • 20 December 2007, this guy was using 63.215.28.110 ,I reported at WP:AIV
      • 21 December 2007, this guy was using 172.162.11.138 ,I reported at WP:AIV Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
        • When I defending DreamWorks Animation today, many people said that I AM vandalism, and some administrator said I have to apologize here , what would I do? Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
        • This guy will keep try to attack these articles, what would you do?Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think semi-protection may be in order, if you are correct. WP:RFPP may be best. WP:AIV will ensure that these IP addresses are constantly blocked for sensible amounts (they are IP addresses, so it's not really possible to block them for a long time). x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    (x42bn6 understand Chinese , so I reply in Chinese)Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    (Chinese)我擁有相同想法,我在WP:AIV請求semi-protection for 6個月,可是沒有任何administrator 願意這麼做，他們頂多semi-protection for一星期至一個月,那是沒有用的,semi-protection for 6個月比較好Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    (Chinese)用常理去推理就知道是假的,Tom & Jerry只有一部movie(1993年製作),之後的都是direct to video,This guy還說Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning是made by DreamWorks Animation(with Nickelodeon Movies, Rainbow S.p.A., Amblin Entertainment, Phoenix Pictures, Spyglass Entertainment, 4kids Entertainment, National Geographic Society, O Entertainment, Sony Pictures Animation, TriStar Pictures, Columbia Pictures, The Kerner Entertainment Company, Walden Media, Castle Rock Entertainment, Revolution Studios, Imagine Entertainment, Universal Studios, The Weinstein Company, & Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer),這根本不可能.Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    (anyway, in english) He says that he wants the items semi'd for 6 months by an administrator and something else semi'd for one week to one month, while the other one gets semi'd for 6 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blow of Light (talk • contribs) 21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    No, No, No, I mean I agree with x42bn6 and I want the items semi'd for 6 months by an administrator, but administrators seem they don't want to do this , they semi'd the items from one week to one month only , it's no useTom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    (ec; my attempt at translation) "I went to WP:AIV asking for semiprotection for 6 months, but the administrator there only protected for 1 week to 1 month. This is not long enough; six months is better." "Common sense will tell that it is false, there is only one Tom and Jerry movie (made in 1993), the rest is direct to video. This guy also says Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning is made by (list of production companies); this is impossible." —Kurykh 21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    最不可能的是This guy says Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning features Mammy Two Shoes, 自從1954年開始Hanna及Barbera 就把Mammy Two Shoes這個角色取消了,因為Mammy Two Shoes的存在被認為是racist,最新的Tom and Jerry Tales也沒有Mammy Two Shoes(製作人員根本不敢放這個角色)Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    I disagree with (semi-)protection for that long as well. One does wish anyone can edit articles. Protection for that long prevents that. I only know how to speak and listen to basic Chinese, by the way. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Um, the entire post is composed of translations of the above posts by Tom & Jerry Fan. None were of my opinion. —Kurykh 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. There is no need to protect such a wide swath of articles for minor vandalism for such a long time. Semi-protection is not preemptive. —Kurykh 21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    那怎麼辦?If they protecte for 1 week to 1 month only,This guy還會回來Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    If we protect for six months that guy will come back too. We'll see after the protection is over. Reverting (for admins) is a one-click task, and so are blocking and protection. —Kurykh 21:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    我是不要緊啦,我也可以revert,不過今天我revert DreamWorks Animation的時候有三個人(其中一個好像還是administrator)說我是vandalism,這可讓我非常生氣Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    我不太希望下次維護這些 items的時候又有人跑過來說我是vandalismTom & Jerry Fan (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    I can say with certainty that your edits were not vandalism. So be sure of that. —Kurykh 22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    And that vandal does seem persistent. I'll give you a hand here and watchlist all these articles, reverting when necessary. Just like Tom & Jerry, vandal fighting is, unfortunately, a lot like a cat-and-mouse game. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    75.4.0.0/16

    • 75.4.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

    This range was blocked by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, back in August, with the block set to expire in February; I see it's previously been the subject of a {{checkuserblock}}, so it seems very probable that something was going on at the time, but to block 65,000 IPs for six months, I'd hope we have some very compelling problems from the range. I would ask CSCWEM directly, but he's unfortunately been unavailable for several days, so I thought I should come here. Does anyone know the full reasoning for this block? Or, alternatively, does anyone have thoughts as to whether it should remain? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    It resolves as adsl-75-4-0-0.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net. I think it's Irving, CA. That's not an unpopulated area. Perhaps it's time to unblock? Bstone (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Around the time of the ban, it appears that CSCWEM was dealing with a repeat vandal from one IP within that range (75.4.152.189) on Kia Vaughn. But that's the only IP in the range that appeared involved at that time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    It's been a few months, I've gone ahead and expired the soft block. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Jimbo appoints new arbitrators

    For those who haven't noticed yet, Jimbo has announced the results of the Arbitration Committee elections. The results are here. Cheers, Sean William @ 23:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Protection of Misplaced Pages:Private correspondence

    I have fully protected the above until midnight/now (or a few minutes ago, knowing my habit of over-verbiage) to stop a nascent revert/wheel war. If a previously uninvolved admin or two could keep an eye on matters to stop this spiraling out of control I believe the community would be well served. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC) (bingo!)

    Unfortunately, immediately after the protection expired, the wheel war started again. A request has been made at WP:RFPP to reinstate full protection; however, as at least two of the wheel warriors are administrators, additional warnings may be appropriate. Merry Christmas everyone. Risker (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    The two opposite alternatives should probably be split with a disambig. That might help the edit warring. -- Kendrick7 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Terrible idea, unfortunately: one is supported by policy, the other by wishful thinking. Ideally, of course, we would not need a policy ro guideline, since publishing the contents of a private email is a dickish thing to do. It's also problematic re copyright, and has led to censure in several ArbCom cases. The competing version says, in effect, just do it and take the whacks. That's not smart, not least because anybody with a shorter history than Giano would be in deep shit for posting the contents of a private email, and also because where we've seen such publication there have been instances of forgery, as with the recent IRC logs. The appropriate people to deal with private data are the arbitrators, and they have said they will do so. They can contact the purported senders and original recipients, validate the contents, cross-check the headers without risking revealing private IP data, and come to some conclusion. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Review of protection

    I would also invite review of my sysop actions, as an editor with some input, in protecting the pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Protecting was right, though longer would probably have been better given that the edit war was almost certain to break out again. Yet another ridiculous episode that could've been avoided; some of those involved should really know better. BLACKKITE 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. No wait, wrong page -- ah yes, agree with BLACKKITE. Intentions were good but protection should have been longer, and especially some of those involved should really know better. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    After the 13 minute protection expired, edit warring resumed. At this point, User:SlimVirgin, User:MrWhich and User:Crum375 have all reached three reverts, all of them hitting their third after the brief protection. Fortunately, Alison has fully protected the page for a week before anybody hit a clear fourth revert and garnered a block. Four other users also reverted once each. Protecting for such a short time wasn't effective. If Allison hadn't already protected, I would have blocked all three of those who did a third revert after the protection, as they clearly knew that they were edit warring, 3RR is an electric fence not an entitlement, and intentional edit warring deserves blocks. GRBerry 00:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    • I reverted back once after Crum375 to the short-lived protected version. I'm assuming Alison saw my request for protection on the protection noticeboard. The first protection was fine, but should have gone longer. Lawrence Cohen 00:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I've just found this commentary now. I'm a regular WP:RFPP patroller - one of the most active - and happened to see the request going up. I have protected the article for a full week due to edit-warring and, as ever, have no interest or preference for whatever arbitrary revision has been protected - Alison 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Process question....some of the users (many actually) of those involved in this series of policy edit wars on the use of private type information are admins. Is there a mechanism to prevent their editing the protected version anyway? or just good will? And what (if anything) could/should/might be done if folks do edit through the protection 'inapproprately'? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Sysop tools do enable an editor to bypass page protection, however one of the criteria that is considered in the request for adminship is whether the powers conferred would be abused. Being able to edit protected pages is allowed to both maintain the page, and to make edits that have consensus. I suspect (no evidence - but such a facility might exist in the case of virus infection or similar) that there is a further level of protection which may only be applied at Steward or Dev (or Founder?) level, but I doubt it forms part of the normal community processes.
    • The only thing that keeps sysops from abusing the tools is the personal sense of responsibility to the community, and the knowledge that as admin is a position of trust the effect of having the tools taken away is to have it known that the community believes you untrustworthy - this, more than the fact that desysopping is possible, is what keeps admins from violating their position. That is not to say that abuses do not occur, but it is not by the majority and is extremely rare (and often a matter of error) in those who have. Admins are just people, with some extra buttons, and are thus fallible. My request for review is a case in point; I violated the letter of policy in protecting an article to which I had contributed, in pursuit of the spirit of the policy on not engaging in edit wars. I then placed my actions for review - seeking permission to violate policy after the event - so to determine I had not abused my position. If consensus is that I had abused my rights then I would need to review my being granted the tools. Some admins have signed up for a process called recall to enable the community to question if they are suitable to continue using the mop. I haven't, because I don't think a process will be necessary to determine it - my actions and my actions alone will provide the basis on whether I continue to have the trust of the community.
    • Short version. There is no regular way that admins can be stopped from editing protected pages, except by their own sense of responsibility to the applicaton of policy. Abuse of the tools can lead to sysops having the tools taken away, either voluntarily or non-voluntarily. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    So what happens if anybody with admin powers edits a fully protected page after protection? spryde | talk 12:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    That would be determined largely by the nature of the edit. Non-controversial edits, such as correcting typos or formats, removing previously missed vandalism, etc., or editing per consensus reached at the talkpage are expressly allowed. Controversial edits are expressly not permitted, since it negates the premis of protecting the article and also means that only a certain class of editor seems permitted to edit according to their viewpoint. There might be some temptation to make such edits, since protection is not concerned about which edit is "correct" but to stop edit warring (or other vandalism) and therefore any subsequent edits should not be reverted - which wheel war also disallows. Of course, a sysop that gets into the habit of controversially editing protected articles runs the risk of being sanctioned and the tools removed temporarily or permanently - a single or couple of instances will most likely earn a rebuke. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Speaking of mechanisms to prevent admins from abusing their privileges to edit protected pages...JzG edited the page in question and this was brought to Alison's attention on her talk page. JzG then self-reverted. That informal process seemed to work in this case. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Sometimes admins edit protected pages accidentally, overlooking the protection notice at the top. I've done that once or twice. It's akin to banner blindness. (This is just a general comment; what happened in this case obviously went beyond that.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    I'm going to put that page on MfD as soon as protection lapses. As should be obvious from the talk page and from this, no consensus will ever emerge from that train wreck, much less a useful policy or guideline. Jtrainor (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    User:BetacommandBot & Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk

    Just to let people know that in light of the above discussion, I've gone ahead and created the above Image copyright help desk for users to ask for image copyright help and to ask questions concerning BetacommandBot. All users with image copyright and fair use experience are welcome to fulfill help requests from those users needing help and advice. Nick (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Good move, and very welcome. I think it would be helpful, however, if User:BetacommandBot's tags on images could include a reference to this new help desk. I'm willing to watchlist it and give assistance where I can. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    It would also be helpful if someone well versed in image issues would swing through WP:FAC twice a week; this issue has been coming up for well over a year, and we still don't have anyone regularly reviewing FACs for image issues. WP:FAR too, but articles are there for at least a month, so twice weekly wouldn't be necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Once my Belarus FAC is done, I can swing around. Plus, the folks from FAC can come to us and we can deal with the issues there. User:Zscout370 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Nice initiative, this has the potential to alleviate a lot of the problems with BCBot. My only concern is that there seems to be an overlap between this page and WP:MCQ. Is the new help desk intended to field only bot-related image questions? ˉˉ╦╩ 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    We mention on the new page that if there are questions about specific images, we send them to MCQ. User:Zscout370 03:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    "To ask a question about ONE specific image, Click Here" - I have no idea how I missed that... ˉˉ╦╩ 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Don't mean to be negative, but I'm a bit skeptical about this in relation to Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. MCQ is for queries, primarily questions, both about general issues and specific images. The only non-redundant use I see for the new Help Desk is (to quote the BCB talk page) "complaints ." Betacommand does get a great many complaints, but I don't think it makes sense to move them to a "help desk" -- it's effectively like moving the whole user talk page to project-space, except for some barnstars and the like. If I had a genuine complaint against BCB, I don't know if I'd respond positively to being redirected to a help desk. It sends the message of "you're wrong; post here if you'd like someone to tell you why." I just don't see why it's needed. — xDanielx /_C\ 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Because people were not satisfied with his responses or refuse to speak to BC. So other users are giving this page a shot and see if it works. User:Zscout370 04:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Well, I agree that some users have been unsatisfied with Betacommand's responsiveness, and I don't exactly blame BC considering how many redundant complaints he receives (not that that necessarily makes the complains unmeritful). But other users already hang around his talk page; I don't see what moving the discussions to project-space would do (well, except for users who refuse to talk to BC, as you pointed out). I guess it can't hurt to try, anyway. — xDanielx /_C\ 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Sometimes people are right. Hopefully there will be feedback mechanisms in place to get the bot, the tags, and the overall message improved. I suggest a summary section on the helpdesk page titled "suggested bot improvements", or something. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    It gives the message "you're in the wrong place," not "you're wrong." We constantly direct people away from AN and ANI to AIV, RFPP, and other alphabet soup boards, but the "you're wrong" connotation doesn't exist if it is not explicitly stated in the redirection. —Kurykh 04:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think anyone minds being told that there is a better forum for what they're posting, so long as it is done in a reasonably polite way. My concern was separate from that, though. Post location is just a triviality; I think upset users would respond differently when genuine complaints are redirected to a "help desk." It's a bit like telling them to read some section of List of common misconceptions. — xDanielx /_C\ 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    So the problem is the name of the board. But then, we have Misplaced Pages:Help desk, which last time I checked wasn't the Black Hole of Ignorance of Misplaced Pages (I know I'm exaggerating, perhaps a bit too much). Getting back to the serious point, it seems like you don't have a problem with the concept per se, but the naming. —Kurykh 05:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I guess that's a fair observation. — xDanielx /_C\ 07:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Ideally all taggings by BCBot would be explicitly guided by policy. If that were the case then you could simply redirect users to the relevant policy. Unfortunately, BCBot's management has not been that consistent and uploaders are often intimidated by the weighty set of Misplaced Pages image use policies. In either case, any opportunity for greater oversight is welcome. The name could be simpler though, something like the "BetacommandBot Question Center", to clearly set it apart from WP:MCQ. ˉˉ╦╩ 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I like the idea making it explicitly about BCB to avoid redundancy with WP:MCQ. Misplaced Pages;BetacommandBot discussion center maybe? — xDanielx /_C\ 07:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I had a couple of concerns with naming the board directly after BetacommandBot, mainly, I don't want to drive users away who are struggling with image issues highlighted by, but not directed related to BetacommandBot, so users really struggling with writing fair use rationales, image size, and so on, and the problem if the bots functions are split and or the bot is renamed, as has been proposed elsewhere, so I thought I'd try and see how a fairly generic sounding name went down first. Nick (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Not really a content contribution on my part but I'm quite happy with "Image copyright help desk" - I occasionally get questions about rationales, which I'm not too skilled on (I just copy other ones usually) and it would be nice to have a place for people to go who can field such questions with some knowledge. WHat I'd suggest too is building an easy to read FAQ collection to assist volunteers at such a help desk who can link people to answers on the FAQ (or paste them in as Wikicode) in response to most common questions. Orderinchaos 23:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    experience is that most people understand better if there is some attempt at a personalized answer, not just a referral to a policy page. DGG (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    The policy is part of the problem. Its written so we can understand it, but other than copyright lawyers, about no one else can. Mr.Z-man 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    The reason Betacommand needs his own help desk is his lack of responsiveness and helpfulness to legit concerns. We should not encourage this by ducking the issue and making a help desk to handle complaints about him and his bot, he should do that himself. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Disruption to Template:Stourbridge Town Branch Line

    Could an admin please look at the edits by User:90.203.45.214 please. There have been various discussions about the format of this template, and the clear consensus was to have the template in this format - i.e. showing a connection. See the following discussions:

    • Talk:Stourbridge Town Branch Line#Connections on route diagram
    • Talk:Stourbridge Town Branch Line#Route Map
    • Misplaced Pages talk:Route diagram template/Archive 3#Stourbridge Town Branch Line - third opinions requested
    • This edit by an anonymous user

    These clearly show consensus, and User:90.203.45.214 is the only active opponent. However, he has been constantly reverting the template, accusing me of ignoring consensus and falsely giving me vandalsim warnings. I am no longer prepeared to tollerate this disruption. Could someone please take appropriate action. Thank-you. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Block on Fedayee; please review

    I blocked Fedayee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for accusations of sockpuppetry after being warned to stop at WP:AN/AE; the user is yet to request another admin to review the block, but TigranTheGreat (talk · contribs) is determined that "We will make sure that is stripped of that privilege," and has started following through on that. Please review my block. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Reasonable block, since it pertains to a request not to repeat uncivil behaviour which was ignored and the tariff is not excessive. Obviously preventative rather than punitive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Seems to be a fair block, especially considering the backdrop that this whole mess has been to arbitration twice, we're not exactly talking a common-or-garden content dispute or editor conduct review (I give this by way of background, as the AE was not cited as a block reason). Orderinchaos 12:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Was this fellow warned that if he persisted in his accusations of a someone being a sock he could be blocked? How long is his block for? I do see his point in that he perhaps didn't violate an actual policy, but we must remember that the lines between admin and editor is blurred when we are all encouraged to police each other. I use twinkle to issue warnings, report people for suspected sockpuppetry, vandalism, etc. But then again while bringing it up again and again may be annoying and not assuming good faith, is it really worthy of a block? I tend to be very lenient and prefer counseling before blocking. Bstone (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Worth looking at the backdrop here. Two arbitration cases, massive edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and incivility - and we still get these whopping great threads at ArbCom enforcement. We're all fed up of the never-ceasing conflict in this corner of the encyclopaedia. Checkuser has said that there is no connection between Ehud and Adil, and Fedayee's evidence is simply not good enough on its own. Under these circumstances Fedayee's conduct becomes disruptive. Moreschi 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Block is fine. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 puts Fedayee under several restrictions and he's been really quite disruptive recently. With checkuser saying thumbs down the link between Ehud and Adil has not been proved to my satisfaction, under which circumstances Fedayee has to put up with it. His persistent accusations of sockpuppetry are not verifiable and are certainly disruptive until such time as he gets better evidence. Moreschi 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    1000 active admins

    

    As of today, we have 1000 active admins (more than 30 edits in the last three months). The first round's on me. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I'm afraid I can't agree that this is cause for celebration. Jtrainor (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. This is more likely a cause for the gnashing of teeth and the donning of sackcloth. But I will take Rick up on the offer of a Guinness. All the better to drown our collective sorrows at this "achievement". Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oh come on, why the pesimism? at least now we can say that we have a average of 1000 admins per 1,000,000 vandals that has to be a improvement. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Many hands make light work of image backlogs. Sean William @ 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    We hit 1000 active admins on December 15th, but then we took a dip back down until today, perhaps because some were busy due to the holidays. But now we have our free time back again - a boon to Misplaced Pages :-) NoSeptember 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I suppose it depends on your definition of "active". User:BetacommandBot/Admin edits is quite a good page for this sort of stuff. If you define "active" as "has made an edit in the last week" there are still 968 active admins though. Hut 8.5 20:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I define "active" as "has made an edit in the last 5 hours". How many is that? :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    How about the last day? (User:BetacommandBot/Admin_edits#Last_24_hours) — xaosflux 03:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    • I consider myself a reactive admin anyway, and its the proactive admins that I worry about... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    To expand my views from the above statement a bit, I have felt for some time that it is far too easy to become an admin and too hard to remove problematic ones. Thus, a 1000th admin is not a cause for celebration to me. Jtrainor (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I myself am planning to celebrate with a vandalism spree. Whee! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    The temptation to block you for 1 second was almost overwhelming - but blocks are preventative and I couldn't be certain which second would stop the spree... oh, too late anyway! LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Protecting non-existent pages

    Just so you guys know, we can protect non-existent pages now thanks to a change done by brion. Cbrown1023 talk 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think you'll find that i did it. — Werdna talk 10:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    I know (but had actually forgotten when I made this post ;-)), you added it into the MediaWiki software but brion made it live on WM sites. Cbrown1023 talk 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    So is WP:PT needed anymore? Or rather, should we even have it anymore? —Kurykh 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    You must return here with a TitleBlacklist... or you will never pass through this wood... alive. east.718 at 22:25, December 27, 2007

    It's in the works. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 16:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Wow very nice! I just noticed this ... I was scratching my head trying to figure out where my twinkle SALT button was and why I had a "protect" button on a deleted page. --B (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    The interface still needs some work for this, but it should be the end of the bagillions of #if's on SALT. Once done we should migrate them to normal protected redlinks. — xaosflux 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Any thoughts on a standard time to leave them protected? Is there any server overhead (in other words, we want to expire them eventually) or should pages that will never exist (like "Jimbo Wales on wheels" or something) be protected infinitely? --B (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Good question, I've begun migrating some of the lists, and copied over the indef protection, but for most pages this isn't really needed, and new articles (or other migrations) can have a limit placed on them. Most of these pages are the results of media attention, spammers, or specific vandals--that eventually go away. Just out of the hat, 1 year should be more then enough time for most of these. — xaosflux 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    This is a great new option to have. By the way, the protect button is not available in the Classic skin (unless I'm blind) -- but I was able to invoke it by changing to MonoBook. Antandrus (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Will we need to make a note of these protected pages somewhere, or just protect them and move on? J Milburn (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Should be able to just protect and move on, they'll be listed on the Special:Protectedpages soon if not already. Cbrown1023 talk 16:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    They are at Special:Protectedtitles. mattbr 18:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Reference errors

    Resolved – Fixed

    I know this is not the usual place to post format problems but since most of these templates are protected my guess is that the problem's source is the work of a admin. The thing is that several reference templates that have been in place for months are sudenly reading "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name cannot be a simple integer, use a descriptive title" in bold red, I have encountered the problem in Daniel Santos (boxer) and Elite (Halo) and in both cases extending the title didn't appear to to anything in previews, this is probably affecting the entire project seeing how many references use this reference format. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    A lot of refeerences that have worked previously have been replaced with Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer, use a descriptive title. Is there something wrong with the reference tag, or has someone vandalised it? Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I wasn't sure where to put it. Please move if appropriate. StuartDD _{contributions} 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    It's been fixed now, purge if you can't see the changes. Spebi 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    What is the source of the problem? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    A software bug caused the problem; it was promptly fixed once it was reported. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    King David Isle of Man

    King David Isle of Man BLP This WP:BLP is not being written an edited with any consistency for NPOV. I've attempted to do my best to bring issues back to NPOV including discussing the issues with some editors but, myself and other editors have pointed out on the talk page, it has slant towards a negative bias and does not seem to follow WP:BLP. It's a very new article and has a lot of contention about it. I feel it requires Administrator intervention. Thank you.--Lazydown (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    There is nothing that appears to require admin work, all the issues can be resolved by doing cleanup and adding reliable sources, there is no edit warring or sufficient vandalism to warrant a protection either. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Stupid New Admin question

    (Or, possibly stupid question from new admin ;-) ) So, when I delete a category page for a now-empty prod category page (I cleared out the last of the prods), do I also delete the talk page? The only note on the talk page is that all articles were checked to see if they met prod criteria. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    It depends, if the category was renamed or merged into another I would suggest turning the talk page into a sub-page of the current title's talk page or a separate archive. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think Kathryn is referring to categories like Category_talk:Proposed_deletion_as_of_23_December_2007. Those can and should be deleted when the corresponding category is emptied. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, that's what I meant! Thanks! The page listing the prodded articles, not a category that was prodded. :-) Right now the text on the prod category pages reads: "Once this category is at least 5 days old and it no longer contains any articles it should be speedily deleted." I think we should change the text to add, "Also delete the corresponding talk page." Do you know how we do that? (I'll go delete the talk page, if no one else has.) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    It is assumed that the talk page would also be deleted per CSD G8. —Kurykh 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    OK. I thought so, but I've also seen some cases where talk pages were left, and I wasn't sure which ones are the exceptions to the rule. Actually, are there exceptions when the talk page of a deleted article or category should be left standing? Or have I just been seeing mistakes? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Generally, the only exception of CSD G8 I can think of is user talk pages of established editors who are blocked or banned indefinitely. —Kurykh 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Deletion discussions that aren't located anywhere else should also not be deleted (although we had a purge of those recently). east.718 at 04:31, December 28, 2007

    There are no dumb new admin questions. :) If you have any questions, I am always available. I've been an admin for almost 2 1/2 years. I sometimes know my stuff. :) --Woohookitty 10:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Code shops

    There are currently three "shops" on MFD at the moment.

    • User:Vintei/shop
    • User:Runewiki777/shop
    • User:IXella007/Shop

    Vintei has 230 mainspace edits out of 1350 edits. Runewiki777 has 1489 mainspace edits out of 3188 edits. IXella007 has 29 mainspace edits out of 345 edits. This is a dangerous pattern here. These users are spending way too much time with their shops and whatnot instead of working on the encyclopedia. In the past, these pages (autograph books, signature shops, secret pages, etc.) have been discussed on a case-by-case basis. We seriously need to come up with some sort of policy dealing with these unencyclopedic pages and unencyclopedic contributors soon. A user with 29 mainspace edits with the rest to his/her userspace that make up several hundred edits total should not continue to waste resources such as these MFDs and their non-contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Two of them have been already been deleted and I doubt the third one will survive for long, if a user is using Misplaced Pages as a host space I see no reason why these sub-pages can't be just directly deleted instead of consuming time on MFD. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    I completely and totally agree (which is why I nominated several of these for deletion). See also Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart which was basically the same situation. In addition to the users who create the shops, there are also those who frequent the shops and who work at them. These are basically walled gardens of non-encyclopedia contributors. Something does need to be done. Metros (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    I recommend having the users adopted, I used to be something like that, but lookee here, 360 mainspace out of 985 (wait, is that good?), and mainspace is the one that's at top for me. If adoption doesn't work, I'd say block. —BoL 04:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    No, it's not good. 10.5% of your edits are to userspace, whereas only 0.2% of mine are - and that's only towards a place where I collect sources for article writing. east.718 at 04:24, December 28, 2007

    East718, which edit counter are you using? While your premise is correct, I'm not sure your math is.—Kurykh 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    44 edits to my userspace aside from JavaScript out of 16336 total edits (but then again, kate returns more, which it should never do, and river just breaks). east.718 at 04:55, December 28, 2007

    Well, counting my edits every time I nominate an article for speedy deletion, the user:mainspace will go down. —BoL 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    ...and it will still constitute 36.7% of your edits. —Kurykh 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    If pages such as these aren't helping expand, edit, or maintain the encyclopedia, then I would agree that they need to be deleted. However, I don't think that a sweeping policy is warranted, since many "shops" of these types would already fail existing policies, and would be (justifiably) deleted. I'll also add that there are contributions made outside the mainspace that still contribute to the maintenance of the encyclopedia, and that raw numbers of contributions aren't necessarily a clear indication of a user's willingness to improve the project. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    • I agree with the gist of these. Code shops are very much an embodiment of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not - however, by the same token I'm planning to create a page in my userspace about creating infoboxes - would that be allowed under policy??

    Infoboxes fall into both project improvement and maintenance, and are a skill to learn. --Solumeiras 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    True. We can really use an example on that new codesnippets wiki, that should put the shops to rest forever. If someone comes to Wiki to build a shop, immediately delete it, but only after you transwiki the source code to the new wiki. —BoL 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Missing log

    Resolved – Spebi 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Hi, I don't know where to put this, but here is missing entire day (27 December) - . ≈Tulkolahten≈ 09:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Fixed now. Today's log is always transcluded due to some of the #time: functions on the page, but since the following days need to be updated manually, it displayed December 28, 26, and so on, but not 27. I have a solution to prevent this from happening in the future, though. Spebi 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Question

    Could someone please bring back the old comments from User talk:202.76.162.34? We need evidence of what this IP address has done in the past. I myself did something like this several times, but it was reverted without a good reason. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    If you want to know what the IP address has done in the past, click on it (i.e. the contributions). That particular IP made edits in 2006, disappeared for a year, made a dozen edits recently, and is now blocked for a good long while. You should also maybe explain why you need to know what this IP has been doing. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Issue with user Blowdart

    I created a wiki for XCritic and user Blowdart is very quick to add the speedy delete note. If you look at his talk page there are a number of people who have had issues with the his speedy delete requests . He then went to my bio and marked that all up. I think there has to be some level of tolerance for newbies and rather than having the door slammed in their face, have constructive notes given on how to improve or modify a wikki. I'm quite concerned this conflict is now between editors and not about content —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleinman (talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Well, the article doesn't look like a CSD, but it's certainly AfD material. As for his edits to your self-aggrandizing biography, well, they weren't strong enough. I've just been in and deleted 80% of the article, as Misplaced Pages is not an advertising service. I'll take the CSD off the XCritic article and send it to AfD for discussion. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Wow, talk about harsh. Is there any room here for welcoming and working with newbies?! How about comments to HELP with entries rather than chop and ship to deletion? And the cuts to my bio were way to severe. You cut out all the history of where i've been and what i've done. Wow. it really smarts having this kind of smacking rather than helping. Gkleinman (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Yes, I've seen that every time someone disputes your editing in any way you wave WP:BITE at them. But that policy is not a licence to use a non-profit encyclopedia funded by donations in order to self-aggrandize and promote your business interests. You can comment on the AfD of your article here. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    OK I've commented there. My intent isn't to self-aggrandize but to put information that's relevant in the Pedia. But please do take the point, that there's a way to do this with newbies where it's more collaborative and directing towards making good articles rather than being rather stern. Again I'm learning and working to make the articles I submit in spec. Thanks for your understanding Gkleinman (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Is there any relevant information you'd like to add to the encyclopedia that isn't about yourself and your own business? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    It would be curlish to point out I didn't actually touch his autobiography aside from marking it with COI and Autobiography, hardly marking it all up. Nor should a user who's first edit was on 17 December 2005, and who hides behind an IP to attempt to bypass COI being claiming newbie status. But, meh. --Blowdart | 12:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    FisherQueen - yes. After getting past this mess I was going to create a page for Stoya who is an adult performer and doesn't even have an article in the pedia about here. I'm also planning on adding info on Sundance Fest which I'm attending and Adult Expo. I don't recall when I registered, but I am a newbie and still learning about creating articles. So I don't want to wave be nice to the newbie again. But please be patient. I'm learning. So here's what I ask... Constructive feedback on how to improve things, and I'm going to work with that. 12:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleinman (talk • contribs)

    I have updated both entries based on feedback, please revisit and re-evaluate them. Thanks Gkleinman (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    beyond this article and this editor editor, there have been over the last day or two an unusually high number of unfinished articles nominated for AfD with a hour or two after creation. Sometimes they are just lacking sources--sometimes they are clearly in the process of being written. There is no requirement that an article be written in one go, and we should tag such unfinished articles if they have any possibilities, not delete them immediately. I can't account for the sudden decrease in tolerance, except possible as a byproduct of coming down after the holidays. I suppose we should be aware of the possibility of this increasing further with people recovering after New Year's Day. DGG (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters

    The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

    For the Arbitration Committee,
    — Rlevse • Talk • 14:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    I am sorry to admit it but this has been done before and it didn't work, both parts are to strongly attached to their points of views, I'm under the impression that this case will repeat itself down the road. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    well, there will be additional arbitrators available. The alternative is that the broader community does tackle the problem where it has its root, which is the inflexible wording at WP:NOT. Personally, I would downgrade almost the entire page into guideline status. DGG (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    It is effectively already a guideline, given the hundreds of thousands of articles we have that violate it. BLACKKITE 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    That's it? That's the decision? I don't follow ArbCon cases too much, but telling the editors to "work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community" seems ridiculous to me. The case made its way to ArbCom because the editors were unable to do exactly that. Wow. I expected a more defined response. But again, I don't typically follow ArbCom rulings so maybe this is the norm.↔NMajdan•talk 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    It sounds very much like a "No Consensus", which I suppose it is as far as wrongdoing and shenanigans go on the part of the parties involved. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Seems from the actual page that there was consensus that there was bad behavior going on, but the failure of arbcom to rule on it is troubling. I support the suggestion that WP:NOT gets downgraded. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Dealing with fake-IP vandal

    Um, I know this page is for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on the English Misplaced Pages, but an administrator from the Vietnamese Misplaced Pages is asking at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance)#Dealing with fake-IP vandal for advice. His particular problem is vandalism by someone in Vietnam using fake-IPs, who keeps replacing acticles' content with insulting words. We've been dealing with this vandal by locking IPs, but I found that locking fake-IPs is quite useless since the vandal uses a different one for each series of attacks.
    So, I was wondering, what is the experience of the English Misplaced Pages, and how has it dealt with such issues? It's probably best to respond at the village pump. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    If they work under the same range and the vandalism is overwealming the administrators perhaps a range block can help. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Speedy delete process?

    Yesterday, I tagged Webling Elementary for AFD, since it's plainly not notable. In the discussion, the creator left the following comment: "I created this article before I read WP:NOTABLITY, so please delete and speedy close, thanks". As a new administrator, I'm not sure of the procedure: should I just delete it and close it, as it's author-requested? Or must we wait for a few days until the discussion time is over, since two other editors have edited the article? Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Neither editor made any significant contribution to the article so I would say you would be fine to speedy delete as an only substantial author request. Davewild (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    WP:CSD#G7 would be a good deletion note. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. DGG (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Unblock of Zeraeph

    The unblock of Zeraeph I view as magnificently unwise, given her onsite and offsite stalking and multiple attacks on SandyGeorgia. I ask that close eyes are kept on this user. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    For reference - Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Best, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Please note that my questioning on the unblock of an account that has harrassed SandyGeorgia and a number of others on site and off site has decended to (ahem) Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with, too. Small world. Now fuck off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Ceoil (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Moving from LessHeard vanU's talk:

    'I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms'

    Please, am I supposed to be impressed this; I dont brush streets myself, and not that it matters or is anyway relevant. And I impressed that you are 48? My mother is 63. So what, actions speak louder than years. Please take regard of the substance, and the background. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Well, you must think I am a fool. Mattisse 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Please clarify who you are talking to Mattisse. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    I am talking to User:LessHeard vanU. Mattisse 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    why should I care that you wish to involve yourself in discussions between two other parties?

    Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here . She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. What the fuck? Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    I was explaining why I was using the terminology that I did. Simple. That is how I wrote to members of the legal profession back in the day. That is my personal style in these circumstances. If you don't recognise that you were getting an explanation, in much the same manner in which I was conversing, then I doubt there is any point in continuing this conversation. Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with, too. Small world. Now fuck off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    "Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with"; Now fuck off? Oh boy, it gets interesting now. So I can cut to the chase now right?? Because I know whats going on here. I was just too much of a gentelman to say it out loud. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Remember this: . watch your lip. So you won't mind if I reply in kind; "Fuck off until you learn not to piss on your neighbours lawn!" LessHeard vanU 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) ??????? Funny how history repeats. Oh boy. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    • I always believed that consistency was a good thing in an sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    You told her once to fuck herself, you were not sactioned; so now you can do it at your pleasure? My god, man, thats fairly corrupt. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    (edit conflicts)I said, "Fuck off" (for which I later apologised - which was accepted) which means go away in rather violent terms, per your own example above, whereas "fuck (her/your)self" means... something different altogether. Please try to be accurate in your comments, it really does help the reader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Ceoil, I don't know what your interest is in this. I've not seen your name on any of the articles in question, though I've not looked at everything, so maybe I've missed it. Regardless, the situation seems to be that there are allegations from a number of sides about harassment. It's hard to work out where the blame lies, so the best thing is to move on, if at all possible. If we find more harassment (coming from anyone) in future, we can deal with it then. In the meantime, let's try to get the protracted content dispute at the heart of this sorted out. SlimVirgin 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here . She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. But whatever. Out. Enjoy. You wake up with the fleas you sleep with. Enjoy. Out Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    I have never harassed User:SandyGeorgia on-Wiki, let alone off-Wiki...and as she is not saying anything herself that is all I need to say right now. (Except maybe to ask that the language be toned down a little?)--Zeraeph (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me. --Zeraeph (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    LHU, did you write "fuck off" at the end of your legal memos? It was in response to the rather mild comment "..don't do it again," . I respect your work, and i recognize that you have been the target of abuse from time to time, but if you use that kind language again here, i will block you, if anyone is willing to support me. DGG (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    There's an awful lot of cross-posting about this issue, so that it's getting hard to see who said what and where. I hope everyone can just forget about previous allegations and focus on sorting out the content dispute. Anyone who wants to help is very welcome at Talk:Psychopathy. SlimVirgin 02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Nice deflection SV; pity you are talking to adults and not children. This IS NOT about content. This is about stalking, and harrasment on WR. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    I appreciate your concern, I really do. I'm on record as strongly opposing harassment. But this is your 39th post about this issue in four hours. You've made your point, and it's well taken, but please leave it now so that we can move on. SlimVirgin 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    (Edit conflict - reply to DGG) Well, let's see... 10th February 2007... 29 December 2007... Hmmm, you might have to warm up the old banhammer mid October 2008. Oh, and don't worry about any others, you just do what you feel is right - it works for me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Thwack!, Trout is best served 10 months old. --Hu12 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    As an uninvolved party, I hope I'm not the only person who finds Zeraeph's ".. he also seems to live within 30 miles of me" comment somewhat grave. Is Zeraeph implying Ceoil is a stalker? That's quite a serious accusation, so I hope others refrain from making such hyperbolic comments. We need to remain firmly rooted in reality here, and not make such off the wall comments. Such comments can be deemed personal attacks. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    I am not suggesting anything, I just feel genuinely scared to see so much completely groundless vitriol, from a total (I hope) stranger emanate from such a nearby geographical location. Forgive me if I find this unnerving, with a potential to be seriously so. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    You say you're not suggesting anything, yet make the comment "..from a total (I hope) stranger". Please feel free to expand upon why you used the words "I hope" in brackets. Do you need to hope? This is a clear cut personal attack in my opinion, and I will repeat again that you should refrain from such personal attacks. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    I'm a little troubled at SV's questioning about how Ceoil came to this matter, when the order of events is plainly visible on WP:AN, where the unfair block of Ceoil is discussed directly above discussion of an off-Wiki attack on me on a site that is less than friendly to SlimVirgin, for which apparently the next step was SV's premature unblock of Zeraeph. My response is on my talk page; I want nothing to do with another circus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    I don't understand your post, Sandy. I come to this dispute without knowing the background. I've advised Zeraeph to stay away from you, and not to respond to, or comment on, any post you make about her. My advice to you is to do the same. Everyone needs to turn down the heat here. SlimVirgin 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    For those who want more background, you may wish to review this thread from last year, the diff noted by Newyorkbrad several paragraphs down, the discussion linked by that diff, and the additional links in that discussion. Z mistook a stalker for SandyGeorgia, made scurrilous and false accusations against Sandy which were proven wrong, yet Z inexplicably continues her mistaken vendetta against Sandy. Look at Z’s first contributions on 27 December after she was unblocked: Everyone else is at fault; she is the victim.

    This situation should have been firmly and finally dealt with a year ago. It was not; it has recurred; and it will continue to recur until it is properly ended. Kablammo (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    So this confirms Zeraeph has a history of insinuating that certain editors are stalkers then? She has done the same above as concerns Ceoil; "Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me." Such accusations need to be frowned upon, unless cold, hard evidence can be given to prove such allegations. Otherwise, accusing others of being stalkers is a very serious personal attack. Can Zeraeph please refrain from calling others stalkers per the reasons I have given? Thanks very much. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    The background that I can see is that Zeraeph was being stalked off wiki. She then ran into SandyGeorgia, who she feels was pursuing her around Misplaced Pages. She put two and two together, came up with five, and assumed SandyGeorgia might be the user name of her offline stalker. She was wrong. Since then, so far as I can see, she has not engaged with Sandy, and indeed has tried to avoid her. Sandy, however, continues to post long comments about Zeraeph, while saying she doesn't want to get involved. I can understand Sandy being very upset at being accused of stalking, and this is why she continues to post about it. But the very act of continuing to post about it is a large part of what's causing the problem to persist. I've therefore asked Sandy not to mention Zeraeph again, and I've asked Zeraeph not to respond to any of Sandy's comments about her. This situation was combined with anon IPs leaving insulting posts on Zeraeph's talk page while she was blocked. The toxicity needs to be allowed to drain out of this situation, and if people would stop posting about it, there'd be a better chance of that happening. SlimVirgin 03:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    The background that I can see is that Zeraeph was being stalked off wiki. Wrong from the first sentence; actually, there's not a sentence in your analysis that's correct, but let's not worry about the facts. Z claims a lot of stalkers; I've seen the "evidence" and it's bogus. SV, you might have done the homework before you unblocked an editor whose history you clearly haven't followed and don't know. It could have prevented a lof of speculation at a time that you say you want to turn down the heat. I don't think adding speculation on top of speculation ever serves to turn down the heat. Please, inform yourself of the facts beforehand next time. This looks like a COI unblock because of the clear chain of events on WP:AN and the off-Wiki attacks on me on WR. I suggest you let uninvolved admins step in; mentorship of Z has already been tried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Sandy, precisely what ARE you doing, on this thread, right now, misrepresenting and slandering me if not trying to stalk me off Wiki? I want no more of your false insinuations in the hope that nobody will check the facts. You actually confirmed YOURSELF that I was being stalked and then refused to turn that evidence over to me or anyone supporting me . Since tat time you have mercilessly tracked, harassed and misrepresented me. You refuse to bring this to mediation, you refuse to enter dispute resolution but you persistently jump in and lie to discredit me at the smallest opportunity. This is just wrong. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Zeraeph, I have repeatedly told you not to accuse people of stalking. Zeraeph has repeatedly accused people of stalking now, yet nobody has intervened. Can an administrator please tell Zeraeph that repeatedly accusing others of stalking her will not be tolerated? These are serious personal attacks, and shouldn't be allowed. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    I have no COI, I have no idea what the clear chain of events was (obviously not as clear as you think), and I am an uninvolved admin -- so uninvolved that you say I don't have a clue what I'm doing. You may be right, but I'm going to keep a close eye on the situation from now on, and time will tell. In the meantime, please AGF. I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting here about this, unless someone raises a fresh issue. SlimVirgin 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    I am retiring

    I see no other option, because whatever I do User:SandyGeorgia will find ways to harass, stalk and discredit me, and to attack anyone who shows any support for me. In September 2006 I sincerely mistook her for a sockpuppet of a woman who has stalked me since 1999. I made this mistake for the very simple reason that User:SandyGeorgia behaves just, uncannily, like her. I knew that then, and it is proved to me many times over since.

    I am proud of the way that I have behaved on Misplaced Pages, in spite of all the abuse thrown at me by a (sadly powerful) handful of people who are ruining this project for everybody else. It is not easily to be civil when constantly subjected to a constant double standard imposed by the efforts of a bully like User:SandyGeorgia. It is not easy to pick you way around a constant stream of slander and insult, day after day, and KNOW that even though you are the only one telling the truth you cannot win.

    I stayed with this so long simply because Jimbo showed me that he is one of those very rare people who is exactly who he says he is, and abides by his own stated principles. That meant something to me, something worthy of respect and acknowledgement in the form of staying with the project against all odds and against all malice, without breaking the rulesw MYSELF, however bad it got. I also want to thank User:DeathPhoenix for his "cowardly lioning", User:LessHeardVanU, for staying up so late with this, and most especially User:SlimVirgin who, in spite of a normal run in or two (and a tiny bit of unjustified maligning on my part that I never did apologise for) deciding to treat me as the equal of anyone else on the project and actually LOOK at the facts, instead of complying with the volumious insinuations.

    All I have to say to User:SandyGeorgia is that, at least, when you are plotting, scheming and bullying me you are leaving some other poor sod alone. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    New Page Patrolling and WP:BITE

    Recently I learned about New Page Patrolling and I tried my hand at it a tiny bit. I also looked at what others were doing and, frankly, found it disturbing and, IMO, not beneficial to the project. Here are a few examples:

    • Crazy paving - Just a little stub that found itself littered with tags - see.
    • Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais) - Marked for speedy (here) but a glance at the ref provided indicated notability born out by a quick Google search.
    • National Coalition for Child Protection Reform - Speedied (User talk:Factfinder42) but is it non-notable?? Four mentions in the NY Times (here) and an impressive board (here). That was just a quick search but I would not speedy delete it.

    This was just a few that I encountered very quickly. I am not here "going after" the editors that did this as they were all different and that indicates a more general problem. The problem seems to be a very WP:BITEy system wherein editors are rushing to mark new articles, often with speedy delete tags, instead of asking nicely that the author expand them a bit or even finding a reference or two themselves. This is a bad scene, no? --Alfadog (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    • What admin action are you seeking here? Being an admin doesn't actually give you any extra status to deal with this kind of thing. You should address your concerns with the editors concerned. Cheers Spartaz 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • • One could argue that feedback on the use of the delete button in the context of new articles might be of interest to all – or a substantial subset of – administrators. Reminding admins to look into new articles just a bit before giving them the axe might not, in some cases, be a bad idea. I presume that Alfadog is concerned about a general pattern (of which he gave only a few examples) rather than about the specific cases he mentioned. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I should note that the revision of Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais) tagged was technically speedy deletable in that form as either A1 or A7. If it was tagged a minute after it was created it might be inappropriate, but the creator had over half an hour to come up with more info than name and place of birth (the version previously deleted, created 18:54 was identical). National Coalition for Child Protection Reform read as if it was written by the group. Notability may have not been a good reason for deletion, but a speedy deletion does not prohibit recreation in a better version. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    I have to agree that I've had to deny way too many speedys. A1 and A7 are possibly the most abused of the criteria. I admit I tried using A1 once to get rid of an article, but I've changed face since then. If you understand clearly what the thing is, it's not an A1. And A7 only applies to people, bands, groups, and web content, but I see people regularly use it for TV shows, songs, and other things. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    • (edit conflict - reponse to original post)The best way to ensure that as many articles are treated fairly (according your viewpoint) as possible is to continue to newpage patrol - everyone works that task in the way they think best serves the encyclopedia. The more people doing it means that more time is available to check things over. Hmmmm... I think I will spend the bulk of my evening doing just that! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    That way lies madness. Trust me, I've been there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    That's okay - my attention was quickly diverted... LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    I've also noticed that some newpage patrollers can slap a speedy deletion tag on an article without giving it enough review. There are indeed some hopeless cases out there, such as people writing articles about their garage bands or their classmates. There are other times when people apply a speedy delete tag within minutes of an article's creation, even though the subject matter appears at first glance to be notable and the article is still under construction. I prefer to be a little more conservative when using the speedy deletion criteria, and to apply a dose of WP:AGF when necessary. --Elkman 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    The vast majority of CSD taggings are correct. The exceptions are what stand out, but you can't adjust our CSD policies based on exceptions. The chief bad-taggings are made by new New Page Patrollers and by (oh yes) TWINKLE operators who run riot at these things and never accept responsibility for their tagging.

    The real problem lies hidden in the original post - the misuse of tags in profusion ("tag and run") by (oh yes) a FRIENDLY user. More automated crap editing. Clean-up "tagging and running" is worse than tagging for deletion in many cases - I've had it done to me when I've created an article and, honestly, you just look at the tag in complete disbelief. Tags are often needed, but automated editors never follow up with a welcome message to the article creator, let alone any advice - they just tag and run. Even when they're tagging "for clean-up" a perfectly well written article from an experienced contributor.

    So, again, and there is consensus for this, if you come across someone mistagging articles using automated tools, pay a visit to their monobook.js, blank it and protect it for a few days. It's not punitive, it's just protecting the 'pedia from this type of editing. Chop chop. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think we've been here before, and recently. The tools are being used by people whose intentions are good, but haven't the experience to distinguish between a nascent, but notable topic, and a no-hoper. When I use NPW, I will Google for notability if it's plausible, but not asserted. OTOH, if it's a loser from the start, I'll tag it. Conversely, I've untagged allegedly NN articles which clearly assert WP:N, and have tagged "wikify", etc., articles which have turned out to be copvios, and again used Goggle to do that. NPW is not meant to be used without thought. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Normally the majority of taggings are correct. Normally I check that page once or twice a day, deleted a dozen or so articles, and decline one or two. (a higher proportion of declines than truly representative, because I try to work on the more difficult ones that are not immediately removed). Over the last few days, it's becoming declining one out of three. Equally careless in the other direction, there have been an increasing number of obvious copyvios which have not been spotted. I admit i never thought of doing as Redvers suggests, but it sounds like a good idea. Did inadequately prepared editors get the bots as a christmas present? DGG (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    User:Anthon01

    Anthon01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joined us in October 2007 and has spent virtually every day since advancing alternative and fringe medical ideas, attacking those who promote the mainstream, and in particular attacking the Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Ilena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), banned from the project for much the same, has a mentor and partner, Anthony Zaffuto, who is a notorious kook and is also part of her humanitics foundation. I've been watching Anthon01's edits pretty much convinced that he's a sock or meatpuppet of one of several banned users with an agenda against Quackwatch, I only today looked back at his history and found:

    1. 20:37, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎
    2. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Wheatgrass‎ (moved Talk:Wheatgrass to Talk:Wheatgrass Juice)
    3. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎ (moved Talk:Wheatgrass to Talk:Wheatgrass Juice)
    4. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wheatgrass‎ (moved Wheatgrass to Wheatgrass Juice)
    5. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎ (moved Wheatgrass to Wheatgrass Juice)
    6. 03:27, October 3, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass‎ (Undid revision 161619050 by Healthfood07 (talk))
    7. 11:59, October 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Wheatgrass

    So: edit number one was promoting the wheatgrass health meme, edit number two was to use the Undo button, edit number three was a page move, edit number four used the Minor checkbox, edit number 7 created a disambiguation page. This does not loko like a genuinely new user.

    I would be grateful if people with more experience of Ilena and her cohort could review the contributions of this user and come to a conclusion as to whether this is covered by the existing arbcom findings against Ilena in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal and if so what, if anything, should be done. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Suggest you present more evidence to support the claims. If you can make a convincing case that this is the meatpuppet of a banned editor, then her ban applies to this account as well. Other than the Quackwatch focus this appears to be editing other areas of alternative medicine, so the matter isn't open-and-shut. Unless there's a different banned account that you can link to this as a sockmaster. Durova 01:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Unblocking of User:QU109999

    Please unblock this user, or at the very least, allow this user to state the case as to why they can be unblocked.

    THe user only blanked one page that was not their own. This user received a warning, then it was deleted by the user. I (sorry about that, people) and others then proceeded to unblank the page. Others started to add more and more warnings, only to have the page blanked. THis then resulted with the user being blocked indefinitely. I do not know if a notice was put on the page about the blocking. There isn't one there now, so the user cannot appeal. PLease can someone intervene? StephenBuxton (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Note:This is already being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:QU109999. Davewild (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    {{CertifiedbyanExpert}}

    Resolved – template deleted. henrik•talk 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    This sets a new record for number of CSD categories I've ever nominated a page for at once (I managed four at its TfD). Someone might want to have a look at this one - I'm certain it's not something we want lying around the encyclopedia. Happy‑melon 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    BigHaz

    BigHaz is being uncivil (see his talk page, contributions, and activity logs). He is telling a user very rudely that they have been blocked. I know it's OK to tell someone that they have been blocked, but isn't this going a bit too far? He was even giving a threat - see here: . Please block him. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    the lack of merit of this block request is, indeed, obvious from the talk page of the user being complained of. DGG (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Eh? 58.168.147.119 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Submitter must be joking. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    This ain't no joke. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)