Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:29, 14 October 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)

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.
• 14/10 Another unregistered user supported S's version writing "grow up ross..." in the edit summary.
• 14/10 R reverted writing "stfu and keep to yourself in VA" in the edit summary.

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)

Here is a key fundamental for me... Supparluca did not contact me regarding the image. He requested no name changes, nothing. The image I created was agreed upon for the multi-name usage and was in place for a long time. Supparluca then decided to, on his own agenda (there is no record on even the Projects of Italy page of the need to replace or rename the image) simply copy my image and upload against it. So he even broke Commons rules when a valid image already exists (and I don't see any rules against image names - they are simply reference names to the image). If it is a valid issue with the image names, Supparluca could have brought it up with the Projects of Italy talk page, or on the Provinces of Italy talk page, or on the Province talk page itself. It could then have been voted on and I would have made the necessary changes as the image creator. As it is, I improved the image, and all Supparluca did is copy my image (again) into a different image name.

If the image I created is a problem, fine. If it is voted upon that it is not consensus, I accept. But the original reason for edit war was because of the way he approached it selfishly without consultation. As far as pointing out blocks, I have made mistakes - but you cannot use my history against me. One can see I have contributed over possibly 1,000 maps or more - in many different articles. As opposed to Supparluca's POV push. My involvement with that topic has been very little since the last episode until now. But I do believe that both Supparluca and myself should be topic banned for the year because we are both guilty of something. Rarelibra (talk) 13:20, 14 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)

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) with 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)

I should have nominated his subpages for deletion, oh well, too late :)--Mixwell! 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

EntertainU is very young. He started out using Misplaced Pages as a chat service, and I blocked him for it. He learned from the experience. He's come a long way, and if we exhibit patience and offer some kind guidance, I believe he'll grow up and become a productive contributor. I'm not particularly fond of pointless userspaces either, but in view of the progress he's made over the past couple of months, I see growth and an effort to work with us. Acroterion _(talk) 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block, but another thing is making me suspicious. I smell he has sockpuppets. I'm not sure, but i am positive there are sockpuppets. One of his deleted pages had a lot of edits from other accounts. I'll investigate and post a report. --Mixwell! 13:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

He is not blocked, he was blocked last month. You are being very bitey mixwell, in all likelihood he's just a child, and nothing in his contributions suggests any bad-faith, let alone socking, the only edits to the subpages i saw were either him or an ip address which is presumably him, nothing wrong with that. EntertainU would appear to be trying to help, he's just unaware of how to do so properly, there is nothing particularly bad with what he is doing, i.e. he's trying to fight vandalism, and is just being a bit overzealous, and is welcoming users unaware that not all new accounts are welcomed and that he shouldn't be promoting himself. Bear in mind that he has not edited since before this thread started, why not wait and see if he comes back and has anything to say before passing judgement--Jac16888 (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't quite make myself clear: the block was, as Jac16888 observes, last month. It had a salutary effect. EntertainU has friends, some with named accounts, some as IP's, who were blocked for the same reasons: one was indef'd. EntertainU came back and started contributing in a positive, if slightly misguided manner. I'd prefer to reward positive behavior. Acroterion _(talk) 16:34, 14 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)

Indeed, this isn't in the main article space, so there's no real harm to the "real" encyclopedia. This seems the business of the Wikiproject in charge, and nothing for us to do unless it turns into edit warring or other such disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:12, 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)

Copying the tmbox styles from MediaWiki:Common.css and put them on Commons

Could someone that is an admin here and at Commons please copy the tmbox styles from MediaWiki:Common.css and put them on Commons? Please see this for why I am requesting it.--Rockfang (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a local admin, but you do need a Commons one, and possibly consensus there. commons:COM:AN fixed is a good place to start.--chaser - t 02:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC) --chaser - t 04:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

commons:Com:AN does not exist, I would suggest finding consensus at Commons:Village pump, where you would be more likely to encounter a commons admin. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, commons:COM:AN exists, you just messed up the capitalisation. Thanks for the help guys, I (a commons admin) had no clue how to do that before today. I think it's now done Rockfang. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting community ban

Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) is a disruptive editor, who's been blocked, not once, but thrice: Moleman 9001 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) and Moleman 9002 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log). Some of the information is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Moleman_9002, and also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#Meatpuppets.3F. This is a single-minded editor who's only goal is to be disruptive by adding "YouTube Poop" information to articles. Please do refer to those threads, there is off-wiki evidence of deliberate disruption. You can also find information at CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series and the associated talk page Talk:CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series. There is a SSP filed (and archived) at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Particleman24. Now he reappears at Special:Contributions/76.167.244.204, with a blatant statement that he will not cease his behaviour .

His tendentious personality makes it such that discussion is not an option, and the statements on his various sock pages are pretty straight-up in his motive.

I've currently posted to AIV, but I doubt that'll go anywhere, since he's not been warned. I'm not sure if this is the way to go, but I'm going to try anyways. So I'm asking for a community ban on this editor. RBI helps only if the admins on duty at AIV are willing to block based on a brief statement, and ANI requires such a long posting. IMO, having a ban enforced will make it easier to detect and block. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If he is guilty of abusive sockpuppetry, he should be blocked indef, and if no admin is willing to lift the block, the user is considered banned. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to do here, it's not worth discussing a ban at this time. All 3 accounts are blocked and so are their Talk pages, and the IP is blocked for two weeks. That's so close to a ban that the difference isn't discernable. There is some purpose to bans beyond indef blocks, but it's not clear to me that they do any good. The users come back anyway, if they are going to, and it banning doesn't make it easier -- at all -- to detect them. If he comes back six months from now, with the same nonsense, probably it will hit a noticeboard and the discussion will conclude that he's banned. Otherwise, let sleeping dogs lie; revert vandalism and report apparent block evasion, doesn't matter if the editor is banned or not, if he's blocked, and admins will generally block blatant IP socks of blocked users without it ever showing up on AN/I. (I don't understand the comment about length of reports at "ANI". There's no minimum length. Does he mean "AIV"? I've found AIV to be quick, when the situation is ripe. One key is to be quick oneself. Twinkle out vandalism, warn the user, takes less than a minute, and only go for admin resources when a user repeats behavior. The "blocked editor" issue is largely moot. I mention it when I know who's behind IP vandalism. That takes more time, it isn't "easier." --Abd (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not clear that you need a ban if all you want is quicker recognition and blocking of new socks as they appear. Find someone who is familiar with sock tagging who can help ensure that all the currently indef-blocked accounts are properly tagged so that they appear in a category. (You can do this even if they are meatpuppets, not socks). The admins who did the blocks for WP:Suspected sock puppets/Particleman24 should be able to help with this. Also state your desired criterion for recognizing and blocking a new sock (your statement above is not 100% clear). Filing new SSP reports as new socks appear is also worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) sorry for the lateness of my reply. I guess I am looking for some sort guidance, so that when he pops up again , there's some sort of clear course. I don't want to have to continue to lay out the history of this person each time he pops up, hence my statement that ANI needs lengthy details. Recognizing the user is fairly trivial. He's pretty much identifying himself anyways, and his behavior patterns (style, grammar, spelling, etc) are easy to spot. The one thing I'm worried about is when he pops up again , will it be easy to get assistance in taking care of (rhetoric)? The AIV report I made (last night) was welcomely handled fast. FWIW, I've never gone to this point in dealing with a problematic user. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You probably got such good response at WP:AIV because the sock explained in the edit summary who they were a sock of. The above precautions are good to take in case they don't always do that. EdJohnston (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

History restore

Guest9999 (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I didn't create the article Sonic Focus but I have made the first recorded edit in the article's history - I'm guessing this is due to the various deletions/ restorations. If the article is to be kept I think the history needs to be restored (assuming it's not a copyvio) as attribution is required under the terms of the GFDL licence. Guest9999 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, it was done by Raul654 (talk · contribs), since he is an oversighter and that could have been involved, we probably ought to ask him. MBisanz 03:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 11 deleted revisions in the article, mostly VORTEXWRITER (the article's original creator) and people tagging it. I'm scratching my head here and trying to remember why I did that. There was definitely no oversight involved -- -- I think it might have been pursuant to an OTRS ticket about that article. Anyway, I have no objection to restoring the deleted revisions. Raul654 (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the first revisions were indeed a copyvio, and that the current form was a stub that replaced the copyvio created, Guest, by you. Thus there wouldn't be a GFDL problem. Chick Bowen 04:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, still can't remember it but I guess it is a small article and several months have passed. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Guest9999 (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal E-mail in an AfD - Need for Deletion of Revisions and/or Oversight?

I would send this straight to Oversight, but I'm not sure if this qualifies. I would like administrator guidance, as I am a new user.

I was reading through the AfDs and noticed that the author of the targeted article posted the text of a personal e-mail he'd received as a way to argue against the article's deletion. I was concerned to note that the article author had included the headers in the e-mail (including the e-mail address of the author of the e-mail). I was also concerned because it seems unlikely the article author had permission to post the email or the address (although I'm sure it's a good faith mistake). This seems like a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the privacy policy. I posted at the new user Help Desk and received advice to delete the email in the AfD, as it was probably in violation of the privacy policy, and may be a copyright vio as well. I have done this. Help Desk also advised that I could notify admins here in case they would deem it necessary to further protect this private information, by deleting revision versions (I think that's the right term?) or referring to Oversight.

The AfD is here: Also, this same email was posted to Apovolot's and Richard Pinch's talk pages (and I think also to a previous rev of Richard Pinch's user page). I deleted the email in the talk pages as well. It's possible this information was posted to the talk or user pages of other users involved in the AfD discussion, but I haven't checked further.

I hope I did the right thing; please advise if further action is needed. Thank you for your help. silverneko (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is good to remove the email address. The email content should be removed too if it was posted without the sender's permission. In this case the email address seems to be a professional email address easily located by searching on the subject's name and the email itself had almost no content, so I don't think it really warrants more severe attention than simply redacting it from the text (i.e. since it is already a publicly facing email address, there isn't really a huge privacy issue in this case.) Dragons flight (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Huggle Templates semi-protected

I just finished semi-protecting all of the templates that Huggle apparently uses at Template:Huggle. (I don't use Huggle, so I have no idea). A vandal went on a spree against some of the templates. Ironically, that vandal also appears to have a grudge against me. Can somebody who uses Huggle confirm that these are indeed the templates in use and they should have been protected awhile ago?

Strange indeed. Could you also semi-protect this particular template: Template:Huggle (the front template which links to all the others) - it was vandalized as well, and I see no need for ip's and new users to edit these. Thanks --Flewis 08:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ameliorate! protected the top level template. I reset the protection to be semi/full as nobody should be moving the templates. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add the usual {{Pp-semi-template}} because I don't use Huggle and didn't want to break any functionality of Huggle. If somebody else who uses Huggle can verify that adding the usual lock template won't break things and then add the lock template, that would be great. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The lock template is only really useful for articles so that people viewing it are likely to know that it is protected. For small, out of the way, and infrequently edited templates, it isn't really all that necessary. If someone tries to edit them templates and cannot, they will get a notice as to the details of the protection anyways. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayron's right. I usually add it but it's no big deal if not. — Satori Son 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:GUNS#Criminal use

I recently opened an RfC on the Criminal use section of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Firearms#Guidelines here. Imo, that portion of the guidelines clearly defies our core content policies by placing arbitrary demands on the inclusion of material. The specific admin "action" I am requesting and the reason I am moderately desperate and distressed and see no other option than canvassing to bring this to general attention here is that I'd greatly appreciate input from neutral admins, who after all are trusted to have a firm grasp on policy and may be able to help quickly settle the dispute. This posting is of course not intended (or able, for that matter) to sway anyone's opinions. Maybe I am indeed dead wrong. But honestly, I don't think so. It's basically a local consensus vs. project-wide consensus issue. The background is that that part of the WP:GUN guidelines has been cited to me on an article talk page, which albeit was merely the cause célèbre. Please, any admins interested, weigh in on this issue in a more policy-informed way than the current comments appear to be. If neutral admins think that the guidelines are all fine and dandy, I will of course let this go immediately. Everyme 14:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone recognise this MO?

• Cool4joe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just blocked this user for 31h after a short (but 100% vandalism) career. Early contribs were linked to Ctrl-Alt-Del memes, but the last edit added a link to tubgirl dot com. I was wondering if any admins here recognised these as hallmarks of any particular vandal. If so, it might be a sockpuppet and a longer block might be in order. If not, feel free to ignore this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

VOAs generally get indef blocks anyhow, do they not? -Jéské 17:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't vandal only though. At least not in the conventional sense. -- how do you turn this on 17:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears they threw some spam and threats in there too. Mr.Z-man 17:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Shock sites = indef block in my book, which I've done. BJ 17:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay by me. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:FF1234

A quick look at his user page shows that his only purpose is to spread holocaust denial ideas on wikipedia and he has already started. I furthermore wonder whether he could not be a new sockpuppet of bannedtruth. --Lebob-BE (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least he discloses his COI. Shouldn't stop us from banning him immediately though (ie., if he isn't already). Everyme 16:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Checkuser reveals only  Possible to Bannedtruth, but in a case like this it doesn't really matter that much, given the userpage screed. Black Kite 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Hemanshu making non-MOS edits and refusing to answer talk page

Bringing this here from WP:WQA. User:It Is Me Here makes a convincing case here that Hemanshu is being totally unresponsive in the face of arguably counterproductive edits (and certainly non-consensus edits).

Hopefully this can be resolved without involving the Arbcom.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Romero

This (now deleted) article started with "This is a public service anouncement" and ended with "she is going to be sexually abused someday" (sorry if I can't remember the exact wording) if the first sentence is interpretted as meaning "this is a warning" this could be some kind of threat. Even if it's not it seems like a pretty bad joke and I think some kind of specific warning or admin action might be appropriate. Guest9999 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards