Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:13, 4 January 2010

• 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)

Template:Active editnotice

Misplaced Pages logo use ?

I noticed that File:Misplaced Pages-logo.png and its derivatives (such as File:Wikisanta.jpg) are used in several user and article talk pages. As far as I know, these images are copyrighted and such use violates WP:NFCC, but am asking here in case there is some special provision with regards to this logo that I am not aware of. Abecedare (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The copyright notice is a bit confusing. It only seems to state that the use of the Wikimedia logo specifically (the red-gree-blue one with the circles) is subject to the usage guideline, however I can find nowhere where there is a clear restriction on the use of the "Puzzleball" logo. Indeed, as the logo is hosted at commons, that would imply that it has been liscenced under CC-BY-SA, because as far as I am aware, all submissions to commons are so liscenced. --Jayron32 21:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons' hosts all wikimedia logos, so I don't think that is an argument for the logos being CC-BY-SA. Obviously, an exception is being made for wikimedia owned logos (justifiably), and I am wondering if that exception extends to NFCC not being applied to them. Abecedare (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What we need here is clear guidance from The Foundation over this. Is there any policy page or other page that makes unambiguous discussion over the proper usage of the Puzzleball Logo? Because if there is, and the usages you cite above are in violation of it, it would be a hu-jung-ous problem, given the way in which the logo is used all over Misplaced Pages in all sorts of namespaces. I am not saying there is such a problem, but if there is, its a can-of-worms we may not be prepared to deal with if we open it... --Jayron32 21:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it must be allowed. What about all those logos saying someone has rollback rights etc? And what about the admin mop? --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Uh oh. I have a puzzleball logo on a large sticker sitting on my desk (stole it from a WikiMedia employee). Will I be getting meatballed soon? tedder (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Godwin was asked by Zscout about this some time ago and his response I believe was that the WMF does not object to the reuse as described above. MBisanz 22:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, MBisanz. If WMF is fine with such use, I guess we don't have to worry about it either. It would be good to document this somewhere on-wiki though, since I am unlikely to be the first or the last to raise the question. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably worth emailing him at mgodwin wikimedia.org and asking if he could make a statement onwiki. MBisanz 07:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Mike's on vacation. I can't speak to this with any kind of authority, but I would suggest that I think trademark rather than copyright is the relevant concern. Hopefully Mike can provide some wisdom about how it's applied in cases like this, though. (In the meantime -- could somebody link to a couple of examples of what the concern is about?) -Pete Forsyth (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed several times before without clear consensus emerging; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive142#WMF Logos (that debate includes a long and rather nuanced e-mail from Mike). The problem is that there are two separate issues; whether the WMF has given permission for broad use, which is obviously a foundation issue, and whether there is a principle behind the NFCC that should be followed as a general rule, which is a community issue. To me, the two are best kept separate; these debates tend to get derailed because the WMF policy is taken to somehow trump community policy, which makes no sense; if Mike Godwin said he had no legal objection against our making a raccoon an admin, that wouldn't prevent us from deciding, independently, that it wouldn't be a good idea. Chick Bowen 20:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is a useless comment to keep this thread from disappearing before Mike is back in the office (assuming Monday). tedder (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change discretionary sanctions proposal

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-dated comment to stop Miszabot archiving this prematurely. --TS 14:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Block of User:Saldezza

As this user was blocked while edit warring with several editors including an admin, FisherQueen, who subsequently blocked him or her, I've asked FisherQueen if she'd submit the block to review. She has agreed. Please examine the following histories and make useful comments on User talk:FisherQueen.

• Caroline Lucas‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FisherQueen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Saldezza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--TS 20:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dealt with. Unblock reviewed and declined. This is a clear BLP violation, as arguably is this, as well as being possibly deliberate vandalism. FQ was well within her rights to act as she did, but lest anyone quibble, I have reblocked myself, leaving the block at the same duration. Moreschi (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for dealing with this. --TS 22:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've altered the block to disallow e-mail, as he is apparently using it to continue to attack FisherQueen. He can still use his talk page to contest the block. Kuru (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Saldezza followup issue

Tony has raised an issue with this editor on my talk page which I think needs some wider attention:

Hi Saldezza. A certain User:Nothughthomas who appeared on Misplaced Pages at about the same time as you did, and who shares some of your opinions and editing areas was blocked for 24 hours from 22:05, 29 December 2009 , and at 23:18 you requested an unblock despite no block having been placed on your username. Is it possible that you share an IP address with this user or are using Nothughthomas as an alternative account?

I'm uncertain whether the two editors are the same person. Nonetheless the evidence that Tony has noted is suggestive of something not being quite right here. Should I submit this for a sockpuppet investigation? It's not impossible that we're looking at two individuals in the same household or organisation using a single IP address, which raises the possibility of meatpuppetry. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Both these users show typical behavior patterns of experienced users creating new accounts, too - very active and very well informed of Misplaced Pages policies and tactics from their very first edits. Bertport (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it may well be a false positive. Saldezza does seem to be a little disoriented and unsure of how things work. She is new and one has to make allowances for that. Sure, she has been editing tendentiously and edit warring, but I would put her unblock request down to unfamiliarity with the way Mediawiki works. --TS 05:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a possible explanation for the pattern you noted: shared accounts, i.e. the owner of the Nothughthomas account mistakenly logging into the Saldezza account (or forgetting to log into the Nothugthomas account) to post an unblock request. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well both have been blocked recently for edit warring involving some very strange behavior, so maybe it wouldn't be so crazy to run a checkuser, given the other similarities I noted above. --TS 05:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It can't hurt. I've submitted a request at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nothughthomas. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated, apparently. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef Blocking of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia without 3RR or Warning?

2over0 recently indef blocked two users, Rameses and Brittainia without warning. Neither of them had a 3RR warning in the past year. They were accused of being sockpuppets and checkusered in the past without any due procedure by Raul654. They explained they were a husband and wife and have not been editing any of the same articles recently. Rameses has been an editor since July 2004. Do you believe this indef blocking without warning is fair? - 59.164.204.229 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not blocked from editing your User talk:Rameses and User talk:Brittainia pages, so you are free to request an unblock there. For further details on requesting an unblock see WP:GAB. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds ridiculous to me. Let me guess, they edited global warming articles, got annoyed with having their constantly comments erased/altered and then got 3rred over it? 2over2 also felt the need to collapse some of my better arguments in the IPCC talk page. He seems really invested in those pages and I don't need the hassle of writing counter-arguments if some admin is going to basically erase them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI for those involved. I had requested at SPI that this be independently confirmed, but the accounts admitted being associated with the same IP address so the request was denied. --GoRight (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris weren't you were involved in the discussions that led to this indef blocking? (See: User talk:2over0/Archive 3#Block of Brittainia, User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris#Brittainia/Rameses, and User talk:2over0/Archive 3#Canvassing). GoodLocust, your first guess is correct. Brittainia was trying to return the sentence "Some scientists dispute the consensus view." which had been deleted from the lead of the Global Warming article without discussion. This is what led to this indef blocking.. Brittainia had also started a new section in GW Talk . This was immediately deleted by William M. Connolley. Brittainia undid WMC's revert and then the talk started on the above pages to indef block both Brittainia and Rameses. Within a few hours three "warnings" were posted on Brittainia's page and then without giving her any chance to comply, she and Rameses were both indef blocked. Interestingly enough, within a few hours of her indef blocking her new section was rapidly hidden from view from the GW Talk page by KimDabelsteinPetersen who "archived" this new section and then it was "binned" (a very unusual step) a few hours later, so that it was completely eliminated from the GW talk page within hours of her blocking. All of this occurred within a period of under 12 hours - is this the way old editors (from July 2004) are supposed to be banished from Misplaced Pages? - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Users who are militant opposers of the concept anthropogenic global warming, as well as those who have an extreme emotional attachment to any concept, be it scientific or political, have always been dealt with in this way, particularly if they have been connected to each other such as sharing the same IP address and not editing at the same time of day. If Rameses (talk · contribs) and Brittainia (talk · contribs) are in fact different individuals who share the same internet protocol address, then there is perhaps a good reason to block the accounts, as they may be the same individual (sockpuppets) or two similarly minded individuals working with each other (meatpuppets). Both are forbidden from use on Misplaced Pages, except under certain legitimate uses. Certainly in this case, these two accounts were not being used in conjunction with each other for legitimate purposes and they were blocked. If this is not the case, the users in question are free to request an unblock through the proper channels, which is certainly not making a thread to complain about the blocking administrator while logged out and using their incredibly visible IP address. Considering Brittainia only has 45 mainspace edits and Rameses only has 237 over the course of their ~5 year history on the project, I cannot determine whether or not anything of value was lost.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to return the sentence "Some scientists dispute the consensus view." which had been deleted from the lead of the Global Warming article without any discussion is militant? The edits were not even on the same pages. Many families have only one computer at home linked to the internet. Does Misplaced Pages believe all couples are "meatpuppets" and should be banned? Couples generally have similar views after a few decades of marriage. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If this couple edits Misplaced Pages in a way that primarily advocates their view, be it majority or minority, on a subject, then they act as meatpuppets of one another and should be blocked. However, as it has been proven in the past, it is highly unlikely that these two people only have one computer and they allow one another to log in, make a statement, log out, and then the other to log in to make another statement. Over all, it sounds highly inefficient both as a method to contribute to the project and as a method to advocate one's or their views.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Since they are not editing the same pages, the only reason to do so is that there is only one computer in the house connected to the internet. This is not that unusual around the world - not everyone is rich enough to have many computers and internet connections. Your allegation that they edit primarily to advocate their view seems to conflict strongly with your earlier point that Brittainia only has 45 mainspace edits over 5 years? Is this your idea of militant advocacy? - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Both have edited Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). And both have edited Climate of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and within an hour of each other on its talk page. Same goes for Talk:Extraterrestrial atmospheres (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). And both seem to have similar writing styles, much like the title of the thread on this board. Such a case would be discussed as such in the proper channels for requesting an unblock, none of which is logging out and making a thread on the administrators' noticeboard as his, her, or their IP address. And that is merely the count to the mainspace. I have not counted the talk page, Misplaced Pages page, Misplaced Pages talk page, or user talk page edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously going back 3 years? This was before they were asked not to edit the same pages. Try checking in the past year. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have looked throughout their editing histories, yes, because Brittainia's is not as extensive and there can only be crossover prior to being asked not to edit the same pages. Now drop the charade already and admit that you are Rameses and/or Brittainia so I can stop telling you to stop asking things on this page and go to your talk page(s) to request an unblock through the proper channels.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no charade and no cause for foul language (it is foul even if you delete it later ). I have never said I am not Rameses and I have openly posted my IP address with every post. I am not requesting an unblock but a review of an Admin's actions. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is inherently a request to unblock both the Rameses and Brittainia accounts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A review of an Admin's actions would be a review to see if the Admin acted properly, in a reasonable and fair manner according to Misplaced Pages's rules. If the review finds they didn't, then the proper follow up steps should occur. I don't see why you object - do you feel that all Admin's actions should be above review? - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) If they want to be unblocked, it would seem to me that they can use the {{unblock}} templates and various other unblock request venues like everyone else. I should note that if an editor is editing while blocked, it isn't going to help their case—even if they think the block unjust. --slakr 11:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not editing any articles - simply requesting a review of an Admin's actions here. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rameses and Brittainia can talk on their own behalf through their own accounts rather than suggest that their blocks were improper through logged out edits. Editing while blocked does not help ever.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I request the review of this Admin's actions on my own talkpage? I can't see that being very productive. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly bring more neutral eyes to it rather than blatantly socking to get your point across.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked 59.164.204.192 for editing while blocked. If he continues, I would suggest a block on 59.164.204.0/24 +AO,+ACB. For the users blocked, I would highly suggest that if you feel you were blocked wrongly, please use the talk page of the primary account that's blocked to make the dispute. For more information as well as alternative venues for disputing blocks, please see the general unblock request instructions either on the block notification screen or in via the blocking policy. --slakr 14:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a buzzkill, but "resolved" doesn't seem appropriate. The forked and inverted ANI against the blocked users is "resolved", but the actual topic of the discussion is not at all, or even discussed. The blocks becoming "more rationalized" from more recent events doesn't make that all disappear. Naturally, the normal unblocking methods are available, but I can't even completely fault stepping over that in this case given the potentially dubious situation behind the first block, and there have been cases of precisely this kind of multi-tiered blocking abused by admins in the past. If I had gone from no warnings to blocked and in the middle of other filings out of nowhere because the issuing admin was a name I might have recognized as involved, I can picture panicking to here to have something said before being completely unable to edit.

Users can't be preemptively blocked pending the unknown outcome of things... blocks without warning on established users are even more rare. That needs to be explained. There areat least some fair points whatever your angle but I can't in any way see how forcing people to come to an IP's talk page for this kind of discussion would bring "more neutral eyes". I don't care who is whom and I'm not going to research it past the histories, but this is all just common sense used (or ignored). imo, best off put back into ANI as a new entry actually on the topic mentioned. Being off in a corner of Misplaced Pages as is suggested is essentially restricting it to all but eyes directly looking for it in the first place. Far from neutral. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Datheisen, this long post doesn't seem helpful. The IP posted both here and on WP:ANI to appeal both blocks. Nobody has suggested discussing things on the IP's talk page. Perhaps the best thing is for this discussion to be archived. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change for Template:Unblock reviewed

See the code at Testwiki:User:Daedalus969/Unblock reviewed. I've added the parameters review, reviewed, and declined, for those admins out there who make the mistake of using parameters other than decline. Since the template is fully protected, I'm requesting for the change to be made.. at least after consensus is gained here. Another admin approved of the change, but suggested that I post it here first.— DædαlusI've deleted the timestamp so that this can get the attention it needs.— Dædαlus

ITN

Would somebody please update Template:In the News with this item (blurb provided) which has consensus and has been updated at WP:ITN/C. I'm willing to notify editors etc, but editing the template requires admin rights. HJMitchell You rang?

Compromised admin account

On encyclopediadramatica.com/Abuse_Filter#Evading_the_filters, there is a link to a page which cannot normally be viewed by a regular user, "Filter 72", and a statement that it came from "a long time inactive sysop account". I am posting here to alert Misplaced Pages administrators to this potential sleeper account if they are not aware already. I assume the compromised account is not taking any actions that would reveal its identity, but only spying on pages that cannot normally be viewed by everyday users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.2.65 (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know very well that this may be frowned upon. But I would just like to wish all of thoses who participate here and keep this ANI up and running a happy new year. Long live the wiki! (Its been 9 years, right?)--Coldplay Expért 00:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year! JB50000 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year! :D Ale_Jrb 01:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Coldplay, I hope the wiki lasts as long as the year too. >.> /proofreader whining --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 01:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Frown. What keeps this ANI running are editors who make problems for other editors. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? If Coldplay minds, he can tell me. I'm not trying to cause a problem with a simple joke. I even mocked myself with the "whining" thing. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 01:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Coldplay, with that edit summary I'm tempted to nominate you for sysoops. ;) --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 01:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? (is confused) Was it funny or something? I messed up.--Coldplay Expért 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

While correcting your first typo, you misspelt "oops" in the edit summary. XD --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 02:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. And I had my hopes up too :( (Im not really sad. I would never pass an RFA right now. Who am I kidding)--Coldplay Expért 02:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck everyone and let's have another great year fighting vandals, settling disputes, and keeping the spirit of this project alive! Happy New Year! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Support

1. Strong Support per creater of this section.--Coldplay Expért 03:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Why not? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Support! JB50000 (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Support per WP:2010ISGOINGTOBEAGREATYEARWHICHISBETTERTHAN2009BUTTHEREAREONLY2.5YEARSUNTIL2012THEENDOFTHEWORLD. December21st2012Freak at ≈ 04:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well aren't you just full of happy thoughts. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Not to mention it's more like 2.97, since it is a few days before Christmas. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Did you mean a few days after Christmas? December21st2012Freak at ≈ 05:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

5. FASTILY 05:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Overriding Support — The Cabal demands it. Askari Mark (Talk) 06:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Support - yay 2010! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Proposal only is "Happy New Year", support a "Very Happy New Year to everyone!" JB50000 (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT#SOAP, and WP:IAMAGRUMPYOLDCODGERWHORESENTSALLTHESEKIDSGOINGOUTANDPARTYINGWHILEIHAVETOSTAYHOMEANDBESIDESITSONLY6DEGREESABOVEZEROOUTHEREONTHEGODFORSAKENFROZENPLAINS. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Oh come on, that's a horrible reason to oppose since not all of us kids go out and party. I'm a teenager who is spending his night editing this site. Not all of us youth are out there wreaking havoc around town. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   6 above freezing. Lucky must be your summer! Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Is culturally insensitive to the Chinese New Year adherents. MBisanz 04:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Less that 1/4th of the world celebrates new year on Jan 1st. I propose we stablish a New Wiki-year Day we can all agree to celebrate. > RUL3R_>vandalism 09:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

April 3, My birthday :D--Coldplay Expért 13:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose Too many New Year's already. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

• Strong abstain Brilliantine (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. Just 'cos I can! Happy new year to all! Long Live the Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 03:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment How dare you vote neutral! (And is this supposed to be like an RFA. I have'nt viewed the candidate's edits yet :D)--Coldplay Expért 04:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Abstain until I can honestly say "May the New Year be even better" rather than "May the New Year suck less". PhGustaf (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Grinch

• I realize there's not a proper forum for off topic chatter, but how does this in any way require admin intervention? Doesn't this board see enough traffic as it is? --Onorem♠Dil 04:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Quick, someone start a revert war on January 1st! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Here Here.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

True. But Im sure that you'll have less trafic for the time being. Its almost midnight in the US after all.--Coldplay Expért 04:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

@Coldplay, actually it is almost 9:00 PM where I live, and I live in the USA. December21st2012Freak at ≈ December21st2012Freak at ≈ 04:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it still time to remind you guys that the US covers 6 timezones (Alaska and Hawaii included)? > RUL3R_>vandalism 09:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Happy New Year fellow Wikipedians! Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

First Edit of 2010

....it was vandalism. :) LOL. A Happy New Year to everyone :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, it wasn't a massive attack on the system, so things are good, so far... Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you do have a point there. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I do feel bad about this edit though. I left a message about it, but he still had the first non-vandalism one of the decade. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism fixed

User:Tony Sidaway removed an entire section See diff http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=335281984&oldid=335281275. This is forbidden. The section was to determine consensus for a happy new year. At the time of removal, there was a lack of consensus but no suggestion for a sad new year. The bot should archive this, which it will tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism. It is specifically noted that the incidents noticeboard is for incidents. As Tony said, what he removed is better for the village pump.— Dædαlus 06:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo requests block of User:7107delicious

See here. GTD 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done by User:LessHeard vanU here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm uneasy about this. An indefinite block for what appears to have been a rather dumb prank? Would a stern warning and maybe a block of a few days not have sufficed? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing slash fiction about Jimbo sleeping with underage girls is hardly a minor offence! GTD 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I'd be tempted to endorse the block until 7107 explains him/herself. Ale_Jrb 13:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Was this sub-page recently created or had it been sitting around for awhile? Seems like a fairly normal editing pattern so far. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with ChrisO on this one. Also, Jimbo seems to call for a block, not specifying indef or any other term. By all means demand an explanation etc, but perhaps do that /before/ jumping to the block? Where was the prevention? Looks punitive. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good Lord, nobody but my priest would consider that story "pornographic" and the user never would have been blocked had the story not been about Dear Jimbo. The story (which has been hosted on the Wikia website Uncyclopedia for years) is about Jimbo going on a date with Wikipe-tan. Absurd overreaction and most certainly not an attack page. --auburnpilot talk 15:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion of 'Dear Jimbo', I'd say it's definitely an attack page, so I disagree with you there. An indef is probably overracting through and unlikely to stand, so I agree with you on that one, I've decided. Ale_Jrb 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of Jimbo is irrelevant, and I doubt you'll be successful in finding a single diff of me making my opinion of him known. But thanks for attempting to make this something it isn't. --auburnpilot talk 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"...is about Jimbo going on a date with Wikipe-tan" Yes, about Jimbo going on a date with a sexualised child cartoon figure. Creepy GTD 15:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation both host images and stories of sexualized cartoon figures as "unofficial mascots"? That would seem to be a much more pressing issue. I'm not advocating that we restore the page, only that we act with a little more thought. --auburnpilot talk 15:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And given some of the other drawings created by the person who made the "unofficial mascot", this is a PR disaster waiting to happen GTD 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You have become quite agressive quite quickly - I'm not the one making it into something it isn't. O_o I certainly never stated that you had an opinion of Jimbo, so I have no idea why I would be searching for diffs in that regard. Ale_Jrb 15:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's not an attack, then why was it done? It looks to be designed to at least irritate. Hell, it even irritates me. It's incredibly dumb. I'd find it pretty offensive if it were written about me, moreover it seems to suggest a little more than a date - with a dubious sex-kitten cartoon-child. However you look at it, it's weird. That said, an indefinite block seems excessive. A stern warning would do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unauthorized slashfic about an editor/BLP subject and a childlike character with explicit sexual references – while I am no prude, this is beyond the pale for userspace content. That said, I'm not sure upholding the block of 7107delicious on the sole grounds of hosting the material is fair. The blocked editor is unlikely to be the author given that the material was posted almost two years ago by another (yet unblocked) account. Furthermore, 7107delicious appears to come from a cultural background very different from that of most editors, and is among our younger contributors. They may not have understood how such material might be viewed by the rest of us. For a fuller picture, see this discussion of their alternate accounts, this autoblock, and this ANI thread.  Skomorokh  15:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I had not realized how sadly askew my point of view was regarding Wikipe-tan as "normal" before the reminders above that she is a Manga-style cartoon character of ambiguous sexual promotion. "Controversial morality" would appear to be suggested by a date with "her", and the BLP/NPA/many issues would apply to absolutely any Misplaced Pages community member if put up in this light. To a certain Misplaced Pages demographic that might not seem 100% strange, but considering the niche reader group it appears to be either emulating and/or mocking? Either direction, I'd consider it attack-based without an explanation given. Even if it were me, knowing full well what the attempt at humor might be perhaps in ever high faith, I'd entirely object. I think I'll watchlist a handful of articles at the Anime and Manga portal apt to see related edits. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

e/c(outdent) As 7107's former mentor (I volunteered to help him) I am not surprised in the slightest that he has been blocked, although the manner of the block is a complete and utter surprise! He has irritated a lot of users, and blundered his way through CHU, ANI and users talk pages, so I expected that he would sooner or later recieve a ban preventing him from taking part in such areas. This fiction page is a completely new turn of events for him, compared with his previous edits.

In case anyone is interested, have a look at the version on the 5th December 2009 of the mentor page before it was deleted, to get a feel of what he was doing, and what I was trying to stop him from doing. I ended the mentorship because it ended up being too much work trying to pick up the pieces from his edits (both on and off the Wiki). Had he stuck to the restrictions, I would gladly have spent all my time trying to help him, but he wouldn't.

A couple of things though - I think it would be fairer to give him a temp block, and give him a chance to explain himself. Also, I seem to recall that he created a second account to use at school, but the name of that account escapes me at the moment. Stephen! 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's only indef because that allows it to be lifted as soon as the matter is cleared up. The content was scurrilous fantasy, of course, but it invoked a real person without their permission and made implications that, even if obviously presented in an unbelievable context, is potentially extremely damaging to Jimbo and everyone associated with him - and that would be me and you, folks. My action after blocking D7107 was to suggest that they contact Jimbo and explain themselves - via me if wanted - to get this matter sorted out. I am not Jimbo's greatest fan, but I am fairly certain that after a little discussion this matter will likely be resolved amicably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from there LHvU, but why does he/she/it need to talk to Jimbo? When there is, for example, a legal threat block that person only has to convince the blocking admin they retracted/never made the threat; they do not have to convince the person who felt threatened. If it is a personal attack, then they don't need to apologise, just convince a reviewing admin. Why must we go 'It is Jimbo!' and suddenly run away from established procedure? It does neither him nor the rest of us any good. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (EC)

If I inferred a real-named person had a sexual attraction for children, I would expect to get blocked. At the very least. What is the debate here? GTD 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly active on the blocking of editors following personal attacks, and I usually consider the sensibilities of the target when making a decision on block length. In this instance I thought it appropriate that the person dealt with Jimbo himself. I would point out also that I have reviewed the subsequent discussion at Jimbo's talkpage, where it is apparent that the content (which I also reviewed) is not D7107's own original work. The question is why they decided to hold it in WP space. If they have a good explanation, why not present it to Jimbo? If he is satisfied, as the effected editor, then there is no need for D7107 to remain blocked. Under the circumstances as I read them, I felt this the most appropriate way in dealing with the issue.

Finally, as an admin I am answerable to the community. If the community feels that I acted too severely in protecting another member then by all means alter or reverse my action - I will not oppose even if I do not approve. I would say that, outside of the "talk to the man" bit, this would be how I would deal with unusual personal attacks; get the views of the attackee before taking further actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the community decides to do with 7107, it should also be applied to his alternative account he created for use at school (User:Das Sicherheit) and his original account that he has retired, but is still available for use (User:RuleOfThe9th). Stephen! 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So, is it the editor who is blocked, or the account? If the former, then shouldn't the alternative accound also be blocked? Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Account only. I was not aware at the time of alternate accounts, and am not now - given this discussion - minded to pursue blocking of other accounts without community consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably one of the users User:StephenBuxton is referring to as having been irritated by 7107; mostly it's covered on 7107's talk page. I didn't see the 'story' but am unsurprised that we're here. Before anyone gets too far down the good-faith unblock road, please review his total history. You'll find an immature and disruptive user and little else. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard, thanks for clarifying that. IMO, the block was reasonable. Indefinite doesn't mean permanent. 7107 may be able to convince an admin to unblock him if he demonstrates he has learnt from the block and the actions that led to it. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Jack Merridew - as the most found editor on the talk page - some weeks back - I am rather concerned that all this has the sense of feeding the troll - regardless of the outcome - he wants the attention - this specific conversation in most parts is conducted in AGF and unfortunately and unwillingly I suspect we are giving the needed attention (give him an opportunity to explain himself? - read the talk page and edit history surely is enough)- if you read the user page history and the talk page history carefully he actually talks about being blocked for his editing - I personally see no point in giving him any further chances - having endured his talk page antics.

I am suggesting an unblocking of this editor is simply providing wikipedia with further excitement in what can i do next to disrupt wikipedia? - it is well beyond AGF now folks - 3 different user names and the edit history is enough surely?

However for those who are concerned I might be biased - please look at the editors specific edit history, and the comments at the talk page - my pedantic ramblings notwithstanding - and actually look at the editors work - rather than get lost in the actual detail here at this noticeboard - it is far too easy to get lost in the arguments here - than the actual edit and talk page history - in question.

I would suggest that if there is a reviewing admin of the block and the circumstances - there are Misplaced Pages Indonesia issues that might surface as well - and possibly at the German project as well. Also for some strange and a not easy to prove reason - there are possible signs that the account is used by more than one person - but it is also possible that the differences in comprehension and writing during the lifetime of the accounts are the work of one individual. SatuSuro 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

7107 has now responded on his talk page about the block, and I have informed him of this thread. Stephen! 11:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Having just spent some time ploughing through this thread, the user's talk page and the childish (in both senses) story on jimbo's page, I see no reason at this time to unblock. I would suggest that the user is invited to apply for unblock in, say, a year's time, when he might possibly have developed a degree of the maturity which he clearly at present lacks. --Anthony.bradbury 13:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As a matter of procedure only I have blocked the alt accounts. If the main account is unblocked the declared alt should be unblocked. The other is labelled as retired so either way on that one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Environment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to make a few changes to the protected Template:Environment as mentioned at Template talk:Environment namely to allow for the use of the task forces. I consider the requests to uncontroversial. One of my requests has been there since Sept 2009. The request for a picture is of little importance but the inclusion of the importance assessment would be nice but not all editors agree. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you put an {{editprotected}} on the talk page? Plastikspork _―Œ 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooops. I have now. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at TFD

Any help clearing the backlog at WP:TFD would be much appreciated. I am more than happy to help with any cleanup issues, but I cannot close many of them due to COI. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal: Misconceptions2

Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See WP:AN/I#Muhammed and assassinations, WP:AN/I#Caravan raids, user's talk page, and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2.

Basically, this seems to be an account on a mission, and seems to be fond of getting whom appears to be an innocent neighbor, Mirroryou1 (talk · contribs), in trouble. S/he is presently indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry via IP, edit-warring. I will admit I was duped into blocking her target Mirroryou1, but I have since unblocked him/her.

I'm now asking for a community ban - This user has no intention of playing nice or of assuming good faith. —Jeremy 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems premature to ask for a community ban without any formal dispute resolution, or even a clerk input at the SPI request. Is there a special reason for moving forward now? Durova 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban or indef, I don't mind which. This is a POV-warrior and nuisance. Let him come back quietly with a new account in a couple of years when his blood pressure has come down and he can read a neutral page on Islam without apoplexy. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Durova; let's see what transpires at SPI first. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Eternal edit war

What to do here? I locked a page for a few days because of an edit war over one contentious little paragraph being reverted back and forth over and over. However, despite my plea that discussion continue on the article talk page rather than continued reversion, none did (both editors went to other talk pages, including mine, instead, to complain about each other). A few days after the protection lapsed, we have yet another revert, and yet another revert.

Please keep in mind that this is occuring during an RFC on one of the editors in question, focusing on just this sort of behavior. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I just re-protected the page, although protection can only stop the reversion and it doesn't tackle the root of the problem, if this continues we may have to topic ban both editors or block them from editing altogether for short periods of time. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how much good that will do ultimately, but we'll see. I like both of these guys so I am hesitant to apply a block personally, but the edit warring is irritating to say the least. A page ban went into affect after similar disputes on Rhino (comics) and Abomination (comics) for a time, so we may have to look into instituting a similar process again here. Although, honestly, those page bans didn't really address the root of the problem either. I was hoping the RFC would help, but thus far we don't have much of anything in the way of outside community input. BOZ (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just cross posting from WT:CMC#Dormammu

Two thoughts:

1. Double check the edit histories for those two. I mentioned last time this popped up that this really feels like feud between them across multiple articles. If it is, the next step may be a flat warning to both and then a pair of blocks if it persists - RFC or no RFC.
2. On a slightly different tact: Either lock the article(s) or, preferably, topic ban the pair from them. Set up a pair of sandboxes at each article - ie Dormammu/X's draft and Dormammu/Y's draft - and let them go to town on those with a caveat that they have to incorporate edits made by other editors to the live version. Incorporating from the drafts to the live version is left up to other editors and redirects, templates (like navboxes), and other articles cannot point to the drafts.

- J Greb (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This same sort of thing has also been going on at Juggernaut (comics) as well, which is another page I have locked in the past. I think you may be right, that a page ban for the two editors in question from these two pages (and possibly more; we'll see how it goes) may be in order. I'll also suggest J Greb's idea to both, and have the caveat be that if they can work it out between themselves then I will lift the ban. I'll mull that over for a bit. BOZ (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bg007

"CIA propaganda is unimportant"

Removing tags for no reason

Removes sourced material

Removes UN sourced material Adds blogspot material that suits his pov Again removes souced information

Removes images from the Chetniks article

Removing traces of "Croatia" or "Croatian"

Removing and refering to sourced material as "propaganda".

Upon reviewing this users edits it is clear that a NPOV wikipedia is not his goal. His edits show a clear case of whitewashing anything that may even remotely show Serbs in a bad light. ◅ P R O D U C E R _(TALK) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the merits, but procedurally this is in an area subject to WP:ARBMAC / WP:DIGWUREN sanctions, and thus this request might be better made at WP:AE. If you want to pursue this here, you must notify the user of this thread.  Sandstein  19:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards