Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:09, 29 February 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs)

1. Forum shopping
   • The suitability of using http://www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/ (and other links) as "external link" in the Prem Rawat article was discussed here: Talk:Prem Rawat#By website
   • Momento brought it to WP:BLPN, see WP:BLPN#Prem Rawat links. OK, I'm fine with that one (it is an appropriate forum): nonetheless the advise given there included "The matter is being discussed on the article talk page. It has not been determined that the sites in question are derogatory, and that linking to them violates policy. Let's find a consensus on the article talk page." (Will Beback's comment of 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
   • Nonetheless, the issue was brought to yet another forum, WP:ANI, by Momento - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Francis Schonken. That's forum shopping. Complaining about me I can live with. Finding another forum to raise, again, the same issue for which he gained no general approval elsewhere (branding the use of certain sources as "external link" in the Prem Rawat article as being a BLP infringement) is another.
   • Momento warned by me about the forum shopping: User talk:Momento#Forum shopping (note, Momento asked as a concequence of that warning not to post on his talk page any more - that is why I move this to this noticeboard)
2. Disruptive editing on a Misplaced Pages:Lead section#Bold title issue (which somehow Momento seems to make into a BLP issue for reasons unfathomable by me).
   • Issue explained at Talk:Prem Rawat#Balyogeshwar: in short Balyogeshwar is an incoming redirect to the Prem Rawat article. It was not explained in the Prem Rawat article that Balyogeshwar is an alternative name for the same person, yet one of the footnotes uses this name .
   • As a result of the discussion at Talk:Prem Rawat#Balyogeshwar I had put this alternate name of the same person in the lead section *WITH A REFERENCE*
   • Momento removes, stating it is unreferenced (BTW leaving the reference that in fact is not a reference for the part of the sentence he has left)

I'd like an uninvolved admin to look into this. There are more instances of "slightly disruptive editing" by Momento, which if requested, I'd flesh out. Don't know whether I should mention this, but Momento has received two 24H blocks for 3RR on the Prem Rawat article not too long ago (block log). The last of these was a result of my reporting at WP:AN3, after a warning <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">given by me on Momento's talk page: User talk:Momento#Prem Rawat (II). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Francis Schonken is being untruthful. What I removed as unsourced was his OR addition that Rawat was known "less frequently" as Balyogeshwar. "Less frequently" doesn't appear anywhere in the source and Biographies of Living People policy is very specific "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles". It isn't an optionaI rule that editor's can apply if they like, it is mandatory and I have tried a dozen times to get Francis to comply to this important policy but he never listens. Preferring to make complaints about me in what ever forum is available. The blocks refer to my 3RR removal of Francis's frequent insertion of an external link to an anon, self published web site containing libelous material despite this very clear BLP policy = Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. Self-published books, websites and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person. And independent editor described the site a "vendetta-ish". BLP policy also clearly states that the 3RR does not apply to such deletions.Momento (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the diffs of these edits. Momento deleted the same reference to the name Balyogeshwar 3 times in 3 days: Feb 17 20:17, Feb 18 22:08 (with no edit summary) and Feb 19 10:19. Only the third time did Momento justify the edit by objecting to the phrase "less frequently", and then only on the Talk page after receiving heavy criticism. Of course s/he could have just deleted that phrase if it was really the problem, not the name as well. This is typical of Momento's approach: s/he wants an edit made, and keeps repeating it despite lack of support and changing reasons. Also typical is the extreme interpretation of WP:BLP Momento just made on this AN; arguing that WP:BLP not only allows, but in fact requires Momento to make these disruptive edits and gives him/her immunity from 3RR. This is an argument Momento uses to justify a wide variety of edits, including ones like this one where the connection is very hard to see. To my eye, it looks like WP:GAME. Msalt (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect people who play the game know the rules. Adding "less frequently" to "Balyogeshwar" is unsourced OR in a BLP. No, no and no.Momento (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time you bring Momento's editing behavior to ANI, without making any comments about the general disruption that has taken place in that article, including edit-waring, SPs, anon disruption, dormant accounts, and more. Mediation has been proposed, but so far there are no takers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't WP:ANI, this is WP:AN

Before this one, I didn't bring anything to WP:AN for as long as I can recall.

The last time I brought a new topic to WP:ANI it regarded anonymous editing on the Prem Rawat article, so, yes anon disruption as listed by Jossi.

And yes, I replied to the WP:ANI thread Momento started on me. I gave the link above: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Francis Schonken.

I hope the notion of "uninvolved admin" is not unknown to Jossi.

Do I have to elaborate on other & similar disruption by Momento, as I suggested above?

Or on the uninvolved admin's opinion on Jossi's actions following my listing of Momento on WP:AN3? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi has chosen to formulate a counter-proposal below (which is his good right), #Article probation - proposal. I can't help noticing though that, again, he's protecting the editor who is experienced as most disruptive (not only by me!) w.r.t. the Prem Rawat article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's most recent arrival to the Pem Rawat article was heralded by his undiscussed addition of 25,000 bites of material to the article. Many editors have no understanding of BLP policy and Francis gets annoyed because so many of his edits are contrary to this important policy and I am obliged to point it out to him.Momento (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing this page for a couple of weeks, having no other connection to the people or article subject. Momento's editing is more than slightly disruptive. MOST of the 47 items on Momento's talk page are warnings and arguments about this one page, and he/she has had two blocks for 3RR and for disruption/edit warring in the last 2 weeks. Stopping Momento's disruption would be far away the best thing we could do to calm things down, in my opinion. A lot of other edits are responses to Momento's, and these unilateral actions are creating resentment that sets other people off.

These problems have certainly continued during my short time at the page, though to be fair Momento has cooled down in just the last 24 hours. One issue, as I just mentioned on Prem Rawat Talk, is that Momento appears to be constantly hovering over the page, reacting to everything, which I think distorts his or her time frame, creating a sense of urgency to act. (And I know I'm somewhat guilty of this too.)

There is another user, PatW, who is very emotional on the talk page and slips into personal attacks every couple of days. However, PatW has recused himself from editing (he is a former Prem Rawat devotee, as Momento is apparently a current devotee), so the overall effect, while certainly aggravating, is much less.

As soon as I get some more time, I will assemble some lists of Momento's diffs as examples. Msalt (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I can help. In the last week I have made nearly 100 edits. Almost all have been to the Prem Rawat talk page and 15 have been to the article itself, that is 2 a day. During this period there have been over 100 article edits by all editors. Of my 15 edits, 3 involved removal of an inappropriate link according to WP:BLP and WP:EL and it remains deleted, 5 involved removal of unsourced material and they remain deleted, 3 involved removal of a NPOV tag (one inserted by a banned sock puppet IP ]) and 1 involved removing an image that has been deemed a breach of Wiki policy. The 3RR blocks should not have been made as they are covered by BLP policy - Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. As Jimbo Wales says " It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". Unfortunately the blocking admins do not seem to understand BLP policy, all they note is three reverts. The short story with this dispute is that Msalt, Francis Schonken and Will Beback feel it their duty to add criticism to the Prem Rawat article and in their haste they constantly violate WP:OR, WP:V and WP:BLP. The problem is that I'm insisting that their edits should follow BLP policy as any proper investigation will prove.Momento (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I see here a major lack of appreciation for the requirements of Biographies of Living Persons. Msalt, you candidly announced when you first showed up at Prem Rawat that you didn't know as much as some about WP:BLP, but you don't seem to have made enough effort since then to remedy this serious deficiency. Now efforts to enlighten you are met by your patronisingly referring to BLP as "seeming so important to Momento, Jossi and Rumiton" or words to that effect. According to Jim Wales, this is the most important guideline of Misplaced Pages. The language he uses to express its requirements is unprecedented. References to self-published sources, especially if derogatory, are to REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND AGGRESSIVELY, not discussed on the Talk Page, not tagged with a . The more we say this, the more it gets ignored. Momento was acting entirely in accordance with WP rules in the deletions and reversions he made in this respect. He should never have been blocked for it. Rumiton (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Right here, unfortunately, are good examples of the POV pushing, combative attitude and violations of WP:AGF by Momento and Rumiton, who often tag-teams with Momento. I will let Will Beback and Francis Shonken defend themselves. I have made 22 edits in two weeks by my count. Not a single one added anything, criticism or praise, except a minor edit adding the words "that year" to clarify a sentence. Jossi, for one, has complimented my constructive attitude (on my Talk page .) To Momento though, I am part of a conspiracy to criticize Prem Rawat, and the Admins who blocked Momento for disruptive editing are all wrong too. Msalt (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you mentioned my name, you are absolutely correct, you have made an infinitesimal impression at Prem Rawat. But your lack of action on the Hunt quote ] will last for months.Momento (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I still request someone uninvolved to look into the information I provided. None of those commenting thus far in this thread (Jossi, Msalt, Momento, Rumiton and myself) are uninvolved. Of course they may comment too (I don't want to imply the contrary), it's still that I think that for getting this thing going anywhere some uninvolved eyes would be more than welcome.

Re. "I see here a major lack of appreciation for the requirements of Biographies of Living Persons":

• WP:BLPN#Prem Rawat might be an alternative to discuss that.
• The interpretation given by some to WP:BLP, and related guidance on sources, had degenerated into a travesty. The Prem Rawat article suffered as a consequence of that. It eventually led to Misplaced Pages getting bad press . Many objections as I have to that press article, that doesn't blind my sight that a part of the external criticism was justified. Part of the problem is indeed a shamelessly negligent interpretation of WP:BLP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

shamelessly negligent interpretation of WP:BLP? Not from what I am reading from uninvolved editors that have commented on the subject on the different boards in which the subject was raised. You should not let a Misplaced Pages-bashing tabloid, that has many times in the past published misleading, and ridiculous material on Misplaced Pages, its editors, and its founder, to set the tone and substance of this debate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So, you still endorse the forum shopping in defense of Momento? Note that WP:ANI criticisms have been brought to Talk:Prem Rawat#By website and further discussed. Only one negative commentator at WP:ANI appeared uninvolved. The positive commentary by an uninvolved editor at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#Francis Schonken ("That's not a clearcut BLP violation" - "saying that we can't link to something because it contains OR is to radically misunderstand Misplaced Pages policy") has been carelessly neglected too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You call Forum shopping, what can be assessed as an honest attempt to seek input from uninvolved editors. Many editors have commented on the fact that these links are not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As forum shopping it was a classic. Discussion is ongoing, one of the participants in the discussion can't get the result s/he's aspiring in a "I posess The Truth" way... and runs of to another forum. The only mitigating factor w.r.t. Momento is that he might not have been aware of policies like WP:PARENT (but then, how come Momento was never told about it?)

I just said that the negative comments had found their way (back) to the Prem Rawat talk page, so the fragmentation of the discussion was halted. The topic of this WP:AN section is Momento's behaviour. I'm still asking independent assessment of that behaviour. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not indepdendent at all, but the disruptive behavior n the past years by Momento and to a lesser extent Rumiton and esp. the talk page support (or at best silence) of admin Jossi (who should know better) has made me so angry that I will not edit the article for time being. Andries (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You forget to mention, Andries, how you botched a request for mediation between you and Momento, by basically torpedoing and sabotaging it (a request that, BTW, I encouraged you and Momento to undertake). If you cannot or are unwilling to pursue the avenues available to you to via WP:DR, your complaining here is futile. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Jossi, it was you who sabotaged my attempts at Dispute resolution with Momento. Andries (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence says otherwise:

• You withdrew from the first request: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2, closed because I am hereby closing this case because I do not believe it is viable due to how some of the parties are treating the mediation process.. You continued edit-warring during the process, and made this comment: I can see no possible compromise. I think that this mediation is merely a further step to arbitration., an obvious demonstration of lack of good faith in entering mediation. Details here. You need to read Misplaced Pages:Mediation#What_is_mediation?, which present conditions for mediation such as: A genuine desire on the part of the parties to find a positive solution to the dispute and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Jossi, you are completely misinterpreting the evidence, as I already told you many times. I entered mediation in a good faith attempt to solve a dispute and I made edits unrelated to the dispute which is not the same as continuing to edit war. However then Momento reverted all my edits. And then I came for a quick moment to the conclusion that finding a compromise with Momento was impossible. This does not mean to say that I did a bad faith attempt at dispute resolution. However you mistakenly saw it like that and tried to show it to everyone how much my attempt at dispute resolution was made in bad faith. So you are responsible for the failed mediation. Andries (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone looking the evidence I provided will be able to make their own assessment of your behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One more quick example of Momento's editing -- removing an NPOV tag put on the article (by 3 different editors) 3 times in 4 days : Feb 20 00:59, Feb 21 00:34, and Feb 23 03:31 (with no edit summary). Msalt (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento has not edited the article for three days already. Msalt, please note than in Misplaced Pages, blocks are not punitive, but preventative. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be true that Momento hasn't edited in days, but he has been disruptive in the very recent past. Edit warring over the addition of an NPOV tag is a classic example that we've seen in many disruptive editors previously. While a future block or ban would not undo past actions, they would prevent future disruption. I hope that we'll all view Momento's actions without bringing in our own prejudices (for or against). In that light, it looks to me like a topic ban may be called for if he reverts to his previous editing pattern. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If that happens, a user conduct RfC or a proposal for community-enforced topic ban could be proposed. At this time is unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a topic ban, if necessary, should be implemented through the normal channels. I see that you have been among those who have repeatedly warned the user of 3RR and civility. He doesn't seem to be learning from the community input he's received thus far. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he has been particularly uncivil. There has been a number of baitings and personal attacks by other editors, as you well know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento has just deleted properly sourced material for the Nth time. If you ddon't consider this disruptive behavior then I'm not sure you are a proper judge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback (talk · contribs) is referring to this edit by Momento (talk · contribs), DIFF, in which Momento removes 2 cites to different articles in the Los Angeles Times. I agree with Will Beback (talk · contribs) that this removal of material backed up to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, especially given the other comments, above, is obvious disruption. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again Momento cries wolf over BLP, arguing improbably that a statement that the article subject purchased a house -- with a reference to a Los Angeles Times article -- violates BLP as derogatory and poorly sourced -- thus justifying his disruptive editing and exempting him from 3RR. As for Momento's civility, in this very discussion he has taunted me by calling my impact as editor "infinitesimal" and charged that Will_Beback and I are driven to criticize Prem Rawat (with no basis of course.) Msalt (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be a single purpose account for Prem Rawat related articles going on two years. May be it is time for him to start editing a new area in wikipedia? David D. (Talk) 07:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. His disruption has been going on for years and his behavior was the main reason why the article had become unbalanced. Then Misplaced Pages received well-deserved harsh criticism about this article in the register magazine. (The magazine unfairly put all the blame on Jossi). See Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Exposure_to_political_operatives_and_advocatesAndries (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hah, you sure he's a SPA....no, get out of here...but importantly what will be done...answer: Nothing, just like before ... curse those civil editors... Shot info (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true I did remove WillBeBack's summary of an LA Times article - "In November of 1974 he purchased a secluded home in Malibu, California for $400,000. Prior to that he had spent 75% of his time at a home in nearby Pacific Palisades. It was announced that the home, later described as a "palatial, wallled estate", would serve as the West Coast headquarters for the DLM". I did so for several reasons -

1. Because BLP Policy says that "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the material it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject". It may have been of interest to LA residents 34 years ago but it is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages readers today.

2. Because the claim that Rawat bought the house is denied by Melton, the religious scholar, who says the property was bought by followers not Rawat. Therefore it is "contentious".

3. The description "palatial, walled estate" is clearly un-encyclopedic and typical of the article it came from.

4. It is undue weight to spend 15% of a section devoted to Rawat's activities between 1974 and 1980 to him, heaven forbid, buying or living in a house.

Biographies of Living People are supposed to be written conservatively. And editors are asked to remove any "contentious material". Here is a paragraph that's primary claim is disputed by an expert in the field, that has no relevance to the subject (who hasn't bought a house), uses un-encyclopedic descriptions and is blown out of all proportion to surrounding material. Any editor familiar with BLP Policy would be obliged to remove it. Momento (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Given you only edit this area I think your contributions would be better received on the talk page ONLY. Reverting on the main article is not helping. If you are right about the BLP issues then you should have no problem persuading neutral editors to make the appropriate edits for you. David D. (Talk) 16:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Two other editors with connections to the article subject -- PatW, an ex-devotee, and Jossi himself -- have voluntarily agreed to limit themselves to Talk discussions and not edit the article itself, at least for the time being. Msalt (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I agree with Momento about the phrase "palatial, walled estate" not belonging, and said so on Talk, but of course that doesn't justify deleting the entire section. Msalt (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See #Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback, with all due respect, but please, not again. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Article probation - proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching project

User:Fang Aili has been the coordinator of the Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching program for some time. Given that her recent editing has been at an intermittment pace, and that one of our most active coaches (who maintained lists, etc) has moved on, I asked her if I could help out on maintaining the program . But she hasn't responded. Would anyone object to me becoming a co-coordinator with her to merge the Misplaced Pages:Admin_coaching/Volunteers & Misplaced Pages:Admin_coaching/Status pages and do a reconfirmation of participant interest drive? MBisanz 06:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Viridae 07:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

BOLDness in progress. MBisanz 09:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good move. I've noticed that too. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - that's a good project that could use some coordination. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't object. Rudget. 15:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A user would like more consensus over some changes at Misplaced Pages talk:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching. Feel free to comment. MBisanz 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User NuclearVacuum

While NuclearVacuum (talk · contribs) does not create any disturbance, it seems he turned wikipedia space into his personal playground / personal webpage creating various funny stuff, such as United People's Darughas of Antarctica. I had a lots of laugh reading all this, but this is not what wikipedia for, May someone respectable advise Nuke to move their stuff to uncyclopedia or somewhere else? Mukadderat (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in this; if he can create pages with this level of skill, he's an asset to the project and I don't think he's breaking any policies. What might be more of an issue is that these pages might be mirrored elsewhere, as User pages sometimes are, and the impression is gained that these are genuine WP articles. An appropriate disclaimer at the top of each such page might be useful, and I'll suggest this to him/er. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not breaking any rules, I'm making some fun for myself. It is all in reason with Misplaced Pages. For example: I didn't make a true article for my Antarctica idea (United Darughas: it does not exist), typing information and claiming them to be 100% true. I simply made subdivisions off my userpage and relink it to my userpage. All the information I write ether is made up or real. I write the made up stuff (like my stories and ideas) on my userpage (not tampering with real articles), while the other real stuff (like the fact that I am a vorarephile), I only write the facts (all with website agreement. And if I were to write something wrong, I would fix it as soon as I could. Please don't tell me that I am doing something wrong. — NuclearVacuum (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this extensive userspace benefit Misplaced Pages's goals in some way? I'm not going to go out and say it's all bad, but are you sure you're here for the right reasons if most of your work is going into creating a personal garden? Yes, some people have extensive userspaces, but those people tend to be very active on the project (as WP:USER mentions, such things are more likely to be accepted or overlooked if people dedicate a lot of time and effort to more productive endeavors on the project). MfD may be the way to go, here, if reasonable discussion can't afford some sort of compromise. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am active on Misplaced Pages. I'm just going at a slow style, for I'm not used to writing on Wikipeda. These articles help me learn the code and to also find facts better. So in a way, it is beneficial. — NuclearVacuum 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• and I for one, will consult User:NuclearVacuum if I ever get stuck with a complicated formatting problem; he's already made some good contributions to article space, and I hope now his test pages are up and running, his expertise will be welcomed throughout the project. If there was a Category:Lousily formatted tables, he'd walk through it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is undeniable Nuclear is very smart person and can find answer to every question. Still, this does not change the fact that these pages are personal fun and constitute 80-98% of Nucear's contribution to wikipedia, both by number of edits and by amount of text contributed. This is an unnecessary burden on wikipedia server an cannot be encouraged. One my learn formatting while improving existing articles. Mukadderat (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly fully aware of the issues now. Personally, I would WP:AGF and see if the balance of his contributions changes in the short to mid-term. If not, then, MFD them. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the page has a serious BLP problem when it shows images of real living politicians with incorrect parties (and made up names). For example an image of Egypt's current president Hosni Mubarak with a false claim of being in Workers' Party and having the title "Führer". I know he's listed with a false name, it's in user space, and it's not meant to be taken seriously, but I still think it's a real problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to any page on Misplaced Pages, and therefore, that one, at least, has to go, and it's probably not the only one. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note - either the images need to be swapped or the word "Fuhrer" needs to be changed. As it's his own work (WP:OWN not applying to userspace of course), I haven't just changed it - I'll leave NuclearVacuum to change it to whatever he sees fit. Neıl ☎ 14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• While we're here, Nuclear's restoration of unsourced and poorly sourced material from Vorarephilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a bit of a problem. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand proposing changes to deletion processes

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Random Proposal. Betacommand has proposed a change to the image deletion process. Neither that subpage, nor AN, nor ANI are appropriate venues for this. Contributing to Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria compliance (which I created) could be a more suitable alternative, but although Betacommand is aware of this proposal I have created, he has not commented on it, and has proposed this instead (with language similar to that I used in an earlier thread that he didn't contribute to). Could we have more feedback please? Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you describe that as a neutrally worded request for additional participation? Does Betacommand's "random proposal" (which has been pretty soundly rejected on the deletion grounds he included, by the way) require an additional thread on this page, particularly with that sort of introduction, when you are fully aware of the potential for further inflammation of this debate? Frankly, comments that seek to incite additional conflict - particularly relating to a proposal which, in its entirety, has no support - are not helpful to the goal of resolving this issue. Avruch 03:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This was over a day ago. Is there a need to continue this now? It seems so. My concern was that Betacommand called it a "random proposal", on an out-of-the way page, and tried to demand a trade-off of stopping his bot in exchange for deletion "on sight". Quite apart from the dubious logic behind such a proposal, I was astounded that he had done this as I had left him a note on his talk page asking him to comment on my proposal an AN on the very same issue, but he utterly failed to comment there, despite the issue concerning him greatly. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive127#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline. In that proposal, I said very clearly: "What I am most concerned about is that people may use this deadline to try and force through some CSD allowing "invalid" images to be deleted on sight." Do you understand now why I was concerned by the appearance of this "random proposal"? More recently, admittedly in the right venue this time, Tony Sidaway has suggested another image deletion policy change at Misplaced Pages talk:CSD#Appropriate mechanism for enforcement of Foundation Licensing Policy. There is also some talk of the "7-day deadline" process being abandoned after the WMF deadline. See this comment: "As I understand it, very shortly (March 23, 2008) we'll be moving into an era where this seven day grace period will no longer operate." In that thread, I asked where this was discussed, but Tony hasn't responded, unless you count his starting of the WT:CSD thread in an attempt to get CSD#I6 changed. I will admit that AN was maybe not the right place to post to get feedback (though I think admins should be notified about proposed changes to CSD), but sometimes more attention to a discussion does help. After all, the assumption is that the participants will remain civil, right? I have no problem with such a change going through after a community discussion and clear consensus (or even such a change imposed from above), but I want it to be done openly and transparently. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC is down

All the wikipedia channels seem to be down on freenode. I cant get hold of chanserv. NE ideas? Seddon69 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not for me. Perhaps you're on the wrong server? Cbrown1023 talk 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Somene just said there was a sever split, i found if you close your client then reopen it should connect to the main server again. Seddon69 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See netsplit. — Save_Us † 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's really down, maybe we could start passing out party hats? Kidding, sort-of. -Hit bull, win steak 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories

Quite a major change in the category system has taken place. See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#HIDDENCAT, and Category:Hidden categories. Admins will need to brush up on how this works and be alert for vandalism. Exactly how to use this rather powerful feature is still being discussed. See Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization. There is probably discussion on the technical mailing list as well. Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be pretty useful for maintenance categories. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is actually pretty cool. I'm also quite amused by "Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction". Natalie (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All of them, right? Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well. Disappointingly, it also appears to be true. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at CAT:CSD

Anyone able to lend a quick hand? _GB 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

48 is a backlog? I guess you're a new admin...John Reaves 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he means the subcats. нмŵוτнτ 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit of both. Either way...it got your attention, didn't it...! ;-) _GB 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And the image subcats like Commons have a 5 day+ backlog. MBisanz 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh. Still, seems like it averaged ~150-200 about a year ago and is significantly lower now. John Reaves 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So all of the new admins in the past year (yay, me) are making a difference? Neat. *The more you know* нмŵוτнτ 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone remember when nobody deleted images because nobody knew the policy? I think I deleted 250 images in one day because of that! Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a policy...? _{The public face of GB} 14:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Piperdown

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Piperdown has been unblocked, has scrambled his password and Misplaced Pages, as he said he would

Piperdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please unblock this account as gesture of good faith. His "last will" for the account is to see it unblocked and then he will scramble the password. This is about righting a wrong that has continued for far far too long. If you admins reading this are afraid to put up with the likes of David Gerard, it'd be a sad day for Misplaced Pages. Piperdown and others were right about the hideous COI in those articles all along. If (and only if) he ever resumes any problematic behaviour through that account, you can block again, no harm done. I highly doubt it will ever be necessary, I trust him, and I'm ready to vouch for that, without having spoken to him. Per WP:DUCK: If it looks like a reasonable human being, swims like a reasonable human being and quacks like a (more or less) reasonable human being, it's probably a... duck. — Kidding aside, there is no need to kick people when they're down and when they are proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been right and their concerns spot-on all along. This is a matter of principle. The better forces at WR were apparently right all along. They were standing up for encyclopedic integrity when no one here dared to, collateral damage notwithstanding. Now is the time to extend our hand in a conciliatory gesture to one who meant the project well all along. Please consider this. Dorftrottel (canvass) 03:19, February 27, 2008

As a firm believer in second chances, I would support a good-faith unblock. I would also unblock if there's a reasonable agreement to do so. Keilana| 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is premature to unblock until the user logs in and requests unblock, stating that they will abide by all relevant policies and community norms. If they do that, I would agree to unblock. Jehochman 03:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should add that he needs to abide by policy for an unblock to be feasible. Whether or not he intends to edit, reversing an unjust block is the moral/right thing to do. Keilana| 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and he already has asked to be unblocked on his talk page. I'll unblock him. Justin_(u) 03:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Boldness in action. Keilana| 03:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I thank you! Justin_(u) 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He can be hard to support given that he is by his own admission not interested in resuming constructive participation in the encyclopedia. Still, his block was unjust, so reversing it is the right thing to do. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have notified David Gerard on his talk page, for the record. Keilana| 03:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised this went so fast, given the discussion last time came to no consensus. I strongly plead that no wheel warring takes place. Note that I am not objecting to the unblock. GRBerry 03:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ding dong, the wicked clique is dead! *Dan T.* (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this unblocking. I came close to unblocking him myself last time this came up. It's time everyone; Piperdown, DG and the entire community, moved on from all this. It's the principle of the matter, really - Alison 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

More WR orchestrated nonsense...wonderful. I wonder if we can now look forward to him continuing his offsite attacks on our contributors.--204.212.228.201 (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's vowed to pack it all in, from what I've heard. It can only be for the good if everyone can walk away from all this and move on - Alison 04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If that anon comment had been anti- the formerly entrenched clique rather than pro- it, then it would be the sort of thing that regularly got deleted with a snarky edit summary like "rv trolling". *Dan T.* (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No harm to be done by doing this - should he go back on his word and make hell then everything is reversible and he can be reblocked. Viridae 04:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to his first message on unblock, he is being true to his word; "I'd like to stay gone for good.", and intends to scramble his password - Alison 06:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I dinn't think he wouldn't - was prempting critisicim -apologies for spelling - python wrapped around one arm makes typing difficult. Viridae 06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yayy for pythons :) I've seen the pics already - Alison 06:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Havent seen my new baby! I will jump onto IRC. Viridae 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And it is done - the Piper is Down. He has also departed from Misplaced Pages Review. I guess we can all close that chapter in WP history and move on. In the end, it was that easy. And now it's over - Alison 06:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin using rollback in content disputes

After a couple of my good faith contribs to House Mouse and Red Fox were rolled back without an explanation, either in the edit summary (obviously impossibly using rollback) or on the talk page, by sysop UtherSRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I want to bring this to the attention of his fellow admins. As a rollbacker myself, I was strongly admonished that rollback was never to be used in content disputes. If you look at UtherSRG's contrib history, these two were by no means isolated incidents. In terms of these specific items, I am more than happy to try and address UtherSRG's concerns about my edits. But I can't do that if he doesn't even provide an edit summary. I would simply like his fellow admins to remind him of his duty to keep editing as harmonious and collaborative as possible. Thanks, VanTucky 04:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple things - please use the four tilde signature so your name shows, and also... Sometimes its better to bring something to the attention of the admin or editor in question, wait for a response, and if you don't get the response you're looking for then ask for a second opinion. Unless I'm missing something, you waited 11 minutes? (To clarify: Not that I disagree that a no-summary rollback is a bad way to engage in general editing, just saying it might not yet be a WP:AN problem.) Avruch 04:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the sig, it was a typo. And I did leave UtherSRG a talk message, I just want it seconded by someone he hasn't reverted, and a fellow admin besides. It tends to have more meaning. VanTucky 04:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find that he used admin rollback in his dispute with you - it looks like he used scripts to revert your edits. FCYTravis (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like UtherSRG (talk · contribs) is using WP:POPUPS to do the reversion, not the admin rollback. Technically, WP:POPUPS isn't an admin tool, so the warning about using admin tools in content disputes doesn't really apply, but that's a technical point. The issue is that UtherSRG isn't providing an edit summary for his/her changes, and that could cause problems in the article development process. --Elkman 04:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Right - it's a question of editing propriety, not of misuse of tools. FCYTravis (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I based the idea of it being rollback on the automatic summary. That doesn't look to be true. But this isn't about adminship and "misuse of the tools" for me, it's about providing a basic minimum of communication in a content dispute, so we can discuss it civilly and reach a consensus. VanTucky 04:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we give Uther some time to respond, and continue the discussion on his talk page if need be? Uther does an incredible amount of bona fide antivandalism work with POPUPS, so I hope that nice friendly discussion will be all that's needed. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

UtherSRG has done this before, but he started using summaries after the last report to AN. This might just be a slip up or something. You might want to see these: , , --Phoenix-wiki 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the history of Red Fox, I do not see any of my reverts having to do you with, Van. I was reverting an anon who kept adding unsourced or incorrectly sourced data. If I reverted a piece that you'd edited, it was purely by accident. The House Mouse edit probably should have had a summary, but I prefer to use POPUPS for simple edits as it is highly convenient. I have no problem replying when needed to queries about my edits, or if my edit gets reverted as is the case in this instance, going back and making the edit again with an edit summary. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Old unclosed but easy AfD

Can someone close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Saima Maiysa Khan please? It's been two weeks and for some reason it's fallen off (or never was on) the deletion logs. It's a very easy close as the article has already been speedy deleted; I'd close the discussion myself but I participated in it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because closing an AfD the article underlying which has already been speedied is purely housekeeping and entirely non-discretionary, one may feel free, I'd say, to close any such AfD, even where he/she has partaken of the discussion. Joe 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review backlog

We seem to be working on a backlog for closures there, with open items ranging back to February 16th (and on every or most days subsequent). I'm on limited Wiki time (busy work schedule atm) and when here today am planning to primarily work on the equally horrendous backlog at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, but I wanted to point it out in the hopes that somebody might head over and help clean some of that up. :) An editor brought it to my attention by dropping a note on my talkpage about an open item in which I've responded. --Moonriddengirl 12:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From some subpage of WP:DRV: Deletion Review discussions are typically closed after 5 days of discussion. ...welp. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A requested move

Could someone please move Location of georgia to Location of Georgia (country) and merge the page histories? Both articles are by the same author, who apparently got a little confused. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Justin_(u) 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reddit users completely overusing "citation needed" tag on Dyatlov Pass Accident

Since the article has reached the top of the front page on reddit, anonymous users have inserted the citation needed tag at least thirty times. Obviously some things need to be cited, but this is getting carried away. It looks like IPs and newer accounts that are wrecking the article. Can this get protected, or should we just keep adding fact tags until the article is completely removed? 216.37.86.10 (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, look at that. Usually, a single {{unreferenced}} tag at the top is needed if the other option is adding dozens of {{citation needed}} around. If we were strict, you should just delete any sentence that is marked with a {{citation needed}} tag (information without verification cannot stay in articles). As for protection, I notice some good changes overall (other than the templates), including adding a reference (personally, quite a bit different from when Digg users come). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Anything with a "cn" tag should be removed? Are you serious? If you are, you're way out of line. Any fool can add a tag, and only a fool would remove every sentence so marked. "Where is the proof that the earth is the third planet from the sun? Where is the citation that V/I/R? Do you have a citation that humans are bipeds?" There is such a thing as common knowledge, and there is such a thing as a reference to an article that shows the overall source. Geogre (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

19andy91 (talk · contribs)

I have indefinitely blocked 19andy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for repeated sock puppetry, edit warring and disruption. Please feel free to review. I am especially interested if somebody can say whether this sock farm is the latest outburst of banned user, or if we are dealing with somebody new. Jehochman 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. May want to ask at WT:TWP re: earlier activity. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They have one sock active at the moment. It seems to be doing non-destructive edits, so I have not blocked it. Can more people please look at Eddy774 (talk · contribs · count)? Jehochman 19:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note User:Eddy774 (sockpuppet evading a ban) is not blocked. MRSC • Talk 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a description of the offending person's activity? Related to {{NXEC colour}} use? If so, it appears Eddy774 needs to be blocked as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The original block was for 3RR on account User:19andy91. It was lengthened to 3 days on 27 February 2008 for sockpuppetry using account User:123andy321. As such the 3 day ban block has not yet expired. It sends a very poor message to reward persistant use of sockpuppetry with the early removal of a sanction. MRSC • Talk 20:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

block =/= ban; the two are different GRBerry 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I twice lengthened the sanction on the main account. Is there a consensus to block the sock as well, even if it is not doing anything wrong at the moment? I am concerned we may have a newcomer who is confused. If there is evidence that this is a banned user returned, that would be different. Jehochman 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you tell us! You blocked the main account. Why would you bother doing that and then let a sock run rampant? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the main account had been edit warring. Since the sock has been running rampant, it is generally doing good things and not edit warring. Perhaps the user has wised up and deserves a second chance. We're not mindless blocking automatons, are we? Jehochman 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I know of two regular sockpuppeteers with a strong interest in trains and the train projects. One of the two is not currently blocked, and the other I suspect of having returned about two months ago as a different user. That isn't to say there couldn't be a third that I don't know of. Or this could be yet another account of the one that is blocked, since the suspected account hasn't edited since early January. That one that is blocked was blocked for using sockpuppets to make personal attacks, which doesn't seem to be the issue with this account. GRBerry 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

<- I am familiar with FilaX who likes to fiddle with the number of platforms at train stations. That's vandalism. This user is changing 'one' to National Express East Anglia which seems to be quite helpful given that the company has rebranded, effective today. Jehochman 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Heck, then I'd try to engage in communication rather than blocking, so long as the edit warring doesn't resume. It could even be some clueless intern in the marketing department who was told to go correct the branding here. GRBerry 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

...saving us a ton of work. Perhaps somebody who is knowledgeable about English railways could check the editor's contributions and give them guidance. I am not a good volunteer for this job because I haven't been to England for 10 years, and don't know much about railways. Jehochman 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm back to the concept of blocking a sockpuppeteer - for socking no less - and then debating whether or not to let a sock go free. If the user is actually repentant, s/he should be telling us that, going back to the main account, and behaving properly. The sequence of events that has occurred here seems very odd to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we may have a confused newbie who needs guidance, rather than a hardened vandal. They don't need four active accounts. If three are blocked, and one is active, behaving itself, that would seem to be an acceptable situation. Jehochman 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So we're allowing someone who is blocked to simply create a sock and continue editing, as long as the sock is nice?! How much more abusive can a sock situation get? I must have missed a memo... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman asked me to take a look at this, since I have some interest and experience with UK railway articles. On the whole it seems like the editor here is trying to be productive, even if he isn't doing a good job of collaborating or communicating. The changes made under all three accounts seem to be good faith edits on the whole, though some of them are badly written and the edit warring is definitely not helpful. I am not aware of an earlier user who fits this pattern of editing - which isn't to say I am certain this is not the case. My general feeling is we should WP:AGF here and try to find a solution that allows this editor to understand the rules and how to be productive. On the flip side, we don't want to encourage sockpuppeteering and edit warring.

Here's a proposed solution. The sockpuppets - which I am certain includes User:Eddy774 - should be blocked. We reduce the block on the User:19andy91 account to 5 days and give that account a clear introduction to Misplaced Pages etiquette. We notify the user that they may resume editing under the 19andy91 account after the block expires, but that further sockpuppetry will result in an indefinite block on all accounts used. We also make sure they understand issues of edit warring and edit quality.

I am willing to do this if people agree to this proposal - or a suitably modified version of it. I will try to guide this editor and see if we can turn them into a productive member of the community. We need more good editors on railway-related articles and I'd like to make the attempt to gain one here.

Thoughts? Gwernol 22:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I agree. Jehochman 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. But if more accounts pop up before the five days - or before at least an unblock request! - I say we whack 'em all until the situation gets under control and the user discusses things. I'm betting that if I reverted some of the remaining sock's contributions, an edit war would start immediately. Not controlling this situation is a terrible precedent to set. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you about the precedent issue. My proposal only stands if the sockpuppetry stops and the user agrees to wait out the 5 day period. If that doesn't happen, we have no choice but to vigorously apply strong measures against all accounts operated by this user. Gwernol 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go a step further and say that if the user just discusses the issues and admits to being a confused newbie, an unblock before five days is fine. But to let a secondary account run free before any of the blocks on the primary account have expired - and with no discussion or repentance at all - is a very bad idea. This one already has three SSP cases against him/her! —Wknight94 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the user who posted the three SSP reports. In response to one of the original questions, I think this is somebody new: the previous troublesome puppetmasters active on UK railways that I'm aware of could at least write in proper sentences (unlike ) or claim nonsense like this (the offending image was uploaded by one of the socks). The modifications regarding the rebranding from 'one' to National Express East Anglia weren't the problem (although I could probably have done them in an AWB run in a fraction of the time), and as far as I know were correct. The problem was the edit-warring on c2c (which continued even after experienced editors intervened), and (of course) the blatant block-evasion.

I agree with Gwernol's proposal: I think this user has the potential to be productive, provided he learns to stick to the rules (and also learns proper English grammar!). Unfortunately, I also think these may be something of a challenge. --RFBailey (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright re-uploading

A user has recently noticed that if you have an image which has a {{di-no license}} tag on it, and you upload a new version of the image with the correct license, that Mediawiki does not correctly license the new image. This seems to be a bug, since it's not doing what we want, and (as they mention) can be very frustrating and result in the deletion of correctly-licensed photos. Does anyone else agree? Is Bugzilla the appropriate response, if so? --Haemo (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I tested and confirmed it, when you upload a new version, whatever you type in the description box does not seem to be saved. I think Bugzilla is indeed the appropriate venue for this, this looks like a bug (well, an unintuitive behavior). -- lucasbfr 12:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an account. Could someone who is familiar with it do this? I don't want to mess it up. --Haemo (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing Warnings

I found this Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings on the topic but it's not current and not accepted.

Is there current policy on removing warnings from talk pages?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:UP#CMT;

Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

Rjd0060 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec):My take is that in the case of registered accounts, removal of warnings acts as an indication that the warning has been read; in the case of anon IP editors, they do not own their talk page and thus should not remove warnings. That's probably all that needs to be said. Did you have any particular instance in mind? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rodhullandemu, IP's are not registered accounts for which Misplaced Pages:UP was intended.--Hu12 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. I did have a particular instance in mind. This covers what I need to know. At least for now. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this interpretation of policy is not universally accepted. Many of us maintain that anonymous editors are fully allowed to remove warnings just as registered editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I hold warnings to be of a very low value, personally. If the best reason to block somebody is "weh, they removed a template notice I spent a fraction of a second posting," then they probably don't need to be blocked. Deal with the problematic behavior, not the silly warnings. Our goal here is to reduce disruption, and sometimes that means not feeding trolls or otherwise denying recognition -- sometimes it means being boring and letting people do what they like with an utterly unimportant page so that their attention span will wane and they'll leave that much faster. It's better than making it antagonistic and encouraging them to stick around. Granted this isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, but I've noticed that 70.100.142.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing warnings and has done so for the past several days. I see that previous warnings removed have resulted in rollbacking. I've tried to be more civil by making the previous warnings smaller and reverting only actual vandalism to the IP's talkpage. However, this IP is still receiving warnings sometimes, and this may cause complications or a frozen browser on somebody's computer should the IP be reported to AIV for vandalism. Should I just leave the page blank, so that I don't break 3RR or anything? I've noticed that this user has added gibberish and false messages to his/her own talkpage. I've tried to revert only the obvious vandalism. What should be done, or should this IP be left alone because warnings can be seen in history anyway and to prevent user frustration and 3RR? PS. I'm not admin, sorry for any confusion/inconvinience. Thanks. ~AH1 23:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP in question has pretty much exclusively been used for vandalism over the past several months; I've blocked it for the time being. As above, I'm generally inclined to leave talk pages alone but generally stay out of the way if someone else steps in. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to the topic, I agree with Luna Santin on this one. Reverting the warning deletion will do nothing but give the user affirmation that he/she has someone's attention. Unless actual articles are being vandalized, it's usually best to just let it go. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

changes to templates "dab", "disambig", and "disambiguation"

When these templates give a link to the "Whatlinkshere" for pages, they code them as an external link, which links to: this, but for the page that the template is put on. It could be treated more easily by having an internal link that links to about the same page, Special:Whatlinkshere/Cross. Could this get changed? flaminglawyer 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Significant backlog at AFD

WP:AFD has a four day backlog with quite a few listings that need to be closed or relisted. I'm currently working on 22 February's listings; there's around 300 total. --Coredesat 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't used the mop in about a month now, why don't I make that my first action as an unretired user? ;) Wizardman 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Trade secrets

I know we have Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight for the removal of private info. or potentially libelous info.; what is the process that a company should use if they believe trade secrets have been published in a WP article? UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The company should propably get in touch with OTRS via Misplaced Pages:Contact us (which is linked from every page, on the toolbars to the left). You could submit an oversight request yourself if it's an unambiguous case, but OTRS will cover more bases and is probably better if we're talking to lawyers and such, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll suggest that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

European Borders, devastating BIAS !

There is a BIG problem going on about whether Republic of Georgia and other neighboring countries should be included in Europe or not .As you know there is no official border between europe and Asia and there is a great number of unofficial versions .so you might think that it is LOGICAL to explain all of the versions that exist for today on that page.......... well sadly thats not what most editors think. they put one version there and every time I changed it, it went back to the previous version. now I am just wondering do these people think it is their personal page or what gives them the right to rely on several sources and ignore other ones that are not any less trust me. They should definately offer every version of where the border goes between the two continents instead of putting only one version and not even bothering to explain why, it is unacceptable. I contacted one of the editors and he/she said that he chose that version because he/she "thinks it is the most neutral one". I am sorry but what some users "think" should be completely irrelevant while making an article on the website which has an ambition to be Credible. they should include all of the versions or not include anything at all before there is an OFFICIAL border ! Council of Europe, the oldest organization in europe classifies country as european, country is in the middle of the NATO membership process (only european countries are eligible for it according to the North Atlantic Treaty) and they are not even mentioning why they left it out. Turkey is not the case because it was already amember of nato. cant they understand that page is not about the EU. its the entire europe as a whole and until the borders will be determined OFFICIALLY all of the versions should be included. I really want to ask someone to take care of it as they dont seem to understand my very logical argument and even used some rude words in private messages.--Polscience (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You need to try to resolve it on the relevant pages. If you are unsuccessful in doing so, you should make use of the requests for comment mechanism. No administrator action appears to be needed here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One-man revolution of Georgian POV. I'll talk to him and will try to explain some notions. Resolved. Húsönd 13:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Wow, there is a rather large backlog at AIV, guess everyone is !voting on all those RfB's. ;) Tiptoety 05:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

All cleared, thanks for the fast response. Tiptoety 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This page

Please remove the "blatant trolling" notice from this page and change the page's protect reason. Adding an unblock request to your talk page is NOT trolling. 124.176.187.151 (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And you appear to be User:Super48, no? Oh, I forgot, you're his brother.. — Save_Us † 08:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Err...I am NOT either of those people. Just remove that notice and change the protection reason. 124.176.187.151 (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the IP was engaging in harrassing an administrator. Oh, and from the comment on your talk page, you seem to be the same person, I can tell from your tone alone. I suggest you not pursue the matter. — Save_Us † 11:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am NOT Super48 or 98E. I am...well, I don't really wanna say who I am. So please REMOVE that comment and change the protection reason. ADDING A LEGITAMATE UNBLOCK REASON IS NOT TROLLING!! 124.176.187.151 (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Extensive canvassing on a DRV

Cdogsimmons has engaged in extensive canvassing on the deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah (by extensive, I mean over 150 talk page edits regarding this issue. Some of these notices were predicated on membership here (where membership is likely to indicate the way most might comment), while others were based on discussion here (I don't know whether those notices were neutral or geared toward one point of view). Thoughts? Ral315 (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

He notified me based on the ANI discussion - and I am hardly on his side about the matter. NO problem with that - but the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members canvassing does appear to cross the line. That said, it would seem that it has been done in good faith, as he hasn't just chosen people that would definitely support his POV. Viridae 06:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Having had a look at the wikiproject: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship, I am revising my view to say that this is all well intentioned, but misplaced - the wikiproject specifically says they don't cover userboxes etc. Viridae 06:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Contacting the "anti-censorship" project might have been iffy, but they don't care about the Great Userbox Wars. Other than that, he seems to have contacted everyone who weighed in on the ANI, and most of those people were either anti-Hezbollah-userbox or fed up with the whole thing. I don't see why JxG had to revert all of those "canvassing" posts. It was obnoxious. <eleland/talkedits> 06:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that I don't see the point of Guy mass-reverting 138 edits. Was this defined as vandalism somewhere? Isn't that what rollback is supposed to be exclusively used for? Franamax (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Further state that I believe the only reason the post was not removed from my talk page was that I had responded to it, thus it was not subject to rollback; I appreciated the post and responded with my views; and I would ask JzG to please never remove a post from my talk page without at least providing an edit summary. Franamax (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

150 talk page posts is inappropriate canvassing, and rollback does not provide an edit summary. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about this mass-reversion of messages. I saw the message Cdogsimmons left me, had a look at DR, & decided that I had nothing useful to say. Then this morning I received the notice that someone else had left me a message, & found nothing; only after a look at my page history did I see that Guy had rolled it back, & wondered WTF was going on. (Was Cds a troublemakere? Or just someone on the outs with the current Misplaced Pages in-crowd?) Whether or not Cds was canvassing (which FWIW I don't think he was), having his message removed without an explanation bothers me more than what Cds did. It was not handled well -- although handling things badly on Misplaced Pages seems to be more & more the norm nowadays, & Guy is hardly the worse example of this. :-/ llywrch (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to anyone who was offended or annoyed by my messages. Please believe that it was not my intent to disrupt or bias the debate. My intent was to inform and notify. I will avoid such canvassing in the future and try to use the appropriate message board. Again I apologize to those who were disturbed. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal

The article on Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been unsettled since it was first written three years ago and it has become especially contentious in the past month. Parties on all sides have engaged in what some have called "protracted", "silly edit wars". It is currently protected for a week. The talk page is active but acrimonious and angry reverts have outnumbered consensual edits. User:Jossi has proposed article probation and I endorse the concept. We both agree that, at a minumum, a "1RR" preventing excess reverts would be useful. Here's the probation text we've agreed upon between the two of us, the two involved admins.

Articles in category:Prem Rawat are subject to WP:1RR probation for a period of one month. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per week), may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:3RRN

I ask the community's consent to impose this as a temporary peace-keeping measure. I welcome improvements to the framing of this probation as well as dispute resolution interventions and suggestions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The wikilawyer in me says you want to say "articles currently in Category:Prem Rawat, being...", or anyone can impose 1RR on a page just by adding it to the category. Pedantic I know, but I can't help myself :D Happy‑melon 10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

From my own experience with article probations, 1R rules can easily be gamed by people who will continually be inserting new tendentious material, or similar material with varying wording. That way, they never "revert", but keep being uncooperative and POV-pushing. No matter how glaringly tendentious their additions may be, a pure 1R regime gives this form of POV-pushing a tactical advantage over constructive editors. I would recommend adding a safety valve to the rules, defining some class of obvious, blatantly tendentious edits that can (and should) be reverted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Fut.Perf.. And how do you deal with the often anon IPs, who insert an unsourced, defamatory comment. Three editors may delete it, but it may be reinserted 5 times. Does this mean that the unsourced defamatory comment remains in place for a week and then the same thing happens the next week, 5 editors insert an unsourced, defamatory comment and three editors delete it? Cumulatively adding one unsourced defamatory comment a week. That situation is clearly unacceptable. For example. here an anon IP inserted Rawat is "an ugly lying scumbag cult leader" ]. So for a start, editing the PR article must exclude anon IP editors and addition to dealing with Fut.Perf. comments.Momento (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon editing can be curtailed by semi-protection, and removal of obvious vandalism or obvious BLP violations will not fall under the 1RR probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The BLP violation would have to be quite obvious in order for an edit removing it to circumvent the probation. Some editors have abused the BLP exemption in the past. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, only obvious BLP violations would apply. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't WP:1RR usually understood as 1 revert per day, not per week? If you go with this proposal, I would suggest to either stick with that, or make the "per week" very explicit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the probation needs to be extended to include other edit disruptions beyond 1RR, as per concerns expressed above. An example of community enforced article probation Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation, which include all what is needed to ensure orderly debate and editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The rules on that page are all about how to be nice to each other on the talk page. That's all good and well, but I doubt it's sufficient here. Editors can be spotlessly nice and civil to each other and yet be thoroughly disruptive by making persistently tendentious edits. What you need is rules about what kinds of content edits are or aren't within debatable limits. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you offer some wording for additional restrictions that may help us here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Difficult, I don't know the article well and what kinds of problematic edits actually get made. On an etirely different type of conflict, I have moderately positive experiences with the rule set shown at Talk:Liancourt Rocks, where the focus is on what constitutes an "uncooperative edit". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing of concern here is that there seems to be varying interpretations of what may or may not constitute a BLP violation, and thus exempt from the 1RR. Momento, for example, is a bit strident in his reversions generally (but not always!) in what he feels are not acceptable. If there is a disagreement whether something is a BLP violation, who makes the determination? Certainly no involved parties, because a disputed BLP violation is not automatically excempt from 1RR or 3RR. Once this is codified as part of the probation in as close of a manner as possible to make it impossible for any "side" to game, I would support this long term 1RR restriction, applying to all editors and admins. Lawrence § t/e 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this version? Would this work?

Articles in category:Prem Rawat are subject to community-enforced article probation restrictions for a period of three months. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per day), or that engage in disruptive editing may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins, or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:AN/I, where uninvolved editors will make a determination.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Amended as per FT2 - three months + other restrictions) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Much better, to use disruption as the measuring tool, since that leaves it for the uninvolved community to decide rather than someone playing games by saying "BLP! BLP!" when it may not be valid. Lawrence § t/e 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One tweak--I changed "uninvolved admins will make a determination" to "uninvolved editors will make a determination" as admins have no extra authority in consensus. Perfect otherwise. Lawrence § t/e 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to visit and give a view here. Quick thoughts. It looks fine, but a couple of thoughts. First, a month (4 weeks) may not be very long. If it's enough of a problem to need probation, maybe consider an initial period of 3 months, not one. The aim of probation is to see the article stable and with time to get sorted out, and a month isn't very long. Second, consider the bahaviors seen, and the (apparent) goals of those editing on each side, and consider if disruption and reversion are sufficient, or if blocking is the only remedy to be considered. A good option might be that editors engaging in disruptive behavior may incur escalating blocks "or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics" by any uninvolved administrator, etc. (The wording "in relation to these topics" allows better coverage of disruption related to the topic on other pages, project pages etc too.) It gives a bit of flexibility if you have an editor who engages in problem behavior. But this is a pure generic outside view, and if not needed, ignore them :) My $0.02. FT2  17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Amended as per suggestions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As an outside editor who is currently involved in editing this page, I strongly support this probation, esp. with Lawrence's and FT2's tweaks. One additional thought -- and I hesitate to even bring this up, because I'm sure it's a very touchy subject. It's very clear to me that the edit warring, and the uncivil discussion on Talk is driven in 90% of the cases by a handful of current and bitter ex-devotees of the article subject fighting each other. I don't know Misplaced Pages traditions nearly as well as others here. Is there any way to address this in the probation? Msalt (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

These may be covered under the proviso of "disruptive editing" in the probation notice. But if necessary, the probation could be extended to abuse of talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "... we need some assistance to tweak the wording of these restrictions ..." - I'd appreciate a 0-CANVASS on this one. I don't like Jossi's pre-emptive idea that this will fly, and only needs "tweaking" of the wording. There's no consensus, it's badly set up, and it bends good guidance in all sort of directions in order to give POV-pushers an unjustifiable advantage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You must be jocking.... I asked one experienced editor and arbCom member, and you call that canvassing? I am starting to doubt your ability to remain neutral in this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't changed my opinion since Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Article probation - proposal - archived last week. "community-enforced article probation restrictions" (with an included piped link to WP:RESTRICT, a page talking *only* about restrictions on users, not restrictions on pages - similarily WP:1RR is about users, not pages) would be a very bad next step. There's a lot of POV-pushing on the article. Relatively uninvolved editors (at least, with no involvement in the article's subject), have shown up and do a hell of a job of working on the article content (as said, a "thank you" is not needed as far as I'm concerned, but please let us do the job, it's difficult enough as it is). Several involved editors work on the talk page with (self-imposed) editing restrictions to the page for COI and/or "too angry" and/or "not believing Misplaced Pages can get the article right" reasons. Then there are *a very few* still edit-warring on the page. The Prem Rawat article needs to be dynamic, at least for some time still to come, and not give the POV-pushers an advantage ("I can't edit the page for COI, so others should also be restricted in editing the page" or whatever flaky rationale). The advantage should be to the relatively uninvolved editors, and we will revert POV-pushing. Individual POV-pushers can be set on a WP:RESTRICT as foreseen by that project page, thus applied to users, for disruption. Similarily for WP:1RR restictions, to applied (as foreseen) to users, not pages. I'm not going to impose such restrictions to users, but will bring to WP:AN/WP:ANI when such restriction might be warranted, for others to decide. For example above Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There are precedents for 1RR probation on articles (such as Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation. Note that 1RR is a good thing even for editors that are not disruptive, unless you believe that edit-warring is a viable option, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I contest the usefulness of the measure, even for the Homeopathy articles. Some time ago we had a sudden raise of Homeopathy-related rants at WT:NPOV. Finally I know how come. Even if you think it worked regarding Homeopathy-related topics: the situation hardly compares with Prem Rawat, where I definitely see no reason for the same. I'd oppose it. I'm no POV-pusher and would not allow myself to be forced into restrictions on the same level as the POV-pushers who might need such restrictions imposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal for restrictions on Momento, had no traction, Francis. And the disruption at that article, was not just from Momento, but from many editors actively editing that article. You yourself engaged in revert wars, so I do not understand the distinction you are trying to make. POV pusher or not, editors should not engage in edit wars, period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it has traction from every contributor appart from Momento and Jossi, see above Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs).

Re. "You yourself engaged in revert wars" - I haven't, so I invite you to stop your poisonous language. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1. 08:24, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191344759 by Janice Rowe (talk) per Talk:Prem Rawat#External links disputes pls take part there if no agr")
2. 22:42, 15 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191736297 by 24.176.193.149 (talk) per talk, also replacing dmoz by p-r-m")
3. 23:08, 15 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191743263 by 32.155.57.53 (talk) per talk page and previous edit summary")
4. 09:59, 17 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192032024 by Momento (talk) Per talk page, and discussion ont Momento's talk page")
5. 21:19, 18 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192370604 by Louise.Po (talk) undo edit by SPA (had messed grammar; had added unsourced statement)")
6. 21:29, 18 February 2008 (edit summary: "rv some edits by SPA; keeping to talk page discussions")
7. 08:57, 19 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192408147 by Momento (talk) + cite")
8. 09:19, 19 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192514791 by 121.218.20.254 (talk) IfD not concluded yet, see talk page")
9. 17:58, 20 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192767943 by Rainer P. (talk) it's what the website says, no need for interpretation, see talk")
10. 18:04, 20 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192524515 by Momento (talk) per Talk:Prem Rawat#Balyogeshwar")
11. 18:05, 20 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192514791 by 121.218.20.254 (talk) IfD still not concluded, see talk")
12. 12:56, 21 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192926449 by Momento (talk) IfD still open. Have asked its conclusion ASAP. Already would have been if urgent BLP.")

Sure, it is always the others that are edit warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your alleged proof is a sham. No revert-warring, as I said. POV-pushers are reverted, as I said. The remedy is to stop the POV-pushers, not to protect them, as I said. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The diffs above say otherwise, Francis. The remedy is to assure orderly debate and assist involved editors in finding common ground, reach consensus and improve the articles in that manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The diffs do not show otherwise, so please remove your PA.

Re. "The remedy is to assure orderly debate and assist involved editors in finding common ground, reach consensus and improve the articles in that manner." Of course, thats what I'm defending. As I said, the current page protection is not very well contributing to orderly debate, . I fear the restrictive measures now proposed will have a comparable effect.

And again, remove the PA above, and the other PA I invited you to remove from the Prem Rawat talk page. I see no reason to be lenient on these PA's. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Query for uninvolved parties

In the interests and well-being of the wider community, I might delicately suggest that the view of the "regulars" who've been slugging it out on the article (or any article in similar circumstances) should have less weigh in whether this should be protected with the 1rr, once the idea is floated. They're welcome to slug it out; the community is equally entitled to say knock it off whether involved parties care for it or not.

What uninvolved parties support the above amended hopefully hard to game as written 1rr restriction by Jossi? Lawrence § t/e 22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, the most interesting parties to listen to in this case are those who have little interest in the content of the Prem Rawat article, but have jumped in to monitor and assist to get the article through a difficult period. Among which Will Beback, Msalt and myself. They're doing the job on the ground, hands on. Thus we need the instruments to perform the job we have taken upon ourselves. So it is more important to have a consensus on methodology among those putting their time into this from the desinterested angle, than have a decision pushed by those who do have a POV interest in the article. Jossi doesn't edit the article for COI reasons. Now he's severely pushing, using a myriad of methods, to have as much restriction on editing the article imposed on others, especially the non-POV-pushers, as possible. While it is evident that left to POV-pushers alone from both camps the pro-Rawat POV-pushers have slightly outnumbered the critical POV-pushers, this might lead to outside commentators assessing that Misplaced Pages is unable to improve, even when the problems on the Prem Rawat article are pointed out to its editors. For the ones committing themselves to keeping the POV-pushing on this article down, there is no consensus on the methodology of general editing restrictions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Side comment: Instead of saying that this applies to a category, which could change, the articles that this restriction would apply to, should all be listed here, so that editors/admins considering this proposal can see its scope of articles for the potential probation. Cirt (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi (talk · contribs), this is not a "support" or "oppose" comment, it is a side comment related to this issue. Please do not move other editors' comments, especially not here, as you yourself are "involved" and should not be moving around other editors' comments. If you feel that strongly about the placement of my comment here, ask an uninvolved admin to act, instead of yourself. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have objected repeatedly to Jossi's involvement, even on the talk page, to these articles because of his COI issues. I also suspect that Jossi is making this proposal because the Rawat article is currently locked in a version that he doesn't approve of. Nevertheless, since Jossi's proposal has the support of Will Beback, who appears to be trying to stop the POV-pushing in the Rawat articles, then I support Jossi's proposal. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

*comment by involved party trying to stop the POV-pushing* - Will Beback is no less, nor more involved than I am. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. The 1rr restriction seems eminently sensible, and I've seen it help with other contentious articles. Jayjg 02:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know

I am not 98E or Super48. I am infact Jc iindyysgvxc. I used that IP address who made the request above, and I used the IP address whose talk page I mentioned. My main talk page deserves to be unprotected. Please unprotect it so I can appeal to my ban. And stop blocking my IPs. I can change my IPs faster than you can block them. 124.181.64.190 (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not going to happen. Someone with a negative history like you have is not an editor who Misplaced Pages community desires. here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jc_iindyysgvxc You have been very distructive and abusive to Misplaced Pages, and I would advise you to look for another community where you can participate. Igor Berger (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Openly admitting you're happily evading your ban is not going to get you unban any time soon.... KTC (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

UkraineToday

UkraineToday (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry. They have been creating numerous sock puppets to continue edit warring on Ukrainian election topics. More eyes would help counteract these socks. Additionally, I am going to list this user as community banned at Misplaced Pages:List of banned users if no administrator objects. See:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (6th)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (5th)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (4th)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3rd)
• (no 2nd)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday

The user appears to come in through several ISPs and ranges, as well as open proxies. Jehochman 12:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected, I have added the user to the list since whether they are indefinitely blocked or banned doesn't make any practical difference for the moment. Feel free to comment. Jehochman 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Porcupine

Porcupine (talk · contribs) has today completed a six month probation under my mentorship.

I'm delighted to say that during this period he has demonstrated a willingness to respect policy and guideline, work within consensus, rise above one particular bit of baiting trolling and, best of all, take advice.

It's very pleasing that the community saw enough potential in this user to permit him a final chance before a ban was imposed. It's even more pleasing that Porcupine has, to date, shown that problem editors can indeed reform.

I will be keeping a discrete eye on Porcupine's ongoing contribs and am sure others will too, but I'm glad to welcome him back into the full community and I release him from all the restrictions on editing that I placed on him during his probation.

Good luck Porcupine. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Great job Dweller. I can only confirm seeing the transformation that Porcupine has shown. Welcome back Porcupine! Here's to editing Misplaced Pages together, and having fun in doing so. — Edokter • Talk • 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have to thank Dweller sincerely - and the community - for helping me to improve, and I would ask that, as a reward, I receive a day's break from the 3RR... or not :-) Anyway, thanks again, and see you all around (under a new username, though - fresh start!) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Noticed in passing (was editing a section above). Very good to hear :) FT2  17:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well that's truly excellent! Congratulations to both Dweller in taking on the task and to Porcupine for taking good advice well. Cheers to both! Tonywalton  20:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use help needed

Image:Wantagh-SOB Interchange(MSBA).JPG - the uploader keeps removing template:rfu. --NE2 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The Fair-Use rationale contains this: "A map can be drawn that gives the same information, with a normal citation to the paper map." which rather defies the object of having it as a fair-use image. Or have I missed something? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It had said "none" for replaceable, which is incorrect; I corrected it when I added the template. --NE2 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

I've done the bold thing and created Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which was the last core/major policy whose implications seem to get fought over all the time and lead to no small number of edit wars. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a little dubious about this. It's going to be mostly redundant - we have a lot of noticeboards. How do you determine neutrality? Via reliable sources - and we already have WP:RSN. Neutrality problems on BLPs already go to WP:BLPN: most "undue weight" questions have been winding up at WP:FTN, and question of neutrality violated through original research go to WP:NORN. Methinks this is overkill. Moreschi 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see sound reasons. WP:RSN is primarily about questions of the form "Is X a reliable source for claim Y" (with lots of additional details...) WP:NPOV/N ought to be about questions of the form: "does this article fairly represent the balance of all available reliable sources" or "given the existing article, how should it be changed now that we've found these new reliable sources". Different questions, requiring different skill sets and attitudes to answer. WP:NPOV/N may well require an editor to devote a couple weeks to research before replying, if they want to do a good job of replying. My question is whether we have a sufficiently large set of editors who are willing to devote a couple weeks to researching topics they aren't that personally interested in, or whether we'll get drive by POV editors who just use it as another forum to argue for their POV. GRBerry 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably both; drive by and committed will happen. However, more eyes always, always in the end seem to cause problems to dry up, since the people in the wrong can no longer hide their POV gaming out of relative sight after a while. It will take a while to balance out, I'm sure. Lawrence § t/e 06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Archival

Could somebody fix the MiszaBot-configuration for this page? It last visited AN five days ago, and it is becoming quite large... I have never used archival bots myself, so I would rather not try fixing it myself in case the bot would start using /dev/null as archive. – Sadalmelik (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed - I copied the configuration code from the version as of when it last archived. Now looking into how it got messed up. —Random832 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it got lost in the shuffle when stuff was getting rearranged between this page and the header subpage. —Random832 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored the categories and interwiki links, which had also got lost somewhere in the process of changing the header. I'm surprised we managed to go five days without anyone noticing that sinebot was also absent... Happy‑melon 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Articles

When an article is deleted, is it somehow still accessible if the content was wanted for reference, to restore the article, or to use it in another article?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

An admin is usually able to restore deleted articles & copy to userspace to be worked on. Easiest thing is to ask one listed in Category:Misplaced Pages administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no guarantee by the developers that deleted articles will remain available forever. We also haven't had reason to discard them in years. GRBerry 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak Script

Could an Administrator increase the Wikibreak script to 14th May on my Terra account, i've temporary accessed this one to ask for it being extended, thanks. Yun-Yuuzhan (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the monobook.js and this it's the same var date = { year: 2008, month: 3, day: 14}; could it be updated to var date = { year: 2008, month: 5, day: 14}; . Yun-Yuuzhan (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Chris 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone

This is a request that the IP ranges found here User:David Shankbone/76.72 be blocked. The first IP range has been engaged in libel on Misplaced Pages against me, and I supply the diffs that show that. Additionally, they continue to edit-war, disrupt and troll the project as it deals with me and my work. Since this has been going on for a few weeks, and since the activity is illegal, I'm asking for a project-wide ban on the first IP range. The second IP range is an accomplice (they at times edit simultaneously) who engages in edit-warring, but not the crime of libel as the first IP range has. The things they are writing are illegal, I will be filing an abuse report with Bell Atlantic, and I have already contacted an attorney to look into criminal prosecution for smearing my reputation, the evidence of which is more than provided on User:David Shankbone/76.72. We will first see what Bell Atlantic can do in terms of providing help in finding out who is behind the libel. --David Shankbone 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And the evidence, IP ranges, etc. I supplied are by no means exhaustive. --David Shankbone 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you possibly in violation of WP:NLT here? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I will let other editors decide after looking at the evidence, but regardless it's time to say enough. --David Shankbone 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

David - relax, lay off the legalisms, and the admins handle it.

Checkuser shows that range is pretty active, so blocking the whole /16 block is probably not a good idea. When I have more time later tonight, I'll do the back of the envelope calculations to find the minimum CIDR to block. Raul654 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I will heed your advice. --David Shankbone 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime the campaign continues, see diff. . .R. Baley (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How is a content disagreement over image inclusion an illegal smear? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh the content disagreement is just one tiny related matter. . .there's the smears + the content removal. Two prongs on the same fork. R. Baley (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The image removals aren't illegal smears; they are edit-wars against multiple editors, completely rejecting consensus. R. Baley is right - there are several prongs to this person's hate: First, illegal smears; Second, edit wars against consensus; Third, multi-forum disruption. I thought the evidence page fleshed that out clearly. --David Shankbone 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove or strike the legal threats/rhetoric. Viridae 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stating someone has done something illegal, calling a spade a spade, is not the same as threatening to take action against them, which is a legal threat. I have struck out the legal threat, but if you would like to play with the wording to hide what is clear then you are welcome to do so, but I feel I have already complied with policy. --David Shankbone 01:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

CAT:CSD and templates

Can someone explain the sudden explosion of templates on CAT:CSD? - Revolving Bugbear 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Given a random sampling of six of them, all of them were tagged by User:MZMcBride. I'm going to ask him. - Revolving Bugbear 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

They were tagged over a week ago. There's a seven day delay for unused templates. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, but the fact that they all appeared today means they were all tagged 7 days ago. My question is, is there any particular reason for the blitz that I'm not seeing, or did you just decide to do some housecleaning? - Revolving Bugbear 23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, MZMcBride has been doing that for awhile now. Being a template categorizer myself, it's very helpful work he's done. Lots of unused templates out there. --Woohookitty 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)From a (different) random sampling, they all appear to have been tagged for 7 days, and orphaned, so appear to fit the speedy criteria. If someone wants to say "Go", I'll start at the bottom and work my way up... _GB 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgent external canvassing/disruptive article creation problem

Blatant canvassing in an attempt to stop the deletion of Michael L. Vincent. User also says he’s made “a couple extra copies of the article so they can't get them all.” I suggest that that the creation of other articles with this title should be blocked immediately. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Incident may be resolved now with the blocking of a puppeteer. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There's another, Mike L. Vincent. I have no idea how it could be speedied/ i.e. what criteria so I'm bringing it here. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Range blocks for long-term harassment

After several months of harassment from IPs belonging to Wilfrid Laurier University, I have anon-only range blocked 216.249.48.0/24 and 205.189.25.0/24 for 1 week. I realize that the length of this range block is longer than normal, but I believe that the editing habits of the person using these ranges require a longer block as the editor will disappear for a couple of days and return later.

The targets of this harassment have been myself, Blotto adrift, Redrocket (fka Snowfire51), and various other admins that have blocked IPs in the 205.189.25.0/24 the past.

The issue started with an insertion of a non-notable academic to Trenton, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The person then went to wikistalk Blotto adrift by bringing up an old and settled COI issue at Whitby Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The person then shifted to Belleville, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

A long list of the IPs used, blocked sockpuppets, and suspected sockpuppets follows in the collapsed box. It's not a complete list, but I believe that it provides sufficient information.

If any admin wishes to reverse the range block or shorten the length, they are welcome to do so. Any feedback on this range block would be appreciated. Additional assistance with dealing with this particular person would also be appreciated. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you do recent-changes patrol, you should read this essay.

I've documented several very troubling cases of long-lasting vandalism that I've seen. My essay raises some uncomfortable questions about whether our efforts to fight vandalism are succeeding.

User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/The vandals are winning!

Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed the essay, but I'd have to disagree, the vandals aren't winning. They may win some of the battles, but the war is ours! Useight (talk) 07:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Useight, great essay, but I think your point more is that even if we get 99.9% of the vandals, there is still those few cases that discredit Misplaced Pages, which I agree, and we need to strive for perfection. Thanks for the good read. « Gonzo fan2007 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sensationalist title, ever thought of writing for a tabloid? Can't say I've looked into levels of vandalism recently, but doesn't seem to present any information to demonstrate that vandalism rates or reversion rates are any worse than they were a year ago (say). IIRC after the Seigenthaler and the publicity from Jimbo's TV appearances we had a huge flood of vandalism over a few days, it soon slowed again. Really the vandals are winning if we all spend all our time in paranoia, biting new editors, being over aggressive to IP editors etc. Don't let the vandals win WP:RBI. Your advice also seems to lack one important idea, check the other contributions of the person you just reverted, I've seen plenty of cases where an RC patroller reverts 1 edit and moves on, leaving the other 20 in the contributors history unchecked. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple layers of vandalism detection - if a vandal edit isn't reverted by RC patrol, it may well be reverted by someone who has that article on their watchlist. Several of the examples you cite would fall into this category (reverts of 14 hours, say) so they might not have lasted for long periods of time. Hut 8.5 07:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example I found over a year ago. This edit lasted 41 days until I caught it. And by following up on the user's other edits I caught this one which I daresay would otherwise still have been there today. And here's an example of incompletely corrected vandalism; most of this was corrected, a bit at a time, but one bit remained for 45 days until I caught it. You might want to include some of these in your essay. -- Zsero (talk) 07:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Drawing a parallel between vandalism and terrorism is a little extreme, don't you think? --Stephen 09:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, I've found two substantial sections removed for a year and someone's vanity staying in for eighteen months. Also see User:Shii/Hoaxes. Graham87 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wesleywyndhamprice and User:OHNOESANOTHERFREAKINGSPA

Both have vandalised the talk pages of User talk:Iridescent and User:Chriswiki. Might be worth a check. Olana North (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The underlying IP address has now been blocked ACB for a long time. There are dozens and dozens of these accounts under there - Alison 09:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:OHNOESANOTHERFREAKINGSPA is a vandal. here Probably a sock. I recommend an indef block. Have not check the other yet but may all lead to a sock master. Igor Berger (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked a handful of socks already. I'll get that one in a min here ... - Alison 09:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Badimage request

Apologies if this is the wrong forum, but could somebody please Badimage Image:Hirsuties papillaris coronae glandis.jpg? It was just used in malicious userspace vandalism. Thanks, скоморохъ 09:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sam Korn 13:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange image vandalism?

Something strange. The image at Houtman Abrolhos#Temperature and salinity has suddenly changed, for me at least, to that Misplaced Pages article breakdown image - you know, the one with "Pokemon characters", "Crappy Myspace bands", "actually useful stuff", etc. I assumed vandalism - either a Misplaced Pages image shadowing the Commons image, or a new version uploaded over the top of the Commons image. Neither appears to be the case. I've purged everything I can think of and I'm still seeing it. Are others seeing it too, or is it just me. I'm posting here because I still suspect that there is vandalism at the bottom of this, I just can't figure out how it has been done. Hesperian 12:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears normal to me --Melburnian (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks like a misrendered version of Image:Size_of_English_Wikipedia_broken_down.png to me. I guess it is some kind of personal browser cache issue. I've never experienced anything like it. Okay, thanks Melburnian. Back to work everyone else. Hesperian 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing showing on my imac SatuSuro 13:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards