Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:35, 13 October 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• 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)

Topic ban needed for two edit warriors

Rarelibra (talk · contribs) and Supparluca (talk · contribs) are at each other's throats again over lame geographical naming issues relating to South Tyrol (see Provinces of Italy and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. This has gone on between these two users for years. I've told them both that they'd be topic-banned from this dispute, and I now ask such a topic ban to be endorsed by the community. These are otherwise constructive contributors (well, at least Rarelibra is, I can say that much), so I wouldn't want to see them blocked, but they both evidently have totally entrenched, intransigent positions on this particular conflict and need to be kept away from it.

I move that both Rarelibra and Supparluca be topic-banned from all edits (I'd say including all namespaces and talk) relating to contentious geographical naming practices relating to South Tyrol. Including but not restricted to: any changes to Misplaced Pages usage of the terms South Tyrol, Südtirol, Bolzano, Bozen, Alto Adige, or any other occasion where there is a choice between German-derived and Italian geographical names in that area.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposal is too complex. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, those two guys will know perfectly well what it pertains to, no problem there. If you want simpler wording, just call it: "Hands off of South Tyrol Alto Adige Südtirol Bolzano-Bozen" (but there you get the problem again.). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is probably too complex for the typical noticeboard thread (where everyone either overtly or covertly wants to ban everyone). Just file an RFAR. — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is the last resort and probably ArbCom would just propose a topic ban as well. I'd agree that this board has to be limited to only serious issues that has taken long to get sorted out without success. However, I have no idea about this particular case but probably mediation was not tried? -- fayssal - wiki up 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd be loath to go to arbitration over a dispute that is so relatively minor and narrowly circumscribed. It's just these two people, with one or two allies on either side perhaps, and it's just this relatively small set of articles. But it's extremely persistent, has been going on for years, shifts from one page to the next (sometimes it's an article name, then an image caption, than a map legend, then a category renaming, then a POV fork, then a merger proposal, then a page move, and so on, but always about the same underlying issue.) I'm sure there isn't a dispute resolution technique that hasn't been tried yet; I seem to remember there was some mediation attempt once, back some time, in the late pleistocene or thereabouts, but it all came to nothing. At one point Rarelibra got himself indef-banned for making rather nasty off-wiki threats of some sort, then got back on parole under the understanding he'd be topic-banned, but he ignored that once he understood the other guy wasn't being topic-banned too. They just won't stop, and there is not a shred of AGF left between these two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FPaS - I disagree. I cannot see where I am doing nothing more than defending the image work that I have done, in this case. You worked with me to an acceptable new image, and then Supparluca merely copied it, changed text, and uploaded it under the modified name (again - the image already exists in Commons). There was no need for Supparluca to do what he did, other than continue the agenda that was started years ago. You must admit that it has been some time now since I have participated in any disagreements about naming - simply stated, I've focused primarily on images and other geographic articles. The team you mention (Supparluca, Icsunonove, etc) all pretty much patrol those pages and focus all of their efforts on the continued push for name changing and article elimination (case in point was the valid and common usage name of "South Tyrol", an English equivalent of Sudtirol). I have avoided their name changing only up until it involved the removal of a valid image I had in place, with the substitution of the SAME IMAGE under a different file name. Rarelibra (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support the topic ban as described in the paragraph above, "..relating to contentious geographical naming practices.." I think the above paragraph is clear enough for administrators new to the dispute to take action on it, if necessary. Any attempt by one of these editors to switch between German-derived and Italian-derived geographic names will trigger the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to make a quick statement here. Supparluca did not like an image I had up there (I specialize in maps) - so he started the recent actions. The image I had was approved by admins a while ago to be applicable because it covered the various language usages of the area. Please note it used the names that, by Wiki, are to be used - the common usage and English equivalents for the area. Supparluca merely downloaded MY image from Commons and made a local image in ENG Wiki for his special POV case. I tried to restore my image, and the result was the edit war. I then made the effort to UPDATE the image, making it better with more accuracy, color use, labels, etc. Supparluca simply took the UPDATED image and, once again, modified it to copy over his preferred usage. He made no attempt to contact me in any request for modifying the image or working out any requests to update, nor was there ANY ACTION on the articles for the need or request for updating the image. He is doing this as a POV move of his own volition. I did NOTHING MORE than restore the image (as my history will show), and create an update. My history will also show that my focus has not been this topic for some time, as my focus has been in many other countries/areas. Rarelibra (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fut Perf. I've re-read it and I think I understand what you're saying now. If you don't mind, I'd propose wording it as "Rarelibra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Supparluca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are topic banned from all edits relating to South Tyrol, broadly construed. Included in this topic ban are: edits where changes are made to the terms South Tyrol, Südtirol, Bolzano, Bozen, Alto Adige, or any other change between German-derived and Italian geographical names in that area." Is that okay? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: Either FutPerf's original or Ncmvocalist's revision or whatever. I happened across this endless issue by accident a long time ago and carry the scars to this day. Whatever will end it, please do. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it was over two years ago that I encountered this dispute! Wow, I could barely focus for the 60 seconds it took me to track down that discussion... I can't imagine hanging with a dispute for over two years! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• A topic-ban for these two seems reasonable. Moreschi (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I have been asked by Rarelibra (talk · contribs) to voice my opinion, I'd like to remain neutral because this topic has generated such an immense amount of ill-feeling I think it best I refrain from this discussion. Either way I have to laud Rarelibra (talk · contribs) for the innumerous constructive contributions he has done so far, a ban on him I do not consider fair. Gryffindor 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose. Sorry, but I just can't get behind any proposal to topic ban whose presentation is based solely upon links to account names and two articles. Future Perfect, I have the highest opinion of your judgment generally, but just isn't the sort of precedent we ought to set: AGF requires the rest of us to assume that no action is needed, and places the burden of proof upon you to demonstrate more clearly why it is. Durova 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support the edit warring is pretty clearly the only issue that's a problem. If this will end the issue, it is a good solution. I can't make any sense at all out of Durova's justification for a procedural oppose. *dryly* It's as if you're saying we shouldn't take the word of trusted admins on these issues based on the evidence they put forth. -- Logical Premise 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the community are not incapable or unable to look at the relevant pages and decide for themselves - I doubt this could be characterized as a case that is too hard to follow without some sort of guidance from the complainant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No matter how justifiable this particular request is, we should expect a substantive presentation in every request for community sanctions. The time it takes to prepare a set of specific diffs etc. is trivial compared to the effort it takes for the requesting administrator to determine that a request is necessary in the first place. We all know that wikilawyers abound: I intend to avoid setting precedents they could manipulate on future occasions. Durova 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Often, those presentations are lopsided to begin with, so they're often not very reliable on their own because they don't paint the full picture - in which case, we end up having to find the relevant pages for ourselves. I agree; we should still insist on them painting a picture for every case (more than just saying 'I want him banned' or more than just 'look at this page. do something'). But if uninvolved users have looked at it for themselves, then I'm not sure about the validity of such an oppose. While Fut Perf. did not provide any diffs, there was a substantial description given by more than one user as to the duration of this dispute, and the extent of disruption it is causing, and the sorts of pages that are affected by it. If we genuinely couldn't find anything, then I'd be opposing with you on the grounds that I couldn't see anything to support the need for a sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is a ban really necessary? I note that neither user has been blocked for many months. Can we try blocking rather than banning first? One user has no blocks at all, the other has several, but the most recent early this year. Mangojuice 23:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is a block necessary? No one seems to be looking at the facts surrounding this - for me, it was only about the image. For Supparluca and others, it is pure POV pushing. This, for me, was about the image. For Supparluca it was about manipulating an image I created for his own usage. I make regular contributions - a lot of maps, actually (it may be near 1,000 total maps I've created). So a block would decapitate me from even doing that - as I do geographic sweeps, I find places that need updating or creation. This, for me, is about the image, period. Can anyone NOT see that? Rarelibra (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question and Comment Has any form of mediation been saught? eg. MEDCAB or MEDCOM Seddσn 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A cursory glance at Provinces of Italy seems to indicate that they are indeed reverting the hell out of each other. My question would be: "Has any community/expert consensus been reached on whether either, both, or neither of their proposed edits are correct?" If neither or both name variants are agreed-upon as the common-use name(s), I'd say support topic-banning them both. But if only one is agreed-upon, topic-ban only the one reverting against consensus. arimareiji (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it could be helpful to explain a bit what happened:

• 22/09 User:Supparluca ("S") edited the Provinces of Italy article, putting this image (A1) instead of this (B1), without explanation.
• 23/09 User:Rarelibra (R) reverted the edit without explanation.
• 23/09 S restored his version, saying that image A1, unlike image B1, contained the names used in the English wikipedia --].
• 23/09 R reverted without explanation.
• 25/09 S reverted with a more detailed explanation.
• 25/09 R reverted without explanation.
• 25/09 R proposed image A1 for deletion, saying that S wanted "to push a POV agenda".
• 29/09 An unregistered user supported S's version without explanation.
• 29/09 R reverted without explanation.
• 01/10 Image A1 was kept, and R said to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (F) that F doesn't "see his agenda".
• 01/10 R uploaded a new version of image B1 (B2) with better graphics and the same problem of image B1.
• 01/10 S uploaded a new version of image A1 (A2) with better graphics but with more alternative names than image A1.
• 01/10 S reverted R's last edit writing "new image" in the edit summary.
• 02/10 R reverted without explanation.
• 04/10 - 06/10 2 reverts by S and 1 by R followed without explanation.
• 06/10 F said to R and S that he would propose a topic ban.
• 06/10 R reverted the Provinces of Italy article without explanation.
• 11/10 S wrote this summary.
• 12/10 User:Arimareiji (ARI) supported S's version without explanation.
• 12/10 R reverted without explanation.

R has 6 blocks, S has 0 blocks.--Supparluca 17:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Having more blocks is certainly circumstantial evidence that a user is not AGF, and has already come up in the thread. But without either 1) a cite of the nomenclature discussion/resolution or 2) an uninvolved (i.e. neither "R" or "S") expert speaking up, I don't think the fundamental question has really been answered. If one is correct by consensus, topic-ban the other. If neither or both are correct by consensus, topic-ban both.> arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking into it more thoroughly, I'd like to reword my statement as having been incorrect. If using both names is correct, topic-ban R. If using only South Tyrol is correct, topic-ban S. If neither of the above has been chosen by consensus to be correct, topic-ban both. Anecdotally, I'd note that when I did a Google search:

"Alto Adige" - 25m hits.

"Südtirol" - 8m hits.

"Suedtirol" - 1m hits.

"South Tyrol" - 1m hits. arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to note that I can no longer consider myself an uninvolved party, as I just reverted the page myself to Supparluca's last version. I don't consider this to be the final word by any means; this is only meant to stand until the matter can be resolved. Supperluca's version seems more likely to be the one supported by consensus, and the page shouldn't be left uncorrected just to make a point. arimareiji (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact I forgot to put the relevant links: Region: Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol; provinces: Province of Trento, Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Note that image A2 has more alternative names than needed (especially if you compare that with the other images in Provinces of Italy), and I would agree on using the same names as image A1.--Supparluca 06:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to become another edit warrior. But as soon as I changed the Alto Adige / Südtirol / South Tyrol map in Provinces of Italy back to what reasonably appears to be the more-likely consensus version, Rarelibra changed it back. If anyone other than Rarelibra or Supperluca who is familiar with this issue could speak up, it would go a long way towards establishing which should be kept up transitionally. I hope that once there's agreement from people other than the two fighting parties, both of them will be civil enough to let the page stand until the dispute can be permanently resolved. arimareiji (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Idea for banned users.

For banned users who have a archive bot template setup on their talk page, i propose to remove the template before protecting the page if there is abuse of the {{unblock}} template. The archive bot keeps copying the text without removing, and it keeps doing it over and over. --creaɯy! 16:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to make a lot of sense. --Rodhullandemu 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to have the bot ops fix this? Maybe something that the bot recognizes the page is protected and does not archive? KnightLago (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cream's proposed solution has the benefit of working immediately on any specific cases that are problems right now, but in the long term I think KnightLago is right. Bots could recognize a given talk page is protected and either not archive (easy) or archive exactly once (little harder). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If the page is protected, the archive bot can't edit it... Mr.Z-man 16:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the point: some bots will archive the thread to the archive page but not actually remove it from the talk page itself (since it's protected). And then when they go on another sweep, they see the same thread, and repeat. Calvin 1998  22:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Preemptively protecting talk pages, even for banned users, is a bad idea. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that blocked users can have the ability to edit their talk pages removed, there's very few reasons to protect their talk pages. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

An entire article hidden award in a category

Can an administrator please look at Category:United States Army awards? User:CORNELIUSSEON appears to have written an entire article on top of the category headings. I don't think thats legal per Misplaced Pages regulations regarding the use of category pages. This user is also known a bit for cutting and pasting large amounts of military text into articles and generally not responding favorably if questioned about it. These edits to the category might need to be reverted and I don't want to have an edit war. Thanks -OberRanks (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on his talk page with a link to an example of another country's article on the same idea and some suggested article titles to move the content to. Let's see what happens. Exxolon (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

His username and userpage hurts my eyes with all those capitalized letters! (Back to topic) This is something that doesn't come up frequently and what we do with it may set a precedent. OhanaUnited 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I say if the material is worth keeping, it should be moved to an article somewhere. IMHO category headers should be made up of content directly related to the existance/function of the category, not extended text about the category's contents. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This has actually happened more than you might think.

Either ask the user to copy/paste the information to mainspace, or offer to do it for them.

Make sure you link to the category page in the edit summary. Even if the category is deleted, this allows for a trace to the edit history. - jc37 11:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I just took care of this. The article is at List of United States Army awards. ···日本穣 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at an early version of Category:Nature. Of course, it looked different back then. Imagine this placed on top of the category, and replace the redlink-image with this (admin-link only). The deleted picture is actually Image:Hubble ultra deep field.jpg (the Hubble Ultra Deep Field). Amazing the effort that is need to reconstruct what pages looked like. It gets worse when you have old templates on a page... Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Tigris the Majestic

Per this , and now these, , it is abundantly clear that Tigris the Majestic = Gennarous = Yorkshirian. That he/she wasn't escorted to the exit was, I guess, just an oversight at the time of the original AN/I thread. Could somebody take care of it please? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with FT2 (talk · contribs) and Thatcher (talk · contribs) (see links on Yorkshirian (talk · contribs)'s user page) that Yorkshirian = Gennarous and that it is likely that Yorkshirian = Tigris the Majestic. Applying behavior and WP:DUCK I'd call the Yorkshirian = Tigris the Majestic very likely.

 Confirmed Yorkshirian = Gennarous = Cult Fan = Tatumate = Ordinaria = Coaltarl = The Cavendish = Cradashj = Bourbonist

 Likely (very likely) Yorkshirian = Tigris the Majestic

 Confirmed Tigris the Majestic = Cartedaos = True as Blue = The British = Blownaparte = Ted tovery = Vantwinkle = Hibbowled = San Juango = IronCortez

already blocked and tagged all. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time please visit requests for checkuser and follow the procedure. OhanaUnited 02:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Monobook.js

Should we redirect that to MediaWiki:Common.js? -- Mentisock 13:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No? There's no point in that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not? The talk page redirects. -- how do you turn this on 17:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a technical question that really should be at the technical village pump. But while you're asking: at one point one of the developers marked skin-specific JS pages as deprecated (i.e., shouldn't be used any longer) and so they were slowly faded out. Brion noticed years later and "un-deprecated" them, so they're still valid pages that should be used for skin-specific JS, but at the moment, they aren't. ... if that makes sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Kinda odd as "User:MZMcBride/common.js" (if you create it) will be ignored, rather than applied to all skins. — CharlotteWebb 20:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

N00b admin question

I just applied my first rangeblock. They were vandalizing Inuit. I just wanted to make sure I did it correctly. Thanks. J.delanoy_adds 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you intended to block everyone with a 150.104.21.X address, then good job! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That is what I wanted to do. J.delanoy_adds 18:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to use a CIDR range checker before blocking the range, but ... :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You're a braver man than I, J. I've been an admin for 8 months now, and I still wouldn't touch a rangeblock with a 10 ft pole; I guarantee I'd end up blocking all of Europe. Good thing no one asked me a question about range blocks in my RFA; I'd probably have been shot down for not having adequate familiarity with the blocking process... --barneca (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's easy. Just take the first half of the IP address and add ".0.0/16", then block it - works every time. Black Kite 19:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, my spidey sense is tingling. That's is one of those "Go ahead, try it, it's impossible crash Misplaced Pages by " things isn't it? I'm not technologically savvy, but I make up for it with extreme paranoia and scepticism. --barneca (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblocks aren't especially difficult - if you know exactly what you're doing ;-) -- how do you turn this on 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And setting a .0.0/16 rangeblock blocks 65,536 IP addresses . Not quite all of Europe :) Calvin 1998  19:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Darn :) Black Kite 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite the whole of Europe, but the combined populations of Lichenstein and Monaco..._Gb 19:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There are that many people in Lichenstein and Monaco? Maybe add in Andora... Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want real fun, rangeblock 0.0.0.0/0 --Carnildo (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. :-) –Juliancolton 22:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki only allows up to /16 rangeblocks, I think. Calvin 1998  22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a limit, I don't remember what it is. You certainly can't block a /0 range! --Tango (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins can't block anything bigger than a /16; devs can go up to a /8. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD archive

With the new script, AfD closing has been made much easier and more people are doing it (which is great), but can I remind editors, if they close the last AfD in a particular day, to update Misplaced Pages:Archived delete discussions? I just closed October 5 and found it hadn't been updated since September 22. Black Kite 20:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me where to find the new script? It doesn't seem to be advertised widely. - With respect to the archived discussions update, isn't that more of the kind of task that a bot should be doing, if at all? I've closed a lot of AfDs and never even knew that page existed.  Sandstein  07:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's this: User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js. – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, great tool!  Sandstein  20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about this either, thanks! Lankiveil 09:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

Images corruption

All of these images are in CSD as corrupt images, though some of them are turning up as thumbs. They are all 404 errors, though I think it has something to do with the accidental image deletion a few weeks back.

Image:Jurassic park iii.jpg, Image:WM39-45Ribbon.png, Image:WV Chaos.jpg, Image:Warwick county va 1895.jpg, Image:Was1.jpg, Image:Whatsthematterwithkansas.jpg, Image:Who's the Man.jpg, Image:William t williams high school.jpg, Image:Winagi.jpg, Image:Wncu logo.gif, Image:Wpdms terra governorsisland.jpg, Image:Zte.gif.

I am not sure how to recover them though? Anyone know how or are they lost forever? Thanks. Woody (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic park iii.jpg has a deleted version that could be rescaled again if necessary. I've removed the CSD tags so as not to make it harder to recover them. Most of the images lost before were recovered. Mr.Z-man 20:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually on second thought it would be better to categorize them, but not delete them, so we have an up-to date list. I've put a notice on the CSD category and in the template. Mr.Z-man 20:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

List of missing images. MER-C 02:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The above list is the first (or first successful) of a series of increment checks to see if this problem is still persisting, since more images than the original ~3000 have been found missing. The next one is in progress. --Splarka (rant) 07:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A new admin-related category?

Hello Misplaced Pages administrators. I thought it might be a good idea to create a new category for pages which have instructions specifically for administrator use (I'd probably call it something like Category:Administrator instructions). So, for instance, pages like Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Administrator instructions and Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators would go there. I know there are already categories containing pages about how to become an administrator, but there seems to be nothing for existing administrators (from what I can tell). I wasn't sure whether to post this here or at WP:VPR, but I thought that here was a more logical place as administrators are my target audience with this proposal. Anyway, if you think this would be a good idea, then please do reply! It Is Me Here (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to - I say be bold and create it! Ryan Postlethwaite 21:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Cirt (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This sounds like a useful thing to do. ···日本穣 21:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Go ahead, it could be useful. – RyanCross (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Per apparent consensus, I have created the category and added the two named pages to it. More to come. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the new admin school to the category. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad you liked the idea, guys, but it seems someone has beaten me to actually creating the category! Nevertheless, I shall add any relevant pages to it if and when I come across them in future. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The ability to block vs. "no big deal"

Please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#The ability to block vs. "no big deal".

This is a proposal for the creation of a new user-rights group. Please read the proposal before commenting. It's may not be what you think. - jc37 23:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You're proposing giving non admins the ability to block/unblock. Yep, that's exactly what I thought. Bad idea. 68.17.165.116 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be a bad idea, but he isn't proposing that - read it more carefully. Black Kite 14:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a clarification. Perhaps (hopefully) that will help reduce the confusion. - jc37 12:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In reading these threads I've begun to wonder if trust can be unbundled. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

AWB - approved or not?

Discussion moved to WT:AWB. MaxSem 15:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Has Genesis vandal expanded area?

Resolved – _Gb 17:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved – One more request please...

Tile join (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has either expanded his interests as Join Tile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or this is a copycat. Please kill the vandal Join Tile with extreme prejudice.

I probably could have reported this to AIV, but wanted to let the admin community know about this. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is - Join Tile was indefinitely blocked 5 hours ago, and the other account you list has no contributions, deleted or otherwise. Is that fast enough? _Gb 17:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise he was blocked already. No template on the userpage.

And the user name wasn't capitalised; I fixed it so you can see the damage. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin template the vandal page with the blocked sock template please? Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Done - doesn't need an admin to do that, though. _Gb 18:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Gb. I didn't feel right about adding the template, since it was still only my sockpuppet accusation there. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

When you find a tile join sock, you *must* get a checkuser to drain the swamp. There were ~10 more socks there that needed blocking. Raul654 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul. I knew it was more than a simple job for AIV.

Also sorry for not reporting it on the incidents page...I get these two mixed up. I swear I thought I did and then was surprised I couldn't find the section. I had to look at my contributions to find where I'd posted this. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Witton Albion F.C.

I've unprotected Witton Albion F.C. It's been under attack from Tile Join (see above section) for over a year now, changing the attendence of the ground to one that it isn't. He's used numerous socks to do this, and it's starting to get a little tedious having to look out for it all the time, but we can't have the page fully protected forever (he's got plenty of sleep socks that make 10 edits in userspace to gain auto-confirmed status). Please could we have some more eyes on it for the future? I suspect it won't be long before he strikes again but I suspect we're losing some good contribs from new users. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:People by race or ethnicity and its evil spawn

I've started a discussion to finally get rid of the shambling monstrosity that is this category and all its children.

My opinion is clear on the matter (get rid of the entire nest of prejudicial editwar bait), but this is a bold and big move and needs wide participation. Participate. — Coren  20:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

problem with brain article

I'm having a problem reading that article, which I've been editing pretty intensively. When I try to read it, the cursor goes into "wait" mode and nothing happens. This doesn't happen with any other articles. Presumably some sort of database issue, but I've never seen anything like this before. Any thoughts? Looie496 (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is 81Kb long. If you've been editing it a lot, try refreshing your browser cache (or restarting your browser). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That worked, thanks. Next time I'll know! Looie496 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• More about Misplaced Pages and caching. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

1RR again

Following up on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive172#1RR_enquiry: few days ago User:Boodlesthecat violated his 1RR, was blocked for 10, the block was shortened two 2 days and he was unblocked about two days ago. Today on the same article he reverted twice withing few hours: and . It appears he has not learned his lesson. Could a neutral admin review the situation and take appropriate action(s)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but you yourself violated 1RR. Revert number one, revert number twoM0RD00R (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It does appear both editors made significant changes that look like reversions twice in a single day. MBisanz 23:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Correcting. This is not a revert. It's a small rewording that was not present in the article before and was not reverted. I've made dozens of edits to that article over the years and most of them are not reverts. I believe I can edit this article with uncontroversial edits (like copy-editing, introduction of ilinks, stylistic rewording, etc.) more than once a day. A further proof that this edit was not a revert (it has not been shown a revert of what, or to what, in any case) is that M0RDOOR has edited the article four times since my edit, did two reverts, yet left this edit of mine unchallenged (and it was unchallenged by Boody as well). MOORDOOR, please don't muddy the waters by portraying a normal, non-revert edit of mine as a revert in attempt to equate me with Boody - and your recent edit warring in this article is not helpful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a revert of this edit. Argument that I did not revert you further and this makes your revert a non-revert is silly. This simply means that I gave up on this minor problem. There are much worse things about this article that we are discussing now. With those who want to discuss of course. M0RD00R (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish you'd have justified your edit in an edit summary. I was rereading the article and didn't notice you changed that sentence earlier, otherwise I'd not have carried that edit out. Sigh. This article is getting too many edits/reverts for my head.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also I would like to hear more comments on this edit . Because situation is grim, at least as I see it. Boodles just comes out of his block, get's involved in minor dispute, couple reverts are made, but a healthy discussion is going on at Boodlesthecat talk page (and common ground was quickly found) and then Piotrus pops out into Henry Makow article that is out of his usual Eastern European topic range, just to revert Boodlesthecat. This seems to be straight forward unprovoked conflict aggravation. M0RD00R (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the nom at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Henry Makow (2nd nomination), a forum which I frequent. Please, no bad faith and "Piotrus stalking Boody".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You expect anybody to believe that? Boodlesthecat 01:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed that both of these editors have not learned yet to stay the heck away from one another until the RfAr is over, and that they are just going in circles reverting than reporting one another. IMHO both need to be blocked for tedious editing until the RfAr has come to a conclusion (though I know it would never happen). Maybe it is time for someone to ask for a ArbCom injunction. Really, this is getting lame. Tiptoety 00:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to second that comment, that an administrator and an experienced user cannot play nice long enough for Arbcom to review their behavior is profoundly disappointing. Maybe 0RR or a temporary topic ban on both, pending the resolution at RFAR is needed. MBisanz 01:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Lame indeed. First Boody violates 3RR, I don't, but we both get a 1RR restriction. Now Boody violates 1RR, I don't, and we are again "equal" (perhaps some should look at Boody's block record before jumping to conclusions...). But yes, a topic ban should be considered: in the past two days since his last unblock, Boody has been so uncivil on talk of that article that two editors have withdrawn from the discussion (, )... and also, as MBisanz noted, I am "an administrator and an experienced user" - so please look at the diffs carefully before jumping to conclusions. I'd expect nothing less from other "administrators and experienced users" who would like to take part in this discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Declaration. I am officially declaring that I am withdrawing from editing the article in question (Żydokomuna). I leave it to community to decide whether protection is necessary, but I will follow the wise words of User:Kpjas, one of the oldest Wikipedians, and withdraw from this article until ArbCom finishes its deliberations. I've had enough stress from edit warring and incivility on that article for the foreseeable future.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The article where this is taking place is currently in choas since Piotrus canvassed for his edit warriors to jump in. I've added mountains of well sourced material to that article. I've made modest attempts to correct the current vandaliism Piotrus and his edit warriors are waging. Frankly I don't care anymore. You can leave the article for them to destroy. It's only an online encyclopedia. I'm diusgusted with Piotrus' stalking my every move for the past five months in a maniacal effort to have me blocked and banned, simply for bringing a handful of his pet articles, that were doused in medieval Jew baiting nonsense, out of the middle ages. Piotrus posts creepy minute updates on my every move, somehow convinced that the arb case against him has something to do with my editing (I was not a party to that arb). This is simply ridiculous and to the extent that anyone here continue to enable Piotrus on this vendetta, its pathetic. Boodlesthecat 01:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am uninvolved in this dispute, and given its general lameness I don't want to become involved. But the above statement by Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well as this edit trigger my personal, very subjective, WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL filter. Judging by his block log, he must have been made aware of these policies previously. Blocked for 48 hours. Review of block invited.  Sandstein  21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Block endorsed. I find Boodlesthecat's recent behaviour disruptive, and Sandstein's block will serve to stem that disruption. I simply hope that, upon the block's expiry, Boodles will have improved his behaviour even by a small margin. Anthøny ✉ 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But if we compare this edit (for which Boodles is blocked) this edit which triggered Boodles... Let's be serious. Boodles comment was inappropriate, but this is over the roof. M0RD00R (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the charge of "racially motivated hate mongering" also violates WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL and would not object to sanctions against that user. I'll not do it myself because one possibly controversial block at a time is enough for me.  Sandstein  21:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Problematic user.

What should i do with User:EntertainU who has quite a special contribs list. I have notified him on how to add interwiki links by ] but he keeps adding interwikis links by http:// form. He is also a new user who self promotes himself. User_talk:Young_cat_old_school is quite blatant. He is too young to be a wikipedian. I have removed a lot of content on his user page due to blatant violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE and i left him a notice on no biting newcomers. I have proposed him to be adopted by a experienced user. What should be done next? --creaɯy! 00:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have not made one attempt to engage this user on his talk page: . You know, its generally polite to start talking TO people before talking ABOUT them. Also, WRT age, there is no reason to assume that anyone is "too young" for Misplaced Pages. With the proper counseling, he can grow into a great editor. "If you don't teach your kids about Misplaced Pages, somone else will." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There is no age limit on being a wikipedian, and i cannot see any biteyness from him or her, quite the opposite. Although the quiz set of pages entertainU has created should probably be deleted, it seems to me that he/she is trying to help out with all their welcomes, they're just a bit misguided. I've left a more concise note on their talk page, hopefully it will have some effect. And Jayron, EntertainU is the user creamy is talking, about and they have had some interaction, Young cat is simply an example of one of entertainsU somewhat unorthodox greetings--Jac16888 (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Jayron that discussing would have been better, with only 19 of his 781 edits to the mainspace, I'm not particularly convinced he's here to build an encyclopedia. Also, his subpage list has several pages which further this view. seresin ( ¡? )  00:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, his userspace needs blitzing, but i do not think that he is acting in bad faith, he just needs a bit of guidance--Jac16888 (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to MFD most of his userspace. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:EntertainU/EFW. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:EntertainU is a problematic user, he is not here to help the project. Thanks for nominating his subpages for deletion. AdjustShift (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sweeping edits to many electronic music articles

by User:Yaneleksklus aka 86.57.*.* aka 93.85.*.* e.g.

dubstep. as a maintainer of this article, this 'new dark swing' is utterly extraneous.

2-step garage.

new dark swing aka dark 2-step, apparently the root of all dubstep

these edits are counterproductive and generally opposed, but the editor will not even begin to discuss. --Kaini (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Seems to be a content dispute. Have you tried getting a third opinion or other dispute resolution? Stifle (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• What is problematic about this user is that he just ignores talkspace. Both Kaini and I have tried to start discussions with him on Talk:Dubstep but he does not discuss, he just keeps redoing his edits. He also hasn't responded to anything left on his usertalk page. I suggested Kaini post here to get a third opinion, I'd rather not get involved in this situation as an admin because I was also heavily involved in editing the dubstep article. - filelakeshoe 17:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much what filelakeshoe said. This editor's intentions do seem good, but his refusal to discuss or collaborate in the slightest is making him a serious headache for a number of editors across a number of articles. His attitude seems to be it's his way or the highway. --Kaini (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If wiki thinks that i m providing fake information please drop a message. i'll not write any article on wiki.

Dear What i do is i search people on net or surrounding to me those are notable. I dont care whether they have enogh links on net or not. If people are doing something notable for society are notable at my glance. I understand that wiki has some policies for that. If you people are very adamant for deleting any one, you are free. My job is searching people and create an article on the person. if that is notable or not this is the job auditor and administrators of wiki. If wiki thinks that i m providing fake information please drop a message. i'll not write any article on wiki. I do have my own work its better me to run my business rather than write an article on wiki. As wiki is working as non profitable organisation. i though to help wiki and update it. But if wiki and its employee thinks they do not need support. I also not very eager to provide my knowledge to wiki. There are many articles which i created but deleted by Administrators but later on these article again created by wiki.

Regards

Sameer

Sameergoswami (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sameergoswami appears to be contributing a lot of non-notable articles and otherwise unhelpful edits, including copyright violations. Is there a kind soul who would like to adopt this user and help them learn more about how to work here? Jehochman 04:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to seem BITEy, Jehochman, but the tone and substance of his posting here makes me think he's already got his mind made up: he's going to create these articles regardless of whether or not they meet WP notability standards, and it'll be up to us to clean up behind him. He seems to understand that there are standards--he just doesn't sound as though he intends to observe them. Also, and I realize there's likely a language gap here, but his tone just seems...defiant, to me. I'm not sure how adoption is going to resolve that part of the problem. (That's just my opinion--hopefully I'm completely wrong and he'll go on to become a model Wikipedian.)Gladys J Cortez 09:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the articles started by him and some of them may not meet WP notability standards. However, he is at least trying. AdjustShift (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have left Misplaced Pages. AdjustShift (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

your last message droped on my talk page

Dear I rather than got blocked by WP, would like to stop giving my contribution on WP. WP would not get any article or edits from now. I know i was providing actual information not fake. for people i have print media and i can send scan copies of national news paper for notability. But my district is very backward and no one share all this news on web. so people doesnt apear on web. thats why its very tough to me to find links on net for references. Well I really felling very sad and sorry saying these words bbye WP forever.

Regards

Sameer

Sameergoswami (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a place to say goodbye. I think you should leave that note on your talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Wholelife

I'd like to bring to your attention this account, which has existed for about 2 1/2 months, and seems to be used solely for the purpose of advertising, particularly a web site called www.mblwellness.com. The user has spammed links to that site into half a dozen articles, and has created an article Best of Stress Management that appears to be an infomercial for the site. Since the harm doesn't seem very aggressive, I don't see this as an emergency, but perhaps an admin could have a discussion with the user to explain that this sort of thing is not acceptable, and start the ball rolling on getting rid of that article. Looie496 (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)#

• As it appears to be on the borderlines of notability, sent to AfD. Black Kite 07:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary page creations & transclusions?

Faizhaider (talk · contribs) is creating pages such as Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Anniversaries/October /October 18 for each day of the year, whether or not they contain significant events, then transcluding them to monthly list pages such as Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Anniversaries/October. Is there any basis in common practice, ease of maintenance or otherwise to justify creating these "empty" pages simply to transclude them? As the individual pages are not linked, it seems to make it extremely difficult for editors to edit the individual pages, while surely adding information to the "month" page would be easily manageable, and far easier for others to edit. I've asked the user, but thought I would check if this is a common practice that I haven't noticed before. Deiz talk 14:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be done at busier noticeboards, but I don't see a justification in doing it for that one. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Individual day anniversaries for portals are common practice, yes. See for example Portal:Anarchism/Anniversaries. This is in no way an issue for administrators. the skomorokh 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not an issue for admins. You should talk with Faizhaider about this issue. AdjustShift (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems harmless to me. It's not like a few lines of text are going to really take up disk space. Jtrainor (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinions needed

There's been a long, slow edit war going on with the Prilep-Bitola dialect article. Discussion covers the entire talk page. A few more eyes and opinions would be helpful in resolving this once and for all to avoid protection or further drama. لennavecia 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards