Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:38, 24 May 2009

• 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)

Shadow Misplaced Pages

I'm going to boldly archive this (as a minorly involved party, so as usual, anyone is free to revert me). No administrator intervention is needed, but feel free to start a discussion on either WT:WPOoK or WT:WikiProject Contents or start a Requests for comment on the subject. NW (Talk) 17:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I have just found Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. Apparently, the idea is to build a counter-article to any article. So, for biology, we'll have outline of biology. It is unclear what the difference between an "outline" and an encyclopedic article is supposed to be, apparently "outlines" tend to be crappy incomplete lists, sort of a return to how the main article looked in ca. 2003.

The mind simply boggles at just how bad an idea this is. This needs to be moved out of main namespace asap. Inasmuch as it can be considered an indexing effort, it may have room in Contents: namespace, but most of it appears to be just WP:CFORK on a monumental scale. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for administrator intervention here. If you have a problem with the project that cannot be rectified by discussion with its participants, start a Request for Comment or send it to WP:MfD.  Skomorokh  09:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Who told you that WP:AN is for cases requiring urgent administrator intervention, I'd like to know. --Ghirla 12:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It might also be worth comparing more mature examples: Anarchism, Outline of anarchism, {{Anarchism sidebar}}, Category:Anarchism, Portal:Anarchism. There is overlap, but not redundancy.  Skomorokh  11:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The scale of this "project" is a catastrophic undermining of Misplaced Pages's core principle of "one article per topic". This is not an "incident" requiring immediate admin intervention, which is why I post it here, not at ANI, but this is certailny a serious enough attack on the project's integrity to be brought to the attention to the admin community. Your "mature example" only drives home the point that we are looking at large-scale WP:CFORK violation. I do not have the resources to deal with this scale of problem single-handedly, we will need many hands in the cleanup effort this entails. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify what exactly it is about these types of pages that violate WP:CFORK? That guideline is primarily concerned with the phenomena of POV forking and unintentional duplication, which are not issues here. Outlines, as their etymological past as "List of x topics" indicates, are not articles (i.e. prose), but are structured and annotated lists. I think it would be prudent to make sure that there is consensus that Outlines are problematic before soliciting administrators to remove them. In any case, this discussion ought to be continued at Misplaced Pages:VPP#.22Outlines.22. Regards,  Skomorokh  11:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds like a huge misunderstanding. As far as I can tell, the outline of knowledge is simply an index that uses articles instead of categories. I don't see any problems here. This over "view" is an effort to make lists useful, and should be encouraged. The end result is that there is more than one way to view a topic. If one thinks of this as a top-level view, it is possible to drill down to the specific article by subtopic without having to traverse category pages. Ideally, these types of pages would be generated on the fly instead of by users; If I wanted to change the presentation of a category from a list, to a subtopic, to an outline, I would just toggle my display somehow, but we're not there yet, so users have to create these views by hand. All these outlines are doing is giving the user the ability to view the contents of top-level topic categories and articles on one page in the form of a glorified list. The category system could be redesigned to do this, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon; I seem to recall Samuel_Wantman hinting at this idea some time ago. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline of anarchism looks very article like to me. It has a lot to say about what anarchism is, for a start, which will either duplicate or probably more likely disagree with what our Anarchism article (and other articles mentioned in the Outline) says. What is the plan if these start to contradict each other? Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline of anarchism (which is to say Outline of X) is a fork waiting to happen. Built that way, there is no means to keep the content locked with the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One could say the same about almost any list. Queens of the Stone Age discography (featured) cannot be complete without overlapping significantly with Queens of the Stone Age, which is no objection to its utility.  Skomorokh  13:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For me, lists aren't the same because they're so narrow as to what they can carry. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually kind of like this. It's like a central top-level home page for major areas. Or am I misreading it somehow? rootology (C)(T) 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's where I get torn, I kinda like the notion behind it. Could this be done through transclusions of article leads or something? Only thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think such articles can be useful, if done properly. Sometimes with complex ideas it helps to have a quick reference. I especially like the simplicity of pages like Outline of dentistry; it is very helpful. I don't see at all how this is a threat to or can damage Misplaced Pages. Kingturtle (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought this was going to be a proposal for a Shadow Misplaced Pages where everyone can espouse truth, write trivia, and as many fict-related child pages as they wanted =] –xeno 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several reasons why this is a bad idea:

1. Typically, an outline is an unfleshed out version of a detailed piece of text and, I presume, that that is the intention of this project. However, we already have a humungous problem with inter-article consistency and creating 'outlines' for every article just raises this problem to a totally unmanageable level.
2. This is a content fork not waiting to happen. One look at Fiction and Outline of Fiction makes that clear. We'll need an army of editors to keep the 'outline' articles at the level of a skeleton.
3. Any project whose stated goal is to provide a fundamental outline of human knowledge is a bad idea to start with. Misplaced Pages thrives on simplicity, not grandiosity.
4. (This one is a bit facetious but I do mean it.) The whole 'Outline of' format is a tad awkward. How would one interpret an article entitled Outline of Human body? As something out of Law and Order?

--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be done with raw text without becoming a harmful subset of forks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP does have "an army of editors" , and an encyclopedia is fundamentally an outline of general knowledge, not a collection of bits and pieces. Whatever we can do to organize it for access is helpful, considering the customary scattered way articles are contributed. Articles like these are a good complete to filling in more of the hugh empty spaces in the encyclopedia, and may even contribute to it. DGG (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was a separate army of editors. Also, I'm not sure what the outline contributes over the main article (the Fiction example above), why it wouldn't be a content fork that is inconsistent with the main article. (Plus the very awkward title issue but that's secondary.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with dbachmann on this; it's massive duplication of navigation/information already handled by portals and articles, not to mention navboxes. These outlines do precisely nothing to assist the reader that is not already being done better elsewhere. Unfortunately, the walls around this garden are particularly high and dissenting opinion is met with derision and scorn, so I wish you the best of luck in trying to do anything about this massive waste of time and effort.//roux   19:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a concern about Template:List resources. I'm pretty sure we try to avoid having templates that mix between projectspace and articlespace like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the portal namespace. I don't see any mix with the project namespace in that template. This issue has only been addressed in the use of the see also section. I could only find this as part of the {{Outline generator}}. One quick solution I can see is to move all of the outlines into portal namespace. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Without trying to deny anyone their God-given right to argue this up and down and back and forth forever - Viriditas's proposal is the way forward. It doesn't throw anything away, doesn't result in duplicated articles, and uses the portal space for the exact sort of content the portal space is supposed to be used for. The only hitch is matching them to existing complete portals - but that's an implementational detail, easily fixed by just doing it. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as massive duplication. I see this as another way to get to the information. Different people have different ways of digesting and visualizing information. Just as MS Windows allows you to use a mouse or a keystroke to do something, the Outlines allow another way for readers to get at the information. Kingturtle (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The one difference being that when MS Windows uses a mouse or a keystroke to do something it gets at the same underlying 'information'. Here, the information is duplicated - with all the accompanying problems that redundancy brings in. If we could automate the creation of outlines from the underlying articles - for example if a request for 'outline of Burma' created the outline from the article Burma on the fly, we wouldn't have this problem. But, in this case, the information is duplicated. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is any indication, it is not an army we need but several venti armies! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Random section break (Shadow Misplaced Pages)

I noticed one of these the other day, and my concern was the number of redlinks that should forever remain redlinks: Outline of the Netherlands Antilles seems to imply that if the topic had been covered properly, someone would have created Air Force of Netherlands Antilles, Sikhism in Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands Antilles Stock Exchange, and Rail transport in Netherlands Antilles, among others. I can just see the bot request coming up to create millions of useless little stubs to correspond to each of these redlinks, as if the only reason no one had created an article about the extensive rail system we have connecting our five islands is because there wasn't a helpful stub to encourage them.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

looking at some other similar parts, it points out missing pieces that matter-- even for the larger countries. We do need humans to clean up after it, using judgment. DGG (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an extremely poor and unproductive idea. Would anyone object if I simply nominated it for deletion? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, could one of the proponents of this scheme explain to me how Outline of Anguilla being longer than Anguilla (of which it is supposed to be a briefer summary!) is constructive? Because if it's not, then there are scary numbers of articles which are basically useless... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone think of inviting User:The Transhumanist to this discussion? As the leading force behind this WikiProject, he is probably best qualified to explain why they are so useful. I'll alert him, but give my belief of the usefulness of this WikiProject. Actually, I'll quote Penubag: "Have you ever read an article about something you wanted to know more about only to later find an article that had more info on the exact same topic? This has happened to me too many times but with these new outlines and with proper dab notes, readers will be able to find and read more articles on exactly what they're searching for. The See main article: under a heading doesn't always cut it. On stubs and poorly developed articles, topic outlines may be the only place to direct and get specific information. Hopefully more ways can be devised to better connect our articles or integrate them into each other in a better way. -- penubag (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)" NW (Talk) 04:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Quiddity's staccato explanation: There are a number of "meta"ish projects that have been living happily in mainspace forever: The topics lists, lists of lists, and index lists, which begat the outlines (formerly "basic topic lists") a few years ago. Originally created with reference cards in mind. Can be compared to portals, or indexes, or navboxes, or Misplaced Pages:Books-Table-of-Contents pages, or a college course curriculum, or the Propædia. As Smorokh says, see a more-fully-developed example or three, to get a better comparison:

1. Article: Philosophy
2. Index: Index of philosophy articles (A-C)
3. List of lists: Lists of philosophy topics
4. Outline: Outline of philosophy

Also good are: Outline of geography, Outline of anarchism, Outline of Canada, and Outline of the United States. Less-developed but still useful are examples like Outline of linguistics and Outline of anthropology.

Plus, read through some of the archives at (and next time it might be helpful to notify one of) Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Contents. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion disturbing, because there is an obvious negative/anti-cabalistic POV being expressed by naming this notice topic as a "shadow" Misplaced Pages. Most paper encyclopedias have indexes or outlines that help people quickly find pertinent information and directs them to the more detailed articles in the body of the encyclopedia. I know that Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, but that's no reason to dismiss good ideas that help visitors locate information and gives more access to articles that are sometimes difficult to locate without already having considerable knowledge in a topic.

Furthermore, these are not rogue pages that were setup on a whim. They are under the purview of both Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Outline of knowledge and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Contents. That means that these pages were not designed and developed in secrecy (something you would expect for a so-called "shadow Misplaced Pages"). They were implemented with at least the knowledge of (and hopefully also the consensus of) the active participants in those WikiProjects.

As Quiddity points out above, there is no reason to bring this up here. What is an admin going to do about a large section of the encyclopedia (it covers over 500 pages)? If an admin were to be bold and delete them all, the situation would probably quickly escalate to ARBCOM for review. That would suck for everyone involved. Instead, discuss the matter in an appropriate forum... the main talk page for the outline, the talk page or the other talk page for the two WikiProjects overseeing it. If you feel that much broader input is required, then bring it up in an WP:RfC, but it seems like that would be a complete waste of time and effort since the discussion would be probably be based around destroying a lot of quality work that makes Misplaced Pages more useful and easier to use. Regardless, WP:AN is not the appropriate venue for this. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Toss an RFC on Cent

I still kind of like the basic idea, and this is growing past AN (it's not something that can be decided by admins, it's a pure content matter, mostly). Someone toss up an RFC on Cent, please, and start the chat up there. rootology/equality 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a pressing need for an RfC? The project has been rolling quite smoothly along for quite a bit longer than I have been on Misplaced Pages (almost a year now), and I feel that even an RfC would be a bit of a distraction to the massive amount of work to do for this project. NW (Talk) 07:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean toss up an RFC if someone really wants something done about those pages, since there's nothing us admins can do as admins about them based on all this, since no tool use is required here. I like them. rootology/equality 07:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Digwuren using article talk pages for soapboxing and for making personal attacks

User:Digwuren has for a long time abused article talk pages by using them to express his personal opinions and to make personal attacks and other uncivil comments .

I have asked him to stop: , but it did not help, as he only responded with yet another rant: .

is especially outrageous:

A lot of funny conspiracy theories are going around regarding pecularities of Russian national interests. Some of them are rather hard to believe. But the plausibility of Internet brigades is significantly reinforced by the fact that a number of editors with well-known Russian connections keep attacking an article casting light onto the Internet brigades. If the Internet brigades' story were just an old wives' tale, it certainly wouldn't deserve such an attention, and instead of removing content from here, those people would actually watch out for this kind of vandalism, so it would be reverted a bit faster than in three hours' time. I guess Internet brigades' coverup is more important than ensuring the quality of an article about Russian economy. Very sad. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He is clearly accusing other editors of working for the Russian state to censor articles. This is despite the following ArbCom ruling : It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society. WP:DIGWUREN might also be relevant.

Another example :

For a taste of Teinonen's opinions, the first article about him on Google is an interview headlined "Teinonen: National Socialism had many good sides". He's notorious, not notable. I find it hard to believe that anybody but another neo-Nazi would seriously consider adding Teinonen's opinion about police onto Misplaced Pages would be a good idea. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

From the same talk page :

Your and Offliner's editwarring to keep neo-Nazi material in this article speaks for itself. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is despite the warnings at Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned: All editors are warned that future attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.

I'm really tired of hearing Digwuren's political rants that have nothing to with improving the article itself and of his continous personal attacks. Can someone please give him a warning and make him stop? The subject was already discussed on Tiptoety's talk page, but he said he doesn't have time to look at it. Offliner (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In regard to Offliner's complaints, particularly in reference to what he considers "especially outrageous" , if taken in context of this humorous request and similarly humorous response by a Russian editor Illythr who delivered a formal thanks from the Misplaced Pages department of KGB, it is clear that Digwuren's comment was a light hearted expression of his frustration that more isn't done to protect Russian articles from blatant vandalism rather than squabbling over the article Internet operations by Russian secret police. The fact that Offliner should choose to affect offense over this comment says more about his WP:BATTLEGROUND and vexatious approach rather than anything about Digwuren's behavior. --Martintg (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Having some experience with Digwuren a few weeks back at some Baltic pages, I found him to be highly contentious and abrasive. He's not here to build the encyclopedia, but to fight Russians. That said, there are plenty of Russians who appear to be here only to fight Digwuren. A bad situation all around, but not one limited solely to Digwuren so much as the likes of Digwuren, and such editors are pervasive. Outside of massive topic bans, or mass blocking a large number of nationalist POV SPA's, I really don't see any value in singling out Digwuren, even though banning him would be a net positive to the 'pedia. As admins, there is really very little we can do here unless a *ahem* cabal of us all go over to the related pages and start a highly active mass enforcement of the various arbcom decisions related to this area (some of which directly name Digwuren). Since we *ahem* don't have enough admins to carry out tasks like this, taking any kind of concerted action is probably futile without a broader mandate from Arbcom. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears contention that this is some kind of battle against Russians is wholly false, a total red herring which is unhelpful. Offliner is from Finland and PassportUsername admits he is not Russian. Hiberniantears previously crossed paths with Digwuren when Hiberniantears single handedly caused much disruption to a stable article when he unilaterally moved and split, himself admitting against talkpage consensus and policy, then used his admin tools to perma-protected resulting re-direct. Hiberniantears own behaviour has been less that exemplary during this, eventually resulting in an apology. In the end the mess caused by Hiberniantears was cleaned up by another admin (who btw is Russian), who moved the article back to the original title. So I don't think Hiberniantears' viewpoint is impartial. --Martintg (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. I think there are plenty of Russian editors who are also a problem here. You, however, represent another editor that falls into the mold of Digwuren. There are numerous editors having a well reasoned debate on historical issues, but there are also numerous editors trying to score political points, some are Russian, or Estonian, or Latvian, or Lithuanian, or any number of other things... even Australian. The apology was to Peters, who turned out to be pretty reasonable, despite my initially viewing him as just an SPA. My impression of Martintg and Digwuren, however, remains unchanges, and unfavorable. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem might be Digwuren. I'm not even Russian (though I have some connections to the country), and only a month after having joined I had the pleasure of Digwuren repeatedly making personal attacks, following around my edits, and conspiring to brand me as a sockpuppet. I note that the vast majority of his contributions are anti-Russian (his latest article, for instance, just happens to be a three-liner taken from a news story about an apprehended Russian criminal). He has just returned several months ago after already having been banned for a year–a decision taking into account his advocacy and soapboxing, though primarily based on his general belligerence towards others; he does not appear to have benefited from the experience all that much. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong or anti-Russian in his latest article (and in his articles in general). Russia does have some criminals, many, in fact, so what? There are other venues (like AfD) to address this issue if you think it is not encyclopedic, but in my opinion it is. After all, that one seems to be very prominent according to many sources. E.g. I may not like (to put it mildly) the pro-communist undertones in the content you create, but I certainly don't consider it a bannable offense. And I don't wish to conspire to brand you as a sockpuppet, but your extensive knowledge of the past conflicts on Misplaced Pages "only a month after having joined" is noticeable and your willingness to inflame them again is not particularly helpful here.

Colchicum (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PU, the reason you were suspected of being a sock puppet is because 1) your account is new and 2) your edits WERE very similar to that of a confirmed sock of banned user Jacob Peters whose edits you even restored. Digwuren wasn't the only one who got suspicious at first. It happens.radek (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in criminology, a subject of relatively sparse coverage on Misplaced Pages. If you liked Otari Totochiya, you might also appreciate the pages in Category:Crime in Estonia, most of which I happen to have contributed to. I have particularly fond memories of working on Rene Reinmann, but your mileage may vary. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think everybody here has been tired of the constant forum-shopping on your part. Bring it to the ArbCom, it will hopefully sort out the mess. Mind, however, that your own behavior, which can also be easily seen as attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground, will also be scrutinized, as WP:DIGWUREN, despite its somewhat misleading name, applies not only to Digwuren, but to all editors; many others from several sides have already deserved an "honorary" mention at the bottom of the arbitration page. Now, back to the facts (oh, wait, it was more than a month ago! You should be really desperate in your crusade), as I understand it, D has not accused anybody of harboring Nazi sympathies, he said that the material you strived to include was produced by Risto Teinonen, who is a notorious neo-Nazi, as reported in numerous reliable sources. I can certify that Russavia and Offliner edit-warred to keep neo-Nazi material in Kaitsepolitsei is an accurate factual statement, D was most probably right in his opposition to this, and it wasn't D who created a battleground in that particular case. Note: the material was neo-Nazi rather than the mentioned users, and I have little idea about their actual sympathies. And, Hiberniantears, note that I am Russian, yet D doesn't fight me, probably because I don't fight him. This often helps. Colchicum (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you're a problem, or that everyone in those articles is a problem. I was just trying to point out that, as you note with Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN, the problem extends beyond just one editor, and represents problem editors pushing a variety of POVs. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the first part of the message was addressed to Offliner. Colchicum (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said over at Tiptoety's page this basically looks like Offliner making lots of random unsubstantiated accusations against Digwuren, mischaracterizing his (Digwuren's) edits, having his (Offliner's) friends show up and desperately hoping that something out of all this falsehood sticks. The problem with his contention above include presenting criticism of article text/material/sources as personal attacks, pretending that discussing involvement by security services in Wiki on a talk page of an article about ... involvement by security services in Wiki is "soap-boxing", taking insult at anything that can hardly be construed as such by anyone with a modicum of good faith, and generally wasting editor's valuable time. From the comments above it appears that this is a frequent tactic employed by Offliner - and at a certain point it becomes disruptive.radek (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that pretty much covers it. If you can't attack the edits, attack the editor. And thanks to Colchicum for pointing out this is not about any inter-ethnic conflict, this is about the conduct of individual editors and the creation of battlegrounds (and who started the battlegrounds). PetersV       TALK 17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, regarding Offliner's dim view of edits such as this one, I think that humanizing perceptions of "discrimination" and the role of self-perception is a crucial point. For example, on Latvian radio I heard a Russian woman call in to a talk show complaining that she was being discriminated against because her apartment block wouldn't grant her another parking spot for her second Mercedes, that she had already gone to the Russian consulate to lodge a formal complaint. That Offliner uses Digwuren's edit as evidence against him is, frankly, an indication to me that Offliner is not interested in thoughtful considered discussion of that topic. PetersV       TALK 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Radek; and I am fed up with the continuing harassment of Digwuren by Offliner. He has started baseless threads here, at user talk pages, at other Misplaced Pages pages... and has been throwing mud on Digwuren by the bucket, hoping something will stick. Enough is enough. I think this merits an official action - at the very least, a ban on Offliner comments on Digwuren (a form of a wiki restraining order), if not an outright preventative block.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Talking about baseless accusations... You say: I am fed up with the continuing harassment of Digwuren by Offliner. He has started baseless threads here, at user talk pages, at other Misplaced Pages pages... and has been throwing mud on Digwuren by the bucket... Could please provide evidence that I have done such things? When have I harassed Digwuren or started baseless threads about him? I do not recall starting a single threat about him. Offliner (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Without regard to the general issue, posting anecdotes such as the one just posted above, and the one linked to in that post, is not a proper use of Misplaced Pages . Actually, looking at that talk page, a good deal of it is similarly improper uses of Misplaced Pages by a number of editors of clearly different persuasions. . DGG (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of more block shopping by Offliner. He was warned over vexatious litigation, and recently received a block himself after block shopping somebody else for edit warring. I find Digwuren's talk page comments on topic and informative, nor has he engaged in any personal attacks. Offliner's and UsernamePassport's continued accusations about Diguwuren's personal behavior may in fact constitute a personal attack against Digwuren, if not harrassment. I would support a preventative block on Offliner to stop this combative WP:FORUMSHOP against his perceived content opponents. --Martintg (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, that is Offliner who suspects other editors of being paid agents: . Biophys (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I analyzed the behavior of Digwuren and Offliner, and I think Offliner should be blocked for his disruptive behavior. He was blocked for 31 hours on 16 May, but he doesn't seem to learn anything. AdjustShift (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • What kind of thing exactly, is it that Offliner "should be blocked for"? PasswordUsername (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Disruption, edit warring, and pushing his POV. He was blocked on 16 May. After returning from the block, his attitude hasn't changed. I just analyzed his edit warring in the bio of Johan Bäckman; such activities are unhealthy for WP. AdjustShift (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
        • He did only two reverts on Johan Bäckman–three if you count changing "found" to "claimed"–on two separate days and hasn't touched the article since May 18. I honestly don't get what "disruption" constitutes here (seeking admin help–ie, shopping–he was told to go here) and I'm honestly puzzled that you apply the epithet of "POV pushing" to one editor if you have examined both user histories. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Digwuren is somewhat disruptive, but so are some of his "opponents". Offliner's edits to Johan Bäckman were not constructive. Yes, he hasn't touched the bio since 18 May, but his edits were not constructive (eg. ). He should have posted something on the talkpage, and try to reach a consensus with fellow editors. AdjustShift (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

About the accusations of blockshopping. How can I be blockshopping when the only thing I asked for is that Digwuren be given a warning to stop abusing talk pages? It takes about 30 sec for an admin to do this, and I think there his high probability that it will work. The reason why I'm asking for this is because my own warning did not help. I don't want Digwuren blocked; I only want him to stop this behaviour. Offliner (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The best thing you and Digwuren can do is just walk away and behave. The only thing you'll accomplish here is getting yourself and a number of editors on both sides blocked and/or topic banned. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. AdjustShift (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and as I said above, I think we should issue a community restraining order - the next time I see this circus back in town I'd like for us to be able to end it once and for all (if we are not going to end it now). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User Petri Krohn

I am speaking with experience; Digwuren's first edit on Misplaced Pages was a revert of my contributions. In fact almost all of Digwuren's edits for the first two months were reverts of my edits.

Initially we fought over the Bronze Soldier. The early version of the article was largely created by me. My interest on the subject started a year earlier, when I took the set of photos that initially made up Commons:Category:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn.

I gave up on the Bronze Soldier the minute the article left the in the news section of the Main page, and have hardly even opened it sense. Instead I continued my newfound interest in Estonia by creating tens of new articles on Estonian history and independence. All of them in turn became battlegrounds with Digwuren. I tried every trick to combat what I considered his abusive behavior. I reverted his edits, no help, Arguments would fall on deaf ears. I tried forum shopping, no help. I even tried writing to Misplaced Pages:Help desk, no response. I thought that it would be clear to any administrator looking into his edit history, that he is here only to disrupt Misplaced Pages. None of them saw it my way. The only thing that was somewhat successful was tricking him into 3RR. Even that turned detrimental, as his friends were able to (falsely) convince an administrator, that I too was guilty of 3RR. If some administrator ever took action against him, his sweet talk was able to convince them that he did not really mean to do anything wrong.

Digwuren was not acting alone. The Bronze Nights brought to Misplaced Pages a wave of nationalistic editors from Estonia. Later I would refer to this group as Korp! Estonia, in reference to the student nations of the Tartu University, the Alma mater of many members of this group. (Later, on the Finnish Misplaced Pages I read that the Tartu University is the last bastion of Greater Finland irredentism, but unhappily the article did not provide a reference.)

While I was in conflict with him, he did not contribute anything new to Misplaced Pages. He was however utmost skillful in turning any article into what I considered to be nationalistic POV. In wiki terms I considered all his edits to be WP:DE or WP:TE or both. Finally he made his first original contribution to Misplaced Pages, two stubs on the Soviet deportations from Estonia (June deportation, March deportation). At about the same time I made a conscientious decision to distance myself from anything he may be involved with.

My logic was this. If I leave Digwuren and Estonia alone, he will go around and find new “friends”. As I considered him a disruption, I thought he would be more likely to make enemies. At some point, I thought, this would lead to him being permanently banned from Misplaced Pages.

This has not turned out to be the case. He has made numerous new enemies. On the banning front the statistics are different. He and his supporters have come across numerous generations of pro-Russian editors. In the end, it has always been the pro-Russians, that have been permabanned. I believe I can name at least ten Russian editors that have been banned because of opposition to Digwuren and his supporters – and almost an equal number that have left out of simple disgust. The greatest loss to Misplaced Pages was Ghirla, who left, I believe, out of solidarity to me.

I was the first in this long list of fatalities. In WP:DIGWUREN I was banned by the arbitration committee for a year. I never thought the arbitration case would in any way be even related to me, as I had left all areas of conflict long before the case was even opened. I never participated in the deliberations and have never even read the proceedings. I hardly even know why I was banned. What I read from the decision is that I was banned for stating political opinions on article talk pages. In fact I believe I was banned for allegedly doing the same kind of “soapboxing” that Digwuren is accused of doing here.

It is a small miracle that a small country like Estonia can so totally dominate over its far larger neighbor. I seems as if Misplaced Pages has no Russian editors left. Those defending the Russian point-of-view are in fact from other countries. None of the true Russians edit or live in Russia, Australia seems to be a favorite address. The English language Misplaced Pages seems to have a systematic bias. The Estonian regime is aligned with NATO and the West. Most of the English language editors come from those same countries. Meanwhile the Internet is becoming ever more infested by right-wing hate groups. I cannot see how Misplaced Pages could escape this trend.

On Digwuren I can offer you no new advise. As long as he is a member of the community I will limit my contributions to the minimum. Offliner has far better changes. He is writing under an alias. Once he is burnt out and permabanned, he may hope to return some day under a new alias. I am writing under my own name. My good name is too valuable to be wasted in some vain effort to achieve neutrality.

As for Digwuren's future, I do not see the community banning him anytime soon. He may sooner be confronted by Russia's newest agency. <Removed "friendly piece of advice" misunderstood as a threat. Petri Krohn (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC) > Things said on Misplaced Pages do have effects in the real world. If I am not totally mistaken, Digwuren's edits on Misplaced Pages may have had a small role to play in the creation of the Agency.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That last paragraph is horrifying. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to remove the implied threat there. //roux   07:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I am not surprised to read Petri Krohn threatening Digwuren, Petri has a some what toxic view of Estonians, and Digwuren is in his mind the archetypical Estonian and hence focus of his ire. Krohn was banned for a year by ArbCom for attempting to incite Russian editors against Estonian editors and engaging in some really appalling hate speech, accusing Estonian editors of having Nazi skeletons in their closets. I was concerned about Krohn's return and reported my concerns to WP:AE here. Unfortunately this appalling threat upon Digwuren's physical safety has proved my concerns were justified. --Martintg (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph by Petri Krohn shows, somewhat unexpectedly perhaps (given his more cautious stance after his 1 year ban ended) that this user still lacks the idea that an encyclopedia is a cooperative project which also does not rely on marginal POVs like SAFKA ideology. His physical threats, given his links with pro-Putin orginizations, shows that he is still a user we could do easily without having here. --Miacek (t) 10:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This was taken to AN/I, current thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat_by_User:Petri_Krohn. There is no consensus there, yet, that this was a threat. Disruptive editing here can get you banned. Is that a threat? Actually, it's just a fact. Editing with a strong real-world POV that can arouse hostile actions against a revealed real-world identity is dangerous. Is that a threat or a warning. I'd say it's a warning, one which we all need to be aware of; those who reveal their real-world identity (as I do) should be prepared for possible consequences, and, in fact, we could do nothing to stop those consequences from coming down. Focusing on the last paragraph is missing the point of the comment; whether or not Petri Krohn should have said that or not is a question I'm not going to address, but threat, it is not. I get warnings all the time that, by the logic followed by some here, could be considered threats. I don't take them that way, and don't report them to AN/I!. --Abd (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"<Text deleted Petri Krohn (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC) >"

plus hinting to a Russian Agency. Not a threat? Biophys (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "hinting to a Russian Agency," or at least no evidence of that has been presented. Petri Krohn, above, notes in smalltext that he removed the "threat'" with . He did not remove all mention of the "agency," but he did remove the "advice" part. Now, shouldn't we know about this agency? Any references to it? Is this shooting the messenger? --Abd (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify on what I intended to say in the last paragraph:

Russia's new law may make future contributions similar to those Digwuren has made in the past a criminal offense in Russia. The extrajurisdictional extent of the law criminalizes such actions, even if done outside Russia in any of the former states of the Soviet Union, including the Baltic states formerly “occupied” by the Soviet Union.

Wikimedia servers are in the “free world”, so the law should have no direct influence on Misplaced Pages. Baltic editors should however be aware that their contributions on Misplaced Pages may later be prosecuted, it they ever decide to visit Russia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

this is undoubtedly true, and we might find some way of giving an appropriate general notice, although I doubt any regular editor on these topics is unaware of it. But it is not appropriate to warn individual users with whom one is having a conflict. No matter how phrased, in that context it's an attempt at intimidation. DGG (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't appropriate, and that Petri Krohn should not have posted it as he did, given the history. These conflicts, though, breed all kinds of inappropriate responses by editors.... and the project loses. The solution is not more blocks and bans, but better and more effective intervention by neutral editors and administrators to restrain and channel conflict into useful work. --Abd (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Marcopronto

<transferring to ANI for visibility>

Need help from someone who is also an admin on Commons

Recently, commons:File:Flag of the African Union.svg was deleted as it includes a copyrighted logo, but it ought to be re-uploaded to en.wiki for fair-use in the two articles that link to it (African Union and Flag of the African Union). I've asked for help on Commons to recover the image and re-upload here, but there is no response yet. Thanks in advance for any help here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you still in need of assistance? I'm a commons admin and I reviewed this... I have saved the last deleted version. An upload here probably should include all the history. Let's take this to my talk to consult and decide how to proceed. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

Any admins not busy, please attend to WP:RFPP. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly significant policy change by Arbcom

I'd like to draw attention to a couple of proposed decisions in upcoming Arbcom cases. Taken together, it appears that the standards for considering admins uninvolved appears to be tightening, to a possible unreasonable standard. The primary decisions in question are at Macedonia 2 - Use of administrator tools in a dispute, Involved administrators, and Uninvolved administrators. The combined effect of these proposed statements, along with sentiments expressed in the Scientology case, indicated a trend towards considering any admin who has made a single edited to a topic (not just an article) or come into contact with a user as "involved".

In my opinion, while I recognize the need for avoiding the appearance of bias, this is an unreasonable standard of involvement. Accusations of admins acting out of bias through prior involvement are already rampant; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon (in which it is argued that an admin who issued a warning is now ineligible to enact a block on that user) for a clear example. Tightening the standards of involvement to this level will only increase the wikilawyering that already goes on in these situations. Moreover, in volatile subject areas, such nationalist disputes, which already see little admin attention, this will only serve to reduce the number of active admins by disqualifying them from using their tools. We will also see fewer subject matter experts working in these fields as new admins; we can't expect a new user with expertise to build a wiki-career worthy of adminship without editing their preferred topic.

All in all, I feel that this is a damaging precedent that is in danger of being set. There has to be some room for common sense in considering whether or not an admin is "involved". I invite wider community attention to the issue. // Chris 21:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not set policy; neither have the standards of administrative conduct which it imposes for the purpose of considering desysoppings been substantively altered. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision#Uninvolved_administrators prescribes standards of involvement for the highly limited purpose of future arbitration enforcement related to a specific heated content dispute, and should not extend its purview into other areas or functions. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision#Involved_administrators simply articulates the rather unremarkable proposition that administrative actions which are inappropriate due to involvement in a content dispute do not become appropriate by virtue of the offending administrator immediately posting a request for review. That Mythdon has made a self-serving argument that the issuance of a warning constitutes "involvement" which precludes further administrative action does not imply that the Arbitration Committee, or anyone else with significant influence on Misplaced Pages, accepts this bizarre principle. The standards of "involvement" for the purpose of determing the propriety of administrative acts have remained relatively constant for some time: sysops may not take action

1. against an editor with whom they are currently involved in a direct content dispute
2. against an editor with whom they have been involved in sufficient past content disputes as to impugn their neutrality
3. with respect to subject matter with which they have sufficient current or past editorial involvement as to call their neutrality into question, and in a manner which is likely affect a content dispute (blocking and protection against simple vandalism, BLP violations, etc. is acceptable) Erik9 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We currently have about 4 or 5 different definitions of "involvement" if you sort through policy and active ArbCom findings. Some of the definitions are directly contradictory. This is a problem, since even under the best of circumstances a great deal of wikilawyering tends to accompany this topic. The definitions should be synchronized. MastCell  03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I boldly edited Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Misuse of tools section here in light of both this thread and recent events to conform to what appeared to be the general consensus amongst commenting admins and editors as to what constitutes non-involvement. //roux   07:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom sets policy insofar as they choose when to accept cases, admonish editors or desysop admins based on what may or may not be a parochial interpretation of the rules. They don't literally write the policy, but if the committee take an action based on a standard that the community hasn't agreed upon, that action still stands. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The noose is tightening. One more reason to be glad I'm no longer an admin. :-P Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA

The WP:UAA board is getting quite backlogged today. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No backlog now. :) Cirt (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page BLP violation

Gabagool has made an unsourced and highly controversial claim concerning a living person, Princess Märtha Louise of Norway, on Talk:Norwegian people . Since I am involved in a dispute with this user, it would be inadvisable to redact the offending portion of Gabagool's comment myself. However, I ask that an uninvolved administrator or other editor remove the WP:BLP violation. Erik9 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG.. well I'll censor myself then: "turned into a wackjob (claiming to be able to talk to horses and angels)" -> "made highly controversial actions, such as claiming to be able to talk to horses and angels". Hope you are pleased with yourself at least, acting like a censoring dictator, trying to make nothing into a big deal. User:Gabagool/sig 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, the entire unsourced and potentially defamatory claim concerning Princess Märtha Louise is unacceptable anywhere on Misplaced Pages; mere removal of the most gratuitously derogatory language is an insufficient remedy. Erik9 (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it should be considered at the BLP noticeboard together with the relevant section of the article on her . DGG (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I never tried to edit in any way the biography of the person in question. I don't understand the ultimate goal of what you're trying to do here, the original discussion had nothing to do with that at all. But as I see no point in getting involved with anyone in such pity fights I did censor it away anyways. Again, hope you have reached your goal and are very happy now. User:Gabagool/sig 00:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, I've added a source for the claim ; gratuitously derogatory language concerning living people should be avoided in any case. Erik9 (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gabagool, our policy on biographical data about living persons is applicable across all of Misplaced Pages; that means articles, userspace, article talk pages, everywhere. Unsourced and potentially liable or slanderous statements about living people are categorically not allowed. Indeed, negative information about a living person must be even more impeccably sourced than any other information on Misplaced Pages, due to the project's global reach and the potential for negative and damaging publicity. That is what makes your statements a big deal, whether you see it as 'nothing' or not. It is not 'censorship', it is a recognition that in a venue as public as Misplaced Pages we have a duty to people to not publish unsourced allegations/opinions about them. //roux   03:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Crowfoot vs Bobtail

Hello, The file File:Crowfoot.jpg has been replaced by File:Bobtail.jpg on Commons, but the local en: picture of "Bobtail" (a lizard) is not the one of Commons (a native American). I can't correct the page Buckskin Brigades myself, because the en: picture should be renamed and deleted for that (It would be a good idea to move it to Commons, btw). Could somebody take in charge that transfer-and-delete (I have no admin possibility here) ? Thanks in advance, Micheletb (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Local image moved to Wikimedia Commons, now located at commons:File:2008 Tiliqua rugosa.jpg.
2. Fixed pages that previously used local version of File:Bobtail.jpg, to instead point to commons:File:2008 Tiliqua rugosa.jpg.
3. Prior local version of File:Bobtail.jpg deleted, the Wikimedia Commons version, commons:File:Bobtail.jpg, should now show through instead.

Should be all done here now. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Space Shuttle

Somebody removed this from current events: this edit. I think that was uncivil.--Chuck Marean 07:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Shuttle's not landing today, it was delayed until tomorrow. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject banner policies

So what is the policy on WikiProject banners when someone tags an article that is within the scope of the project, but others keep removing the banner? I'm asking because I tagged Greek battleship Kilkis with the {{WikiProject Mississippi}} banner, and it's been removed twice now. The battleship used to be the USS Mississippi (BB-23), named after the state of Mississippi, before it was sold to Greece in 1914. I mean, if a project feels an article is within their scope, can people just freely edit war over it and keep it out?? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 09:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The project is presumably about the state of Mississippi, not about other things named Mississippi. I don't see how the article could be improved by knowledge of the state. --NE2 10:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The project is about all things Mississippi, especially a battleship of the United States Navy named after the state before it was sold to another country. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 10:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning to tag Lake Itasca? --NE2 10:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not. It's not in Mississippi nor does it have anything to do with Mississippi's history. The Mississippi River is of course tagged. As it says in the project banner itself, WikiProject Mississippi (talk), an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of the U.S. State of Mississippi and related subjects in the Misplaced Pages. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 10:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagging the ship for the WikiProject seems a bit of a tenuous connection, IMHO. Should the space shuttle Enterprise be tagged with the Star Trek WikiProject? It's about the same. //roux   10:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And then you, NE2, go and seriously remove it from USS Mississippi (BB-23) too?? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 10:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The ships were named for the state, to honor the state.. that is certainly within the project's scope. Anyway, I'm not asking for opinions, I was asking for policy. If there's no policy in regards to this, they should be restored. I just don't see how people haven't had anything to do with a project, can decide something isn't within the project's scope. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 10:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The USS Mississippi doesn't have anything to do with Mississippi's history either. It just shares a name. How about Florida Avenue (Washington, D.C.), which was named after the state? Should that be tagged for WikiProject Florida? --NE2 10:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If the project decides for some reason it's within the scope, and barring any policy against it, then by all means they should be able to tag it. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 10:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"The project" is not an entity that can make decisions; it's simply a group of editors with no more power than others. --NE2 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How does the WikiProject Mississippi plan to improve Greek battleship Kilkis? --Conti|✉ 10:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any project has a "plan" when they first tag an article within their scope. Someone from Mississippi that knows the history of the ship since its transfer to Greece could come across the article, see the tag, know of some awesome sources and images to expand the article and there you go. But that shouldn't even be a question. If the project never touches the article again, it's still within the scope of the project. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 10:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone not from Mississippi has just as much of a chance of doing that. --NE2 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So that means you should discount someone that is? That means you should removed the project's tag? I think not. Anyway, back to my question.. where is the policy? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 10:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So it's tagging for tagging's sake? You know what, you're right. There really needs to be a policy or guideline to prevent something like this from happening. "Article's talk pages should only be tagged with a WikiProject banner when the subject of the article is directly related to the topic of the WikiProject", or something like that. --Conti|✉ 10:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "tagging for tagging's sake". It's organization. In this case, an article that obviously is related to Mississippi, has been tagged with the project's banner. The project feels the article is within its scope. So who is anyone else that hasn't had anything to do with the project, to decide "no, sorry, not gonna happen"? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 11:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the craziest edit-wars I have ever seen. The purpose of the banner is not to stake out territory but to enable organisation. I personally think it is absurd to add the banner, but it is just as pointless to edit-war to get rid of it. ] 10:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Enable organization.. exactly. And as it's related to Mississippi, it's tagged. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 11:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't get the impression I was agreeing with you. ] 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, just nevermind. I'm not going to get worked up over something so painfully obvious. The ship is named after the state to honor the state, which makes it related and within the project's scope. There's no policy dictating Six degrees of separation. I'm going to bed now. Have a great day everyone. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think the banner should be there, it seems a very vague connection. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, but I also tend to agree with what Allstar is trying to achieve and what he says in one of his comments above, that is, all it takes is one editor to find the article through the Wikiproject, have a book or knowledge on the subject of the article, and you've a good chance of taking something from B grade to GA status. I know that in the UK, the Royal Navy have ships such as HMS Montrose which is associated with the town after which it takes its name, and visits are a fairly regular event to strengthen links between the Navy and the locals, so there's a not altogether tenuous connection, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone in Montrose kept a history of HMS Montrose, or even some newspaper cuttings about the visits which could provide a source of information for an article. Nick (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good point, but how do you find articles through WikiProject banners? When you see a banner, you already know about the article that uses that banner, after all. Or do you honestly think that someone is going through Category:Low-importance Mississippi articles, looking for articles to improve? --Conti|✉ 19:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PERM/R

Just a quick note, PirateSmackK's request has been standing for an ounce over two days – apparently a longer wait than usual. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 13:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Commented there. –xeno 13:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fairly new account closing RFAs and AFDs

When did new accounts start closing Requests for adminship? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And Afd's on the very same day they were started? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There's probably no minimum time or edit count set to perform these actions, however, if one is snowing an RFA please ensure to follow the steps here: User:Enigmaman/SNOW, and NAC'ing AFDs, please ensure to place the {{oldafdfull}} template on the talk page of the article. –xeno 14:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the AFD closure, it hasn't even been open 24 hours yet. –xeno 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The RfA is/was scheduled to end May 29. I don't think practically new users should be closing RfAs. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 15:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And apparently there's been other issues with this user. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 15:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This user is likely a sock -- not problematic in itself, but the account (first edit May 10) seems to be getting used mainly to make deletion votes in AFDs and (recently) oppose votes in RFAs. Still, I agree that a brand new account shouldn't be closing RFAs. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the instructions Arma virumque cano (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not go accusing people of socks here. I also have concerns about inexperienced users closing RfA's, but if they pick it up quick and do it right, like this user did, I assume it's no big deal. However, I have a large problem with new inexperienced users closing controversial RfAs, as they have very little experience judging consensus.  iMatthew :  Chat  15:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, there are legitimate uses for sock puppet accounts. This user's knowledge of the workings of Misplaced Pages suggest they have longer experience here than their contribution history indicates. But as I also said, I agree that new accounts, socks or not, closing RFAs is potentially problematic. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So was closing Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Harish89 per WP:NOTNOW appropriate? It seems quite abrupt, and uncalled for. In addition, the user Arma virumque cano doesn't appear to be in good standing as suggested by WP:NOTNOW.Smallman12q (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What does "in good standing" mean, exactly? Is it actually laid out anywhere? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It means he's a consistent vandal, hes vandalized my userpage twice, put a fake banned user template on it, and deleted large blocks of sourced text indiscriminately with "I'm not a crook" as his edit summary, hes repeated the same "not a crook" nonsense in user/talk page vandalism. Him having knowledge of the workings of wikipedia is not a good thing if his only purposes for using them are disruption. Nar Matteru (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what s/he's done. I'm asking if it's actually laid out anywhere what "in good standing" means. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it doesn't mean repeated vandal. But I can't find that in policy, just from common sense. Nar Matteru (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTNOW is (or last time I looked) discouraged for users with such a length of service to Misplaced Pages (talking about the candidate, not the closer). It would be better to suggest they withdraw rather than closing it. I'm not going to revert the closure, but others, or the candidate, may feel free. –xeno 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want to let the candidate know. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really wanting to defend Arma virumque cano but I did notice the AfD closure and was aware of the prior discussions on AN and still didn't see anything wrong with the closure, it was appropriate. I had more of a problem with one an administrator did the other day. Drawn Some (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reopened the RFA as per xeno's recomendation and because User:Arma virumque cano does not appear to be in good standing.Smallman12q (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that it? No measures, no warning? These actions were ridiculous, esp. for someone whose most notable contributions are the reiteration of "I'm not a crook." I criticized User:Eugene Krabs a little while ago for slapping a vandal-4 warning on Arma for one of those crook-comments, but now I'm wondering if Eugene didn't intuit that we are dealing with a disruptive user here, a user who needs to be watched. What moves one to start closing down RfA and AfD debates? Good faith? I doubt that. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone think that User:Cosmomancer is a sock of this user? He's doing the same thing (new account voting in AFDs, mainly), quite often within a few seconds of this account. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 17:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

that account seems to have made actual article contributions to a single article in Oct 2008, and resurfaced for the apparent purpose of tagging articles and voting in AfDs. Perhaps he's the sockmaster, or more likely they are both socks of someone else. DGG (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Until now, Arma virumque cano has had the appearance of a sockpuppet (too knowledgeable about procedure for such a new user) but one whose actions seemed mostly legitimate; his biggest problem seemed to be good hand, bad hand issues (using the sock to cast consistent pro-forma delete comments on AfDs). And the snow closure of the AfD, while probably best left to an admin, looks legit to me. But if Cosmomancer and Arma might be the same person, that's a much bigger problem, since they have both commented on the same AfDs (especially Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Digital Command System). Worth looking into by a checkuser, perhaps? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing and just opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cosmomancer --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

...Which found that the two are unrelated. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cosmomancer was a sock of User:McWomble. (blocks noted on the SPI page). Arma virumque cano was unrelated, and doesn't share an IP with any other users at this time. --Versageek 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I throw the wild idea out here of an editing restriction to the mainspace (ie. articles) on this account? Constant oppose-!voting on RfAs, delete-!voting on AfDs, being so obviously a sockpuppet but in denial, absurd early closure of RfBs, ludicrous repetition of "not a crook im not a crook" and a general tendentious style, are not conducive to anything here. I suggest that we put them on mainspace only for a couple of weeks, and see if they manage to do anything constructive — we are, after all, here to produce an encyclopedia. If they do, we can reconsider, and if they don't, they can be blocked as having no competence in either article writing or the processes. They certainly show no process competence now. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 22:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, albeit unusual, to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure limiting his disruptions to the part of the project most visible to the visiting public is the best idea. Then again, him screwing up in a more public fashion would be the quickest way to his removal. Nar Matteru (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Just so everyone knows, he has now created Misplaced Pages:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet and liked to it from WP:Sock puppetry. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And created redirect WP:PARANOID to it. lmao - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Straight to RfD it goes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And I noticed that the article has quickly followed to MfD. — Ched :  ?  06:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we actually either block him, or restrict him from Misplaced Pages-space now? He's just causing so much hassle for us all, and doing absolutely nothing constructive... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked the account giving the following reasoning: "I have blocked this account. It is impossibly clear that this is not your first account, and you have been nothing but disruptive since you got here. If you would like to 1. improve your behaviour and 2. come clean about any other accounts you may have used in the past then I will unblock. But until then...". Now I am usually very lenient on newbies but this one does not appear to be here for the right reasons (or appear to be a newbie at all). That said if someone feels they can talk some sense into him then go ahead and unblock. Viridae 07:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support > this'll probably clear up a big headache for us all. Well done! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - this 'new' user is now disrupting stuff all over the place. I smell something fishy. KrakatoaKatie 09:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons given above and per WP:DUCK Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose While the closing of AfDs / RfAs should probably be something the user is dissuaded from it is hardly a blockable offense unless he does so in a disruptive or pointy manner, from what I can see this does not seem the case,although of course the new 7 day guideline should be observed. I don't see what it is exactly he is being blocked for, and if it is the case that he is a new user then the terms of his unblocking are impossible to meet. The bad hand / good hand theory was shown to be incorrect, what has he done wrong? Lets not disallow us the opportunity to discover a platypus. Unomi (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support sockpuppet or not, account was made with the sole purpose of disruption and ill intent, I see no reason to hold this guys hand Nar Matteru (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support his pattern fits into the general principle of disruptive editing even if no one act was particularly offensive. His actions have served no purpose but to waste the time of others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Clearly a reincarnation of another user, we should not be having to spend our time dealing with this. Majorly talk 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd say give editor a second chance. If it continues, block. hmwithτ 15:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Well, if you've left an avenue of communication open (his/her talk page), let's see where it goes from here before we jump on any "indef" or "ban" topics. — Ched :  ?  15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and update of LTA page

Would anyone object to my going through and updating the long term abuse page? A lot of those vandals have basically gone away and there are a couple of new fools I think should be added. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, do it!!! Be bold!!! etc Arma virumque cano (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Cicely of Sicily

This user has shown some rather unfortunate editing decisions for being so new. Having already been warned for this profane edit, this attack-y edit and this homophobic edit, the user made this indirect attack at a RFD discussion. Their edits are also of questionable value, including a new redirect of WP:LULZ to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and in general, clearly does not seem to be here to edit in good faith. I don't know if a block is required yet, but I would at least like to know what should be done with this editor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not create WP:LULZ; I was nominating it for discussion.--Cicely of Sicily (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Even so, your edits are very highly questionable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, that edit was not homophobic. I am not a homophobe; I respect the rights of gay people to do what they like in their own personal lives - nothing to do with me; it doesn't bother me, it's a personal choice. I was merely adding a fact about a person who is homophobic. There's a difference.--Cicely of Sicily (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Another thing. That's not an attack. It's just a reality check. Misplaced Pages may be fun, but I see people who are addicted to it, and I see some cult-like aspects of it. Misplaced Pages's not all bad, but it doesn't really have any kind of check for people who are addicted to it. It's like World of Warcraft. People get really addicted. And editing Misplaced Pages all day may well increase your knowledge of random facts, but it is not going to get you a job, get you laid, get you a social life, get you popular, get you well known for your work.

And if you block me for this, you are insulting my mother who says these things to me who is terminally ill with cancer.--Cicely of Sicily (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely for trolling, vandalism and personal attacks. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

After completing this Deskana pinged me with information that he is also NavyDrinker (talk · contribs). Just fyi. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IP 66.31.71.110

It looks like 66.31.71.110 has been adding pieces of excessive/incorrect information for an extended period. The user's been notified a couple times already, a few months ago. There's a fair number of articles that need to be checked. Sorry if this is the wrong spot. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing wikipedia email

Hi. I have tried contacting an admin by email but the Misplaced Pages email system does not currently seem to be working so I will bring this matter to the attention of an admin here. Earlier today, I received a rather disturbing email from User:Suit through the Misplaced Pages email system. As advised on Misplaced Pages:E-mailing users, I will avoid posting the email on here but I will be happy to forward the email to an admin, if necessary. Thanks. Tbo (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it's a troll, so I don't mind posting the e-mail:

You wanna know how I got these scars? My father was a drinker and a fiend. And one night, he goes off craaazier than usual. Mommy gets the kitchen knife to defend herself. He doesn’t like that. Not. One. Bit.

So, me watching, he takes the knife to her, laughing while he does it. He turns to me, and he says, “Why so serious?” He comes at me with the knife: “Why so serious?” Sticks the blade in my mouth: “Let’s put a smile on that face.” Aaand…why so serious? – The Joker

seicer | talk | contribs 11:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also see contributions by Fire Truck on Fire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Someone trying to start a trolling meme ? Abecedare (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I received the exact same e-mail from User:Afghana. Landon1980 (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Suit for 2 days. But should it go indefinate? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd have said so, we don't want people sending those sorts of emails, here. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd have indeffed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK now I have made indef. What about Afghana? How can we see the evidence? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon1980's post can be taken in good faith. I've blocked Afghana indef and am watching the user talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In a previous thread I read that this is Jarlaxle, any idea if this is true? Because if it is, he is really running out of ways to cause trouble. Gotta love the abuse filter--Jac16888 13:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am putting in a checkuser request to see if there is a connection, and if there are more. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I can forward the e-mail to anyone that would like to see it, just ask. Landon1980 (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

JCutter

User:JCutter, known also as User:7, has sent me an e-mail asking me to block as many constructive users as possible by midnight. He threatened he hack into Misplaced Pages and desysop me and as well as any other administrators, should we not comply with his request or attempt to block him. I can forward this e-mail to anyone who is interested, but WP:EMAIL prohibits me from actually posting the content of the e-mail here. I can't judge how serious this threat is and whether he really has the means to follow through on this. For now I am blocking both JCutter and 7. I have to go now and won't be home all evening, so I hope someone else will deal with this.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually User:Chris G already appears to have blocked User:JCutter.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just for the record: I've unblocked User:7, since apparently User:7 is a good-faith editor, who's former account is being exploited by a vandal, per the discussion on the incidents page.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Innactive "accountcreator" users

The following users currently have the accountcreator right but wither do not have an ACC account or was suspended due to inactivity (or other reasons) . Can an admin please remove the accountcreator flag accordingly.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User - Admin alt
• User:Promethean/User - Admin alt
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User - Admin alt
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User - Granted this year
• User:Promethean/User
• User:Promethean/User - Granted this year
• User:Promethean/User - Admin alt
• User:Promethean/User - Admin alt
• User:Promethean/User - Legitimate reason to not have an ACC account

I'll deal with it. ~fl 11:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

All  Done except those with comments above. Those that were grated accountcreator this year should be checked to ensure that they don't just have a ACC/onwiki username disparity, as I have had on occasion. ~fl 11:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Docu

I'd like to complain about some of the recent AfD closures this administrator has made on discussions involving bilateral relations. First, Docu is clearly biased in favour of keeping such articles. See for instance here, where, after I voted in very reasoned fashion, he dismissed my comment as irrelevant, implying I only participate in this sort of discussion, which was obviously false (I pointed out I'd recently written 4 articles). Second, let's review some of the closes he's made. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Finland relations: 6 delete, 4 keep, closed as keep. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations: 10 keep, 7 delete, closed as keep. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Malta–Slovakia relations: 6 keep, 4 delete, closed as keep. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Malaysia relations: 8 keep, 6 delete, closed as keep. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations: 7 delete, 5 keep, closed as keep. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Belarus–Croatia relations: 4 keep, 4 delete, closed as keep. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations: 5 delete, 1 keep, closed as keep, plus direct involvement by Docu here.

Most of these should at least have closed as no consensus if not delete, especially considering that many of the participants were essentially canvassed through the Article Rescue Squadron and brought little to the discussion. Moreover, the arguments for deletion were often quite compelling. Regardless, it seems apparent Docu's impartiality in this area cannot be trusted. - Biruitorul 15:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than the last one, all of these were within normal discretionary ranges - AGF, perhaps the last one was an error. I suggest you take that one up with Docu directly and if needed send it to deletion review. The other could have been closed as no census, but it would have the same effect. I also suggest you drop your claims of canvassing unless you have some actual evidence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, you may want to consider your own bias before accusing others of bias. You have !voted delete on dozens (hundreds?) of these things, so I hardly think you are justified to judge strength of argument/consensus without any bias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I know the practical effect of "no consensus" is the same, but still, most of these should have closed as such, as long as we're to have that option. Also, I did not say outright that anyone was canvassed, only that ARS had the effect of canvassing them, which is hardly an allegation I alone have made. Finally, aside from the fact that I've also voted to keep a few of these, your last point is a straw man: I've never closed a single one of these debates, while Docu has. And given both his bias and his participation on the "keep" side of debates he hasn't closed, a recusal may be in order. And yes, I certainly am qualified to judge whether a consensus has developed, both by looking at the arguments (far more cogent on the "delete" side) and simply the raw numbers.

Let's not shift the debate here. The point is that Docu strongly favours keeping this set of articles, and his closes as "keep" where that was evidently not the consensus of participants raises serious questions abut impartiality. - Biruitorul 18:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Puebla F.C.

Admin help please!

Puebla F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can't remember how I came across this article, but a fellow editor was having to revert IP edits that weren't verifiable, and could have been OR. They were also "unencyclopedic" - descriptions of matches and suchlike (is there a guideline on that?!). The edits seem to be in good faith, but I have repeatedly had to undo as they're not appropriate. I tried to engage the IP editor on their talk page - User_talk:76.235.130.49 and on the article talk page, but to no avail. There's now a slightly different IP making the same changes. I'm bored of trying to engage debate because they're clearly just insistent on inserting their "info". Someone tell me I'm wrong or take whatever measures are required to "fix" this, as I'm bored of it. I'd prefer it if they vandalised my userpage or something instead of just robotically making the same edits every few days!! Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

UAA is quite backlogged right now, with nineteen active reports. Help clearing this would be appreciated. Thanks, --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 17:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done – backlog cleared for the most part. –Juliancolton |  17:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 17:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards