Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:57, 11 May 2006 editRuud Koot (talk | contribs)31,416 edits →[]: done← Previous edit Revision as of 02:56, 11 May 2006 edit undo152.163.100.200 (talk) PLEASE INDEF BLOCK ALL OF 152.163.100.0/24 !!! WE'RE ALL VANDALS!!!!! EACH AND EVERYONE OF US!!!!!! PLEASE INDEF BAN ALL OF 152.163.100.0/24 !!!!!!!!!Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
PLEASE INDEF BLOCK ALL OF 152.163.100.0/24 !!! WE'RE ALL VANDALS!!!!! EACH AND EVERYONE OF US!!!!!! PLEASE INDEF BAN ALL OF 152.163.100.0/24 !!!!!!!!!
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
__TOC__
== Tasks ==
<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->


<div style="padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 1em 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #ffe3e3; text-align: center;">
The following ''']''' require the attention of one or more editors.
<br>
''], ], ] and ].''
</div>


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
= General =
<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
== Requested deletion of pages in my (former) userspace. ==


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
Hello. This is ], and I would like to request the deletion of the following pages in my userspace. (I'd tag them as speedy, but I wouldn't be able to tag them with my original account, which could potentially cause confusion for the admins who clean up speedy deletion candidates)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
]
]
]
]
]
]


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
In addition, I would like for my userpage, ], to be purged, as there is some personal information in the history that I would like removed. Thank you. --] 01:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:This now-blocked user has gone on multiple vandalism sprees, and spent weeks harassing multiple user (myself, Musicallinguist, Slimvirgin, Nicholas Turnbull, 'etc). He put his personal information out there of his own free will, and now that he's decided to act badly, I suspect he doesn't want anyone googling his name to find out about his misbehavior. I don't see why we should be doing him any favors. ] 01:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
::I've deleted all the user subpages, but not the main userpage itself. The tag about indef block needs to remain as a record. Hopefully this is an acceptable move. ]]<b>]</b> 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::That's what I intended by "purge". I would appreciate it if the history of the page was removed. The tag should certainly remain. --] 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
::I removed the information prior to being blocked. The reason I want it completely gone now is because users such as Malber are re-publishing the information in several locations, and that is not acceptable. I did add it of my own free will, true, but that was because I was attempting to foster accountabilty, when I thought that Misplaced Pages was still a decent place. As it turns out, it just became troll food, and that's why I want it gone. --] 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
::Oh, and lies do not become you Raul. I've only gone on ONE vandalism spree, after enduring a multitude of abuses from you, NicholasTurnbull, and several other editors. I was wrong in doing so, true, and I recognize that. That's the only "vandalism spree" I have ever gone on, despite what summaries you use when blocking thousands of potential contributors by instating range blocks on 72.160.1.1/16. I've toyed with your userpage and NicholasTurnbull's userpage, but that is not the same as a "vandalism spree". I also have not at all harrassed Musical Linguist. She just happened to be the user most frequently watching your talk/userpages when I went a'trollin'. As for SlimVirgin, I have given her a fully sincere apology, and have not harrased her since then. --] 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
:::I was counting your sprees on en, meta, and commons - the three that we know of - seperately. If you want to count them as a single one, that's your buisness -- I, for one, do not. ] 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
*Now Raul is starting in on the trolling and republishing this info. I want it gone, and I want action taken against Malber and Raul654. --] 23:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
**Incorrect. The "republishing this info" was made two days before Blu put in the request for that page to be deleted. Nor was it gratitious - I was making the point that if he should get his ranged blocked again, that the complaint against his ISP (being written by other legit users on that range who get blocked) would contain the personal information he freely posted to his user page. ] 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
This user thinks that there should be no consequences for his actions and his reputation should not be tarnished. I should hope that the Misplaced Pages administrators would show him that he's sadly mistaken. -- {{user|Malber}} 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
In my view his user page should be deleted. The punishment has not included "not to delete his user page". Mind that no one is going to question the punishment. -- ] 10:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
**Erm, doesn't this IP deserve a block as a user evading his block? ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
==Image copyright status==
Can another administrator, preferably someone with experience with image copyright tags, take a look at (warning: image is graphic) ]? The uploader, ] (who has received several warning messages from OrphanBot already) has tagged it as public domain and gives this as his summary: ''<nowiki>http://www.celebritymorgue.com -- this is a photograph of President Kennedy's corpse, taken at his autopsy and is, as such, in the public domain</nowiki>''. However, the photo has the website's name in the corner, and when I visited the website, it does not provide any source information and also says Copyright 2005, which makes me doubt that the photo is really public domain. All in all, the image triggered my "red flag" instinct, so I've gone ahead and removed it from the ] article, which the uploader added it to. I would appreciate it if someone else would take a look at this. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 16:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
:Well, the website rotten.com states they "collects images and information from many sources to present the viewer with a truly unpleasant experience." In this case, the question is what source did they get this from? For JFK, they state "The autopsy pictures, taken at Bethesda Naval Hospital on November 22, 1963." I think it's safe to assume they were taken by government employees there. Now, what context was the picture used in the article. Being graphic as it is, I know we allow such pictures, but I personally don't think this picture is essential in illustrating his assassination in the main ] article. On the other hand, it's more directly pertinent to the ] article. -] (<small>] | ]</small>) 16:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for the reply! I agree that the inclusion of the pictures is a separate topic. I'm just wondering, given that the image has the site's name in the corner and that the site does say copyright 2005, that the image does qualify as pd? Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 17:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
::: Sure. celebritymorgue.com didn't take the picture, so they can't copyright it. They can put their watermark on it, and they can stick a copyright notice on their web site, but that doesn't matter. If it was really taken by US Navy doctors during the autopsy (seems likely) then it would be {{tl|PD-USGov}}. ] 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
:::: Although I don't believe wikipedia can or should host a version of the photo ''with'' the "copyright celebritymorgue.com" watermark on it, either. (Even if the copyright claim is invalid.) &mdash;] (]) 19:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
::::: Yes, I think there's an official policy on that somewhere. Can't find the long version right now, but there's a short note at ]. —] <small>(])</small> 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Can't we just crop off the top part with the website's name on it? Or just cover it up with a black rectangle? ] (]) 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::There's a better version of the image and it does not have a copyright notice. -- ] 10:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've replaced it with the image ] linked to. ] (] • ]) 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
I also put the image into ], but ] keeps removing it, insisting it ''isn't'' public domain at all. ] (] • ]) 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
==Jason Gastrich==
I assert that <span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; ] &bull; )</span> has exhausted the community's patience (see ], ], and ]), and have taken the liberty of blocking him indefinitely as a community ban. ] (]) 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
* '''Endorse decision'''. - ] 01:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
* I thought this decision had already been made. What gives? — <small>Apr. 21, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>''' <]>'''</tt>
* I thought he was indef banned. But honestly who cares if someone else indef bans him again since it changes nothing. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
** He was banned for a year by Arb Com. Incidentally, I'm not an admin but I also concur. ] 02:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
*** You're a member of the community so your view counts. - ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 04:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
**** I know, but the last time I concurred in a similar context, someone got the mistaken view that I was an admin, so just thought I'd be clear in this case. ] 04:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
*::::Comment: I saw that - 1) there is a cure for your "unconscionable pretenses of Adminship" (tongue firmly in cheek) , you know, become an Admin! and 2) with people like the accuser running around posting, you'll get your Rouge Admin badge in no time (the editor in question accused JoshuaZ of false pretenses, disruption, misleading him to gain compliance, etc. All the standard cries and protests.) ]<sup>]</sup> 11:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
*::::: Ok, I get the point, I think your the third person whose made a comment about me becoming an admin in the last 48 hours. I'll probably run in a week or two after a few things are settled. ] 14:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
*Shoulder-to-shoulder (also non-admin) support on this one <b>]</b> 08:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
*], support. ] 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
*Support, given his continued sockpuppeting ''after'' a one-year ban was issued. ] - ] 18:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
::Indeed. I see no evidence that he gives a toss about consensus. ] 21:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
*Support, given that Gastrich has never contributed anything but time-wastage and hearburn, continued to disrupt and create socks for that purpose post-Arbcom, and shows no signs of ever doing anything else. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Totally.''' Don't see how it'll stop him puppeteering, though. ] | ] 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC).


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
== Suicidal user ==


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
Apparently this is the place to report people discussing on Misplaced Pages their intentions to commit ]. The most recent such person is {{user|The Hypnotist}}. Pay particular attention to his edits to ], ], and ]. ] 04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:I wouldn't entertain this. His own talk page and some have shown a tendency towards vandalism and trolling. Based on the ministerial training I've received, posting "Hey, I've got cyanide" messages on Misplaced Pages would be pretty atypical warning signs for a person seriously considering suicide. Not to sound callous, but I don't take this guy seriously, and both the extent of intervention available via Misplaced Pages and its impact is negligable. A link to an outside website should suffice; let's not play into a troll's hands. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::I agree that his edits in the past have been less than stellar, although some of them (e.g. the whole thing with the ] article, see ]) seem more confused than bad faith. But just because someone is a vandal or confused doesn't mean they can't be suicidal. ] 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Let's warn him with a {{tl|suicide3}} right away, maybe? LOL!! - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::::STOP! This is your last warning! Do not commit suicide here. ''You'll make a mess!'' HAHAHAHAHA - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 06:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:I'm altogether concerned that this has become "the place to report people discussing on Misplaced Pages their intentions to commit ]" (I readily recognize that perhaps Moink offers that description sardonically, and I'd certainly concur with that spirit); one's discussing his/her prospective suicide ought only to be dealt with as any other vandalism. Where disruption to the project occurs (e.g., when a user inserts extraneous comments into mainspace or consumes talk page space with wholly irrelevant comments), a user should surely be blocked; where disruption does not occur (e.g., when a user simply posts comments apropos of an imminent suicide on his/her user page to no deleterious end ), nothing should be done. Having followed the discussion last week with respect to this issue, I'm reasonably sure my position doesn't have a great deal of support here, but I thought it ought to be noted that we are here to write an encyclopedia (cf., to insinuate ourselves into the lives of other editors where the primary object is not the expansion of the 'pedia). ] 06:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::Well, and to view it from a practical standpoint for the "suicidal user," if they're genuinely looking for help online, it seems very, very unlikely that they're going to do so by coming to Misplaced Pages to pore over an article on suicide. This is not a self-help site, and if someone's able to find their way to an article in Misplaced Pages, they're able to use Google to look up a resource that's actually helpful. I think this is a good example of ]... don't give vandals the impression that they can eat up resources by claiming that they're suicidal. It's not just an issue of "this is disruptive to Misplaced Pages," it's one of vandals manipulating concern to get attention. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 06:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, I missed the discussion last week (where is it? I just looked for it and couldn't find it), and I think we've got a responsibility to do more than ignore this. I also don't like the notion of dismissing suicidal talk just because someone has been trollish in the past. I'm not saying that someone couldn't make claims of suicidal ideation in order to stir up trouble or get attention, but I'd rather err on the side of responsibility — better to feed a troll a bit than have someone commit suicide on our watch. Besides the moral questions, imagine the headlines if it turned out to be genuine: "Misplaced Pages ignored suicidal teen's pleas for help" and the like.


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::I'm also not so sure that someone who's suicidal wouldn't look here. They might ''also'' look in more "useful" locations, but since Misplaced Pages has become such a universal tool it's not inconceivable that someone might look here first. The Misplaced Pages page ] does come up on the first page if you type "suicide" into Google; it's not the top of the list, but it's there.


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::All that said, I also recognize that most of us can't do anything more than the sensible comments ] has already left on The Hypnotist's talk page; could we get an idea of where he is with a whois search? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
::::I think the attention for an unheeded response posted to Misplaced Pages — which would be the same as if it were posted onto a blog, or MySpace, or Facebook, or whatever — would be slight in comparison to that drawn to an article like ]. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 06:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::::The last time this happened it was immediately passed over to the Foundation. I think the same should happen here. (If it turns out to be a spoof, he should get a long block; if it isn't a spoof we have a ''moral duty'' to do ''something''). --] 06:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::I think ] to be largely irrelevant here; even as we don't want to encourage trolls and vandals, we ought to react in the same way to a "suicide threat" by a user whom we know to be serious as to one by a user whom we are certain is trolling (perhaps we would suggest a block in the latter case, inasmuch as the intent is to disrupt, but, of course, the former also tends to disrupt when expressed on multiple pages); scilicet, we ought to do nothing (for reasons I attempt to explain below, in response to Tijuana's template). ] 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) There was a similar case sometime earlier this year or late last year, if I recall correctly. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and I think we just pointed the guy to some other site (perhaps it was a counselling site or something...). We should do the same here, and not waste rescources and energy on one user with claims. Anyone can make claims. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 06:39 ] <small>(])</small>
:More like, road to hell is paved with good obsessions. Misplaced Pages does not have a counseling service. Any personal problems of users are only personal problems of users and hence is of no concern to wikipedia comunity as a hole.
:Maybe this might make a nice addition to ]?
:--<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 07:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::Think a short template would be practical... something along the lines of "WP:NOT for med/mental problems, see WebMD, etc."? Then, if they keep going, <nowiki>{{personalproblems2}}</nowiki> could refer them to ]. Guarantee they won't come back after that. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 07:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::You are joking right?- ] | ] 10:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
This humor seems grossly inappropriate to me. I agree that Misplaced Pages isn't a suicide prevention / general selfhelp service, and certainly agree that potentially suicidal users should be pointed to another, appropriate, external resource / service. I do disagree with, for example, the concept that "personal problems of users are only personal problems of users and hence is of no concern to wikipedia comunity as a hole." (sic) I'll keep this focused at a purely project level and suggest that, at least, it is my hope that the community would be concerned if an editor was lost to the project through suicide. There's a whole wide world out there for mocking fellow humans - this discussion doesn't seem to be contributing to a better encyclopedia, IMVHO. And, as ] points out, we have a ''moral duty'' to do ''something''. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 11:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:Then find someone with cheackuser to grab the IP then contact the ISP. We don't know who this person is or where they live so there is nothing else we can do.] 14:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:To get this in before somebody tells us to discuss it somewhere more appropriate... all joking aside, I'm fairly certain that all of the editors above would upset if an editor committed suicide. However, the likelihood of someone coming onto Misplaced Pages to declare their serious, immediate intention of taking their own life is beyond remote. Based on my somewhat limited knowledge, when a person has a serious intention of suicide, they will begin to manifest by speaking to friends and family rather than strangers online. More importantly, they don't do so by tagging obnoxious comments onto talk pages with happy faces on them . Part of the reason that you may be misunderstanding some of the responses above as callous is because this is a easy to spot case of a vandal looking for attention — it wouldn't be the first time he's tried .
:I'm not sure how much experience you've had dealing with vandals, but they'll do pretty much anything for a laugh... faking suicidal tendencies wouldn't be that far up the list compared to other things that have gone down here. If one starts to pick up that he can start getting attention from editors that rush to every suicide claim, trying to track down their IP and call their provider, he's gonna do it again. On a practical level, there's nothing an editor can really do other than refer them to a self-help site, but like I said above, if they got here, they can get there. Since there still seems to be some users concerned, though, ] that you can use in such a case. Looks like this:
{{suicidehelp}}
:Just type '''<nowiki>{{suicidehelp}}</nowiki>''' onto their talk page.<b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::I can't imagine that I'd be particularly distraught over the loss of any particular editor, and I surely hope the community writ large (and even any given editor) wouldn't be upset over my committing suicide. I, in any case, oppose our apprehending a moral duty (as a matter of policy; certainly individual editors may act, generally, as they wish in this respect) to intercede, and think it altogether inappropriate for us to offer, on a template, an external link to what is plainly an advocacy site (even as most may think the POV for which the site advocates--viz., that one oughtn't to kill him/herself--to be the "correct" view with respect to suicide). This relates, I suppose, to the discussion currently underway apropos of ], and, I think, at the end of the day, the concerns that militate against our adopting that proposed guideline militate against our having an advocacy template here; we are here to write an encyclopedia, from which we may then benefit, and not to inculcate morals under color of policy. If one wants to express on his/her talk page the view that suicide is wrong or should be looked upon with disfavor, especially by those contemplating killing themselves, that's fine (at least if one believes user pages may contain expressions of such sentiments; I, as I've expressed elsewhere, believe that the use of user pages to express personal beliefs is beneficial, rather than harmful, to the project), but I don't think it at all appropriate that we should have a template that responds to a user's querying talk pages and the like about suicide. ] 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
As I mention on the ], I think we should '''keep''' an NPOV version of <nowiki>{{suicidehelp}}</nowiki>, and that it should be similar to the "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts' section of ]. Also, ] does not apply here, I don't think people will commit suicide "just to try it." - ] 03:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
:The beans reference was not for people committing suicide because an editor on Misplaced Pages suggested it. It was about giving the idea that a vandal claiming suicide could get other editor's attention. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
::OFC a vandal actually going through with suicide would be a good thing wouldn't it? ] 15:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
== Help needed to fix c+p move ==


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
] was moved to ] by ], but it appears to have been done by a cut and paste, instead of a move, wiping out the history, (and the resulting redirect is mis-formed). I ] to the user about it, but admin intervention is needed to sort out the history issues, etc, and is probably easier to fix before anyone else edits the target article. Regards, ] 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:Thanks to ] for fixing the original article, however it appears that a different, second user has renamed the page to yet another title, making the same mistake, so the history is now scattered over <B>three</b> articles! (the talk page history for the original article wasn't merged, was this was just an oversight?)
:Three pages in question are: ], ] and ] if any admin feels like getting this back into order again! Regards, ] 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:: What joy. Sorry for missing the talk page history - that was indeed an oversight. I'll go look at these articles now. ] ] 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::Thanks for your work on this, I know it's a little messy to fix. (I don't even have anything to do with the article myself, just happened across it by chance!) Cheers, ] 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::: Okay, I ''think'' it's done. I redirected two of the names to ] because that's where the article history happened to be. If anyone wants to check this, I'd appreciate it. ] ] 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
::::: BTW if you catch a copy and paste move quickly before any other edits have been done. Its generally best to just revert it. This avoids an admin having to go to the trouble of a history merge etc. It also reinforces the "don't do copy and paste moves" message by forcing the user who did it to go through requested moves if they still wan't the move to go ahead. ] 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
== ] ==


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
I guess you know what to do. ]<b>]<font color="green">]</font>]</b><sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''] ¦ ]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''</sup>'' 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:Curps got it before you even posted here ;) ] 09:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:I'm curious, is THE willy on wheels really active or are these just his imitators? ]<b>]<font color="green">]</font>]</b><sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''] ¦ ]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''</sup>'' 09:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
(P.S Hey I just found out the above post (i.e the first one) was my 2500th edit! Well thats gonna look good on my milestones column "Reported Willy on Wheels sockpuppet to admin noticeboard" :-D )
::With a "phenomenon" such as WoW has become, it is likely that there are many vandals who enjoy imitating this meme. The ones with the obvious usernames aren't, incidentally, the dangerous ones as they are blocked long before they get move privileges; they're just here to be funny and waste a microsecond of Curps's time. (])<sup>(])</sup> 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
:::And a microsecond is all it takes, too. Curps is amazing in his ability to block multiple vandals faster than a speeding bullet, leap tall buildings with a single bound, ... ok, I don't know if he's stronger than a locomotive. Still very impressive. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Well I have to admit I once thought he was a bot. He isn't a bot, is he? :) --] 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::There was an outcry on this very page a while back about his bot being given sysop priviledges (i.e., running under his own name). So he's part bot part human. You'll have to look at the edit/log summaries to tell. :-) ] | ] 07:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
:Out of curiosity, is there something similar to the RC patrol tools for new users, one that lets vandal fighters redflag certain words or phrases in new usernames as they're created so it'll be called to their attention and they can investigate? --] 09:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
::Perhaps Lupin's vandal fighter does that? New users do show up in RC after all. ] | ] 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
::We have this functionality in the vandalism IRC channel, and it does flag then greylist users whose names match particular problem phrases or expressions. (])<sup>(])</sup> 15:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
== Blocking numerical user names ==


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
Is there any clear policy concerning blocking numerical user names? ] is blocked, ] is not, ] is blocked, ] is not. -- ] 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
*] just says, "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers", but not specifically a number sequence (especially if the number might be significant to a group of people). ] ] 16:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
Thanks, but what is the difference between 160490 and 159753; 30021190 and 16836054? -- ] 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
::The only differences I noted was that 159753 is a long time user (possibly before the number restriction went in) and 16836054 may just have been overlooked when they registered. --] 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::: Then this policy lacks any clarity. I will propose its change in liberal way. Together with kingboyk I don't have any problem with any of the user names I have mentioned. -- ] 07:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::The point of that clause is to prevent confusing usernames. Usernames of larger numbers are hard to recognize and remember, so, for future cases, usernames like the cited examples should probably be blocked. ~]]] 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Rather ironic that these words should be spoken by Mdd4696 and Zzyzx11 isn't it?! Both look like "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers" to me. That said, I personally don't have a problem with ''any'' of the user names mentioned. --] 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::Actually, my user name is not random. It is named after the ] page :-) ] ] 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::Blimey. Live and learn. What about the number 11? Are there 10 more Zzyzx's who registered ahead of you? :) --] 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::: Maybe it was the rationale. But in practice, where is the difference between 30021190 and 16836054? -- ] 09:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::Truthfully, 30021190 doesn't look so random to me... it's a fairly easy-to-remember number with a lot of repeated digits, and likely had some meaning to its user. I think username blocking for randomness should be limited to situations where there is strong reason to believe that a username is genuinely random; at the very least, admins should ask before blocking on grounds of randomness, to determine whether the name in question is genuinely random, or if it just refers to something they don't know about. As noted above, ] could easily have been blocked on joining by a careless admin who didn't bother to ask about the name. --] 09:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::its the date 09/11/2003 written backwards. &nbsp;]]] 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Technically they don't even need to ask (although it's always nice of course) - "Random or '''apparently random''' sequences of letters and numbers" --] 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::Actaully, I started editing on Misplaced Pages long before that policy clause was put in place. As I recall, it was instituted because there was a vandal bot that was randomly creating usernames with random characters. ] ] 05:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::: That sounds rather complicated. Why all the huge bureaucracy with it? Why not be liberal? Is 16836054 offending somene? Let's discuss it on ]. -- ] 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
::::: Perhaps it should be changed to only apply if there is a suspicion that the account was created by a bot (unlikely now, don't they use captchas) or is to be used for disruption? --] 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::: Nice. Should I alter my proposal? -- ] 08:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
==New Template created regarding "Original Research"==
Greetings Misplaced Pages Administrators, I'm posting this announcement here with hope that those who tend to be the most experienced and involved with Misplaced Pages might make a suggestion or two on how a template I've created might be improved.
:I've always liked how with ] <nowiki>{{facts}}</nowiki> (<sup>''<nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki>''</sup>) concerned editors are able to pinpoint to fellow editors (particularly those newly editing on a given article) a specific spot of contention in a given article. Following this same model I created ] <nowiki>{{or}} </nowiki>(<sup>''<nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki>''</sup>). For those who might have the time to do so, please review the ] and make a suggestion or two on its ] or just ] and edit to improve it. Thanks! ] 08:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
:Excellent innovation. ] 01:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
==]==
This has been recreated after an AFD, with the edit comment "I'm going to keep doing this forever". I wouldn't like to speedy this myself, as I was involved in the heated ], and in fact I'd suggest a merge-redirect is a better option than deletion (see also ] and ]). — ] ] 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
: Whatever is done, the page should be protected to prevent continued crap. ] 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
::I agree with JoshuaZ. -- ] 10:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Already is. ''']''']|<sup>]</sup> 17:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
== Guy Bannister ==


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
IP's 65.202.223.13, 66.28.239.163 (twice) and 24.90.8.50 have been vandalising the ] article by inserting random references to "Guy Bannister". Does Guy have the hots for this band in particular or has he popped up anywhere else? <b>]</b> 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:The vandal(s) must recently have purchased the ] of ] ;) ]] ] 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
==Please Unblock ]==


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
It appears that the blocking Admin, ], has left Misplaced Pages, since they have not edited in a month. Emails to this Admin went unreturned. Please Unblock ]. The basis for blocking the account is that the account is a sockpuppet. Per ] simply being a sockpuppet is not a violation of Misplaced Pages Policy. It is simply uncool. Please unblock the account because there was no policy violation and users should not be blocked for being uncool. Thank you for your time. ] 05:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:See ] (against ]) on why this should not be granted. --] (]) 08:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
::See also ] itself. Also, see ]. --] (]) 08:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:Also, anyone who is familiar with the situation is invited to comment on the RfAr. --] (]) 08:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:I also see no good reason for unblocking a username that effectively means 'sock puppet' and was used for things contrary to at least the spirit of the rules, and used exactly because doing what was done might get the account blocked. ] (]:]) 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:Note that the requester has also been blocked as sockpuppet. ] ] 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
== Contacting schools Re:School IP vandalism ==


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
Schools seem to produce a rather large amount of vandalism- rather than just issuing numerous short blocks I was wondering if there was a better way? I am willing to try long term blocks in conjunction with school contact for the most persistent cases (I think Hall Monitor used this tactic before disappearing?), but I want to hear about any previous experience from more experienced admins first. Has anyone ever tried to contact schools regarding vandalism from their computers? If so what response did you get? Any other general advice on dealing with school vandalism other than the usual revert-warn-block routine? ] 19:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
: This has come up on the noticeboard before, and as I remember, contacting schools gets extremely good responses. I can't think of any specific cases though, sadly. I'll go peruse the archives and see if I can find something on it. ] ] 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:: ] the one Essjay's talking about below. I know there's more, and I've only heard of good results coming from contacting ISPs/schools/etc. I remember someone, I think it was Lucky, saying that AOL of all people is very responsive. ] ] 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I had success contacting the Miami-Dade County Schools via phone; ] has also noted success contacting schools. I considered starting a project to investigate and contact schools to report abuse, but it would require a number of people being involved, and I never saw enough support to feel comfortable setting up a system. ] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font> 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
: I'd be behind that. Shall we? ] ] 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:: Thought would be good. A start would be putting together a page with information for people like me who want to help out but not quite sure how to do it. So include a how to guide, hints and tips, email templates etc. ] 20:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
::: I'm starting up a bit of a draft. Once I've compiled the precedents, I'll put it on-wiki and ye can have a look at it. ] ] 20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
My idea was basically a three step approach:


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
#Someone notices a pattern, and reports it to a page built on the idea of ], perhaps called ].
#A group of volunteers who are willing to investigate reports (need not be willing or have the means to actually contact schools) work up a preliminary report, checking out other similar addresses, etc. A basic template would be created that would link to all the useful spots: Contribs, logs, deleted edits, etc.
#A group of volunteers who are willing to make contact take the information from the report and contact the school. Generally, contacting the school district's ITS department by phone is useful.


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
The contacting person need not necessarily be the same one who investigated, as some will be willing to investigate, but not contact, while others will be happy to contact, but won't want to investigate. The idea was to have a pool of volunteers who could take requests from the "reported" queue and work up an investigation report, then pass it on to a "ready to contact" queue, where another volunteer would pick it up and make contact.


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
Since others are obviously interested, I'll draft up a mockup of what the process would look like in my userspace, and open it up for comments. ] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font> 20:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
: That's better than my idea, which was more along the lines of a "how to contact an ISP/school IP" page. Yours is slightly more personnel-intensive, but then I think it'll be more useful in the long run. ] ] 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:: Snoutwood- I would still like to see your page, as a "how to contact" page was what I had in mind. I also support Essjay's proposal, and I don't see any reason why they can't be combined (after all that proposal still needs people to contact the places, and it would be good to have a guide as to how to do that). ] 22:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::I agree, something like "Guide to Abuse Reporting". We could make it a subpage (like the Guide to RfA is) and link it from the report page. I'll stick a link in now, and Snoutwood, feel free to incorporate as you think best. ] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font> 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::: O.K., lads. I'll get cracking on it again, I'll post once I'm through with it. ] ] 22:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::: Voilà! I've written up a draft ]. ] ] 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
Okay, I've drawn up a draft: ]. There are a number of subpages involved; I'm listing them all on the talk page so people can review everything. ] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font> 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
The page has gone live! It's in a draft/proposed state ], and any and all comments are ''exremely'' welcome on the talk page. Please stop by and take a look: if this goes through it will add another tool to vandalfighting, and we can use all the help we can get. ] ] 01:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
:::::There is a ] which overlaps with the schools problem, and, if implemented, would also be applicable to schools. It seems the two proposals should be dealt with together. ] 01:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
==]==
I believe is illegal. Cheers. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like Happy Camper has blocked. &middot; ]]] <sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:: Hrm; how'd that get past us? ] (]) 19:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
==Help. User Personally attacked me. Admin is threatening.==


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
Please help. A user personally attacked me . I put an NPA template on their user page . An Admin removed it . I asked them why and they said it was true . I explained that it was a clear violation of ] and restored the NPA template . Now the Admin is threatening to block me . Someone please help. If there was an NPA violation, please put the tag back for me. ] 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:Obviously there has to be more to the story than this as this seems massively out of character for ]... I will take a closer look if it helps. - ''''']]]''''' ''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ]</small>'' 07:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
: This ] provides further context. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 07:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
::Yes certainly does. Just discussed on ] and suffice to say this is merely the proverbial tip o' the iceberg. Thanks for your help :) - ''''']]]''''' ''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ]</small>'' 07:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is just the tip. It is one of the symptoms of Nlu's harassment of me. As an Admin he has demonstrated that he supports other users personally attacking me. Just so I am clear, this post is a personal attack based on ] correct? You don't have to be an admin to put an NPA tag on another user's talk correct? ] 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:I would say that edit is ]. And yes, you can place ] whether you're an admin or not, with the exception of those that imply a block. ] (]) 21:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
::However, the idea that PoolGuy has any standing to call anyone uncivil boggles the mind. Again, please see the RfAr for more details. --] (]) 21:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
Stifle, so on the ] table, anything in the 'Blocked' and 'Block & warning' columns is for Admins only? Regular users can use the other templates? Thanks for the reply. You are kind to help. ] 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Go to RfArb for more details. I find it astonishing that PoolGuy takes my comment as a personal attack because I'm just trying to help him out, get him to be more productive. What's the point of creating sockpuppets anyway? I guess there's a misunderstanding here 'cause my comment is made in good faith.--] 06:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE
== User name ==


IF YOU DON'T INDEF BLOCK MY ENTIRE RANGE FOREVEVER I WILL KEEP VANDALIZING YOUR SHIT!!!!!!!
I am sorely tempted to block ] for having an inappropriate username, but show no vandalism in the month and a half she's been here. Does being a legitimate editor make up for a questionable username (as is certainly the case with ])? ] (] • ]) 09:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:Couldn't you suggest they change their username? (]) ] 09:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:Assuming she is a legitimate contributor, I would tell her that the name is inappropriate and that she should consider what she would like to change it to. I would not block the account right away, so that she has time to decide. Also, she should be given the option of transferring her edits to her new name. -- ] 10:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::''Also, she should be given the option of transferring her edits to her new name.'' That's what ] does. ] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font> 12:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:::So username changes are enabled again? --] 13:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::::Enabled again? They have been all along, as far as I know...I've done 68 since the beginning of the month. ] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font> 13:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::I could swear there was a notice a while ago on ] that said changes were disabled (from ~jan 2006). --] 13:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::Update - well it wasn't on there... it was on ], and I found where at least it was fixed . So I am not insane, at least in regards to this. --] 13:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::''"...at least in regards to this."'' I have that thought *so* many times every day! <tt>:-D</tt> Anyhow, on the original issue, someone should point the user to ], and we'll take care of them. ] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font> 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::{{tl|usernameblock}} is appropriate here, a username change isn't that hard to do. I think the process that was disabled was changing the attribution of old edits to new usernames. ] (]) 21:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::::More specifically, the reattribution of IP edits to a username (and possibly from an old username to a new username if a username change wasn't done). I would oppose blocking a user who's been making useful contributions solely because of their username, without giving them a chance to change it. Don't bite newbies. ] (]:]) 21:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

== Protection on umm protection templates? ==

Its the morning and I haven't had enough tea yet so forgive me for not remembering the rules regarding highly linked templates (ie how high is high?). Per CFD this morning we tossed a bunch of the templates from ] to ] (because they were basically all protection templates). As I was moving them in my < multiple tea state, I noticed that three of them weren't protected and protected two of the three...only to realize that the protection notice *was* the template. So I guess what I'm asking is: should they all be protected, or only {{tl|protected}} and {{tl|moveprotected}} as originally. I'm happy to go back and remove the protection I did on the other two, but figured it was better to get feedback here in case I accidentally did a good thing. --] 13:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:Good idea. Failure to protect protection templates would leaves a pathological loophole allowing for indirect vandalism of a page that's already supposedly protected from vandalism. — <small>Apr. 29, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>''' <]>'''</tt>

==Friendly, eager to help, and needs a bag of clues==
<!-- 00:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC) -->

<div style="border: solid 1px blue; width:95%; margin: auto; background-color:#eeeeff;">
== Vandal fighting idea ==
(from Funnybunny's page) I've got an idea to fight vandals! And, you, Funnybunny have done so much anti-vandal work! What if the Counter-Vandalism Unit elected Generals, and after getting much bigger, Lieutenants, Sergeants, etc. But a General would send a code through the levels, like 45.m.K would be "hit random article and look for vandalism". or 86.p.2 would be "fall back and quit searching like a wild maniac". What do you think?-Sabertiger 02:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds nice. It can get the vandals confused about the codes. Funnybunny (talk/Vote for this policy) 02:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Improvment-Each level on the Wikidefcon will indicate a code. Peace, orders are in English.
4 every other letter, etc., maybe.

Okay, we could give this info to General Eisenhower. Funnybunny (talk/I want you to join the QRVS) 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you think G.E.?-] 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

== RE:Vandal fighting idea ==

Yes I think we should do that. Right now though I'm creating Babel templates and categories. Maybe tomorrow we'll start. ] 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

</div>

, , , use of admin template, attempt to become admin based on nothing. Mentors needed by General. How many chances do you get to guide a very very friendly ball of energy? ] 18:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

==Leyasu banned from editing ]==
* ]

Under his probation, <s>Leyasu has been banned from editing ]</s> because, hours after the end of a seven-day block, he has once again violated his revert parole .

As usual, I stipulate that the ban may be revoked by any administrator. --] 18:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:You have my support here. Incidentally, I can only imagine that eventually a ban from all articles related heavy metal music may be in order, but I'm unsure if that would require the Arbitration Committee's intervention or not.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 18:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

After a reasonably positive and very civil response from Leyasu, I have rescinded the ban. He denies using socks and (for now) I'll take his word for it. I'm watching him and have warned him that restoration of removed material, such as his first edit today on the article, counts as a revert for the purpose of his parole. --] 20:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

==Semiprotection==
Given the result of my new history analysis script, I am curious about these results for George W. Bush.
<pre>
George W. Bush
Viewing article modification statistics (from the 250 edits shown on this page):
20% quick reverts (any) (50 edit(s))
14.4% probable reverts of vandalism (36 edit(s))
User statistics for these edits:
0% IP/anon edits (0 edit(s))
25.6% likely new user edits (64 edit(s))
58.4% likely older user edits (non-admin/bot) (146 edit(s))
14% administrator edits (35 edit(s))
2% bot edits (5 edit(s))
Time range:
21 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 29, April, 2006
Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 8, April, 2006
Averages:
63.2% edit summary usage
11.955 edit(s) per day (since last active)
2.391 revert(s) per day (since last active)
1 : 0.25 regular edit to revert ratio (RE:RV)
</pre>
Should we make a template tag that better emphasises the duration and how to request changes. The subst tag on GWB does not do a good job of saying how long it is for (semi-permanent). I suggest that it be reworded and made into a template for other articles that seem to have this problem, like ] or ] perhaps.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 18:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

=={{vandal|Troll_Penis!!}}==
WTF?
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
"Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Troll_Ρenis!!". The reason given for Troll_Ρenis!!'s block is: "vandalism page moves"."
</div>
This user doesn't even exist, I don't get it--] 23:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
*The user exists, but it is using special characters to generate the name. ] ] 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)



==]==
Would an admin please revert my mistaken pagemove. The article is now at ], it need to go back to ]. Thanks. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:Done, FYI, an admin wasn't needed for that, you could have moved it back over the redirect. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

== ] closed ==

This arbitration case has closed. Agapetos angel ''et al''. are banned from editing ] and associated articles. The opposing editors (Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk) are warned concerning ] and edit warring. Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. For further information, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, ] | ] 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

== Oranges ==

Got someone using ] and creating variations on "Orange on wheels". I'v deleted the last but there may be more. This appeared to start yesterday. ] ] 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

== On the move, need account terminated. ==

I'm moving again, and to keep this account from running around, as persuant to what happened to another user, I'm requesting that my account be terminated. ] 01:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC) ''':)'''

:I don't think the devs/stewards/whoever's in charge of these things carry out these types of requests. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 01:09 ] <small>(])</small>
::Just make a massively long random password and remove your email address and nobody will access it -- ] 01:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::There is no way to terminate an account, but you can do as Tawker suggests and set the password to something you'll never be able to recall. ] (]) 01:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Real funny, I'm just taking precautions, admit extreme precautions, so that my account does'nt vandalise Misplaced Pages. ] 02:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC) ''':)'''
:::::Understood but they ain't kidding. :) --]<sup>]</sup> 03:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::If you are serious, leave me a talk page message on my talk while signed in, requesting an indefinite block, and I will oblige. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::We can also delete your user pages if that's what you want. -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 03:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::Per your requests , , , ; your account has been indefinitely blocked from the project withough prejudice. Should you change your mind and wish to return, place the {{t1|unblock}} template on your talk page. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

==Main Page protection ==
It's a new month. Can someone protect all of May's POTD, TFA & Sel Anniv (OTD) templates, please ? I, as an anon contributer, just edited ]. Lucky for Misplaced Pages, I am not a vandal. Please keep the face of this grand project protected from vandalism. Thanks. -- ] 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
: Looks like today's was done by ], I don't know about the rest. Thanks for bringing this up. ] ] 07:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:: They were unprotected on April 29 and 30, as well. We need to be more careful about this. I've done through May 4 for now, as it seems we don't protect them more than a few days in advance. ] (]) 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I, along with a few other admins, usually take care of all the appropriate protection and unprotection of main page images and templates. As you see, we've all seem to be busy the past few days. Don't worry, though, we usually do a superb job. :-) Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

== Image licensing problems ==

] has uploaded a number of images to Misplaced Pages, and appears to be sticking cc-by-sa-2.5 tags on them regardless of the actual license. For example, ] is under a license of "educational use only", ] appears to be a simple "permission to use on Misplaced Pages", and ] was originally uploaded to the German Misplaced Pages as GFDL (I've retagged the copy here). Could someone look into this? It may help if you speak Spanish, as some of the images come from a Spanish-language website. --] 07:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:I ] the few remaining noncommercial images, and left a note. There remain problems with GFDL images from other language Wikipedias uploaded here without preserving authorship. ] 16:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

== WP:AIV (done)==

Would be nice, if anybody could have a look at ] and handle the reports, as at least the second involves ongoing vandalism, which does merit a block... --] 12:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:is done --] 12:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

==Did You Know?==
] is in need of updating. The current selections have been there more than a full day - longer than recommended. Some new proposed entries are in danger of aging past five days (the maximum age for an article to be listed). I would update it myself, but I have a proposed entry coming up, and it doesn't seem proper to put up my own entry. ]\<sup>]</sup> 18:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:Update - ] updated this - though it looks like he started with entries from 28 April instead of 27 April. It would be nice if the ones from 27 April could still be worked in if they are found to be proper entries. ]\<sup>]</sup> 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
::Update - Did You Know was updated once, but it has been 22 hours since that update. It is usually updated every few hours. Can an admin please look into this? (As I mention above - I have a proposed entry in the list, so I don't want to make the call on whether it is main-page worthy or not.) Thanks, ]\<sup>]</sup> 17:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:::OK, I've hopefully taken care of it. I'm not sure where the regulars are, though. <font style="color:#BB0055"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#AA0077"><u>inch</u></font>]<font style="color:#AA0077"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#AA0077"><sup>(]), (])</sup></font> 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Thanks very much - now that my proposed entry has passed - I'll try to pitch in to help with the updates to the page. ]\<sup>]</sup> 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

==Unreasonable blocking by ]==

I believe that I was unreasonably blocked by the aforementioned administrator. Here is a brief timeline of the events:

*It attracts my attention that the birth place of certain Macedonian revolutionaries of the 19th century is disambiguated as Republic of Macedonia by ] - , , , , , .
*I revert the changes and initate a discussion with Travelbird on his talk. We an agreement.
*Up comes along ] and , , my edits back to those of Travelbird.
*I initiate a discussion on his talk and try to the situation.
*He is not responding and continues to revert.
*After I revert his changes for the 3rd time within 24 hours! (NOT a 3RR), he blocks me without a warning first for 3 hours with the motive , shortly after he extends it to 24 hours. Note that Jonathunder himself has 3 reverts on . Unlike his, the last two of my 3 reverts was not a complete one, because I changed the disambiguation link, which was the matter of concern and tried to explain it on my talk, but I was already blocked.

I would like to hear the opinion of the administrators on this matter, as I find it a very serious issue, which defies my understanding of what is allowed and not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your consideration. ] 19:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:I had a word with Jonathunder about it yesterday asking him to unblock (]), but he seems to have disappeared. ] 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:: I too am unhappy about this. Why is JT blocking people he is reverting? ] 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

:I notice that there has been a brief discussion at ]. ] does seem to have been edit-warring across a number of articles, but didn't break ] on any individual article. It is my understanding that almost every admin would agree that one shouldn't block someone that one is in a content dispute with if the other party hasn't inarguably broken a rule, and a majority of admins would say that even when a rule is broken another admin should do the blocking. Jonathunder's might be read as indicating that he or she feels differently about that. ] 16:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

==Page moves on roads==
] and ] are going back and forth with page moves on the California state road articles. I protected one before I realized there were too many for me to go about and protect all from moves. I also figured I should check here first. Does anyone else think these pages should be protected from page moves until a consensus arrives on what naming convention to use? ] 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, I agree. You can't have pages being moved back and forth constantly. Protect away. --] ] <small>]</small> 20:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:There is a naming convention outlined in ] but it has been subject to some discussion. The road naming issue (and resulting move warring) seems to be an ongoing, and possibly increasing, problem e.g: ] and ]. Regards ] 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

==3rd Opinion==

How can an admin to block pages and impose his own version? A 3rd opinion will be just fine.

*] anti-romanian edits by admin user {{vandal|mikkalai}}, he was blocked for ] edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
*] anti-romanian edits by admin user {{vandal|mikkalai}}, he was blocked for ] edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
*]anti-romanian edits by admin user {{vandal|mikkalai}}, he was blocked for ] edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
*]anti-romanian edits by admin user {{vandal|mikkalai}}, he was blocked for ] edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
*]anti-romanian edits by admin user {{vandal|mikkalai}}, he was blocked for ] edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
*]anti-romanian edits by admin user {{vandal|mikkalai}}, he was blocked for ] edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
*]anti-romanian edits by admin user {{vandal|mikkalai}}, he was blocked for ] edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed
*]anti-romanian edits by admin user {{vandal|mikkalai}}, he was blocked for ] edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
*]anti-romanian edits by admin user {{vandal|mikkalai}}, he was blocked for ] edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed

**I haven't looked at the cases, but please remember that ] is not an endorsement of the current version, nor should an involved editor use his/her administrative powers to gain an advantage in a content dispute. In addition, requests for unprotection of pages may be made ]. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
***Well I looked at a few of the cases you gave, and in all the ones I looked at, ] wasn't the one that semiprotected the page. That throws your argument totally out of the window- he can't be locking it on his favourite version because it wasn't him that locked it. Please browse the page histories more closely. --] ] <small>]</small> 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
****BTW, I think the above (unsigned) edit was most likely made by a sock of banned user {{vandal|Bonaparte}}. Please check the IP and block if necessary. 11:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

== Bcrat logs and rights logs ==
The ] seems to have changed back to the rights log (like on meta), and seems to be pulling the entry text from ] instead of ]. Besides the log being named incorrectly, this breaks the log display. What happened? (yes I know this should go at ], but then it might be fixed before anyone sees it) ] <sup>]</sup> 21:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:I copied the text over, which fixed the diplay problem, and changed the title of the log to "Promotion log", as some bcrat actions are now logged in the bot status log, and I don't want it to be confused with meta's ] <sup>]</sup> 03:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::The change of the name to "Rights" seems to be system wide, I checked both French and German pedias and they have also been changed to rights. I see no reason "Rights" should cause confusion, unless people can't keep track of what project they are on. The term "promotion" is not 100% accurate, it should be Rights. Besides Promotion is too similar to Protection. ] ] 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:I changed it back to the "User rights log". The problem is that meta's log has all the desysopings for enwiki in it's "User rights log", so that may be confusing. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::I use both all the time and never get confused. Meta's log is full of red links, since any action to a non-Meta username is a red link. I think once someone knows enough to know that the Meta log exists, they can handle the name issue without confusion. ] ] 16:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

== anonymous ip ==
An anonymous ip made changes on the talk page of the Democratic Party (of the United States) article. It's not that the damage was so great, but it was done sneakily and meanly. Please check history on this page. The ip of the user is 71.139.8.28 Thanks for looking into this. ] 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

==Block of ]==
{{user|Liquidcross}} has been blocked with the reasoning, "Too close to ]." That's far too broad a reason, this user has done nothing to deserve a block. ]|] 23:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:It looks like the blocking admin has unblocked. ]|] 23:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This arbitration case has closed. FourthAve is banned from Misplaced Pages for a year, and is placed on personal attack parole, probation, and general probation. This will be enforced by block. I have carried out the one-year-ban in my capacity as an administrator. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, ] | ] 15:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

== Block of {{user|Hogeye}} ==

I have blocked this user for 30 days for excessive 3RR violations, general disruption, and personal attacks. This user has a long pattern of this behavior including block evasion, and I thought (since I am not usually one for the longer block) I should take it here for review, to make sure the length was not too short or too long. (])<sup>(])</sup> 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

:Seconded. - ] 21:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't take long this time. His static IP is {{vandal|70.178.103.141}}; I've blocked it also (after carefully removing the possibly conflicting autoblock). Since he's a heavy open proxy user, I guess I'll do a round of open proxy blocking too. --] 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

== Static AOL IP's? ==

A single link is being repeatedly removed, without discussion from ] by an anon. It looks like the link has been a bone of contention on the article for a while, but it’s been removed and replaced a dozen times in the last week alone. I'm hesitant to block for 3RR because the editor is using AOL, but oddly enough most of the edits are coming from the same two IPs, {{vandal|64.12.116.74}} and {{vandal|152.163.100.74}}. I thought they were supposed to change IPs every few minutes? The former address has made eight edits to the article since April 18, with the most recent yesterday, and the latter seven since April 16, the most recent on April 29. I'm really not sure how to proceed. Should the article maybe be semi-protected for a while? Should I go ahead and block the next time 3RR is broken and see what happens? -- ] | ] 22:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
*They change per page, not per unit of time, they only 'seem' to change every few minutes if the person loads a new page every few minutes, but they're not static, and they're not unique, and they're still shared by dozens of pages/users--] 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
**You might be interested in taking part in this, if you haven't already: ]. ] 02:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

== Advice requested re extremely graphic postmortem photos someone has linked to ... ==

An unregistered user has just inserted into the "External Links" section of the ] article a link to a website displaying close-up photographs of the autopsy performed on him (and also his skeletal remains). I have read that Misplaced Pages is used as the "standard reference" in many schools and I believe that many of these photographs are too gruesome for young children to view. I am wondering whether Misplaced Pages has a policy about displaying autopsy photos, or how this situation should be dealt with. I will greatly appreciate your guidance.] 00:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:The question here would not be whether the site would be included or excluded because of its content; Misplaced Pages ]. The question, instead, is whether the site (and I have not visited it, nor do I wish to) adds significantly to the article and should be included per our policy on ]. From the description provided, I don't think such a site should be included; however, I would recommend bringing the issue up on the talk page first. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

::Black and white and not a vast amount of blood. Just make sure the link contains an accuret disscription.] 00:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I Agree with Geni, wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors (per ]), just amke sure they have a clear notice about what they are and leave them there as long as they're relevant and informative there's no reason why they shouldn't stay. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 01:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, if you want schoolchildren to view these images, make sure there is an accurate description. (In my experience it's the teachers that have nightmares, not the kids.) ] 01:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Many thanks to each of you who answered. Since the photos in question do not add significantly to the article and, furthermore, the link appears to have been inserted by a troll, I have removed it with a reference to ]. If that user, or someone else, wishes to re-insert it, I will ask them to first set up a discussion as to its relevance on the Talk page so that a consensus can be reached. ] 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

==]==

This user has done some bizarre things... He created an article in Spanish, someone else translated it, then he added to it ''in English''. Then he made another article in Spanish and put a {{tl|notenglish}} tag on it. His userpage said he was an administrator but he had ''no talk page'', but then I checked and saw he had only '''''nine edits'''''. I removed the administrator userbox (I think he copied his userpage all from somewhere else.) Keep an eye on this guy... I've never seen behavior quite this strange before. I don't know what to make of it. ]]] 01:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:Never mind. Seems okay. ]]] 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

== userboxes stuff ==

I closed two rather... hot discussions ] over {{lt|User N-K}} and {{lt|User independent Chechnya}}. Consensus was unclear, but I think the page I've linked represent a strong precedent, since none of the many independance ubxes there have ever been TFD'ed AFAIK. However, I can tell there's going to be... consequences, so I just wanted it tobe known. ] 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:Indeed, ] has come forth over it. His comment is , amd my answer goes . I would really appreciate comments from more experienced admins on this. ] 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== Persistent linkspammer ==

An IP user, ] kept adding links to commerical sites (buysanfranciscotours.com and buyalcatraztours.com) to the ] article, despite receiving spam1 and spam2 warnings. Twenty minutes after the IP user's last edit, a new user, ] made their first edits, which seemed to be slight formatting changes to the spam links. This user has also kept adding the links back into the article, leading to the obvious conclusion that they are one and the same. As such, this user was given a spam3 warning. The links have since added the links again, and I removed them.--] <small>(])</small> 02:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:NewAwlins Traveler put the links back again not half an hour ago. They do not respond to messages, and their only edits are related to those two commercial links. The only thing that will make this person stop is a block.--] <small>(])</small> 10:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

::I've given the registered account a 24 hour block; hopefully they will take the hint. I'd be happy to block the IP as well if they return to spamming using it (last edit was a couple of days ago). ] 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

::Have those links been added to ] yet? --] 12:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Done now. ] 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::::]'s been at it again.--] <small>(])</small> 01:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::::: Blocked for 48 hours (IP seems static, second block on that user). ] 08:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== MFD ==

Would an admin not invovled in ] look at it and close it one way or the other, it's been haning open for quite some time. I think most of the normal MFD admins are active in it. Thanks, — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:Closed by ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Hi the article ] was tagged for COPYVIO on 13th of April, I am the creator of the article and assure that it is not a verbatim copy of the webpage mentioned in the copyvio tag. The article follows a similar structure thats all, The creator of the article on the mentioned webpage is also me, so I have the ownership of it, but I have no means of proving the ownership, so I am not going to try it. But the article I have created in wikipedia, is not a verbatim copy, it has taken a very long time for the admins to check this. Could somebody check and remove the tag? or delete the article. Thanks ] 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:It occurs to me that if you added a GFDL copyright notice to the bottom of your angelfire website article, then it would be obvious to everybody that the article can be used on Misplaced Pages without fear of Copyright Violation. Would that be a possibility ? It would certainly prove that you are the author and that you are happy for it to appear on Misplaced Pages. -- ] | ] 04:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, The text I have added is from same thing is copied by someone into angelfire webpage, I can put GFDL copyright notice, but GFDL allows only a verbatim copy of the page, please correct me if I am wrong, my article is not a verbatim copy of the webpage. if just adding GFDL would solve the problem I can do it. And copyvio notice should point to the above site. Please advice ] 11:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
An anonymous ip made changes on the talk page of the Democratic Party (of the United States) article. It's not that the damage was so great, but it was done sneakily and meanly. Please check history on this page. The ip of the user is 71.139.8.28 Thanks for looking into this.

'''I put this request in to check the ip 71.139.8.28'''

Can someone help me with this please? Thanks, ] 05:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

*I see two edits that try to change the heading of the history section, one vandalism reversion, and one addition of a quote (with source) that seems reasonable in context. Work it out on the talk page. ] 15:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This has been tagged as db-copyvio by ]. I untagged it because (a) it's not content from which the commercial ocntent provider is trying to make money (per ]); (b) it's his company anyway; and (c) it's in User space. So, it's a user who has copied and pasted his bio from the website of the company he owns; deleting it as a copyvio seems like ] to me. What does the panel think? ] 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:Call me a copyright paranoid, but is there any evidence that ] is actually Sophia Bekele? Since this user has only one contribution so far, I do not see the point of insisting on her having a user page. - ](]) 13:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:From an entirely different pespective, I'm concerned about page rank boosting by linking through user pages, as well as the propensity of some to use their user pages as web pages. That's not a definite opinion on ''this'' case, but I think doing a speedy delete after 2-3 days of inactivity and/or 2-3 days of non-productive edits would be in order. I don't think we solve our problems by "userfying," even if we get to avoid being meanies who delete things that way. (Again, this is general, not specific.) ] 16:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Agreed. We're not here to boost some person's sales or pagerank. And based on her meager contributions, I think that's exactly why she's here. ] ] 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
: I think that that might still be considered a copyvio, as a) we don't know that she's the real owner (per Paolo Liberatore), and b) I doubt that such a new user would have any concept of the GFDL. I'd say call it a copyvio and ask if they really want to license it (as you've done). If so, then great. Otherwise, delete it. ] ] 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I am rather concerned on the grounds of ] and ], as this material has only been on Wiki for a few hours, and we have no evidence of this person's future intentions. If it is posted by Sophia Bekele, then she could, from the bio, be a very valuable contributor in the future, and should be encouraged to be so. Over-reaction could alienate her completely. On a technical ground it is copyvio, unless authorisation is received from a valid email address associated with the origin of the material (i.e. the company). Re. page rank boosting - there isn't even a link from the user page, so it's a poor attempt at doing that and suggests that may not have been the intention. Reading through , I wonder if there is enough notability to merit an article on her or her company. ] 17:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

::That's why I suggest not acting for a day or two. If two days pass without any further contributions, we can assume a vanity entry. If that long passes without clarification of the copyright status, we must delete it as a copyright violation. I wasn't suggesting coming down with the hammer of Thor after 2 hours. ] 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== A list of fascists on en.wiki, FYI ==

The user ], registered also on other projects, published on his blog (Article ''Fasiste na en:'') an article, where some users (and I guess also admins) of the en.wiki are listed in a list of fascists. Namely '''Jossi, Dmcdevit, SlimVirgin, Sean Black, Will Beback, TML1988, Ben Aveling''' and '''Stevage'''. Thereafter he deleted . ] 14:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The author of the blog is obviously reading these pages... Some minutes ago he reformulated his blog, making "nepratele svobody" (''enemies of the freedom'') from the original "fasiste" (''fascists''). Nevertheless, I have a copy of the original text. ] 15:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:BTW, he has been blocked by Tony Sidaway for 12 hours, and has been requested to delete those personal attacks (see his talk page). 07:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

::To some degree, we're out on a limb here. His blog is his blog. What's there may indicate his intentions here, and so it might be evidence of his intent to stalk, disrupt, or vandalize, but we can only really care what Misplaced Pages has. If he wants to use his blog to say that we're all chronic bedwetters, that's his business, and I'm sure he'll get all the readers that a private blog gets. It's just one more opinion floating around out there. On the other hand, we can all watch his edits on Misplaced Pages with an especially jaundiced eye and keep a record of his first hand testimony from outside, and, of course, if any such statements ended up on Misplaced Pages pages, we'd delete them and arbitrate/block. I'm not sure how we can block someone on Misplaced Pages for something they did anywhere else. ] 09:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

:Unfortunately most of us don't read Czech (the language the blog is written in) so we can't even understand what was written. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 13:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I know no Czech, but I know enough English to understand what "Fašisté na en" means. In response to Geogre's suggestion that "if he wants to use his blog to say that we're all chronic bedwetters, that's his business", this simply isn't the case." For instance, in the ] case, Gastrich was sanctioned, in part, for his use of an external website to solicit meat puppetry. --] 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

== I have blocked ] for move warrning with ] ==

As a condition of the unblock of both SPUI and JohnnyBGood, I stated that neither are to move war with each other and instead try to reach consensus. After SPUI started move warring again, I have blocked for 24 hours, I am hoping that both SPUI and JohnnyBGood can come to some sort of reasonable conclusion as this move warring is getting a little over the top -- ] 18:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

== 9/11 victims ==

What are we supposed to do with articles on nonnotable 9/11 victims? Another one has arrived: ]. Isn't there a different wiki just about 9/11 victims where we could politely send the author to? I seem vaguely to remember there being such a thing, but I don't know where it is. It seems callous to speedy the article as an A7, but technically that's what it is. ] (] • ]) 21:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:Here's the Meta-Wiki ]. ]] ] 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:Yep, ]. Authors of memorial-type articles can be pointed (gently) at the 9/11 wiki: . The discussion linked above is also quite useful. ](]) 21:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::Well, so much for going gently. It's already been tagged and deleted. Oh well. ] (] • ]) 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::It was already a recreation of ]. ] 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

== A Record Deleted While I was Working On It ==

Can someone please undelete the record for Donald_Friedman, I was working on it, accidentally pasted in some wikipedia-sourced text that was copied and someone protected then deleted the page within seconds of my saving it.

Thank you.

] 22:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:It seems to have been deleted because it is unclear that the subject passes our criteria for inclusion (see ]). I am unclear on whether it is about someone alive or a fictional character. If it is the former, it is making some extraordinary claims about living people that would need to be ] very carefully. I'd recommend not continuing to work on this article until you have unimpeachable sources for every point in it. If this is an article about a fictional character, you should indicate that much more clearly. ] 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
Attention, vandalfighters! You have a new tool to add into your belt! BEHOLD! If you have a IP address that has been warned, blocked, blocked again, and still keeps coming back, list him at the page mentioned in this header: ]. This is a process, similar to ] and ], that contacts the ISP of an IP address that is a repeated abuser. The page went live about five minutes ago, and we're itching to try it out. Please read the ] and the main page before posting, that's all we ask. Thanks, lads. ] ] 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:Muahahahahaha! Sounds great! --] ] <small>]</small> 23:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

== The Game needs another closure ==

] has been open for about 9 days now. Extremely brief history of the article: it was created, kept on VfD, kept on AfD, deleted on AfD, kept deleted on DRV, restored with a new source, kept with no consensus on AfD, speedy deleted by Zoe, and sent to DRV again. What we need is for this deletion review to be closed by an uninvolved admin, as basically every admin who watches DRV is involved now.

The article is currently called ].

Note to users involved in the DRV: please oh please don't use this as another forum for arguing over the article. This is simply a request for admin assistance. ] / ] 00:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
: It has actually been open a bit longer than 9 days, it was opened (I think) on 04:23, 22 April UTM. ] 00:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::Closed, by ]. ~ ] 02:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

==]==
I suggest this page is semi-protected, at least in the short term and preferably indefinitely. Every time I log on I expect it to have been vandalised, and an examination of shows most of the edits are either by anon vandals or by editors rv them. The subject is obviously one of those that just attracts this response. ] 01:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

:Requests for page protection should go ]. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 01:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ] 07:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== {{user|Troll Pen0r!}} ==
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">"Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Troll Pen0r!". The reason given for Troll Pen0r!'s block is: "vandal"."</div>
the non-existant denial of service vandal strikes back, or so it seems--] 02:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:I have removed all of the autoblocks. ] ]|]||]|] 02:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Could someone please take a look at this page? ] has inserted private information/vandalism into an edit summary that will need to be removed. Thanks. --] 05:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:Oops, looks like ] is already on top of it, thanks! --] 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== Copyright vs. GFDL ==

Could someone who understands the ramifications of the GFDL better than me please have a chat with ]? He's uploaded a lot of pictures of emergency vehicles from his own website http://www.fotogb.com/dennisbus. At the website, copyright is claimed for the images, but when he uploaded them here he put the {{tl|GFDL-self}} tag on them. If they're copyrighted, they can't be released under GFDL, and if they're released under GFDL, they can't be copyrighted, right? Anyway, I would have left him a message myself, only I don't understand all the legal ins and outs myself well enough. Thanks! ] (] • ]) 09:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

: If Dennis took the pictures, Dennis owns the copyright. If Dennis owns the copyright, he can choose to licence the images under the GFDL. If, however, Dennis ''doesn't'' own the copyright, he ''can't'' choose the licence of the images. -- ] | ] 09:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Yes, but if Dennis chooses to release them under the GFDL, shouldn't his homepage say that, rather than saying "© Dennis Chan 2004-2006"? Aren't the two mutually exclusive? ] (] • ]) 10:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::: Not at all. The GFDL only works because Dennis is the copyright holder. If he's not the copyright holder, he can't license them. The GFDL doesn't restrict Dennis' rights in any way. It restricts ''your'' rights to use the image in a way inconsistent with the license. ] 12:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::::But doesn't the GFDL permit me to use the image in some ways that a copyright would prohibit, such as by modifying it? The GFDL allows me to modify his image so long as he's still traceable as the original author, right? But the copyright for the very same image on his web page prohibits me from modifying his image. So what the Misplaced Pages image page says and what the source page says are incompatible, aren't they? ] (] • ]) 12:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::The GFDL is just a license that permits certain uses of Dennis' copyrighted material. Unless he chooses to assign the copyright to someone else, he still retains it, even though he has licensed the material in a way that makes it possible for others to use it.
:::::For example, if you were to take the image and reuse it without attributing it to Dennis, he would still be able to sue you for copyright infringement&mdash;you would be using his copyrighted work outside of the conditions imposed by the license (in this case, the GFDL).
:::::Normally if you wanted to use or modify Dennis' work, you would have to contact him, seek permission, negotiate licensing terms, and lay out all the conditions under which you could use his pictures. By licensing the images under the GFDL, Dennis saves himself that time and hassle. He can just say, "''here'' are the terms and conditions under which I will let other people use my copyrighted work. Enjoy!" He still holds the copyright on the images, and he's welcome to licence them to other people or groups under whatever terms that they might agree to. ](]) 13:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::Furthermore considering the rather clumsy nature of the GFDL it is quite posible people who want to use your images will want to contact you to ask for (or even perhaps buy) the rights to use them outside the GFDL.] 13:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== Repeated Blocking on Group Basis ==

I have been repeatedly, at least every other day, blocked on the basis that someone else using my IP address has infringed the rules - though I never have. The last IP address where this occurred was 205.188.116.135.

I suspect that this is because I use AOL as my service provider.

This is not just inconvenient, locking me out for more than a third of the time, but it also wastes a considerable amount of time - I have just spent 2 hours cleaning a topic (as requested on the page) only to have my work blocked and disappear!

Is there anything I can do about this?

] 10:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:Stop using AOL? ] (] • ]) 10:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::Wait till ] is implemented? ] 10:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As an admin and an inadvertent AOL user (I use Netscape dialup, but that's owned by AOL), I'm bugged endlessly by this. I have my own version of a policy, but no one would ever agree to it. I think all IP's should be visible for all editors, account or no, and that way admins putting blocks on vandals with names won't accidentally hit an AOL IP with an eternal darkness block. After all, I'm not sure quite ''what'' privacy we get by not having visible IP numbers, as an IP doesn't really say where you are anyway (as our vandals prove every day with their open proxy bounces). Like I said: no one would ever agree with me. However, I am a sympathetic ear for fellow "AOL" users caught in collateral blocks. ] 12:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:For the record, most IP's do resolve a location which reveals what city you reside in. --<b><font color="666666">]</font><font color="#000000">]</font></b><sup> (])</sup> 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:My IP would reveal from where in school and which school I'm typing this from. So it's apparently cleaver evil people who will manage to hide their real IP while genuine users will have their real IP exposed if all IPs are revealed. ]. 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::I figured no one would agree. That's ok. Now I'll just wait for the day when I'm wealthy enough for broadband or we implement the miraculous magic smoke that will solve our AOL IP blocking problems. (Typed in dejection, not sarcasm.) ] 17:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== Block ==

Hey - I am the editor of (and candidate in) the ] but find myself blocked as per :

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by CanadianCaesar for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
"Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "GuyWaltersIsGay". The reason given for GuyWaltersIsGay's block is: "admitted vandal, trollish username"."
Your IP address is 195.93.21.6.


I know being an AOL user means this sort of thing happens all the time, but the timing is a bit off as I hoped to being updating (and splitting) this page to year-by-year articles.

Does anyone know when this block is likely to be lifted?

Cheers

] | ] 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:Unblocked. --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;] </span>] 13:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


::Sadly not - just been updating that page and all of a sudden..

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by CanadianCaesar for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
"Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "GuyWaltersIsGay". The reason given for GuyWaltersIsGay's block is: "admitted vandal, trollish username"."
Your IP address is 195.93.21.8.


Any help from anyone? Cheers.. I just want to help Wiki, I know AOL users cause this sort of trouble, but I'm here as a well meaning editor... ] | ] 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:We were just discussing this in the previous section of this page. AOL and AOL-owned ISP users are regularly blocked accidentally. Usually, this is because a vandal with an account using AOL gets blocked. The auto-blocker then blocks all IP's associated with the vandal's account, which will be all AOL IP's. This is a drag because the person doing the block didn't knowingly block AOL, and it's a true hassle to unblock, because one has to go to ''all the AOL IP addresses'' to unblock. It's even worse than ''that,'' though, because the block doesn't actually hit the vandal! The vandal's IP is renewing with each page load, so he or she gets off scot-free, while some innocent gets blocked. Many admins (most admins) will understand and unblock if you're hit by accident. ] 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

::See ]. --] (]) 01:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

== Images from ] ==
I have just come across an image sourced from ] which was up for speedy: the says "All rights reserved" but the says "This photo is public". Is this a bug on Flickr, or what is going on here? ] ] 13:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

:Last time I checked, "public" isn't the same as "public domain". ] | ] 14:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

::"Public" as used on the Flickr website means that the photo is publicly available to be viewed on the website, i.e. it is not posted by the uploader as a private viewing only image. In terms of licensing for re-use, all rights to the image are reserved by the uploader and it is therefore not suitable for use on Misplaced Pages. Many images on Flickr are released under the ] Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses, which can be used here. --<font color="2B7A2B">]</font> <font size="4">]</font> 14:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks for that - I removed one from an article earlier today, will go back and delete it now. ] 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

== Main page error reporting page ==

Just wanted to let everyone know that I have created ] for the reporting of errors on the main page and would like to ask admins to keep an eye on it since they are the only ones who can correct main page errors since it and all the source templates for it are protected. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:nice one <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup>/<sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== Selective Deletions ==

Here is a tool to check all of the revision of a deleted page, so that you only have to uncheck the 1-3 vandal edits, rather than having to sit there clicking the 2000 good edits.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 22:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:Sounds useful! Especially when I just clicked 500+ checkboxes on the ] page only to find it didn't actually do that much! --] ] <small>]</small> 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:excellent! I just said to Deskana earlier that someone should make such a thing :o) <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup>/<sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 22:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::umm... where's the link to "check all of the revisions of a page" appear? I'm probably being blind (it's late) or my browser not properly reloaded it, but I don't see it! <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup>/<sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 22:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
: You can just shift-select, can't you? ] ] 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::Gosh. If you hold Ctrl and Shift and click the top one, then the bottom one, it DOES select them all, then you can just unselect the offending version. Is that what you meant Snoutwood? I can't believe I missed that! Then again, I have only used the undeletion feature once, so I can be let off! --] <sup>]</sup> 23:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes shift does work, and almost as fast. My history analysis scipt was just extended to analysis deleted pages as well. Getting diffs out these babies is the real challenge. I am not yet sure how to do that.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
::: Should just be shift. If you hold down shift, select one, and then the other, everything in between in selected. Holding down Ctrl just selects whatever you click on. But yes, that's what I was referring to. ] ] 23:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

] has posted a link to his Paypal account on his userpage. This link has been removed four times by various users, including myself. I left a note on his talk page saying that such links are inappropriate (a comment which he promptly removed ) (Other people trying to persuade Pnatt not to link to Paypal: .) I know of no particular policy against such links, but common sense tells me that this is inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Perhaps ] should be modified. This user also has a history of vandalism, and has been blocked 5 times. Comments? --]]] <sup>]</sup> 05:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:I'd treat him as a persistent linkspammer. There was a case before, of a user who put many external links in very small font at the bottom of his userpage and he got permanently blocked for this. (Can't remember the exact username, but he was from the Hebrew Misplaced Pages and got banned there first.) I don't see why posting PayPal links should be treated differently. ]. 06:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::{{User|Haham hanuka}}, who, BTW, wasn't permanently blocked, just temporarily. --] | ] 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

I have got an E-mail from ] asking for help. He was suddenly blocked, without any messages on his talk page, warning or '''any clue why he was blocked'''. I have checked the block log and it said:
: 02:38, 5 May 2006 David Gerard blocked "Zmmz (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (obnoxious behaviour, harassment, inviting others to "pile on")
Still general words, nothing specific. I have asked Zmmz to contact David by E-mail but David's E-mail is not enabled (I was told it is a requirement for a sysadmin to enable the E-mail). Zmmz is in a middle of an Arbcom case and very frustrated. I have worked with him trying to mediate a conflict over a few Iranian-related articles. I got an impression that he is a good productive although sometimes hot-tempered editor. I would not be surprised if he said something uncivil or obnoxious, but he is certainly deserve to know what he was blocked for. Also because of his arbcom case, is it possible to shorten his block? ] 06:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
* Email is not enabled, but a look on his ] contains a section on contacting him, which includes his email address spelt out. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 07:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:I'd say unblock him. He shouldn't be left out of his own Arbcom case. (And he should be informed why he was blocked in the first place.) --]]] <sup>]</sup> 06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::Just for the background, Zmmz' involvement in that arbcom case had gone to the point of wikistalking another (semi-)involved party (), and making threats and harassing posts against arbcom members , , ). ] <small><sup>]|]</sup></small> 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Yep, that's what I blocked him for. Also, my email should in fact be enabled; are you sure you're permitted to send? - ] 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:::: I just checked, and I got an error message as well. Could be a couple of things: could you double check that you've put in an address and that you've the "enable e-mail" button checked? ] ] 21:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for the background, both ] and ] are involved parties in the arbitration case, on the opposite side of ]. ] is gathering evidence and asked two other users to share their input and concerns regarding the case, which is within his right, as another administrator already stated in response to ]'s accusations. --] 06:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I decided to unblock Zmmz, so he could contribute to his own ArbCom case. ] 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:I would like to point out that being personally involved in an ArbCom case ''should not'' be a "get out of jail free card", so to speak. If you commit an offense that an admin sees as blockable, it shouldn't matter that you have an ArbCom case pending. Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time. For the record, I have not reviewed this block so I'm not commenting on whether the block was appropriate or not. ] 08:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::Just want to say that I did undo Zmmz's autoblock but it was by request. I'm not taking his side or anything. In fact, I have no side. :) I know zilch about his case. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Usually if a blocked user is involved in an ArbCom case, it's a good idea to propose an injunction to unblock for the purposes of participating in the case if you want to unblock them. That makes clear the position that the original block stands, but it is suspended only to allow participation in the case. --] (]) 12:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

::::I disagree with abakharev's unblock. He should have made more of an effort to discuss it with the blocking admin and waited longer for a response. He posted here at 06:11 and unblocked at 07:03, which is far too quick off the mark. The ] cautions against this. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

::::No, that's entirely unnecessary. Anyone in an AC case can contribute by emailing the AC or an active arbitrator directly; they don't need to be allowed to edit on the wiki. Spamming to solicit harassment? 24 hours block is the ''least'' he deserves - ] 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the merits of the case, but this happens way too frequently. Please, everyone, when blocking a user, ''leave them a note explaining why''. This is so that anyone happening along the situation can understand why a block was done without having to make a fuss about it. ] ] 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:Hi Friday, I agree that leaving a note is helpful, but at the same time, admins shouldn't unblock people without checking with the blocking admin first, unless there's been an unambiguous error. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::A block without justification ''is'' an unambiguous error, in some people's eyes. I agree that we shouldn't revert others lightly (whether admin actions or normal edits), but a revert is not always automatically inappropriate. Keeping things going smoothly is more important than fragile admin egos. ] ] 17:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:::An unambiguous error is one that doesn't rely on a judgment call e.g. when someone blocked for 3RR clearly didn't revert four times. It's not a question of fragile egos, but of trusting admins to have blocked for a reason, and accepting that maybe they know more about the situation than the rest of us. It's about not assuming we always know best. It's about being able to tolerate than we disagree with a block but that someone else has decided to make it anyway. It's about not having a gigantic ego, in fact. :-) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I`m taking a long break from this whole thing, but just for the record; as I was working on the case I saw two more users complaining about user Zora`s rudeness and incivilities, and because their grievances were similar to the editors involved in the case, I civilly asked the two users to review and participate in the ArbCom case, such that the committee will hear their voices. I had no idea this was illegitimate or counted as spamming. I have never been blocked for incivilities, and was not so in this case, nor was I “''obnoxious''” in any way as the admin who blocked me suggested. Had I been warned about this, rest assured I would have discontinued it. Just to note though, others involved in the case, including user Zora herself had asked many editors to go and help her out in the case by leaving positive feedbacks. Blocks like this have heavy consequences, so I urge the admins to not allow their temper get the best of them, and to kindly communicate with the user beforehands. I also want to add that I`m grateful that ] and ] took it upon themselves to do this, because as it turns-out, after the unblock I was able to post a proposal in the case, and it helped greatly, since the case was motioned to close a few hours later after that. Otherwise, I would not have had the chance to submit my refutation.] 18:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: Just throwing-around some words can be damaging to a user’s credibility here, since even after the quick unblock by other admins, the original block will stay on the user’s block log. Despite failure to warn, and in spite of my inquiries ] has not provided an explanation. ] 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Latest of several sockpuppet accounts. Check out ], compare to ]'s: ] and ]'s: ]. They are the same.
User has a long history of:
* blanking out pages (, , more)
* vandalizing user pages (, , , )
* and threatening wikipedia with lawsuits (including his current User page) if his "web-site" (his user page) is touched or if messages are left for him.

User has been warned against vandalism many times by many users (,, among others).

Vandalism was reported at that time on the Vandalism in Progress page, and I left a message on the , but no action was ever taken, no comment even left.
]'s very first edit was a revert of references to Frys104's earlier vandalism () and he says he'll sue anyone who touches "his pages" (user page and talk page). Claims he's not a sockpuppet, but his list of contributions is almost identical to the other two. I originally assumed good faith with the original account, but there've been so many page blankings, vandalisms, and creations of sockpuppet accounts, along now with lawsuit threats, that enough is enough. User is again active (as of today) and is already blanking out references to his earlier vandalisms. User plans to turn "his page" into a training site for a Subway franchise (see his user page for details)--] 12:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
: I have given the user a warning to read ] and removed the threat. We'll see what happens next. As for the subway training site, I cannot see that being allowed, but one crisis at a time. - ] 17:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

::Indeed. I appreciate the your attempt at a solution, TexasAndroid, and I hope it works. I fear, however, that this user's contributions reflect a basic misunderstanding of many of Misplaced Pages's policies (no spam, actual encyclopedic content, NPOV, 3RR, no deliberate blanking of pages, etc). In short: thanks! I hope it sticks!--] 21:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

::: Yep. You may be right, it may not do much. But he needed to be warned first. He needed to be given a chance, not slapped down without warning. - ] 22:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

== Commons Vandalism?? ==

<strike>It seems over last nignt a ] uploaded several incorrect images to Commons last night I'm not quite sure what to do (so I posted here). I noticed when ] was replaced with a red X, so I reverted it, and checked his contributions, and it seems there are alot more images affected. Regards ]<sup>( | ])</sup> 13:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)</strike>
::Nevermind I'm an idiot ]<sup>( | ])</sup> 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

== New editor using edit description to post bigoted slurs ==

] posts include antisemitic phrase "talmudic supremacist zionazi" See: ]. Thought I should at least mention it here.--] 14:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:Well, he stopped about 3 hours ago, so I think it's cleared itself up. ] (]) 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

== Please be gentle when slapping me with the trout, but... ==

... I've had a ] up for almost 2.5 days with one (solicited) comment. Did I do something wrong, or does no one care about this guy? ;) ]] ] 14:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:For my money, the same cabal who conspired to kill Kennedy are now conspiring to prevent the Altgens article, and its attendant assassination information, from reaching FA status... ] 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::LOL! :D ]] ] 18:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:I think the answer may be in the question... ] 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, but where? Certainly not in "spamming", I notified a grand total of three people, two of whom had worked on or helped with the article. I almost didn't post '''here''', lest that be construed as "spamming". So, I'm still lost... :) ]] ] 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you ask, it's a short article about a dull man. Not one to get my heart racing. ]] 13:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:Sure, it's a short article about a dull man&mdash;who took two of the most recognized photographs in world history. No reason it can't be an FA. :) ]] ] 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
::Either I'm misunderstanding your question, or a bigger fish is called for. I thought you were asking why no-one is interested enough in the article to comment on it (answer, which you seem to accept- because it's boring). Perhaps you could write a more interesting article about the photos? ]] 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Perhaps '''he''' was boring&mdash;perhaps&mdash;but I don't agree that the '''article''' is. At any rate, it seems my question is answered. :) ]] ] 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

== 212.135.1.xxx range on a spree ==

I've been tracking down vandalism from this range for a couple of minutes and uncovered stuff like this , I'm just saying that the rollback button is useless against there guys (or one guy with a huge range of IPs).

It seems to be a fairly populated range, so I don't know what to do with it (absolutely not a range block) and their vandalism is too spread out, so semi-protection is also out of the question. -<font color="#FF0000">]</font>] (])<small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:Why not a range block? ] (]) 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

::Look at the some of their talk pages, it seems to be the UK counterpart to AOL, but if you're willing to put in a range block, go ahead, I don't want to test it on a major ISP for my first time using it :) -<font color="#FF0000">]</font>] (])<small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

::: --<b><font color="666666">]</font><font color="#000000">]</font></b><sup> (])</sup> 14:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:Urgh. This provider is a vandal kiddie's dream come true. Apparently it combines the school-type public access () with an AOL-type rotating proxy scheme. ] 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

==Personal information==
Another rogue sockpuppet has added personal information to ]. I don't know how to remove it. It would mean eliminating an edit and it's summary - does anyone have the necessary skills? ] 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:Maybe what's above, under "Selective deletions?" (We probably really need this as a standard feature.) If I'm misreading the problem, I apologize. ] 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

::See also ] and ]. I found the second link when going to "display and edit complete watchlist". I had to delete some personal information yesterday, and did it by restoring just the bad version and moving it to another page, deleting the other page, and then restoring the remaining edits on the original page. I was a bit nervous that I'd delete things I didn't intend to delete and be unable to get them back, so I experimented with one of my own subpages. It worked fine. I then tried pasting the code into my browser favourites, and it was ''much'' easier than I had expected. ] ] 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:::The easiest way to remove one or several revisions is to delete the article entirely, and then restore only the revisions that do not contain personal information. If you click the first checkbox in the undelete list, hold the SHIFT or CTRL key, and then click the last checkbox, it should check all of them. ~]]] 21:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

==screwed up move==

in trying to move ] to ] i accidently moved it to Spanning tree trotocol instead. Then in trying to fix it i accidently moved the redirect that had been created at ] by the first move instead. Can someone please delete the redirects that are currently sitting at ] and its corresponding talk page so i can move the real page there? ] 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:I believe I have fixed this as you intended. Hope this helps. ] ] 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This arbitration case has closed. Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing ] and related articles and discussion pages. He is also placed on personal attack and revert parole. These remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case page. On behalf of the arbitration committee, ] | ] 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've lifted the current 1-month block on Lou, with the blocking admin's agreement ( ), as all Lou's blocks related to an article which he can no longer edit. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:s/can/may/ ;-) ] 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Hm? ] ] 22:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:::It may be that JzG's trying to claim that 'can' can't mean 'may', which it, er, can. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou has edited ] in violation of the ArbCom ruling. If the ruling is to be enforced, he should be blocked. I'd do it myself, but I've just edited that page today (for the first time, I believe) and so might not seem a neutral party. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

==Review request for Instantnood==

*
* ]
** See especially log of blocks and bans at the bottom

Following a number of complaints about the activities of {{vandal|Instantnood}}, I have banned him under his probation from several articles on which he had edited disruptively. The authority for this comes under ]. Because he doesn't appear to be learning to moderate his behavior but instead simply goes to edit war on another article, I also blocked Instantnood for 48 hours for disruption.

The block having expired, Instantnood now requests that the bans be lifted . I am not prepared to do this, but as with all bans I regard these as subject to review by other administrators. So I invite other administrators to examine the circumstances and make whatever changes they think best. --] 18:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:I was not notified about user:SchmuckyTheCat's request at WP:AE, and I was not given any opportunity to defend my position before user:Tony Sidaway's decision to impose the block and the page bans. I'm now preparing a response at WP:AE to user:SchmuckyTheCat's request. Please kindly reconsider the block and the page bans after hearing my arguments. </p><p>"'' The block having expired, Instantnood now requests that the bans be lifted . '' " - I requested user:Tony Sidaway to reconsider ''before'' the block expired , but she/he did not respond until I moved the reply to his user talk page after the block expired. &mdash; ]] 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::Have you ever considered taking up co-operative editing instead? ] 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:::May I know what else do I have to do? &mdash; ]] 10:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

::I've responded to user:SchmuckyTheCat's request at WP:AE. &mdash; ]] 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::: JzG's question wasn't rhetorical. I'm interested in the answer also. Why aren't you changing your editing patterns? ] 21:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I commented as followed on Tony Sidaway's page (as requested by the ban box). He asked me to copy it here:

<blockquote>Hi Tony, I checked ] edits on ] from Dec2005 till his/her ban from that article. I couldn't see a reason for the ban on that article. I make no comment on his/her other behviour of which, currently, I have little knowledge. I'd appreciate your reasons. Thanks. ] 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>

<blockquote>I've now checked this user's edits on ] and it appears there is a legitimate reason for his/her edits. An edit summary of this user pointed to the difference between a ] and a ]. Hong Kong is listed as the former but not the later. ] 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>

<blockquote>Hi Tony, I've now checked his/her behaviour on ]. He/she used the discussion page appropriately, organised a poll and edited accordingly. He/she suffered incivility from other users. I can't see why he/she is banned from the page. I have not looked at his/her editing on other pages and will await your comments. Thanks again.
] 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>

Since then I have also seen the claim that there was an arbcom case about him without his knowledge. If this is true I find it disappointing and unjust. Can anyone comment on this? ] 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

: To clarify, Instantnood actively participated in both of his first two arbitration case, and was fully informed of the third case but volubly declined to participate. --] 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

::I've explained for many times why it was like that. I wasn't able to submit a statement before case was opened, for I was blocked around that period. When the block expired the case was already opened based upon one-sided opinion, and the evidence and workshop had started. I could not pretend all these had not happened and submit a statement by then. The statement wouldn't have much effect, anyway, since the case was already opened and things were already getting on. I requested to reconsider its opening, but the ArbCom members obviously didn't care about fairness and justice of the arbitration mechanism. That's, frankly, disappointing. &mdash; ]] 20:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If it was unfair, you can appeal to Jimbo. --] 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:Would it help? &mdash; ]] 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

The arbitration committee has amended this case to add a new remedy. Herschelkrustofsky is now banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one year. On behalf of the arbitration committee, ] | ] 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

=={{lx|1=|2={{ucfirst:Talk:George W. Bush}}|3=Talk|4=talk}}==
'''] issues''', big ones, that talk page needs a full time monitor, it's virtually 100% trolling, there's no way to interact with anyone on that page without being reverted, threatened, mocked, and subjected to the usualy freepr nonsense. As most of you will recall, back in december or january, i forget which, they had an official "''freep in''", which thankflly most of them were too mature to respond to, however the ones that did respond, seem to have never left and have essentially camped out on that talk page, and focused all their hosility on it. I think at this point that page is going to need some sort of adult supervision, from a preferably uninvolved admin--] 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:Who'd have thought? ] 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::Sounds like a job for a listserv moderator! 8-) If a non-admin would wade in, would someone be willing to throw him a life raft from time to time? ;-) --] 21:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

== Possible attack account and sockcheck request ==

] has, to date, contributed nothing other than attacks on my user/user talk page and edits to their own page(s). I'm almost certain who its a sockpuppet of, but despite relatively damning IP evidence, they denied everything on an RfC...

If this account could be blocked, I'd appreciate it - less noise to remove from my user or user talk pages; and if a sockcheck could be run I'd really appreciate it. --] 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:Sockcheck? You're not referring to ] are you? To be honest, I can't see a case for a CheckUser since the editor in question is soon to be indefblocked simply for harrassment if s/he carries on with you. I'm watching them to see if they keep harrassing you, and if they do, I will block them. Sometimes a '''final warning''' can make someone get their act together. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::Right, I didn't know that it had changed name, and that it had its own page now, oops. And no, its not the indefinately blocked user who somehow latched on to me; its someone from an awful lot longer back who has constantly returned to mess around with my user page and make snide comments on my talk page. Which is why my user page is sprotected... --] 22:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I blocked indefinitely just minutes after Deskana had given a final warning. I don't see any point in unblocking; the account obviously exists for the purpose of harassment, and he has the option of apologizing on his talk page if he wants to turn over a new leaf. He has no useful edits. Regarding ], they may think it's unncessary since he's been blocked, but if it's a sockpuppet of someone who's in the middle of a six-month ban, for example, the ban would be reset if the sockpuppetry is established. ] ] 22:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Right, one of said users other sockpuppets, ], has reappeared for the exact same purposes (attack account). This is why I requested a checkuser... If this attack account could be banned, I'd appreciate that too. --] 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

== "Governor" cruft. ==

<small>(This isn't an incident per se, so I don't know where to report this to. Please tell me if I have reported this to the inappropriate page and I will move this to the right page. Thank you.)

{{user2|1028}} - "Don't forget to cast your vote for Wikipedian governor! The polls close on May 9! Send your nominations for governor to User:1028's talk page". (Misplaced Pages doesn't have a Governor, as we all know)

This has been posted to several other Wikipedians' userpages:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:FreplySpang&diff=prev&oldid=51754959
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Shanel&diff=prev&oldid=51754658
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kungfuadam&diff=prev&oldid=51754508
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Academic_Challenger&diff=prev&oldid=51754377
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kusma&diff=prev&oldid=51754208

Thanks. — ] ] ] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]]]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:Leaving a message on his talk page as you did was the appropriate thing to do, although being more polite wouldn't hurt. ~]]] 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, I could've been, and I'll try to be. even after my comment on his talk. I even linked to ] and he just doesn't get it the concept. That's a bit frustrating. :| — ] ] ] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

:::I completely understand what you mean, but I'm not sure there's anything you can do until it's more than an annoyance. There's all sorts of people on Misplaced Pages, and there will always be some that just don't "get it". ~]]] 04:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Btw, I was a bit more polite in the explanation the second time around (and I'm usually never sure how to word things), perhaps he'll get the idea this time. If there's anything I could've said/done better, please let me know on my talk. Thanks for the help. — ] ] ] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]] <sup>(Got something to say? ].)</sup></b></font> 05:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Hmmm. Taking a good look at his talkpage, I'm not sure it's more politeness that's needed. He seems a little aggressive in defending his nonsense articles, coming close to harassment in some cases. Many of his invites to the Governor election have gone to administrators who've tried to deal with these articles, and with him. He seems to focus especially on the patient ] (who told him in March, with uncharacteristic terseness, that "It is obvious that you are not President Bush"). I think it may be coming up to block time, and have dropped a note on Academic Challenger to see if there's anything he'd like to share. And in the Governor Cruft race, my vote goes to ]. ] | ] 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

I have a lot of experience with this user. He seems to enjoy playing around with administrators. About a month ago he wrote an article called ] which I and several other admins deleted, but he kept recreating it for a while until finally he got tired of it and got me to agree to what he called a truce. I'm not sure what should be done with him. He seems to have made some good edits and from his user page he seems to be pretty intelligent, but I'm not sure how to get him to stop these types of actions. Basically I've politely responded to all of his messages and that seems to be working somewhat. ] 05:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

: I don't know what on his userpage makes on think he is "pretty intelligent"; I don't get that impression. He lists himself in the non-existent category of "Wikipedians with an IQ of surprisingly high" which doesn't even obey the rules of English grammar. As for useful contributions, I don't see any in the last 50 edits. ] 06:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that any useful edits he made were done a long time ago. I would support a block for disruption if he continues to add nonsense to article pages or talk pages. ] 06:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

== Come on! ==

Look at this. The two other diffs before show quite a lot as well. PLEASE, admins, list pages you protect. You are welcome to use my monobook javascript for protecting pages (if you run the monobook skin), but please use this list. It has many advantages for Misplaced Pages and page protection, as it easy easy for ''all'' admins to get an overview of what is going on.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 07:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:Personally, I've '''rarely''' found ] useful at all. There are already at least a dozen ] for protected pages, and most editors discuss the protections on the protected page's talk page. When I place page protection, I keep it on my desk until I lift it, use the protections templates, and usually leave a note on it's talk. Is this ]? Perhaps, but it seems to be working. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:All the protections I do are semi-protection of vandals' user talk pages, and I always stick a note at the top of my talk page header to remind me to take it off if/when the block expires. (Not only is it a page I see very often, but if I was run over by a bus, other people can see it.) And more recently I've protected some DYK images, and whoever does the next update always takes care of that. I don't see why any further notice of either type of protection is necessary. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
::Yep, I keep a ] right on my main user page too, with ToDo's and blocks/protections to revist, its very usefull for me. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I borrowed yours as a "calendar". Nice idea, hope you don't mind. ;) ]] ] 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah...I should mention that userpages protections are not really needed at WP:PP. I don't care much for those, but the other ones are important.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 17:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I must be missing something then, why is that page so important? — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
::::I've just completed and debugged super javascript that looks at the cat pages for semi and full, checks if they are listed and makes a list of the ones that aren't, goes to the log (which limit=5000) checks for the last protection of those items, extracts the summary, user, and date and then goes back to WP:PP and adds it in. Sheesh...debugging that was annoying...''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 05:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::To avoid a ] let continue this at ]

== spamlink by anon in progress ==

] is spamlinking Misplaced Pages. He/she/it is adding http://www.seemalaysia.org to a lot of pages. Tried to revert his edit but too many and too fast. I suspect it's a bot. Hope somebody could ban the IP temporarily and revert all his edits. ] <sup>(])</sup> 10:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:User has stopped; I've reverted and left a message on the talk page. ]] ] 17:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I'm looking for a volunteer putting ] on his watchlist, enforcing ], guiding Misplaced Pages newbies not to use the talk page for endless discussions of the subject etc. I've tried but I'm not up to the task. No prior involvement with article would be a plus. --] 11:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:I tried once, in mid-February, and I burned out like ''that''. It's a terrible place. I'd say no prior involvement is more than a plus, it's a precondition, because once people have tried to do those things you describe, Pjacobi, they're unlikely to go near it ever again. I mean, I tried, and look at me now, sticking straws in my hair, muttering to myself, clutching at the air. ] and its talkpage are home to some contributors (I speak euphemistically) who edit only there, who are at Misplaced Pages for no other purpose than pushing their POV at that article. It's a lot like the notorious ] in that respect. Frankly, in several cases, I don't think it's that they're newbies (they aren't any more), it's that they're not here to learn. Rather than sending new waves of fresh-faced young admins into these purging fires, it might be time to send the article and its habitual editors straight where ] ended up: to messy and acrimonious . ] | ] 12:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC).

::Ah, the Bogdanov affair. Is it a bad thing that I can look back almost fondly on that? --] ] ] 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

==]==
<!-- 00:15, 07 May 2006 (UTC) -->

This user was permanently blocked for recreating a copyvio article, ]. He has expressed interest in recreating the article without copyvio. Can someone read his talk page, review the deleted article, and reconsider the length of the block.


This article is being reported on by the of the New York capital.

==]==
I have blocked {{vandal|Seahen}} indefinitely for creating userboxes promoting pedophilia (girllover and boylover), general trolling by listing their speedy deletion for review, and talk page spamming in an attempt to rig the deletion review. --] 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Object'''. I cannot support an indefinite block without warning on a user who has no previous blocks and continues to make good-faith edits, including today. I would support a 24 hour block to make sure he understands that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia and attempts to use it for something else are not welcome, and longer blocks, possibly indefinite, if he continues to defy policy after it ends. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

: You're right. I overreacted. I've no objection to an unblock or modification. --] 16:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
::I've reduced the block to 24 hours for talk page spamming. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
*It seems rash to indef block someone that has contributed for over a year over one situation in which they were given no warnings. Also, since when did NPA not apply to you Tony? I know people support calling a troll a troll (even though I am not sure if this was done in bad faith), but do you really need to throw in stupid too? Someone should also explain why he is now blocked (the talk page spamming in an attempt to vote stack) and he has requested an unblock. ] 16:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
*:He knows why he's blocked - Tony referred to talk page spamming, and as I specifically asked him not to continue after his block was lifted, it's pretty obvious that that was the reason I didn't lift the block entirely. And ] has dealt with the unblock request (denied). --]<sup>]</sup> 17:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
*:: I lifted this block later yesterday after Seahen clarified that he had discussed the matter with Jimbo and accepted that he shouldn't do things that might bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute. --] 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This arbitration case has closed. ] is banned from depleted uranium, placed on probation, and placed on general probation. Those opposing editors who have made personal attacks on James S. are reminded of the policies regarding courtesy and personal attacks. TDC is placed on revert parole. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, ] | ] 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

== Apparent ] violation at Pilot of invisible F-117-a AFD ==

I request an administrator to check the discussion about ]. {{user|Dzoni}} and apparently {{user|Kris12}} are doing ratial comments against {{user|Mig11}}. Since I do not know Serbian, I cannot verify if what Mig11 stated is correct, but if so, maybe it is time for the AFD to close since it has lost ] and ]. Thanks. -- ] 17:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:Also, this AfD seems to be going into its 8th day. =P&#160;— ]] 08:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] not closed ==

Found this cleaning out my watchlist. The nom has been open since April 21, and all votes are delete, so I have no idea why it's not closed yet. Maybe it accidently got removed from the log or something? Anyway, some admin should take care of it. ] 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:Done. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

== Image related legal question ==

My question is about ], uploaded by {{user|Aditya Kabir}}. The image shows a group of teen-aged-looking tribal girls dancing during the festival. The image is used in proper context in the article ], where these tribes live.

Now, the problem with the image is a bit of frontal nudity of one of the dancers. Normally, that wouldn't have been a problem (and I know that ]). However, it appears that the dancer is underaged, and my question in this case is whether the image is legal to use in the articles or view it, considering US or more specifically Florida laws regarding images of underage people. The image also has dubious source/copyright info, but that's another problem. Thanks. --] 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is legal. Full frontal nudity of children is on all the time on PBS TV shows in every state in the US. ] 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:Nudity != pornography. Pictures of nude children are fine so long as the picture was not intended to be sexually arousing. Lacisvious is the correct word, but I can't spell it right for the life of me, so use my attempt and find the correct one. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

: is the word; see also , the term most often used in the United States in analyses such as this... ] 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
::Prurient doesn't quite apply here, thats generally used to classify obscenity (appealing to a prurient interest). Lascivicus ('lewd, lustful') is used to classify pornography, and as such is the difference between those naked bath photos your mom as of you as a baby being embarassing rather then illegal :) -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 19:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, we do often use the ] in considering whether pornography is obscene; I'd suggest, for example, that an analysis of an ] photograph would turn on the lack of appeal to a prurient interest. Your point with respect to the difference between nudity qua depiction of a natural human state and nudity qua tool of sexual arousal is well-made, but such distinctions are sometimes difficult for judges to make, and there is a tendency to classify all that involves human nudity as pornography. Notwithstanding the legal distinctions, though, Wiktionary gives them as either word as a synonym for the other, so I suppose it's all good. :) ] 06:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding the image. --] 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
:The nudity is absolutely fine in the cultural context, but it would be nice to confirm the licensing status. I've left a message for the uploader. ] 15:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

==Ongoing problem at ] and ] re photos==

Long ago, I added a photo of Louis Gossett, Jr., as Anwar Sadat. There appears to be a campaign to obliterate this photo from the article in favor of that of a very Arab-looking actor who portrayed Sadat (and looks nothing like him) in a later production. It repeatedly has been removed and the other pic inserted. My stance has been that there is room for both. The latest edit warrior is insisting -- IMO, absurdly -- that there are "too many pictures" and that the Arab's photo is "more important." From where I stand, just another example of afrophobia. I'd appreciate it if someone would stop by and take a look. Thanks. ] 07:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Same problem at ]. The photo of the Fellahin girl (in a section that expressly discusses the Fellahin) has been repeatedly removed. (The Fellahin are darker-skinned Egyptians.) Repeated problems with this image being removed also. Presently, the same edit warrior ] who repeatedly has removed the pic of Louis Gossett, Jr. in ] has removed the photo of the Fellahin girl in favor of a "superior" photograph. IMO, repeated and blatant attempts to expunge the image of black Egyptians from the website. ] 08:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

:One would predict that Egypt has ethnic issues that are distinct from ethnic issues in the US. Don't project your own views on others where they are not vaild. ] 12:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

==Talk Page has gone missing==
Could someone please reinstate the talk page to ]. It's gone missing! Thanks--] 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::I restored it. I am assuming it related to the Alkivar problem and Freakofnature just forgot to restore it after cleansing the page history. There wasn't an summary in the deletion log, so if I restored it in err, another admin should feel free to redelete it. --] (]) 11:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

==]==
This arbitration case is now closed.

* Article bans:
** ] and ] are banned from editing articles related to Persians or Iran. Relatedness is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming.
** ] is banned from editing ] and ].
* Probation:
** ] and ] are placed on ] for one year.
** For edit warring, ], ], ], and ] are placed on ] for one year.
* Banned from Misplaced Pages:
** For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, ], '''under all of his usernames''', is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one year.

Further details are given in the decision at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --] 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

== Vandal at "Libertarianism" ==

A user by the name of "Irgendwer" is repeated deleting the word "political" from the descriptor "political philosophy" on the Libertarianism page. The issue has been much discussed on the talk page and consensus is that the descriptor "political philosophy" is appropriate. This user has some kind of ideological axe to grind. Help would be much appreciated. ] 16:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

:'''Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content.''' Try taking it to the article's talk page, the user's talk page, or ]. If he does it more than three times, report him at ]. ]]]''']''' 16:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

==Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks==
Please see ] for an attempt to create a new and very bad policy by the means of edit waring and voting. ] 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

==Releasing Personal information on Misplaced Pages==
{{IPvandal|69.133.158.38}} just recently posted personal information (ie; address and phone number) of someone on Misplaced Pages . Could someone delete this edit so it isn't for public viewing. Thanks! ]] 21:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
*Just a thought, but this is a high traffic page, you might not want to hyperlink that, according to google, the phone number and address are both listed, so putting it out in the open might attract unwanted attention--<i><b>]</b> <small>iso − 8859 − 1</small><b>]</b></i> 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::I deleted the edit and blocked the IP. ] 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::FYI: that user has three other edits with the same personal information. ] 22:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Way ahead of you. :-) I already alerted Chick Bowen and hopefully they too will be deleted. ]] 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm handling them now. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:I've removed those edits from the page history. Problem solved. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry, I should have checked that. Thanks, everyone, and good work, DGX. ] 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

== Admin familiar with Pro Wrestling? ==

Howdy,

I'm looking for an admin that either particpates in ], is familiar with pro wrestling, or at least follows the WWE to help out with a small task. Please contact me on my talk page if this is you! Thank you for your help, --]|<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

::The only admin I am aware of that knows anything about Pro Wrestling is ]. If you need help on anything pro wrestling related in relation to a trivial extent, I am available for that as I am pretty knowledgeable about it. :-D ]] 01:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes, I've already contacted him, but he is kind of on a wikibreak of sorts at the moment. The matter concerns a semi-protect so I really need to speak to an admin, thanks though! --]|<sup>]</sup> 02:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm still looking for someone :) --]|<sup>]</sup> 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
:''This page is linked from the English ] to this title (above) corresponding to the section below. Please make sure it is not renamed again.'' --] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

== Wiktionary user ==

The ] (apparently corresponding to ] here) was indefinitely blocked this year on the English Wiktionary for '''massive, systemic copyright violations.''' His primary sources were ''Webster's third new international dictionary, unabridged'', by Merriam-Webster, Inc. and ''The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised)'' (using either the on-line edition or a CD-ROM version - the specific version remains unclear for a portion of his entries.)

The main Wiktionary discussion can be found here: ]. In his own defense, he relied on bizarre personal attacks, personal threats and repetitious flagrant lies (perhaps in the hope that repeating a certain lie over and over again would make it somehow become truth.)

For over a month now, he has used '''many''' sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary, confirmed by checkuser(!) request on ]. <small>Only the most recent batch of sockpuppets is listed on the meta page.</small> He has become ] single most assiduous vandal, recently prompting an automated '''block of some 6,000+ IP addresses''' used by the ].

His signature vandalism patterns alternate between massive rudimentary copyright violations, and bombarding Wiktionary with massive quantites of unattested vulgar terminology.

His copyright-vandalism today on the English Wiktionary (via a new sockpuppet that he created some time ago, in preparation) was first traced to the Misplaced Pages entry for ], where has been steadily, incrementally adding content. It is apparent to me, that he is using a 'bot to upload material here on Misplaced Pages just as he used to on Wiktionary, as several tell-tale signs are in each of his entries. It is my personal theory that he is using 'bot technology to split apart his edits, so that no single edit triggers a VandalBot "copyright" warning on the anti-vandalism channels.

I hereby request assistance from '''''all''''' Misplaced Pages sysops in chasing down this prolific individual's copyright violations (here on Misplaced Pages, as well as on Wiktionary - as many entries on Wiktionary still have not been cleaned adequately.) I am somewhat unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies regarding copyright violation. But I cannot imagine that such systemic, wholesale copying is condoned here.

--] 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop; please leave messages on my talk page ].)
:Here is a bit of advice to anyone who reads this: check carefully everything Connel MacKenzie says. He has been known to exaggerate greatly at times. This is a very complex, personal dispute between him and I. Unfortunately, I do not possess the knowledge to use "bots". (And, what does this have to do with Misplaced Pages?) I don't know what you mean by "vandalism," either. I've had some ''content'' disputes with you. I admit I moved some material I wrote here to ''Wiktionary,'' all of which you apparently deleted on sight. The autoblocker blocked my IP for a short time, so I was able to get a new user name (something suggested to me by Tawker in a public discussion). I created about 5 vulgar entries on ''Wiktionary'' which Connel MacKenzie deleted on sight (even though ''Wiktionary'' is not censored--supposedly--and they all had citations). So, that's hardly the "massive quantites" you're describing. Really, this is not relevant to Misplaced Pages at all. The reason I remain blocked is very complex but can be boiled down to three factors: (1) personal attacks, (2) evading my block, and (3) alleged copyright violation. Now, Connel MacKenzie is going through everything I ever created on Wiktionary (I made about ) and reverting or deleting it on the unproven assumption that it's all copyvio material. Connel MacKenzie is a very bitter person. He's had more disputes on Wiktionary than any other user. Now he's the person who banned all of those accounts and he's the only one still complaining about me. The fact he is even bringing up such a matter here shows even greater malice on his part, in my opinion. If he were editing on Misplaced Pages, he would have been banned a while ago. However, there's no real formal dispute resolution process on Wiktionary, so he can just continue acting the way he does and no one can do anything about it.--] 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Thank you Primetime! I could not have ''asked'' for a better demonstration of your immediate tactics of 1) resorting to invalid personal attacks, and 2) bold, flagrant lies. --] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::I find this dispute worrisome because it may have affected Wikpedia administration. I recently nominated "]" for AfD, due chiefly for its apparent violation of ] . ] argued eloquently, effectively, and somewhat duplicitously (as I've said to him) against its transwikification to Wiktionary. ] had said that Wiktionary editors were intolerant, and would not accept the material. This report describes additional aspects to the matter. I don't know if the claim by Connel MacKenzie has merit or not, but Wiktionary is a sister project and we should work in a coordinated fashion. -] 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Please note that Primetime's indefinite block on Wiktionary was approved after a decision made by the community. It was not even issued by Connel MacKenzie . Now Connel is indeed a very active contributor and sysop on Wiktionary, probably among our best (if there's such a thing as "the best" on a wiki), who's not afraid of discussion, some arguments in which he is a party indeed evolving into what one might arguably call a "dispute". That is, however, of no relevance here, and has more to do with the argumentative nature of the English Wiktionary. Primetime, though, has never conformed to the rules that apply to Wiktionary, and he and his host of sockpuppets have been banned from Wiktionary '''by the community''', for the reasons given above by Connel. The majority of his former contributions have either been deleted (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel), or rephrased in order to eliminate the copyright violations originally entered by Primetime. New admissions from his part, once they have been identified as being Primetime's, are being deleted on sight (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel or me) due to his long-standing tradition of '''proven''' copyright violations. ] 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop).

::::First, there was a discussion where the editors participating came upon agreement that my most-recent creations, created on three nights in March and January would be deleted. (See ]). Further, my most-recent contributions were already trying to be deleted or had already been deleted when some discovered that they were from me. Others no one ever found out were from me were deleted as well. Further, those didn't look anything like the single-phrase definitions they were complaining about for copyvios. When Connel MacKenzie did a checkuser on some accounts, he immediately deleted the remainder. He never did a checkuser on the accounts he blocked last night, though. Here's an explanation of why they were already trying to delete them:<p>Some editors have interpreted Wiktionary's ] as meaning that a single reliable source is enough to prove a word's usage. Others, however, say that only three quotations will suffice, despite the fact that the page states that "Usage in a well-known work" qualifies as proof. These same editors claim that other dictionaries do not count. To many Misplaced Pages users accustomed to citing disputed assertions with a single source, having to give three sources is upsetting and unwelcoming. Many entries have been deleted because they had only one or two sources.<p>Knowing the anarchic atmosphere of Wiktionary and the propensity of certain administrators to use these unusually-high standards to delete offensive terms, I created six entries with three quotes per sense and with full source information for each quote. (See ].) Then a user named Jonathan Webley nominated each of them for deletion saying "I can't find these terms anywhere else". Shortly afterward, Connel MacKenzie chimed in saying "This series of anonymous submissions seems intentionally disruptive, and pointlessly inflammatory. '''Delete all.''' These are certainly no more than the sum of their parts (each submission) with a clear intent to enter as many forms as can be dredged up, and to bypass the comparatively neutral, explanatory entry at ]." Then, another administrator deleted them and protected the pages. His assertion that they were the sum of their parts is an example of an exaggeration by MacKenzie as "Blue-eyed grass (genus ''Sisyrinchium''), especially California blue-eyed grass, S. bellum" was not the sum of the phrase "nigger baby". Another example is this: ]. I had three quotes and a dictionary reference for that one. Here's another one: ]. Editors there have a tendency to delete terms they don't like on sight (See that had a reference to a slang dictionary, but was deleted anyway the first time. When I recreated it, he nominated it for verification, then deleted it again when he found out it was from me.) As for "give me fin on the soul side" I had two quotes and a dictionary citation. They deleted it anyway, but I had it saved on my hard drive, so I recreated it. Then, they said two quotes and a dictionary references weren't enough, so I added more, for '''3 quotes''' and '''5 citations.''' Connel still wanted to delete it anyway, which shows his deceptive and bitter nature.<p>As everyone can tell, Vildicranius is good friends with Connel MacKenzie--even though Vildicranius is pretty new. However, Connel MacKenzie has been known to harass other users. On the Beer Parlour (their equivalent of the Village Pump) he had at least three discussion threads raised against him by Ncik: ], ] even though I had been there only since November. He went after Ncik, who he chased away apparently, Eclecticology, then me. I'm sure there were others, though.<p>In conlcusion, I'm a financial donor to Wikimedia, so if I believed that something would harm our wikis, I wouldn't do it. On Misplaced Pages, I fight vandalism (I have over 830 pages on my watchlist) and try to be civil. I've worked countless hours, and have on Misplaced Pages under this user name as well as 366 under others. I tend to use '''Show preview''' and focus on articles, so the tally doesn't tell much, either. However, on Wiktionary, it's harder to get along. Many Misplaced Pages policies, such as the ] and ] are not policies on Wiktionary. To some users from Misplaced Pages, this makes the site seem like it is ], and makes many administrator decisions seem arbitrary, as well. Everyone knows each other, so you either become good friends or ''really bad'' enemies.--] 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Interestingly, that last bit and sound quite alike. And your palaver about being a financial donor is also . ], Primetime. ] 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::Absolutely. I've said it before, and I need to say it again. Everything I just said is all true. Everyone should read what I just wrote. As for my donation, go here: --I listed my user name in the comment column.--] 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:Let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied defintions from existing dictionaries?

:A quick look through your contributions here (at least ones highlighted on your user page) raise red flags, too. Take ], which you created with:

::''(Born Whilton, Northants., Dec. 22, 1785; Died Versailles, Feb. 19, 1859). English organ builder. The son of a local ], he first learnt his father's trade. Against family opinion he was apprenticed while still in his youth to the organ builder James Davis and later joined in partnership with Hugh Russell...''

:We have the idiosyncratic, non-Misplaced Pages style of beginning, the fully-formed sentences, and, most peculiarly for an American contributor, the British usage of "learnt" -- which you changed in subsequent edits over the next hour. My guess is Britannica, but I have a friend who owns a copy, so I"ve asked him to check. --] | ] 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::Sounds good. You can also search the introductions for each entry for free online. As you can see here: <nowiki><http://www.britannica.com/search?query=John+Abbey&ct=></nowiki>, there is no entry. As for formatting, I hate Misplaced Pages formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers. For example, above, I did not give the link as because I think it looks unintuitive and doesn't tell the reader where they're going.--] 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

::::''I hate Misplaced Pages formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers.''' Really? What "style recommendations of writers" are you referring to? What possible applicability do these "style recommendations of writers" have for THIS project? And what about these "style recommendations of writers" gives you an exemption from the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style? --] | ] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::This is another debate, but I tend to follow styling guidelines of style manuals like ''Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors'' as well as Random-House's style guide. I also imitate for experimentation purposes several innovations, like enlarging the headword a point or two. I have had several disagreements and have explained myself in detail on why I don't always follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. Examples include pronunciation aids,<sup></sup> as well as links.<sup></sup>--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Can you clarify where the article came from? Is it all your own original writing or is copied from another source? -] 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

::::To repeat, let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied definitions from existing dictionaries? Can you affirm that the text I quoted above is all your own? What was the source of your information? --] | ] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

::::::It is not copied from anywhere. I wrote most of my contributions. Many were written as school reports. Others are from the 1911 edition of the ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. Some are reports I wrote for my classes at school.--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::This article, ] , also appears to be copied from another source. If it isn't then it is a severe violation of ] as it includes extensive literary criticism. -] 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that's strange: that list of articles on on ]'s page, which listed the articles he says he was principal contributer to? The one I browsed checking for copying? Primetime has suddenly removed them . Why would that be? --] | ] 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:I'm tired of you guys going through each of my contributions and picking them apart. I don't have time for that.--] 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Man, I'm slow: that list I mentioned? One of the entries is for the '']'' -- and the article includes an external link to a site which provides short versions of some of the articles. Looking up ]...Hmm, do these look familiar?

:'''''Reinhard Johannes Sorge''' (January 29, 1892-July 20, 1916) is considered one of the earliest ] dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. '' (from

:''Reinhard Johannes Sorge is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime.'' From the

Busted. --] | ] 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::OK. I admit that it's from the ''DLB''. That doesn't mean that everything I've ever written is a copyvio, though. Most of the articles I've written aren't even about writers.--] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:Another quick check: ] ( versus )...do I need to continue? Your long-winded rationale is pure misdirection, and while it's, I'm sure, literally true that not EVERYTHING you've ever written is stolen, it's enough to presume it's true unless you provide evidence to the contrary. --] | ] 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
::STOP! WHAT DO YOU MEAN? ARE YOU PROPOSING THE DELETION OF EVERYTHING I'VE EVER WRITTEN BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO ENTRIES??? WHAT PROOF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE '''NOT''' FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE! WHY ARE YOU GOING AFTER ME SO HARD?--] 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::Those first two entries are what I found sitting at my desk, from my computer, after only a few minutes work and without breaking a sweat. Imagine what I could do if I went down to the local university library and actually search in their hard-copy of ''Britannica'', ''Grove's'', ''DLB'', ''Current Biography'', etc. --] | ] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::A message on my talk page: ''...Also, why are you doing this? You know that Misplaced Pages isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this!'' This is perhaps the most pathetic rationale for copyright abuse I've seen in a long time -- but more to the point, we ''are'' aware now. You've been busted: deal with it. --] | ] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

*Throw ] ( versus on the list. Man, this may take a co-ordinated effort to root out. --] | ] 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

===Block of Primetime===
I have blocked Primetime per the above developments, and the obvious rejection of any wrongdoing from him. Currently set to indef, but if there are objections, please someone take the initiative to unblock. This is only a precautionary measure from stopping him from creating any further articles for now. If there are no objections, then it'd be a community indef block. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> at 00:58 ] <small>(])</small>

:I would like to remind you that ] has now dozens of ''known'' sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary. He is very adept at finding open proxies. He is also very adept at finding the newest "tor" exit points. Again, I request assistance from ''all'' available Misplaced Pages sysops now, to 1) verify whatever portion of his edits you need to, are copyright violations and 2) keep a very sharp eye out for new sockpuppets.

:Despite everything he has said in the past six months or so, I do not believe his stated motives. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must, but I think he is being paid to insert copyright violations into Wikimedia projects. I cannot comprehend any other reason why he would have pursued his attacks on the English Wiktionary, for months after being blocked. For example, ] is still being actively vandalized. It obviously is not some desire to propogate "truth." It is instead, a very disturbing case. --] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::Given his insistence of innocence until '''proven''' to have violated copyright I have to agree that this user has forfeited all right to ]. Insertion of fragments to 'build up' a copyvio in pieces shows foreknowledge that they are not allowed and a deliberate effort to evade detection. He needs to provide an explanation for ''why'' he was deliberately sneaking in copyrighted material and list every instance of doing so under all accounts before we should even ''consider'' unblocking him. I'm usually the one saying 'blocks are bad and cause more problems than they solve', but '''this guy''' needs to be blocked indefinitely and his contributions sanitized. If in doubt assume it is a copyvio and remove or rewrite it. --] 13:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

===The article ]===
By sheer coincidence, I looked at this article about a week ago. I grew suspicious at the very atypical tone of the piece, and so I checked the history. What I found was something atypical of copyvios, namely a long series of edits to a section made by a registered user with a userpage, so I shrugged it off. In light of this, however, I've Google-tested some pieces, but found no hits; could anyone perhaps check a copy of ''EB'' and/or other likely reference works to see if it's stolen from there? &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:I left a list (compiled by going through a list from his own user page) of likely copyvios on his ], with a request that he account for them. Let's see if his repentence is serious. --] | ] 07:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Compare histories of ] and ]. Also those of ], ] and ]. They have multiple Primetime or Primetime sockpuppet edits. There are probably more cross-project parallels. ] 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::I've received e-mail from Primetime, and it's apparent that he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's done wrong. Until he does, I strongly urge not unblocking him. --] | ] 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:::That's perhaps a reason why he keeps doing it. However, I think he's cleverer than that. At Wiktionary, he has tricked various users into believing he was completely innocent, prior to his unmasking and the consequent indefinite block. ] 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

==]==

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ImpuMozhi#A_threat

Do we require editors like ]? When he can use such nasty words and worst of ] slangs with 50 edits, how dirty he shall make our wikipedia. I recommend that such editors should be banned for life. Regards. --] 08:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:I blocked him for 1 week, for issuing a physical threat. Feel free to override me. Thanks. --] 08:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::You may also want to list him on ], our (oft-ignored) page for reporting ]. ] (]) 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

==]==
I am running a bit impatient with editor {{user|Vorash}}. The editor started out as a well-respected user of the Misplaced Pages, (though he and I had some major problem/wars when I first came here). Late last year, he closed his account because "he was labelled as a vandal". His anger was increased when his "pride and joy" ] was listed for deletion. After closing his account, he has made a few edits to Misplaced Pages (perhaps a few edits per weeks). Here's the problem: he made some edits to ] a long time ago, which were modified by some anon editors, and especially by {{user|Extraordinary Machine}}. For some reason, Vorash is determined to have the article his way, and he does this by reverting the entire article to months old version, completely wiping out '''all''' updates that have been made since that time: ,, , ,
. Even though other editors (myself included) ], he is uncivil and unyielding. He also uses sockpuppets to carry out his dirty work: {{User|Rodrigogomespaixao}} and {{User|Klppaa}} (I've blocked the latter, but I'm a bit skeptical of the former, so I haven't blocked him).

I gave Vorash one final warning on May 7, 2006 . The day later, he reverted it to his month old version (). I am getting extremely impatient with him. I cant block him for 3RR because he does not do it three times a day: he slips in every other day or so and revert it. I once protected it, but one can only protect the article for so long. As Carey has a couple singles on the charts, the page needs to be updated weekly. I am tempted to block him indefinitely, but:
# It might be too drastic. I really do not want to abuse my power.
# Blocking might have no effect. He rearely uses his account anyway. He'll probably just use another ISP.
# as he and I have been in squabbles in the past, I dont want to be the one to block him.
Can anyone help me come up with a solution? I do not necessarily endorse the current version of the article. What I'm concerned with, however, is his rude ] behaviour, and the fact that when he reverts the page, all the weekly edits are completely obliterated (wrong info is therefore deliberately introduced into the page). ]] ] ] ] 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

== Unblocking before reblocking? ==

It seems to be standard procedure to unblock a user before reblocking them with a different duration. I was just wondering if it's necessary, or if it's a hangover from a time when Mediawiki didn't properly handle this situation? I ran some block tests on a dormant account I created. First, I blocked the account for 1 hour, then - without unblocking - for 15 minutes. ] showed the latest, current block to be ending in 15 minutes. Of course that information doesn't guarantee that the old block has actually been overridden, it merely suggests that it does. Comments anyone? --] 17:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:I think MediaWiki takes the shortest of the block periods and whenever it expires, unblocks the account, disregarding the longer blocks. Bug or feature? I don't know. --] 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, feature. Whenever any active block on a user expires, all blocks on that user expire. So, you have to unblock first before you can apply a longer block, but you don't have to unblock to apply a shorter block. &mdash;] (]) 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks. And you're positive that hasn't changed in recent revisions of MW? :) --] 17:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::::You can check the CVS logs if you really want to, this behavior hasn't been changed :-P ] 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::You know what? I'll take your word for it! :) --] 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

== Template:AIDSWikiCredit ==

Someone created a template ] to explicitly assign credite for using a specific page. I think this is not in order, but I am not sure about that. What are the feelings about this? ] 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:We require that kind of attribution from other sites using our content under the GFDL, so I think it's only fair we also give credit where it's due. It does of course raise the question of whether we want to be using material taken from another wiki in the first place. --] 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
::I'd consider it a bad idea:
::# If using an article from that Wiki as source, no specific GFDL note is necessary, just use standard referencing for specific statements
::# If our article is a derived work of the article on another GFDL licensed Wiki, that notice isn't sufficent to fulfill GFDL requirements.
::# Anyway, using http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/, the Wiki of the ''] movement'', as source is hardly matching our criteria of ] and ].
::] 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I think that specific information can be added as references, and than I want to go to the actuall cources. So, I do not see the need for this kind of credit giving in the first place. It suggests as if the page is made by that source and imported in wikipedia, which is definatly incorrect. BTW, the tamplate is also inserted in various other page for which I think this is inpropriate. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:If this is used in articles which used the AIDS wiki as a source, this template is a bad thing. If it is used in articles which are derivative works (or wholesale copies) from that wiki, then it's a good thing. After all, we credit public domain sites when it's not legally necessary; in this case, where the content is released un the GFDL, this should be mandatory. ] | ] 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== Yet another attack account being used on my talk page ==

I had another report (see above) a few days ago where I requested a check user on ], who was indefinately blocked for being nothing but an attack account. As I expected, another of the sockpuppets, ], was resurrected to continue the same. If this could be blocked, I'd appreciate it - its an attack account. Additionally, I'm now going to request a checkuser. --] 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:Or not, considering it seems relatively complex to do a request and seems to require other avenues to be exhausted. Although the user in question denies everything, obviously... --] 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] (CAUTION - Unpleasant picture) - good, bad, ugly? ==

I noticed a bit of vandalism at ] and was trying to figure out what was going on when ] <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki>ed it with no explanation, except repeating the bit of vandalism. When trying to check out why ] was so interested in the word 'shit' I was acquainted with his focus quite rudely. I see he is roaming widely and intensely today and have to wonder about his judgement from viewing his user page. Could someone look into this and tell me if I shouldn't be worried what might come out of this? ] 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:You might have warned people about that link to his user page. ] ] 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::Also, why the weird page history, the link you provided is a redirect with 7 or 8 edits to a page with only 6 edits, most of which on boht pages are by IP's which seems a bit odd. Can an admin please check to to see if either page has any deleted revisions? <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"This user identifies as gay", "This user identifies as African American". ] anyone? Emulation of Goatse image on front page as well? This user is an obvious, unquestionable troll and I am banning him indefinitely. — ] (]) (]) 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

==Zeq banned from ]==
Under his probation in the case ], I've banned Zeq from editing ], for tendentious editing, particularly removing well-sourced information from the article . --] 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


I received the following two comments on this:


: ''Hi Tony - I'm not sure if banning Zeq was the best thing to do. While he may be hard to reason with, I'm not sure that his intentions were malicious. Maybe you could reconsider or at least give him/her a chance to iron the dispute out over another day or two. Thanks. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)''

: '''I don't accept your ban'''

: ''Nakba day needs a mediator, Ian has delibertly caused an edit war in order to try and ban me from this article.''

: ''Look at my last edit and talk page. I tried to restore sanity to this article and <b> avoid </b> making it another vbattle article about the events in 1948.''

: ''I expect that you will remove the ban and help madiate the subject. ] 04:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)''

: ''Please note that according to policy: "Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged" this apply to Ian specifically as he tried to take advantage of the fact I am on probation and inserted unrelated information (which is already in the article ]) into ] so that i will remove it. Any attempts to reason with him failed.''

: ''This editor has been following me around in the last 2 weeks. Every edit (or almost any) I made, ant where in <b> any </b> article got a revert or change from him (most often a revert). This is a simple issue that can be prooved. I have also asked him several times to stop stalking me. I expect that you will not take a side in this harrasment and help resolve the content dispute in ] reminding ian on harrasment policy as well on his own being cautioned against creating an edit war. ] 04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)''

I don't think the ban was unreasonable, but I welcome review and would accept removal of the ban by another administrator. I have no intention of getting involved in mediation, as Zeq requests. If mediation were likely to succeed, I very much doubt that the case ] would have been required in the first place. --] 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::I am not going to argue the ArbCom case here again but to note that it arrived to ArbCom without any mediation or RFC.
To the currect issue:

Clearly in the ] case mediation has been proposed (and needed). Instead of accepting it ian Pichford (which has tried for two weeks to "trap" me by reverting and changing any edit I did on wikipedia (violating harrsament policy, despite numoures request to stop on his talk page) has choose to bring admin action aginst me. I suggest that anyone intersted in what goes on will ask Ramallite who does not agree with me on content of the article but understand that this is an honest content dispute with no malicious intentions on my part.

::The absured thing of all is that <b> prior to Tony appliing the ban</b> I announced on the talk page that I will stay away from the article until it is mediated. ] 06:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think intentions should matter where probation is concerned. So long as he was violating the terms, a ban is the appropriate action. --] 18:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::Of course intention matter. I was trying to resolve the edit war on issues that do not belong in this article. I created focus (by taking many contested issues out) while the other side tried to turn the article in another battle field about the events in 1948 israeli-Palestinian war are debated. (these issues are already address and debated in other articles) ] 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:::If you're involved in an edit war, you're edit warring. These issues need to be resolved on the talk page before they're taken to the article. --] 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I find Zeq's assertions somewhat puzzling. At the time I inserted the ban notice, at 2305 on 8 May, the last edit on the talk page had been by Zeq at 1942 UTC on 8 May, and the last edit on the article had been by Zeq at 1859 UTC on 8 May. For someone who said "I will stay away from the article until it is mediated", he seems to have been awfully active! Moreover, even while banned, he is attempting to persuade me to remove edits by another editor. He hasn't left this article alone even now. --] 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, Check your facts: I made an edit that was to stop the editwar on the events at 1948 and clearly suggested that if someone don't like it they can revert it <b> and I will not make any more change </b> This is not an <b> edit war </b> this is an attempt at resolution. Also suggested to one editor in the edit war (Rammalite) to correct any fact I may have left out.

My only "sin" is being bold in trying to resolve the issue. ] 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

: I'm still trying hard to get other people experienced in the subject matter to review the ban.

: Meanwhile I am rescinding it because Zeq and others have raised several legitimate points that cast doubt on my original decision. I've removed the ban notice and hereby place this update on all other relevant notices. If he really needs to be banned from this article then some other administrator will be just as capable of imposing it. In the meantime I apologise to Zeq. --] 18:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::Please see the article talk page. Since I no longer participate in this article (only on talk) I doubt any ban is needed> A warnning to Ian Pichford to avoid edit wars, POV pushing and wikistalking could be helpfull. ] 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

An administrator needs to see ], there are a couple users which are vandalising this very second. No one is monitoring it!
:This is clear. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

== Betty Yves ==

I've just indef blocked {{vandal|Betty_Yves}}. In her short history here, she's been abrasive and insulting. When she got called out on it, she resorted to vandalism and petty attacks. She vandalized two articles by replacing them with "]" which is either simple vandalism, or an admission that she's the Misplaced Pages Is Communism vandal. Then she told Tawkerbot it was a misunderstanding, she wasn't vandalized.

So, she's gone. If anyone disagrees, please speak up. --] 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:Would have done it myself if I hadn't been beated to it. Good on Golbez.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

==InShaneee==

i'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to report this, but i hope it is. if not, i hope someone can direct me to the appropriate forum.

InShaneee has twice deleted the article on ].

the first time, yes, there were some inaccurate information in the article. so i rewrote the article. it was quickly deleted again. i see NO legitimate reason for the article to have been deleted the second time. i looked at this person's talk page, and he/she(?) has apparently been complained about (reported) to the other administrators before. ] 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:I have replied to you on the article's talk page. ] ]|]||]|] 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:The speedy sure looks like a mistake to me. I've restored the article and commented on the talk page. ] ] 19:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I did wrong. I STILL don't see any assertion of notability as per ] on that page, which is a speedy deletion criteria. --] 19:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:If I may, the page does list several albums produced by the band, which meets WP:MUSIC ("Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"), and Google turns up a fair number of supporting pages like . I agree the page needs work and should have appropriate tags added, but it does seem a borderline speedy at best. Just my 2 cents, ]rnol 19:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:(ec) I wouldn't sweat having done anything "wrong"- it's been undeleted, no harm was done. As for notability, we already have an article on the founder of the band, ] guitarist ]. They have a (quite brief) AMG bio. The article could be better, certainly, but a band founded by a musician we already have a decent article on shouldn't be speedied IMO. Also, for those who care about ], there's the bit about "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Maybe this should be merged into ]- I'm not opposed to that, but I don't think it should have been speedied. ] ] 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

==Did You Know article posted in error: please assist==
The contentious and disputed article ], which ''does not'' meet the criteria for listing in "]" (it ), has been posted to the front page in error (based on inaccurate comments from some of its editors). Please, could someone remove this listing urgently? The admin who put the list together last is currently offline and unresponsive to three separate contact attempts by various editors. Thanks! &#0151;&nbsp;] 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:It looks like you're right, it's an old article and shouldn't be on DYK, so I removed it. —] 04:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks very much for your prompt attention. &#0151;&nbsp;] 05:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:::For future reference, ] is now the page to report any errors needing attention on the main page. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, it is generally accepted that expanded stubs may be put on DYK. Previous attempts have been made to expand that article, but up until recently they were all reverted wholesale and the previous 'stable' version of the article was a stub. The last expansion, on the other hand, is under dispute but stable. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

==Cool Cat banned from kurd-related edits--RESCINDED pending further discussion==
As his mentor appointed by the arbitration committee, I have banned {{vandal|Cool_Cat}} from editing, creating or nominating for deletion any articles, templates or categories related to the ] .

This is for an initial seven day period, to be extended indefinitely subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. --] 05:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

: I have rescinded this pending further discussion with the other two mentors . --] 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

== Make ] redirect to its incident page? ==

] requested that the ] page in the main namespace be a protected redirect to ]. Is this okay? <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"> ]] </span> 09:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:I wouldn't say it's necessary. To be more precise, anyone who knows about Willy on Wheels is probably familiar enough with the Wiki software to '''not''' need a redirect there. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::Even though it's still in development, ] would fall into place here... --<b><font color="666666">]</font><font color="#000000">]</font></b><sup> (])</sup> 11:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Which I read as supporting moving the pages out of the userspace. &mdash; ]]]] 11:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:I'd rather see it redirect, protected if necessary, to ]. —] <small>(])</small> 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::Apart from ], we have separate namespaces to have encyclopedia articles separated from wikipedia pages. - ](]) 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::I support the protected redirect to the paraplegic poodle per Ilmari Karonen. One more thing I've learnt today. :-) ]. 13:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure its such a good idea, it could easilly lead to the poodle page getting heavilly vandalised and i'm not positive it would be a legit redirect anyway. ] 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Mind you, that article ''already'' seems to be a vandalism target. —] <small>(])</small> 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:If anything, the page should be a proper article about this product. http://ww3.adultsextoyscatalog.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=5439 Or perhaps not… ] 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:No cross-namespace redirects, please. Also would give this poor guy way to much prominence. Misplaced Pages vandals are not noteworthy. This one is a very minor one easily checked by simple technical means such as the move throttle. If we could protect non-existing pages to avoid their creation altogether, the page wouldn't even exist. ] 14:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, there is a template (I forgot what it was), that you put on a page that says you've created the page and protected it to stop it from being used to recreate deleted content. ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I know. That's what was done with that page. But if you could protect ''non-existing'' pages from re-creation, we wouldn't need to do that and the page wouldn't be there at all. ] 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Not a very good idea. Why are we glorifying a vandal? Also, we shouldn't do cross-namespace redirects. Keeping it as a deleted and protected page is good enough. He is infamous enough within the Wiki community, no need more mention in the article mainspace. Keep mainspace articles away from project-spaced articles. If its make a redirect, protect the page to prevent any page moves or vandalism. --]]</font>]] 05:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== help fight denial of service vandals! ==
and bookmark this template/category: ]--] 15:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

== the little creep ==

The person who has been vandalising under peoples names has the screen names horse fucker and your papa. Unfortunatly, he has the same IP adress as the rest of us Misplaced Pages users at my place of bussiness so if you blocked him, you would be blocking us. Thanks! {{unsigned|Blopij}}

:I undid the ], so you should be able to edit now. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

== Help with ] ==

I'm having some trouble understanding the autoblocker. How exactly does one find the correct autoblock number to unblock? For example, let's say I block person A for a week. Person B gets assigned the IP, is autoblocked, and comes to me asking for an unblock. Do I just go the ] and type in his username? Will that pull up the autoblock? I've had this come up twice, and I can never find the number... I don't know if I'm just an eejit or if the block's simply expired. Any help is gratefully listened to. (Oh, and I've read ] several times and I'm still confused. Sorry!) ] ] 20:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:There was a similar case about a week ago where I and several other admins tried to remove autoblocks on the IP of a user repeatedly without success until the original block expired. Not sure what that was about, but may help to identify autoblocks in need of removal. --] 12:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
::oooh, another tool! *bookmarks* --] 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Looks good. I'll use that from now on. ] ] 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:The best rule is to ask the user for thier IP. For those who have never seen it, ] is the message shown to blocked users; right at the very top is a line that says "Your IP address is ...". If they tell you the IP address, you can unblock it directly (just go to the unblock page and put in the IP) and it will unblock any autoblocks (yes, they are masked with a #12345-style code on the block list, but trust me, unblocking an IP unblocks any autoblocks on that IP). Trying to hunt down the right autoblock by the mask number is difficult and time consuming, not to mention frequently futile, and is best avoided; just ask the user for thier IP (they can email it to you if they're concerned about privacy) and then unblock it directly. <span style="font-family:Sans serif">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Unblock the IP? But won't that unblock the person you were trying to block in the first place? Is there a way to undo the autoblock without unblocking an IP that you wish to remain blocked? ] ] 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

] - this has been up fairly long for AfD (since 21 April 2006), probably needs to be closed. ] 20:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:Good spot. The reason this has not yet been closed is that it was never listed at ] (stage 3 of the nomination was not done). I've listed it now and noted this on the afd page. It is most likely that it will be treated as if it were nominated today and closed in about 5 days. ] 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

== Keep an eye on this thread ==

Titled "", this clearly shows an attempt at pushing a non-notable article into Misplaced Pages. Please keep an eye on the thread, and act accordingly. - ] 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:Interesting. I've always thought that if having a wikipedia article would make a notable difference to a company, then that company isn't notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. (My own version of WP:CORP in a nutshell :) ] 23:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Well put. ] ] 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

::: This article was already deleted (]). ] (]) 07:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::: Also note ], an article created by another one of the SEO members there. ] (]) 08:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== tag team vandalism ==

{{vandal|68.97.135.50}} and {{vandal|AndyBBQ}} were working together to vandalize pages, so simply rolling back wouldn't delete all the vandalism. This tactic has been brought to our attention before, but this in additional FYI. --]]] <sup>]</sup> 01:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Can someone please call this off now? Since an RFC has to have 2 people to agree that an admin was abusing rights to have an RFC in the first place (In this case ] and ]) and one of them (Dzoni) was just blocked for being the communism vandal, I think this RFC is moot, IMO. ]] 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:He's left an unblock request, which I was inclined to deny but there's too much superficial conflict of interest there, so please can another admin do it? --]<sup>]</sup> 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
::I've denied it and removed the <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> template. ] | ] 23:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

== Oops! ==

Hi, I was in the middle of disagreeing with a PROD, when the article got deleted from under me! It was ], and I was planning to move it to AfD. Is it possible to belatedly do that? The article seemed substantial. (Don't know its history, just found it at the last minute while scanning PROD.) ] 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:You can go to ]. The prod seems to be done in line with the policy of waiting for 5 days. In this case the prod was from 5 May. Thanks. --] 04:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:I've added this for you, since no admin appears to have undeleted it yet. Not sure if this is because people haven't seen it or because the content is no good. ] ] 06:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::I undeleted it so you can either send it to AFD or improve it in line with the concerns raised. ] 06:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm sure it was just bad timing on my part. Many thanks, will send it to AfD. ] 11:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] blocked ==

Could an admin take a look at ] for me? This user apparently has been caught in the indef block on ]. Is there anything that can be done to allow this IP to edit while keeping Jazzper blocked? If the user registered an account, I assume they would still be blocked? Thanks, ]rnol 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:I have removed the ]. ] ]|]||]|] 03:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== Matthew Mazankowski page ==

how come i cannot make a Matthew Mazankowski Page? please help me out. thankyou {{unsigned|Matthewmazankowski}}

:] with 0 Google hits. ]] ] 03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::You can as a user pager! --] ] 04:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How would i do that?, im trying to make my biography :S:S but it keeps getting deleted... {{unsigned|Matthewmazankowski}}
:I have done it for you on your ] already! ] ] 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:It keeps getting deleted because, under ] as linked above, the biography does not assert the notability of the subject. One needs either wait until one is notable&mdash;and, naturally, best of fortunes&mdash;or tell us who you (?) are on your user page, as the user above has done. ]] ] 05:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::And please sign your edits with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> --] ] 09:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== Block recommendation: ==

of IP editor with copious warnings. Block as appropriate, no current block in force, last block was 20 April 2006. Last edit was data entropy. -- ]] 07:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:This should go to ]--] ] 08:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

==How to deal with edit summary vandalism?==
It is easy to revert page vandalism, but is there a way to remove vulgar edit summaries? This case is an example. On low traffic pages they remain visible for a long time. --] 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:Done. Check the history now. Thanks. --] 09:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::Hmm... normally we don't remove edits unless they contain personal information (in the edit or its summary). ]. 09:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Like ? ] 13:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Hell, yes! The Alkivar phone number vandal strikes again! (This is the first time I've seen it.) :-( ]. 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't delete the page to delete the revisions, I keep getting a "Wikimedia down" error. Can someone else try it? --] <sup>]</sup> 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I tried with that particular page a day or two ago, and kept getting an error message &mdash; probably because there are ''so'' many versions of it. I think we need a developer for this. ] ] 17:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
: Yep. See ]. ] ] 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== Uh, crap ==

I just clicked on the current AFD log instead of the May 4 one and closed a load of AFDs, thinking they had spoiled. What do I do? :( ] (]) 13:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
: I'm reverting you and restoring, don't worry about it. You might want to recheck to see if I restored anything that you rightly closed as speedy delete, although I am looking out for them. --]<font color="green">]</font>] 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== User:Asoczewko ==

Can someone please hurry up and block {{vandal|Asoczewko}}? He's been listed for over an hour now, very actively vandalising pages including my user page. - ] ] 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:Blocked already. ] <small>(])</small> 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== Speedy undelete request (page history merge) ==

The page ] was deleted so that ]'s page history could be merged into it. Now I've made the appropriate move, and the deleted revisions of ] should be undeleted. &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 18:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:Done. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

==Note to admins who close AfDs==
It might become good practice to skim an AfD's history page before closing it, as there has been a recent trend of anon (IP address) users attempting to add votes to these pages. They often (somewhat successfully) try to pass themselves off as logged-in users, using a name followed by a timestamp. Occasionally this might be an actual registered user forgetting to log-in, but in practice they should come back after they've logged in and confirm that it was actually them. Recent examples of this include ] and ]. Just thought I'd give everyone a heads up. ]] | ] 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed. A good idea would be for the nominator of each AfD to have it watchlisted; that way, s/he can spot discrepancies and any attempts to game the system easily and quickly. ] <small>(])</small> 21:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::There are people who don't watchlist the AfDs they create? It saves some embarassment if you can withdraw your nom after additional information is revealed during an AfD. In fact, also the other contributors should watchlist the AfD, after all, it is a discussion, not a vote. ] ] 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:::And no matter how AfDs you participate in, it's not like they all clog up your watchlist. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

==Personal information released==
{{vandal|Jumphoop}} has released ] telephone number in his contributions. I think someone needs to go through his contributions and delete any mentions of it. And because of the looks of his contribtions, his account might need to be indef blocked. (Never mind about blocking him, as I read Curps blocked him). But the edit should be deleted. ]] 21:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:Done already. ] <small>(])</small> 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This indefinitely-blocked user has added a load of article material to his own talkpage. It may be POV-pushing and inappropriate, I'd appreciate if someone would take a look. ] (]) 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

: Done. —'']'' 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:56, 11 May 2006

PLEASE INDEF BLOCK ALL OF 152.163.100.0/24 !!! WE'RE ALL VANDALS!!!!! EACH AND EVERYONE OF US!!!!!! PLEASE INDEF BAN ALL OF 152.163.100.0/24 !!!!!!!!!


PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

PUSSY. ASS . TIT. COCK. SPAM. BLOCK. FUCK. ASSHOLE

IF YOU DON'T INDEF BLOCK MY ENTIRE RANGE FOREVEVER I WILL KEEP VANDALIZING YOUR SHIT!!!!!!!